Actually, the reason I didn't see your previous comments was that my email client, Microsoft Outlook, just doesn't display your message. I found it through Gmail, but not through Outloook, which I think a serious bug in the Outlook.
Anyway, I did re-generate the new patch following your comments. The reason I modified 'base_driver.rb' that way was to implement inheritence first, and then do any fixes necessary, just like you suggested in your early comments to define cleanup helpers. But you're right that we don't actually need to use class variable for hardware profiles and instance variable just works for Euca (I tested). Similarly, @instance_state_machine can remain as instance variable by referencing EC2 driver in Euca driver. Finally, yes, Michal's patch made 'remove_feature' unnecessary. As a result, the new patch won't modify any code except for EC2 and Eucalyptus driver. I'll send it shortly. Sang-min On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Sang-Min Park <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, I didn't scroll down on that message. > I'll work on it now. > > Sang-min > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Lutterkort [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:36 PM > To: Sang-Min Park > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Patch in preparation for eucalyptus driver > > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 16:31 -0700, Sang-Min Park wrote: > > Hmm, maybe I misunderstood something. > > Yes, it is a repost of the previous patch. > > > > Did you send comments on that patch before? > > I saw the comments for the other patch ([PATCH] Eucalyptus driver > > support), but not for this one ([PATCH] Patch in preparation for > > eucalyptus driver). > > Yes, if you scroll down on my reply to your original patch, there are a > number of comments there. > > David >
