cloud backend: implement container creation for OpenStack and Google Cloud Storage #1977

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2013-05-24T22:10:39Z

daira commented

2013-05-24 22:10:39 +00:00

#1971 added a "tahoe admin create-container" command, but it does not work for OpenStack or Google Cloud Storage due to lack of support in the respective IContainer implementations.

#1971 added a "`tahoe admin create-container`" command, but it does not work for OpenStack or Google Cloud Storage due to lack of support in the respective `IContainer` implementations.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2013-05-24 22:10:39 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the soon milestone 2013-05-24 22:10:39 +00:00

exarkun commented

2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets.

If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway).

If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction.

Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets. If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway). If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction. Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.