----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek@redhat.com>, "Malini Rao" <mrao@redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <info@eldanet.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org>, "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:18:53 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:28:54 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek@redhat.com> Cc: "Eldan Hildesheim" <info@eldanet.com>, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com>, "Malini Rao" <mrao@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:56:33 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?
...
[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)...].
Exactly, I prefer that the static header will be introduced along with the new dialog I.e. squashed with the final dialog patch (with instance types fields). I understand that the static header might make sense for the final dialog
- I am actually waiting for Tomas's response on what exactly is going to be included within the top static header of the dialog in his current 7-patches batch (see my previous response in the thread) - there is a chance that it makes some sense to introduce the top static section at this stage (instead of waiting for the "final dialog patch" in which the Instance Types and Image fields will be introduced), as it already affects a "nice" amount of side-tabs.
- even if the fields that are included in the top static header in the current patch-batch don't really justify introducing the top static section at this stage, there are other things that (IMO) should be taken into consideration when deciding how to proceed [see my (1.a), (1.b), (2) "essay" in one of my previous responses in the thread]
(though I still don't like the idea that it's relevant only for some side-tabs).
I think that UX wise (and Malini/Eldan can comment on that), if the top section affect a significant amount of side-tabs, it is better that this section would be displayed in *all* side tabs, rather than have it visible only in the relevant side-tabs, which can be a bit irritating to the eye when "jumping" between side-tabs.
MR - Yes, if we have a static top panel, it should be truly static- i.e, it should stay displayed irrespective of whether the currently selected side tab has a dependency or context info on the static panel or not.
[of course, I assume that completely different, creative solutions can be found, but even if so - I suggest to think about them in a later stage, after introducing the Instance Types feature into the system / getting some more feedback on the current top static header solution]
Added my remarks to the patch: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635/
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/
...
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel