Open Stack

Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com> writes:

> What are you visioning for the image-type key? I only bring it up since we've
> dropped 'images' here.

The thing that says "qcow2"?  That's an attribute of the provider and
doesn't need to change (we also usually get it via OSCC anyway -- maybe
we can remove it).

> On the fence about private-key moving to diskimages.  But, understand why, in
> our nodepool.yaml we have 74 entries for it; all the same. In the use case I am
> thinking of, where using nodepool-builder just to build images, there wouldn't
> be need for a private-key. We'd only use that after uploading.

Yeah, that's another point in favor of having it in (optionally) both
places as I suggested in my response to Clark.

-Jim