)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":13719,"name":"Naohiro Tamura","email":"naohirot.openstack@gmail.com","username":"nao"},"change_message_id":"99615f393aa5a0d47eb70330e129640cb4ce2ffd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"get_supported_boot_modes, set_boot_mode to management Interface"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"to get the current boot mode and supported boot modes of"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"a node and to set the boot mode for the next boot respectively."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: I7827abe09dc4f1889499091b5b4772de832af58e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_919b2517","line":13,"updated":"2014-11-24 23:26:09.000000000","message":"Hi Anusha,\n\nI just noticed the following reference is missing when I subscribed the blue print.\n\nImplements: Blueprint add-boot-mode-mgmt-interface\n\nThanks.\nnaohirot","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"b00db7a8afbae483a0bb948fb6ce634242cdc46e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"get_supported_boot_modes, set_boot_mode to management Interface"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"to get the current boot mode and supported boot modes of"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"a node and to set the boot mode for the next boot respectively."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: I7827abe09dc4f1889499091b5b4772de832af58e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_fd519862","line":13,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_919b2517","updated":"2014-11-25 03:16:44.000000000","message":"Checked with old specs also , Implements is not required for specs. It should be added when raising code review.","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":13719,"name":"Naohiro Tamura","email":"naohirot.openstack@gmail.com","username":"nao"},"change_message_id":"c0c466f6986d0f9eca722766ab86fba204f23e14","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"get_supported_boot_modes, set_boot_mode to management Interface"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"to get the current boot mode and supported boot modes of"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"a node and to set the boot mode for the next boot respectively."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: I7827abe09dc4f1889499091b5b4772de832af58e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_53042514","line":13,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_fd519862","updated":"2014-11-26 12:09:49.000000000","message":"Hi Anusha,\n\nOkay, I understood. Thanks.\n\nNaohirot.","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"}],"specs/kilo/add-boot-mode-mgmt-interface.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":6773,"name":"Lucas Alvares Gomes","email":"lucasagomes@gmail.com","username":"lucasagomes"},"change_message_id":"3004b2dfdce438d2398c35e7d9a1d8a4722a856a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"* The following abstract functions to be added to ManagementInterface-"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":".. code-block:: python"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"9aa7fdbe_c8b8ceca","line":28,"updated":"2014-10-23 13:48:13.000000000","message":"one problem with @abstractmethod is that it\u0027s not backward compat with drivers outside the tree since that requires to all classes inheriting from ManagementInterface to override those methods. \n\nMaybe we should not make it abstract but instead, by default, raise UnsupportedDriverExtension","commit_id":"bd52b84af80684bb43be5d54aeaafedfca9b84c9"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"337607d6daf0da759dc0e27b7a64fbbf937cb01c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"* The following abstract functions to be added to ManagementInterface-"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":".. code-block:: python"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"9aa7fdbe_79291b89","line":28,"in_reply_to":"9aa7fdbe_c8b8ceca","updated":"2014-10-28 03:39:38.000000000","message":"sounds good. will update.","commit_id":"bd52b84af80684bb43be5d54aeaafedfca9b84c9"},{"author":{"_account_id":6773,"name":"Lucas Alvares Gomes","email":"lucasagomes@gmail.com","username":"lucasagomes"},"change_message_id":"d2867bec0eac8150459500e5c91534aaffe0b07f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":60,"context_line":"  will be created for the above functions."},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"* Currently, IPMI doesn\u0027t support get/set boot mode. Other vendor specific"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"  drivers can use the interface."},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"* IPMI drivers to raise UnsupportedDriverExtension exception."},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"* iscsi_ilo, agent_ilo and pxe_ilo drivers to implement the interface."},{"line_number":65,"context_line":""},{"line_number":66,"context_line":"Alternatives"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"9aa7fdbe_3cebfcdc","line":63,"updated":"2014-10-28 10:00:25.000000000","message":"nit: not only IPMI, but any driver that doesn\u0027t implement that methods in their interface (like the first bullet point says)","commit_id":"7d37a597310890fc5fbf5469d029f0682b2b2b17"},{"author":{"_account_id":2889,"name":"Aeva Black","email":"aeva.online@gmail.com","username":"tenbrae"},"change_message_id":"7ddea985eabf7d307194b905b01b1c956063b6e6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":102,"context_line":"    PUT {\u0027mode\u0027: \u0027bios\u0027}"},{"line_number":103,"context_line":"        /nodes/\u003cuuid\u003e/management/boot/mode"},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    If the request was completed successfully HTTP 204 (No Content)"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    is returned."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"    If an invalid or not supported boot mode (other than \u0027bios\u0027 or \u0027uefi\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_430ae18a","line":105,"updated":"2014-11-24 14:35:17.000000000","message":"Today, we generally use HTTP 200 OK -- is there a particular raeson to use 204 here?","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":2889,"name":"Aeva Black","email":"aeva.online@gmail.com","username":"tenbrae"},"change_message_id":"7ddea985eabf7d307194b905b01b1c956063b6e6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":115,"context_line":""},{"line_number":116,"context_line":"* To get the supported boot modes for a node:"},{"line_number":117,"context_line":""},{"line_number":118,"context_line":"\tGET /nodes/\u003cuuid\u003e/management/boot/mode/supported"},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"\tReturns a list of supported boot modes on node."},{"line_number":120,"context_line":""},{"line_number":121,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_63fb5d7b","line":118,"updated":"2014-11-24 14:35:17.000000000","message":"If we expose a REST API for this, I think the list of supported boot modes should be returned as a subresource with the current boot mode.\n\nAdding a sample of returned JSON might help clarify this. Here is an off-the-cuff example (I haven\u0027t fully thought this through. It probably needs an \"href\" resource, and so on).\n\n  GET /nodes/\u003cuuid\u003e/management/boot/mode\n\n  { \n    \u0027current\u0027: \u0027uefi\u0027,\n    \u0027supported\u0027: [\u0027bios\u0027, \u0027uefi\u0027]\n  }","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":2889,"name":"Aeva Black","email":"aeva.online@gmail.com","username":"tenbrae"},"change_message_id":"7ddea985eabf7d307194b905b01b1c956063b6e6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":126,"context_line":""},{"line_number":127,"context_line":"Driver API impact"},{"line_number":128,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":129,"context_line":"None"},{"line_number":130,"context_line":""},{"line_number":131,"context_line":"Nova driver impact"},{"line_number":132,"context_line":"------------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_83004967","line":129,"updated":"2014-11-24 14:35:17.000000000","message":"This spec is proposing a driver API change. You\u0027ve detailed it above -- so this section should not say \"None\"","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":2889,"name":"Aeva Black","email":"aeva.online@gmail.com","username":"tenbrae"},"change_message_id":"7ddea985eabf7d307194b905b01b1c956063b6e6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":142,"context_line":""},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"Scalability impact"},{"line_number":144,"context_line":"------------------"},{"line_number":145,"context_line":"None"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":""},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"Performance Impact"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":"------------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"5a890539_a3f8e57c","line":145,"updated":"2014-11-24 14:35:17.000000000","message":"Both proposed approaches (make calls to BMC synchronously, do async calls and cache in DB) have different scalability impacts. You may want to discuss that here.","commit_id":"2e6cd3408fbfbe1a9f3884d0c236367689ea8fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"6695b562401ea9d7248ff38e564ac22d77f53225","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"  \"\"\" Sets the node to boot using boot_mode for the next boot."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"    :param task: a task from TaskManager."},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"    :param boot_mode: Next boot mode."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"  \"\"\""},{"line_number":38,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_dc4fb490","line":35,"updated":"2014-12-02 17:55:55.000000000","message":"is that a string? Are we going to have a standard set of possible boot mode values?","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"0d6b7c4094a9b494fa3ad70c9a8ebdf884c982fe","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"  \"\"\" Sets the node to boot using boot_mode for the next boot."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"    :param task: a task from TaskManager."},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"    :param boot_mode: Next boot mode."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"  \"\"\""},{"line_number":38,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_e3891b70","line":35,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_dc4fb490","updated":"2014-12-03 04:38:25.000000000","message":"yes, we could define \u0027bios\u0027 , \u0027uefi\u0027 as standard values for boot mode.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"6695b562401ea9d7248ff38e564ac22d77f53225","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":""},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"* Removing get_supported_boot_modes from ManagementInterface as the better"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_ff054210","line":48,"updated":"2014-12-02 17:55:55.000000000","message":"I\u0027m not sure what you mean here. There isn\u0027t any get_supported_boot_modes method in the ManagementInterface.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"60b8607a0b6b3f0da0827600968f5a3e3795d806","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":""},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"* Removing get_supported_boot_modes from ManagementInterface as the better"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_5ecf017f","line":48,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_23d6c34f","updated":"2014-12-03 19:59:31.000000000","message":"if it isn\u0027t proposed in this spec, then it doesn\u0027t make sense to even have this bullet. Unless you want to reword it to something like \u0027will not provide a get_supported_boot_modes() function ... because ...\u0027\n\nIe, you can\u0027t Remove something from ironic if it isn\u0027t there to begin with.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":10202,"name":"Wan-yen Hsu","email":"wanyenhsu@gmail.com"},"change_message_id":"7c36d69f0943d4b114cd1dca44692d0442f05a27","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":""},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"* Removing get_supported_boot_modes from ManagementInterface as the better"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_89ea039e","line":48,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_5ecf017f","updated":"2014-12-04 00:55:16.000000000","message":"Agreed with Ruby.  Let\u0027s just remove this paragraph to avoid confusion.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"3374262aa6901acc3c09b88b29d0bfeaf996c53b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":""},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"* Removing get_supported_boot_modes from ManagementInterface as the better"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_f8e8af7c","line":48,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_5ecf017f","updated":"2014-12-04 08:50:39.000000000","message":"sounds reasonable. will remove it. thanks","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"0d6b7c4094a9b494fa3ad70c9a8ebdf884c982fe","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":""},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"* Removing get_supported_boot_modes from ManagementInterface as the better"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_23d6c34f","line":48,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_ff054210","updated":"2014-12-03 04:38:25.000000000","message":"Actually, proposed get_supported_boot_modes also  as part of ManagementInterface in the prev patch , but removed here, as populating if the node is capable of booting in both \u0027bios\u0027 or \u0027uefi\u0027 mode, actually corresponds to capability of node, so felt it should be more of exposed as part of hardware capability or during discovery.\n\nhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/131272/5/specs/backlog/hardware-capabilities.rst","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"6695b562401ea9d7248ff38e564ac22d77f53225","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"  node\u0027s instance info as being proposed here [2], driver will need to read the"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"  boot mode from the instance info and set accordingly, else as per the current"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_9f16fe47","line":50,"updated":"2014-12-02 17:55:55.000000000","message":"I think if we want Ironic to be standalone (not need Nova), we will need API for this.\n\nOh, are you saying that the user can continue to set/get the boot mode via the node.properties.capabilities?","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":5805,"name":"Chris Krelle","email":"nobodycam@gmail.com","username":"nobodycam"},"change_message_id":"5677333a9ef922cf49984ce562de186af0ef2544","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"  node\u0027s instance info as being proposed here [2], driver will need to read the"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"  boot mode from the instance info and set accordingly, else as per the current"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"ba7be1f8_ae0fa32d","line":50,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_030627ce","updated":"2015-02-19 22:55:08.000000000","message":"If I understand this thread then in the case of someone using a standalone Ironic could set this on the nodes instance_info, Could you clearly state that in the spec, if my understanding is correct.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"0d6b7c4094a9b494fa3ad70c9a8ebdf884c982fe","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":47,"context_line":"  place would be updating during hardware introspection as it is mostly"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"  concerned with hardware capability of a node.[1]"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* REST API is not being proposed to get/set boot modes as there is no use case"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  to be used outside the deploy."},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"* Boot mode will be set only during deploy, if nova passes down the info to the"},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"  node\u0027s instance info as being proposed here [2], driver will need to read the"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"  boot mode from the instance info and set accordingly, else as per the current"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_030627ce","line":50,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_9f16fe47","updated":"2014-12-03 04:38:25.000000000","message":"yes, boot mode can be specified as part of node.properties.capabilities as per juno or can be specified in nova flavor and can be passed to instance_info of the node ( as proposed in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136104/1/specs/kilo/approved/pass-flavor-capabilities-to-ironic-virt-driver.rst ) . In either case , the actual use case comes only during deploy as it sets the boot mode to specified value and carry out the deploy accordingly.\n\nSo, can\u0027t think of any explicit usecase of doing it outside deploy. Moreover , a system reset is required in most cases after setting the boot mode. So, best way would be doing as part of deploy.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"6695b562401ea9d7248ff38e564ac22d77f53225","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":72,"context_line":""},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"Driver API impact"},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":75,"context_line":"ManagementInterface subclasses are explicitly not required to implement the"},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"above functions in order to maintain backwards compatibility with existing"},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"drivers. By default UnsupportedDriverExtension will be raised."},{"line_number":78,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_7fff92ab","line":75,"updated":"2014-12-02 17:55:55.000000000","message":"nit: you might want to mention something like \u0027Adds two functions [get|set]_boot_mode to the ManagementInterface\u0027.","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":11278,"name":"Anusha Ramineni","email":"anusha.ramineni@india.nec.com","username":"anusha08"},"change_message_id":"0d6b7c4094a9b494fa3ad70c9a8ebdf884c982fe","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":72,"context_line":""},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"Driver API impact"},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":75,"context_line":"ManagementInterface subclasses are explicitly not required to implement the"},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"above functions in order to maintain backwards compatibility with existing"},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"drivers. By default UnsupportedDriverExtension will be raised."},{"line_number":78,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":4,"id":"5a890539_1e2cbe98","line":75,"in_reply_to":"5a890539_7fff92ab","updated":"2014-12-03 04:38:25.000000000","message":"will update it. thanks","commit_id":"daef3bd0e3ebc73dc61df41b28370c81f0f16335"},{"author":{"_account_id":10343,"name":"Jim Rollenhagen","email":"jim@jimrollenhagen.com","username":"jimrollenhagen"},"change_message_id":"ec6226b3cbe443b97e5e84791f16d59f853a78d2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":67,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":68,"context_line":"ManagementInterface subclasses are explicitly not required to implement the"},{"line_number":69,"context_line":"above functions in order to maintain backwards compatibility with existing"},{"line_number":70,"context_line":"drivers. By default UnsupportedDriverExtension will be raised."},{"line_number":71,"context_line":""},{"line_number":72,"context_line":"Nova driver impact"},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"------------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"ba7be1f8_d3714c0d","line":70,"updated":"2015-03-03 05:42:18.000000000","message":"This seems problematic; I\u0027m curious how drivers would actually handle this. I think they would just blow up.","commit_id":"94950bfcbdd30879ecb1cf44cd0a4acdb3451220"}]}