Open Stack

On 13/01/15 11:58, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
>>>> I also had a chat with Steve Hardy and he suggested adding a STOPPED
>>>> state to the stack (this isn't in the spec). While not strictly
>>>> necessary to implement the spec, this would help people figure out that
>>>> the stack has reached a breakpoint instead of just waiting on a
>>>> resource
>>>> that takes a long time to finish (the heat-engine log and event-list
>>>> still show that a breakpoint was reached but I'd like to have it in
>>>> stack-list and resource-list, too).
>>>>
>>>> It makes more sense to me to call it PAUSED (we're not completely
>>>> stopping the stack creation after all, just pausing it for a bit), I'll
>>>> let Steve explain why that's not the right choice :-).
>>>
>>> +1 to PAUSED. To me, STOPPED implies an end state (which a breakpoint is
>>> not).
>>
>> I agree we need an easy way for the user to see why nothing is
>> happening, but adding additional states to the stack is a pretty
>> dangerous change that risks creating regressions all over the place. If
>> we can find _any_ other way to surface the information, it would be
>> preferable IMHO.
>
> Would adding a new state to resources be similarly tricky, or could we
> do that instead? That way you'd see what's going on in `resource-list`
> which is should be good enough.

Yeah, that would be considerably less risky I think.

- ZB