Open Stack

On 06/13/2014 11:03 AM, John Griffith wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
> 
>> Please don't send review requests to the openstack-dev list.  The
>> correct procedure is outlined here:
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 10:20 PM, Yuzhou (C) wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>     I have submit a blueprint about deferred deletion for volumes in
>> cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97034/
>>>
>>>     The implements of deferred deletion for volumes will introduce some
>> complexity, to this point, there are different options in stackers. So we
>> would like to get some feedback from anyone, particularly cloud operators.
>>>
>>>       Here, I introduce the importance of deferred deletion for volumes
>> again.
>>>     Currently in cinder, calling the API of deleting volume means the
>> volume will be deleted immediately. If the user specify a wrong volume by
>> mistake, the data in the volume may be lost forever. To avoid this, I hope
>> to add a deferred deletion mechanism for volumes. So for a certain amount
>> of time, volumes can be restored after the user find a misuse of deleting
>> volume.
>>>     Moreover, there are deferred deletion implements for instance in
>> nova and image in glance, I think it is very common feature to protected
>> important resource.
>>>     So I think deferred deletion for volumes is valuable,  it seems to
>> me that should be sufficient.
>>>
>>>     Welcome your feedback and suggestions!
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Zhou Yu
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> 
> ​Ben,
> 
> I believe Zhou Yu is actually seeking input from the broader community on
> the feature itself; not the review.
> 
> I wasn't overly enthusiastic about adding the feature and to me the
> argument of "instances do it" isn't necessarily the best reason to do
> something.  I'm torn on whether I think it's a good feature to implement or
> not given that I think there are some complexities it introduces that may
> not be worthwhile.
> 
> Anyway, I'm fairly open to hearing more input (maybe from some users in the
> community?) to get some input on how valuable or needed this feature
> actually is.
> 
> Thanks,
> John​
> 

Okay, sorry for the noise then.  It sounded like a review request, but
if the point was to bring the discussion to a wider audience then that
is obviously fine.

-Ben