Open Stack

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Jay Pipes wrote:

> I wasn't in YVR, which explains why I's never heard of it. There's a number 
> of misconceptions in the above document about the placement service that 
> don't seem to have been addressed. I'm wondering if its worth revisiting the 
> topic in Denver with the Cinder team or whether the Cinder team isn't 
> interested in working with the placement service?

It was also discussed as part of the reshaper spec and implemented
for future use by a potential fast forward upgrade tool:

     http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/rocky/approved/reshape-provider-tree.html#direct-placement
     https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/placement/direct.py

I agree, talking to Cinder some more in denver about use of
placement, either over HTTP or direct, whatever form, is good.

But I don't think any of that should impact the naming situation.
It's placement now, and placement is not really any less unique than
a lot of the other words we use, the direct situation is a very
special and edge case (likely in containers anyway, so naming not as
much of a big deal). Changing the name, again, is painful. Please,
let's not do it.

-- 
Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent