)]}'
{"doc/source/specs/v1/approved/block-device-lvl0-local-loop.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":12459,"name":"Stephanie Miller","email":"stephane@alum.mit.edu","username":"cinerama"},"change_message_id":"051fa4efc79affa70cd09de5b6bef84d8b453a6b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"Refactor (extract) existing loop device handling from the DIB main"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"into a separate python module (diskimage_builder/block_device)."},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Move basic functionality that is currently located in"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"element/vm/block_device.d into main."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"Prepare diskimage_builder/block_device as python module and implement"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"infrastructure for further block_device changes - especially handling"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_394bcf5a","line":50,"range":{"start_line":49,"start_character":0,"end_line":50,"end_character":36},"updated":"2016-07-06 23:16:24.000000000","message":"Note that this is a change in current behaviour since the vm element is not included by default. What about partition images, e.g. http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/install-guide.html#image-requirements","commit_id":"b6a1f44ca8e0cbf02a08a760866abe389c4b1195"},{"author":{"_account_id":21741,"name":"Andreas Florath","email":"andreas@florath.net","username":"florath"},"change_message_id":"bc1ca87ee1254984fd42c9ac33759aa600fcf604","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"Refactor (extract) existing loop device handling from the DIB main"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"into a separate python module (diskimage_builder/block_device)."},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Move basic functionality that is currently located in"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"element/vm/block_device.d into main."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"Prepare diskimage_builder/block_device as python module and implement"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"infrastructure for further block_device changes - especially handling"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_e1f22505","line":50,"range":{"start_line":49,"start_character":0,"end_line":50,"end_character":36},"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_394bcf5a","updated":"2016-07-07 07:08:10.000000000","message":"Yes and No:\nYes - the functionality (especially partitioning) will be done also for non-vm elements.\nNo - it does not change the behavior (except that it does something which is later thrown away).\n\nCurrently there is no clear separation of where the output (format) of DIB is defined: even if only \u0027-t tar\u0027 is specified an image is created and the loop device is attached, and this is done in any case, even if the vm element is not used. If in addition the vm element is used, the partitioning is done - and thrown away later, because the image itself is never used.\n\nSo currently it is really fuzzy and leads to discussions and misunderstandings [1] [2].\n\nThe reason for the proposed change is to get everything about block device handling (back) in the main - which makes it much easier to refactor things.\n\nThe refactoring of the block device will / should be done in a way, that it can be *completely* skipped - which is an improvement over the current situation.\n\n\n[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334042/\n[2] https://review.openstack.org/338060","commit_id":"b6a1f44ca8e0cbf02a08a760866abe389c4b1195"},{"author":{"_account_id":10035,"name":"greghaynes","email":"greg@greghaynes.net","username":"greghaynes"},"change_message_id":"f98f9f201570ea67731eaa2fc4fdf60af5da2457","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"Refactor (extract) existing loop device handling from the DIB main"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"into a separate python module (diskimage_builder/block_device)."},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Move basic functionality that is currently located in"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"element/vm/block_device.d into main."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"Prepare diskimage_builder/block_device as python module and implement"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"infrastructure for further block_device changes - especially handling"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"dada55a8_0618b083","line":50,"range":{"start_line":49,"start_character":0,"end_line":50,"end_character":36},"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_e1f22505","updated":"2016-07-25 00:05:30.000000000","message":"I think this shouldn\u0027t require a change in behavior (which I think is what Andreas is saying will happen). The user facing difference if we implement all the current partitioning features should be that users no need to specify a vm/other block_device.d element in order to partition an image - does that sound correct? If so that seems fine to me.","commit_id":"b6a1f44ca8e0cbf02a08a760866abe389c4b1195"},{"author":{"_account_id":10035,"name":"greghaynes","email":"greg@greghaynes.net","username":"greghaynes"},"change_message_id":"f98f9f201570ea67731eaa2fc4fdf60af5da2457","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"Refactor (extract) existing loop device handling from the DIB main"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"into a separate python module (diskimage_builder/block_device)."},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Move basic functionality that is currently located in"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"element/vm/block_device.d into main."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"Prepare diskimage_builder/block_device as python module and implement"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"infrastructure for further block_device changes - especially handling"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"dada55a8_263e94da","line":50,"range":{"start_line":49,"start_character":0,"end_line":50,"end_character":36},"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_e1f22505","updated":"2016-07-25 00:05:30.000000000","message":"IIUC, youre saying that the only user facing change should be that they can alter partitioning without using one of the vm/other block_device.d elements? This makes sense and seems fine to me...","commit_id":"b6a1f44ca8e0cbf02a08a760866abe389c4b1195"},{"author":{"_account_id":10035,"name":"greghaynes","email":"greg@greghaynes.net","username":"greghaynes"},"change_message_id":"99caff0584803d8a1d97a8283b7a215980bedf7d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"Refactor (extract) existing loop device handling from the DIB main"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"into a separate python module (diskimage_builder/block_device)."},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Move basic functionality that is currently located in"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"element/vm/block_device.d into main."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"Prepare diskimage_builder/block_device as python module and implement"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"infrastructure for further block_device changes - especially handling"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"dada55a8_2615f448","line":50,"range":{"start_line":49,"start_character":0,"end_line":50,"end_character":36},"in_reply_to":"dada55a8_263e94da","updated":"2016-07-25 00:06:12.000000000","message":"ugh, plane wifi made me double comment. sorry","commit_id":"b6a1f44ca8e0cbf02a08a760866abe389c4b1195"}]}