Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][bifrost][sushy][ironic-inspector][ironic-ui][virtualbmc] sub-project/repository core reviewer changes

[Shiina, Hironori]

+1

Hironori

> -Original Message-
> From: Julia Kreger [mailto:juliaashleykre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:24 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> 
> Subject: [openstack-dev] 
> [ironic][bifrost][sushy][ironic-inspector][ironic-ui][virtualbmc]
> sub-project/repository core reviewer changes
> 
> Greetings everyone!
> 
> In our team meeting this week we stumbled across the subject of
> promoting contributors to be sub-project's core reviewers.
> Traditionally it is something we've only addressed as needed or
> desired by consensus with-in those sub-projects, but we were past due
> time to take a look at the entire picture since not everything should
> fall to ironic-core.
> 
> And so, I've taken a look at our various repositories and I'm
> proposing the following additions:
> 
> For sushy-core, sushy-tools-core, and virtualbmc-core: Ilya
> Etingof[1]. Ilya has been actively involved with sushy, sushy-tools,
> and virtualbmc this past cycle. I've found many of his reviews and
> non-voting review comments insightful and willing to understand. He
> has taken on some of the effort that is needed to maintain and keep
> these tools usable for the community, and as such adding him to the
> core group for these repositories makes lots of sense.
> 
> For ironic-inspector-core and ironic-specs-core: Kaifeng Wang[2].
> Kaifeng has taken on some hard problems in ironic and
> ironic-inspector, as well as brought up insightful feedback in
> ironic-specs. They are demonstrating a solid understanding that I only
> see growing as time goes on.
> 
> For sushy-core: Debayan Ray[3]. Debayan has been involved with the
> community for some time and has worked on sushy from early on in its
> life. He has indicated it is near and dear to him, and he has been
> actively reviewing and engaging in discussion on patchsets as his time
> has permitted.
> 
> With any addition it is good to look at inactivity as well. It saddens
> me to say that we've had some contributors move on as priorities have
> shifted to where they are no longer involved with the ironic
> community. Each person listed below has been inactive for a year or
> more and is no longer active in the ironic community. As such I've
> removed their group membership from the sub-project core reviewer
> groups. Should they return, we will welcome them back to the community
> with open arms.
> 
> bifrost-core: Stephanie Miller[4]
> ironic-inspector-core: Anton Arefivev[5]
> ironic-ui-core: Peter Peila[6], Beth Elwell[7]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Julia
> 
> [1]: http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=etingof&metric=marks
> [2]: http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=kaifeng&metric=marks
> [3]: http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=deray&metric=marks&release=all
> [4]: http://stackalytics.com/?metric=marks&release=all&user_id=stephan
> [5]: http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=aarefiev&metric=marks
> [6]: http://stackalytics.com/?metric=marks&release=all&user_id=ppiela
> [7]: 
> http://stackalytics.com/?metric=marks&release=all&user_id=bethelwell&module=ironic-ui
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

[Shiina, Hironori]

+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Julia Kreger [mailto:juliaashleykre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:46 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> 
> Subject: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core
> 
> Greetings everyone!
> 
> I would like to propose Mark Goddard to ironic-core. I am aware he recently 
> joined kolla-core, but his contributions in ironic
> have been insightful and valuable. The kind of value that comes from 
> operative use.
> 
> I also make this nomination knowing that our community landscape is changing 
> and that we must not silo our team responsibilities
> or ability to move things forward to small highly focused team. I trust Mark 
> to use his judgement as he has time or need to
> do so. He might not always have time, but I think at the end of the day, 
> we’re all in that same boat.
> 
> -Julia

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Nominating Hironori Shiina for ironic-core

[Shiina, Hironori]

Thank you, everyone! I'm glad to join the team.

Thanks,
Hironori


差出人: Julia Kreger [juliaashleykre...@gmail.com]
送信日時: 2018年2月10日 0:22
宛先: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
件名: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Nominating Hironori Shiina for ironic-core

Since all of our ironic cores have replied and nobody has stated any
objections, I guess it is time to welcome Hironori to the team! I will
make the changes in gerrit after coffee.

Thanks everyone!

-Julia

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Sam Betts (sambetts)  wrote:
> +1
>
>

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Boot from Volume meeting?

[Shiina, Hironori]

Hi Julia,

Thank you for the proposal. It's a good idea to use a time slot of
ironic-neutron meeting.

Thanks,
Hiro Shiina

> -Original Message-
> From: Julia Kreger [mailto:juliaashleykre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:43 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> 
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Boot from Volume meeting?
> 
> Greetings fellow ironic humanoids!
> 
> As many have known, I've been largely attempting to drive Boot from
> Volume functionality in ironic over the past two years.  Largely, in a
> slow incremental approach, which is in part due to how I perceived it
> to best fit into the existing priorities when the discussions started.
> 
> During PTG there was quite the interest by multiple people to become
> involved and attempt to further Boot from Volume forward this cycle. I
> would like to move to having a weekly meeting with the focus of
> integrating this functionality into ironic, much like we did with the
> tighter neutron integration.
> 
> I have two reasons for proposing a new meeting:
> 
> * Detailed technical status updates and planning/co-ordination would
> need to take place. This would functionally be noise to a large number
> of contributors in the ironic community.
> 
> * Many of these details would need need to be worked out prior to the
> first part of the existing ironic meeting for the weekly status
> update. The update being a summary of the status of each sub team.
> 
> With that having been said, I'm curious if we could re-use the
> ironic-neutron meeting time slot [0] for this effort.  That meeting
> was cancelled just after the first of this year [1].  In it's place I
> think we should have a general purpose integration meeting, that could
> be used as a standing meeting, specifically reserved at this time for
> Boot from Volume work, but could be also by any integration effort
> that needs time to sync-up in advance of the existing meeting.
> 
> -Julia
> 
> [0] 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/irc-meetings/tree/meetings/ironic-neutron-integration-meeting.yaml
> [1] 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-January/109536.html
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Outlook on Ocata blueprints

[Shiina, Hironori]

Hi Matt,

In Not started / blocked group in 
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ocata-feature-freeze :
  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/inject-nmi-ironic (Tang Chen)
No Nova code changes yet, several Ironic patches outstanding, so probably 
not going to happen for Nova in Ocata.
Nova code change for this blueprint was already posted.
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376548/

Thanks,
Hironori Shiina

> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:19 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> 
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Outlook on Ocata blueprints
> 
> Over the last couple of days I've gone over each blueprint targeted for
> Ocata [1] which isn't yet implemented. I've categorized each based on
> it's current status or what my outlook is for it getting done in this
> release before the feature freeze on January 26th. The results are here:
> 
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ocata-feature-freeze
> 
> We have 69 blueprints targeted for Ocata of which only 14 are already
> implemented (complete). That leaves 55 outstanding blueprints.
> 
> I've broken them down as such:
> 
> - Good progress: there are 16 of these which I'm fairly confident can
> get merged before the feature freeze given enough focus. 5 of these are
> priorities.
> 
> - Slow progress / at risk: there are 19 of these which for one reason or
> another are at risk of not getting completed before the feature freeze.
> Some just haven't had enough (or any) core reviewer attention yet, or
> they are wayward changes that look basically abandoned. 2 of these are
> related to priorities.
> 
> - Not started / blocked: there are 13 of these. Some don't have any code
> proposed yet. Several are blocked because of dependencies on library
> releases or other projects (some for os-vif or Ironic for example). 2 of
> these are priorities.
> 
> - On-going refactor / cleanup series: there are 7 of these. I consider
> these lower priority as they are multi-release efforts and what doesn't
> get done in Ocata can be worked on in Pike.
> 
> --
> 
> As you'll see in the etherpad, I have notes on each one. If you own one
> of these blueprints and there is a note about something that needs to
> get done, please make that a priority if you want to see the blueprint
> have a chance of landing in Ocata.
> 
> Keep in mind that the non-client library release freeze for Ocata is
> January 19th, so if you have dependencies on os-* or oslo libraries
> those need to get released before the 19th, and then after that there is
> only one week until feature freeze. With most people out until the 3rd,
> that only leaves 3 weeks to get library changes released and 4 weeks
> until feature freeze.
> 
> If you know that you aren't going to have the time to work on something
> please let me know and we can look for volunteers to pick up the
> remaining work or I'll defer the blueprint out of tracking for Ocata so
> reviewers can focus on what's planned to get done.
> 
> If by January 12th we still have changes which haven't started I'll
> probably just automatically defer them.
> 
> Please let me know if there are any questions.
> 
> [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/ocata
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt Riedemann
> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][nova][horizon] Serial console support for ironic instances

[Shiina, Hironori]

Hi all,

I'm working with Tien who is a submitter of one[1] of console specs.
I joined the console session in Austin.

In the session, we got the following consensus.
- focus on serial console in Newton
- use nova-serial proxy as is

We also got some requirements[2] for this feature in the session.
We have started cooperating with Akira and Yuiko who submitted another similar 
spec[3].
We're going to unite our specs and add solutions for the requirements ASAP.

[1] ironic-ipmiproxy: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/296869/
[2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ironic-newton-summit-console
[3] ironic-console-server: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306755/

Thanks,
Hironori Shiina

> -Original Message-
> From: Akira Yoshiyama [mailto:akirayoshiy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:26 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> 
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][nova][horizon] Serial console support 
> for ironic instances
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Thank you Yuiko. I'll join the console session. See you at the venue.
> 
> 
> (2)Add console drivers using ironic-console-server
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302291/ (ironic-console-server)
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306754/ (console logging spec)
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306755/ (serial console spec)
> 
> 
> * Pros:
> - There is no influence to other components like nova and horizon.
> 
>   Only adding 2 methods to nova.virt.ironic.driver.IronicDriver
> 
> - No additional nova/ironic service required but a tool 
> (ironic-console-server)
> 
> - No change required for pre-existing console drivers
> - Output console log files; users can show them by 'nova console-log'
> 
>   ex. 
> https://github.com/yosshy/wiki/wiki/image/ironic_console_on_horizon-22.png
> 
> 
> * Cons:
> - Need to bump API microversion/RPC for Ironic because it has no console 
> logging capability now.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Akira
> 
> 
> 2016-04-13 17:47 GMT+09:00 Yuiko Takada   >:
> 
> 
>   Hi,
> 
>   I also want to discuss about it at summit session.
> 
> 
>   2016-04-13 0:41 GMT+09:00 Ruby Loo   >:
> 
> 
>   Yes, I think it would be good to have a summit session on that. 
> However, before the session, it would really
> be helpful if the folks with proposals got together and/or reviewed each 
> other's proposals, and summarized their findings.
> 
> 
>   I've summarized all of related proposals.
> 
>   (1)Add driver using Socat
>   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/293827/
> 
>   * Pros:
>   - There is no influence to other components
>   - Don't need to change any other Ironic drivers(like 
> IPMIShellinaboxConsole)
>   - Don't need to bump API microversion/RPC
> 
>   * Cons:
>   - Don't output log file
> 
>   (2)Add driver starting ironic-console-server
>   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302291/
>   (There is no spec, yet)
> 
>   * Pros:
>   - There is no influence to other components
>   - Output log file
>   - Don't need to change any other Ironic drivers(like 
> IPMIShellinaboxConsole)
>   - No adding any Ironic services required, only add tools
> 
>   * Cons:
>   - Need to bump API microversion/RPC
> 
>   (3)Add a custom HTTP proxy to Nova
>   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300582/
> 
>   * Pros:
>   - Don't need any change to Ironic API
> 
>   * Cons:
>   - Need Nova API changes(bump microversion)
>   - Need Horizon changes
>   - Don't output log file
> 
>   (4)Add Ironic-ipmiproxy server
>   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/296869/
> 
>   * Pros:
>   - There is no influence to other components
>   - Output log file
>   - IPMIShellinaboxConsole will be also available via Horizon
> 
>   * Cons:
>   - Need IPMIShellinaboxConsole changes?
>   - Need to bump API microversion/RPC
> 
>   If there is any mistake, please give me comment.
> 
> 
>   Best Regards,
>   Yuiko Takada
> 
>   2016-04-13 0:41 GMT+09:00 Ruby Loo   >:
> 
> 
>   Yes, I think it would be good to have a summit session on that. 
> However, before the session, it would really
> be helpful if the folks with proposals got together and/or reviewed each 
> other's proposals, and summarized their findings.
> You may find after reviewing the proposals, that eg only 2 are really 
> different. Or they several have merit because they are
> addressing slightly different issues. That would make it easier to 
> present/discuss/decide at the session.
> 
>   --ruby
> 
> 
> 
>   On 12 April 2016 at 09:17, Jim Rollenhagen 
> mailto:j...@jimrollenhagen.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:02:44AM +0800, Zhenguo Niu 
> wrote:
>   > Maybe we can continue the discussion here, as there's 
> no enough time in the
>