----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken@redhat.com> To: "Fabian Deutsch" <fdeutsch@redhat.com> Cc: "Alon Bar-Lev" <abarlev@redhat.com>, "Douglas Landgraf" <dlandgra@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:47:04 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:04:38PM +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@redhat.com> wrote:
On 07/22/2015 09:42 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
Hey,
I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration using the generic registration approach.
But it seem that we now have two implementations:
1. vdsm-tool register [0] 2. ovirt-register [1]
To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches before we enter 3.6. Or are there reasons for keeping both of them?
I believe not.
Great.
My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of the rest IIUIC). The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed.
Thoughts?
+1 for dropping vdsm-tool register verb. It started as alternative and later we merged everything in ovirt-register project which is the generic registration. I can send a patch to drop it soon.
Right. So let's see what Dan replies and then we can possibly drop the duplicate effort.
To answer properly, I'll need to know about the current state of ovirt-register.
Is ready and available? I know that long ago someone opened complex RFEs for it, but the implementation never got into fruition.
I'd like to see vdsm-reg gone, and I'd like to see it gone now. With vdsm-tool register merged, I don't think there's any remaining effort on that front (except of removing the dead vdsm-reg code out of vdsm, but this applies to both).
vdsm-reg can be gone only when entire functionality is provided, such as PXE, kernel parameters and service. so a simple hack of vdsm-tool is not the solution. please do not address me as "someone". if you had comments about the design, you should have noted before you took parallel incomplete actions.
I don't mind at all seeing ovirt-node use ovirt-register instead of vdsm-tool, and I wouldn't realy care if `vdsm-tool register`'s implementation is scrapped in favor of calling ovirt-register.
Dan. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel