In fact, we didn’t officially announced this feature at all. It’s not fully implemented and tested yet. Even though it’s now kind of a policy (even though we removed “policies” keyword at all) I tend to agree that it needs to be a property of “with-items” semantically because we were unable to find proper use cases for this general task property out of “with-items” context.
So we can’t officially use this feature yet and recommend it to others, it’s been moved to Liberty cycle. Whatever we decide on that we’ll have to stay backwards compatible and that’s something to keep in mind. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. > On 13 May 2015, at 23:17, Nikolay Makhotkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Dmitri! > > AFAIK, we made the decision that 'concurrency' is a policy (and our schema > allows to add 'concurrency' property in DSL). > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Dmitri Zimine <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Folks, pls remind me where we ended up with ‘concurrency’? > > In the current implementation concurrency is a task policy (and not sure how > much we tested it, not with unit testing/automated testing). > > Also I recall discussing/ going back and forth re if concurrency is a task > policy or it belongs to with_items, and at some point we admitted that > Nikolay was right from the beginning when advocating for concurrency as > with_item property. > > What’s the desired? > > This is not reopening the discussion: I just need to recall what the decision > was :) > > DZ. > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Nikolay
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
