On 11 October 2016 at 18:20, Sean M. Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Armando M. wrote: > > At this point I feel that changing the pool range is even less justified. > > If I had seen bug [4], I would have been against its fix, because you're > > absolutely right as the change being not backward compatible. > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356026 was written by someone on the > Trove team to > help them with their CI jobs IIRC. > > CC'ing Matthew since he has more context. I went into the Trove channel > and asked them about reverting 356026. It doesn't seem like an option at > this point. > > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-trove/% > 23openstack-trove.2016-09-30.log.html#t2016-09-30T17:53:08 A revert with no follow up is clearly not a viable option most of the times, and we clearly dug ourselves too deep now with [1]. Rather than making the use of subnet pools conditional as done in [1], IMO we should have made [2] conditional to preserve the existing provisioning behavior and let Trove override. [1] Ic89ceca76afda67da5545111972c3348011f294f [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356026/ > > > -- > Sean M. Collins > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
