Dear all,
Thanks all for the reply, I have read the etherpad note and there seems no
working BP/SPEC now.
So I have updated one BP/SPEC from my colleague put up for Mitaka with
microversion implementation for Ocata release:
BP:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:29:57AM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 09:06 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng
> > wrote:
> >> Hi, all
> >>
> >> Currently we have customer demands about adding
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 09:06 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng
> wrote:
>> Hi, all
>>
>> Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter
>> "volume_type" to --block-device to provide the support of specified
>>
On 8/29/2016 8:29 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
I completely agree with this. However I have some memory of us saying(in
Austin?) that adding volume_type would be acceptable since it's a clear
oversight in the list of parameters for specifying a block device. So
while I greatly dislike Nova creating
29-Aug-16 09:50, Zhenyu Zheng пишет:
Hi, all
Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to --block-device to provide the support
of specified storage backend to boot instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint that aiming to address the same
feature:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng
wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to
> --block-device to provide the support of specified storage backend to boot
> instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint
Hi, all
Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to
--block-device to provide the support of specified storage backend to boot
instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint that aiming to address the
same feature: