Open Stack

I absolutely agree that we should still file RFE stories, at least for
tracking of what was done, when and why.

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:03 AM Ruby Loo <opensrloo at gmail.com> wrote:

> If it is something small, wouldn't it still require a short description in
> a story. With '[RFE]' or something like that in the title? (Or have I
> totally forgotten how we do things).
>
> --ruby
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ruby Loo <opensrloo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So true. Although...
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:09 AM Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I concur. The only thing with RFE's and patch approvals is I think we
>>> should remember that we want it to be easy. So processes like RFEs may
>>> not be helpful to a "oh, this tiny little thing makes a lot of sense"
>>> sort of things, since it quickly becomes a situation where you spend
>>> more time on the RFE than the patch itself.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:43 AM Ruby Loo <opensrloo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Dmitry,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for bringing this up! We discussed this in our weekly ironic
>>> meeting [1]. The consensus there seems to be to keep the ideas in IPA (with
>>> priority=0). The additional code will be 'negligible' in size so ramdisk
>>> won't be bloated due to this. Also, it keeps things simple. Having a
>>> separate package means more maintenance overhead and confusion for our
>>> users.
>>> >
>>> > Would be good to hear from others, if they don't think this is a good
>>> idea. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to Dmitry's RFEs on this :)
>>> >
>>> > --ruby
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-ironic/%23openstack-ironic.2021-02-08.log.html#t2021-02-08T15:23:02
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:02 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> We have finally implemented in-band deploy steps (w00t!), and people
>>> started coming up with ideas. I have two currently:
>>> >> 1) configure arbitrary kernel command line arguments via grub
>>> >> 2) write NetworkManager configuration (for those not using cloud-init)
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not sure how I feel about putting these in IPA proper, seems like
>>> we may go down a rabbit hole here. But what about a new project
>>> (ironic-python-agent-extras?) with a hardware manager providing a
>>> collection of potentially useful deploy steps?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or should we nonetheless just put them in IPA with priority=0?
>>> >>
>>> >> Opinions welcome.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dmitry
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>>> >> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>>> >> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs,
>>> Michael O'Neill
>>>
>>

-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210214/d1d5c03a/attachment.html>