Update patch set 5

Patch Set 5:

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 5
Reviewer: Gerrit User 7144 <7144@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543>

975c7280c649e390625700604c793d41bf05e32c

@@ -606,6 +606,30 @@
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": true
     },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "d1f22753_0be150f5",
+        "filename": "specs/xena/directord-orchestration.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 421,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 7144
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2021-08-11T13:36:30Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "That\u0027s not quite what I said.\n\nMy concern is more about taskflow, as I\u0027d want to see agreement that the core team is willing to maintain that going forward. Just like we do with Heat and Ansible. I don\u0027t think we know enough now to make that agreement. We\u0027d have to prove it out with a POC that is at least on scale with the complexity of an existing tripleo deployment.\n\nI don\u0027t see a lot of activity in taskflow, and even if there were, activity isn\u0027t a predictable indicator of future maintenance (see Heat, Mistral, Ansible).\n\nI\u0027m more leaning towards one or the other (Heat or taskflow or something else). That is why I proposed the alternative in my comment about clean room, with support for opt-in backwards compatibility.",
+      "parentUuid": "c8af848d_d71246e8",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 421,
+        "startChar": 24,
+        "endLine": 421,
+        "endChar": 71
+      },
+      "revId": "975c7280c649e390625700604c793d41bf05e32c",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": true
+    },
     {
       "key": {
         "uuid": "975093cb_cbd9f7bf",