Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:03:09 PM On 05/31/2013 06:56 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> [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. but the optimize for desktop/server already start to affect other panes?

> > 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/ > >> ... > >