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

From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Eldan Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com&gt;, "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; 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)...].

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/ > ...