Hello, Ok, I will try maybe to write such specs if I will have a while.
-- Best regards / Pozdrawiam Sławek Kapłoński sla...@kaplonski.pl On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 11/17/2016 04:58 AM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Ok. So it's different case. I was thinking only about issues with > > quotas. > > For me this which You described is more related to scheduler/placement > > API(?). > > Do You think that it should be taken in same specs? > > Given that we need a spec to cover any changes to publicly-visible > behaviour, I think it would make sense to lump together any changes around > what happens when you try to boot multiple instances and only some of them > can be booted. > > I think it's basically irrelevant what the reasons are why some couldn't be > booted--as long as the requested "min-count" instances can be booted > successfully then they should proceed to boot and the request should count > as successful. > > And as I said before, if at least "min-count" instances can be booted > successfully then the remaining instances should not go into error state but > rather should just be transparently deleted as though they never existed. I agree here with You. It is like that in some cases, e.g. like I described before on summary which I made. > > Chris > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev