On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:04:38PM +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07/22/2015 09:42 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > >> > >> Hey, > >> > >> I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration > >> using the generic registration approach. > >> > >> But it seem that we now have two implementations: > >> > >> 1. vdsm-tool register [0] > >> 2. ovirt-register [1] > >> > >> To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches > >> before we enter 3.6. > >> Or are there reasons for keeping both of them? > > > > I believe not. > > Great. > > >> My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow > >> us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of > >> the rest IIUIC). > >> The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > +1 for dropping vdsm-tool register verb. It started as alternative and later > > we merged everything in ovirt-register project which is the generic > > registration. I can send a patch to drop it soon. > > Right. > So let's see what Dan replies and then we can possibly drop the > duplicate effort.
To answer properly, I'll need to know about the current state of ovirt-register. Is ready and available? I know that long ago someone opened complex RFEs for it, but the implementation never got into fruition. I'd like to see vdsm-reg gone, and I'd like to see it gone now. With vdsm-tool register merged, I don't think there's any remaining effort on that front (except of removing the dead vdsm-reg code out of vdsm, but this applies to both). I don't mind at all seeing ovirt-node use ovirt-register instead of vdsm-tool, and I wouldn't realy care if `vdsm-tool register`'s implementation is scrapped in favor of calling ovirt-register. Dan. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
