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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Victor Denisov <vdenisov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
