Ihar, please see responses (inline). -amrith
| -----Original Message----- | From: Ihar Hrachyshka [mailto:[email protected]] | Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 9:43 AM | To: [email protected] | Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Trove] request to backport the fix for bug | 1333852 to juno | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | Hash: SHA1 | | Not being involved in trove, but some general comments on backports. | | On 03/04/2015 08:33 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote: | > There has been a request to backport the fix for bug 1333852 | > (https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+bug/1333852) which was fixed in | > Kilo into the Juno release. | > | | It would be easier if you directly link to patches in question. [amrith] These are the patches that merged into Kilo https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115811/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123301/ | | > | > | > The change includes a database change and a small change to the Trove | > API. The change also requires a change to the trove client and the | > trove controller code (trove-api). It is arguable whether this is a | > backport or a new feature; I'm inclined to think it is more of an | > extension of an existing feature than a new feature. | > | | It depends on what is a 'database change' above. If it's a schema change, | then it's a complete no-go for backports. A change to API is also [amrith] Yes, it is a schema change. See https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115811/ | suspicious, but without details it's hard to say. Finally, the need to | patch a client to utilize the change probably means that it's not a bug | fix (or at least, not an easy one). [amrith] The change to the API is not that complex; it changes flavor from an int to a string and adds logic that knows how to tell one from the other. | | Where do those flavor UUIDs come from? Were they present/supported in | nova/juno? [amrith] Yes. On a nova boot call for example, you could specify flavor-id thusly: --flavor <flavor> Name or ID of flavor (see 'nova flavor-list'). With Trove (prior to this fix) you could only specify the ID which would be an integer. | | > | > | > As such, I *don't* believe that this change should be considered a | > good candidate for backport to Juno but I'm going to see whether there | > is sufficient interest in this, to consider this change to be an | > exception. | > | | Without details, it's hard to say for sure, but for initial look, the | change you describe is too far stretching and has lots of issues that | would make backport hard if not impossible. | [amrith] I agree. But I would appreciate input from others as well. | /Ihar | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- | Version: GnuPG v1 | | iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+GtwAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57+M4IAMjuF/f7OTMkaT1dxmy8GpV4 | /RoF06pPR5hU1oIjbjyvhRaqzTcKJBNqhuLzV7WhbynkyEuctg+QSqM/d2VQZwpp | Gt59XEiIuLUYn46oC4J/S0DZBYHjRiZqcEXrJRozfzIvMQzqkCH+TeBxo9J5E/U4 | /I2rkGkDUm+XJa88M5PsTJP6Vp0nAvKQLa/Vjpe4/Ute2YMGlvFeH4NAsBy8XVWe | BSJAIds0Abe1+uNwvaDeRbKaHwcgdAG/ia9WUO+8QHx1oXpLH/190o2P+xfZ8cno | guPR2kSrzC0JLO5lfvRkjnDJd53kj/0tMf12xjzHHBC++grLUEs9i2AsvV/Dtyk= | =s/sF | -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | | __________________________________________________________________________ | OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) | Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe | http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
