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

[Einav Cohen]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> 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?

quoting Tomas:

"""
the first patch we are talking about (http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635)
adds only Data Center, Cluster and Quota to the header. 
There is a second patch (http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15011/) which moves the OS type and 
template to the header.
"""

so IIUC, the first patch batch [2] will include moving the following fields into the 
static header:

- DataCenter/Cluster
- Quota
- OS type
- Template

@Tomas - I suggest that you will clarify:

A) which fields exactly are going to be included in the top static header of the New VM 
dialog *in your current patch batch* [2], and:

B) which side-tabs in the New VM dialog will be affected by the fields in (A).

[there is a chance that the fields in (A) already affect a lot of the side-tabs, which means 
that it would actually make sense to introduce the top static section in the current patch 
batch, even without the Instance Types / Images fields included in it, which is what (I think) 
Itamar is implying]


[2] the current patch batch, to my understanding, is:

http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14810/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14936/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15011/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15048/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15102/
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15199/


> 
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >> ...
> >
> >
> 
>