Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Differentiate between Kubevirt and OpenShift Virtualization #1815

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nasark
Copy link
Member

@nasark nasark commented Sep 25, 2024

Post subclassing OSV, we should differentiate it as a separate provider from Kubevirt in the docs

@miq-bot assign @agrare
@miq-bot add_labels enhancement, radjabov/yes?
@miq-bot add_reviewers @agrare, @Fryguy

| Events | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Metrics | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Forensic Analysis (SmartState) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Nodes) | ❌ | ❌ |
| Discovery | vSphere | oVirt / RHV | OpenStack undercloud | IBM Power HMC | KubeVirt | OSV |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So we show the other subclassed providers together, oVirt / RHV
Could we do | KubeVirt / OSV | at least until we have any differentiation between the two in features supported

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we still need to update the capability matrix with KubeVirt / OSV

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is there https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-documentation/blob/master/capabilities_matrix/_topics/infrastructure_providers.md, the earlier change was just to separate it but no longer doing that

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤦 I didn't see that in the diff, thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants