...
>
> [1] my main concern is that this batch of patches (dialog reorg) will make
> it into ovirt
> 3.3, but the second batch (which will contain the actual Instance Types
> fields) won't make
> it in time [see the ovirt 3.3 schedule in:
>
http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.3_release-management -
> ovirt 3.3 feature freeze is today (?!)]; so I wouldn't want to see ovirt
> 3.3 being released
> with only the first patch batch merged into it. either both batches should
> be there, or
> both batches should not be there.
There was a discussion about postponing it, but not much further it seems.
In any case It may not be necessarily wrong to have dialog reorg in 3.3
without insttypes as it will at least get people to get used to it and we
can gather feedback. It's not that it removes any functionality, on the
contrary, e.g. the type ahead feature even solves some of the bugs we
already have.
indeed - it doesn't remove functionality, and I agree that it would be a good
opportunity to get feedback about some things such as the type-ahead list box,
however the top static header in particular with only the DC/Cluster + Quota
in it may seem strange / annoying, as it would just seem like something that
takes up "real estate" in the dialog in *all* side-tab without a real good
reason.
so there are pros and cons for introducing only the first patch batch to ovirt-3.3,
I guess; Ideally, I would suggest to maybe re-organize the patches a bit differently,
so that the top static header in particular wouldn't be part of this first patch
batch,
i.e., I would suggest introducing the top static header along with adding the Instance
Types fields [which, to my understanding, is exactly what Daniel has originally suggested
on the patch [1] in his gerrit comment(s) from May 28/29 (depends on the timezone) -
only now I fully understand his concern (I think/hope)...].
not sure how easy it is to do though - I know that *a lot* of time and effort were
already invested in these patches as they are now, and I wouldn't want that the
reviewing/
merging process will be held off for much longer.
To sum up: these are the options, as I see them:
1) keep the current patch batch as is and:
a. merge it in time for ovirt-3.3, or:
b. merge it post ovirt-3.3.
- or -
2) go with what Daniel has suggested in his gerrit comment: reorganize the patches so that
the top static header would be introduced only along with the instance types fields [that
way, it won't matter what makes it into ovirt-3.3 - the first patch batch, or both (or
none)].
I am in favor of (1.b) or (2). However, weighing the cons of (1.a) against the pros of
(1.a) /
cons of (1.b) or against the effort that (2) will require, and taking into consideration
the
effort that was already invested, I am not strongly against (1.a) as well.
[1]
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635/
...
