From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Victor Denisov Subject: Re: blueprint: consistency groups Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:42:39 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160325071933.GA14634@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f170.google.com ([209.85.161.170]:35682 "EHLO mail-yw0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbcEXWmk (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2016 18:42:40 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id o16so30929734ywd.2 for ; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:42:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jason Dillaman Cc: Gregory Farnum , Mykola Golub , ceph-devel , Josh Durgin 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 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 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 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 wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Victor Denisov 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