Open Stack

Sure Steve, that would be awesome!

The only blocker for now is that there are still happening some changes 
based on feedback of what is doable / what is not. So right when we get 
more confident on stable(-ish) version (or at least I'll try to sort out 
widgets which should stay how they are), it will be very valuable input. 
I'll definitely let you know!

-- Jarda

On 2014/17/01 01:16, Steve Doll wrote:
> Looking good, let me know if I can be of help to make some high-fidelity
> mockups.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Jay Dobies <jason.dobies at redhat.com
> <mailto:jason.dobies at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     This is a really good evolution. I'm glad the wireframes are getting
>     closer to what we're doing for Icehouse.
>
>     A few notes...
>
>     On page 6, what does the Provisioning Status chart reflect? The math
>     doesn't add up if that's supposed to reflect the free v. deployed.
>     That might just be a sample data thing, but the term "Provisioning
>     Status" makes it sound like this could be tracking some sort of
>     ongoing provisioning operation.
>
>     What's the distinction between the config shown on the first
>     deployment page and the ones under "more options"? Is the idea that
>     the ones on the overview page must be specified before the first
>     deployment but the rest can be left to the defaults?
>
>     The Roles (Resource Category) subtab disappeared but the edit role
>     dialog is still there. How do you get to it?
>
>     Super happy to see the progress stuff represented. I think it's a
>     good first start towards handling the long running changes.
>
>     I like the addition of the Undeploy button, but since it's largely a
>     dev utility it feels a bit weird being so prominent. Perhaps
>     consider moving it under scale deployment; it's a variation of
>     scaling, just scaling back to nothing  :)
>
>     You locked the controller count to 1 (good call for Icehouse) but
>     still have incrementers on the scale page. That should also be
>     disabled and hardcoded to 1, right?
>
>
>
>
>     On 01/16/2014 08:41 AM, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
>
>         On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:50:00AM +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
>
>             Hi folks,
>
>             thanks everybody for feedback. Based on that I updated
>             wireframes
>             and tried to provide a minimum scope for Icehouse timeframe.
>
>             http://people.redhat.com/~__jcoufal/openstack/tripleo/__2014-01-16_tripleo-ui-__icehouse.pdf
>             <http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/tripleo/2014-01-16_tripleo-ui-icehouse.pdf>
>
>             Hopefully we are able to deliver described set of features.
>             But if
>             you find something what is missing which is critical for the
>             first
>             release (or that we are implementing a feature which should
>             not have
>             such high priority), please speak up now.
>
>             The wireframes are very close to implementation. In time,
>             there will
>             appear more views and we will see if we can get them in as well.
>
>             Thanks all for participation
>             -- Jarda
>
>
>         These look great Jarda, I feel like things are coming together here.
>
>         --Hugh
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.__org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Steve Doll*
> Art Director, Mirantis Inc.
> sdoll at mirantis.com <mailto:sdoll at mirantis.com>
> Mobile: +1-408-893-0525
> Skype: sdoll-mirantis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>