Open Stack

Miles Gould wrote:
> On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
>> there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
>> to Newton(with spec[2]).
>> The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
>> resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
>
> +1 to introducing an explicit state machine - IME they make complex
> logic much easier to reason about. However, think carefully about how
> you'll make changes to that state machine later. In Ironic, this is an
> ongoing problem: every time we change the state machine, we have to
> decide whether to lie to older clients (and if so, what lie to tell
> them), or whether to present them with the truth (and if so, how badly
> they'll break). AIUI this would be a much smaller problem if we'd
> considered this possibility carefully at the beginning.

Do u have any more details (perhaps an 'real-life' example that you can 
walk us through) of this and how it played out. It'd be interesting to 
hear (I believe it has happened a few times but I've never heard how it 
was resolved or the details of it).

>
> Miles
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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