Open Stack

On 10/22/2015 05:42 PM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> Tang Chen <tangchen at cn.fujitsu.com> wrote on 10/21/2015 10:22:15 AM:
>
>> From: Tang Chen <tangchen at cn.fujitsu.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: 10/21/2015 10:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Migration state machine proposal.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please help to take a look at this problem. I was trying to raise it in
>> the spec discussion.
>> But since we don't need a spec on this problem, so I want to discuss it
>> here.
>> It is about what the new state machine will be.
>>
>> http://paste.openstack.org/show/476954/
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I'd like to make you aware of bp "split-different-live-migration-types":
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/225910/
> It intends to split those 3 types you are talking about. This could have
> some overlap to your work.

Hi Markus ,

Thank you for the info. Will look at it in detail.

And BTW, the direction came to this:

1. Keep the Migration.status field as it is now. This is because these 
statuses
     have been exposed through APIs. Just use Enum to ensure the values are
     valid. And introduce a state machine for it. This is just a small 
improvement.

2. The real improvement is here, will be in another BP. Introduce a new
     Migration.state field, and a new state machine to fix the problems 
in the
     current implementation, I mean remove redundant statuses, and make
     the state machine more reasonable.

Thanks.


>
> Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>