Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:flavio at redhat.com]
> Sent: 02 December 2014 09:45
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Deprecating osprofiler option 'enabled'
> in favour of 'profiler_enabled'
> 
> On 02/12/14 12:16 +0800, Zhi Yan Liu wrote:
> >Why not change other services instead of glance? I see one reason is
> >"glance is the only one service use this option name", but to me one
> >reason to keep it as-it in glance is that original name makes more
> >sense due to the option already under "profiler" group, adding
> >"profiler" prefix to it is really redundant, imo, and in other existing
> >config group there's no one go this naming way. Then in the code we can
> >just use a clear way:
> >
> >    CONF.profiler.enabled
> >
> >instead of:
> >
> >    CONF.profiler.profiler_enabled
> 
> I'm with Zhi Yan on this one. Adding profiler sounds redundant.

+1, The reasoning makes sense to keep it as it is.

- Erno

> 
> Cheers,
> Flavio
> 
> >
> >thanks,
> >zhiyan
> >
> >On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Ian Cordasco
> ><ian.cordasco at rackspace.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/1/14, 08:37, "Louis Taylor" <kragniz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>In order to enable or disable osprofiler in Glance, we currently have
> >>>an
> >>>option:
> >>>
> >>>    [profiler]
> >>>    # If False fully disable profiling feature.
> >>>    enabled = False
> >>>
> >>>However, all other services with osprofiler integration use a similar
> >>>option named profiler_enabled.
> >>>
> >>>For consistency, I'm proposing we deprecate this option's name in
> >>>favour of profiler_enabled. This should make it easier for someone to
> >>>configure osprofiler across projects with less confusion. Does anyone
> >>>have any thoughts or concerns about this?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Louis
> >>
> >> We *just* introduced this if I remember the IRC discussion from last
> >> month. I’m not sure how many people will be immediately making use of
> it.
> >> I’m in favor of consistency where possible and while this would
> >> require a deprecation, I think it’s a worthwhile change.
> >>
> >> +1 from me
> >>
> >> —
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco