> -----Original Message----- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: 02 December 2014 09:45 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Deprecating osprofiler option 'enabled' > in favour of 'profiler_enabled' > > On 02/12/14 12:16 +0800, Zhi Yan Liu wrote: > >Why not change other services instead of glance? I see one reason is > >"glance is the only one service use this option name", but to me one > >reason to keep it as-it in glance is that original name makes more > >sense due to the option already under "profiler" group, adding > >"profiler" prefix to it is really redundant, imo, and in other existing > >config group there's no one go this naming way. Then in the code we can > >just use a clear way: > > > > CONF.profiler.enabled > > > >instead of: > > > > CONF.profiler.profiler_enabled > > I'm with Zhi Yan on this one. Adding profiler sounds redundant.
+1, The reasoning makes sense to keep it as it is. - Erno > > Cheers, > Flavio > > > > >thanks, > >zhiyan > > > >On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Ian Cordasco > ><ian.corda...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> On 12/1/14, 08:37, "Louis Taylor" <krag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>Hi all, > >>> > >>>In order to enable or disable osprofiler in Glance, we currently have > >>>an > >>>option: > >>> > >>> [profiler] > >>> # If False fully disable profiling feature. > >>> enabled = False > >>> > >>>However, all other services with osprofiler integration use a similar > >>>option named profiler_enabled. > >>> > >>>For consistency, I'm proposing we deprecate this option's name in > >>>favour of profiler_enabled. This should make it easier for someone to > >>>configure osprofiler across projects with less confusion. Does anyone > >>>have any thoughts or concerns about this? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Louis > >> > >> We *just* introduced this if I remember the IRC discussion from last > >> month. I’m not sure how many people will be immediately making use of > it. > >> I’m in favor of consistency where possible and while this would > >> require a deprecation, I think it’s a worthwhile change. > >> > >> +1 from me > >> > >> — > >> > >> Ian > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > >_______________________________________________ > >OpenStack-dev mailing list > >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev