Differentiate between Kubevirt and OpenShift Virtualization #1815
Conversation
| | Events | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | ||
| | Metrics | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | ||
| | Forensic Analysis (SmartState) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Nodes) | ❌ | ❌ | | ||
| | Discovery | vSphere | oVirt / RHV | OpenStack undercloud | IBM Power HMC | KubeVirt | OSV | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we still need to update the capability matrix with KubeVirt / OSV
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤦 I didn't see that in the diff, thanks
nasark
force-pushed
the
osv_provider_changes
branch
from
66a5eea
to
3b98672
Compare
|
@Fryguy @agrare So in this table we have two separate entries, one for OpenShift Virtualization and another for KubeVirt. Keeping the above in mind do we also want to make the changes here as well or does the list in the following picture remains the same? i.e The list for Infrastructure Providers becomes:
|
|
Interestingly, Red Hat Virtualization and oVirt are in a similar case where they are really basically the same. In other places we just put them together to avoid the redundancy, (e.g. RHV/oVirt), so I personally prefer that for OSV/KubeVirt |
|
Thanks Jason. I am adding my approval for the PR in that case. |
|
Backported to |
Differentiate between Kubevirt and OpenShift Virtualization (cherry picked from commit df50a8c)
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