Paul Belanger <[email protected]> writes: > What are you visioning for the image-type key? I only bring it up since we've > dropped 'images' here.
The thing that says "qcow2"? That's an attribute of the provider and doesn't need to change (we also usually get it via OSCC anyway -- maybe we can remove it). > On the fence about private-key moving to diskimages. But, understand why, in > our nodepool.yaml we have 74 entries for it; all the same. In the use case I > am > thinking of, where using nodepool-builder just to build images, there wouldn't > be need for a private-key. We'd only use that after uploading. Yeah, that's another point in favor of having it in (optionally) both places as I suggested in my response to Clark. -Jim _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
