Re: blueprint: consistency groups

[Jason Dillaman <jdillama@redhat.com>]

The current PR is at approximately 2500 lines -- it would be nice to
have a PR under 1000 changed lines in a perfect world.  The trouble
with larger PR is that after you address comments, I have to re-read
it all again.  The smaller the PR, the faster it can be reviewed and
merged.  If changes depend on another PR, you can always
non-fast-forward merge the other PR branch into your dependent PR
branch so that it's clear what needs to be reviewed.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Victor Denisov <vdenisov@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Yes, I'm working on splitting it into small logically separated commits.
> My current PR is for CRUD operations only(create, remove, add image,
> remove image, show info).
> Do you want even a smaller PR or this one is small enough?
>
> Thanks,
> V.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Jason Dillaman <jdillama@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Definitely want to ensure that it cleanly merges with master.  I would
>> also request, if at all possible, that you break it into individual
>> PRs of concrete sub-tasks for implementing consistency groups for ease
>> of review.  Have individual commits for each step of implementing the
>> task would also help (i.e. squash related commits, fix style issues or
>> bugs in the commit that introduced them, etc).
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Victor Denisov <vdenisov@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> Never mind. I just realized that it will be easier to build it on top
>>> of the latest master in any case.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Victor Denisov <vdenisov@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>> Jason,
>>>>
>>>> Do you prefer pull requests to be rebased on top of the latest master
>>>> or should I keep it where I started the development?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> V.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Jason Dillaman <jdillama@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Victor Denisov <vdenisov@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any opinion regarding deleting images that are in a
>>>>>> consistency group?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we delete them as well as the references in the consistency
>>>>>> group they belong to or should we prohibit deleting images that are in
>>>>>> a consistency group?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, if an image has a snapshot we required you to remove all
>>>>> snapshots before removing the image.  Along those lines, if an image
>>>>> is in a consistency group and the consistency group has snapshots, the
>>>>> user wouldn't be able to remove the image since it has snapshots nor
>>>>> should the user be able to remove the snapshots associated with the
>>>>> consistency group. In this case, the user would be forced to
>>>>> dissociate the image from the group before attempting to delete it.
>>>>> Therefore, just to keep the actions consistent, you might as well
>>>>> force the user to dissociate an image from the consistency group even
>>>>> if the image doesn't have snapshots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jason



-- 
Jason