Sweet, thx Zane. Looking forward to figuring out how we can make this all work. Fun times ahead ;)
Sent from my really tiny device... On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:24 AM, "Zane Bitter" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20/06/13 21:34, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> Thanks Adrian for adding that, >> >> Zane, it would be great if you could show up. I have a few questions about >> said heat requirements, especially about how the current mechanism >> accomplishes those requirements. > > Sorry for missing that meeting, I left the house right after sending that > email. Unfortunately (for you ;) I won't be around for the next couple of > weeks, but let's definitely sync when I get back. > >> IMHO I'd rather not have 2 workflow libraries (aka your scheduler.py) and >> taskflow. It would be advantageous I think to focus on one way if we can. >> This would be beneficial to all and if we can merge those ideas into >> taskflow I'm all for it personally. Since one of the possible >> ending-points for taskflow is in oslo, that would seem like a useful merge >> of ideas and code instead of a divergent approach. > > +1 > > I wanted to wait until I had tested it with some more complicated use cases > before trying to push it outside of Heat. Now that that is done and I have a > reasonable level of confidence in it, it would be good to explore which parts > can be rolled into TaskFlow and which can be replaced by existing stuff in > TaskFlow. Documenting the requirements that it is currently satisfying in > Heat was the first step in that process. > > cheers, > Zane. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
