On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 01:28 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Proxying from yahoo's open source director (since he wasn't initially
subscribed to this list, afaik he now is) on his behalf.
From Gil Yehuda (Yahoo’s Open Source director).
I would urge you to avoid creating a dependency between
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 12:37 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
Let me start by saying that I want there to be a constructive discussion
around all this. I've done my best to keep my tone as non-snarky as I could
while still clearly stating my concerns. I've also spent a few hours
reviewing
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 12:07 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Monty Taylor wrote:
On 03/20/2014 01:30 AM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
The problem with AGPL is that the scope is very uncertain and the
determination of the consequences are very fact intensive. I was the
chair of the User Committee
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 10:17 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
So this came up briefly at the tripleo sprint, and since I can't seem
to find a /why/ document
(https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Marconi/Incubation#Raised_Questions_.2B_Answers
and https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Marconi#Design don't
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:31 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
Hi All,
I discussion recently came up inside of nova about what it means
supported version for a dependency means. in libvirt we gate on the
minimal version that we support but for all python dependencies we
gate on the highest version
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Steve Gordon wrote:
From: Anne Gentle anne.gen...@rackspace.com
Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the
OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service names
at
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:29 +, Greg Hill wrote:
I'm new, so I'm sure there's some history I'm missing, but I find it
bizarre that we have to put the same license into every single file of
source code in our projects. In my past experience, a single LICENSE
file at the root-level of the
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote:
Hello all,
It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug reported,
we probably need to mark this as Critical.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1268614
Ivan Melnikov has pushed a patchset waiting for
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:19 +0900, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/05/2014 12:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote:
Hello all,
It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug
reported,
we probably need to mark
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:34 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hope you don't mind, I'll jump in here :)
On Thu, 2014-01-09
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 11:25 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I'm not totally convinced we need such formality around the TC
expressing its support for an early-stage program/project/effort/team.
This is a difficult balance.
You want to help a number of projects
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 13:44 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
How about if we had an emerging projects page where the TC feedback on
each project would be listed?
That would give visibility to our feedback, without making it a yes/no
blessing. Ok, whether to list any
a bug on the oslo end.
Yes, that's working as designed.
Those two options are registered by __call__() so reset() unregisters
only them.
The idea is that you can register lots and then do __call__() and
reset() without affecting the registered options.
Mark.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Mark
On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 13:33 +0100, Jiří Stránský wrote:
Hi all,
TL;DR: I believe that As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants a
CLI for managing the deployment providing the same fundamental features
as UI. With the planned architecture changes (making tuskar-api thinner
and
Hi Gordon,
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 18:36 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 11/18/2013 04:44 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
IIRC, one of the concerns when oslo.messaging was split out was
maintaining support for existing deployments
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 11:11 -0600, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 2013-12-09 10:55, Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/09/2013 11:38 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2013-12-09 08:17:45 -0800:
On 12/06/2013 05:40 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 2013-12-06 16:30, Clint Byrum wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:49 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday December 11, 2013 we will remove the ability to use
reverify no bug to re-trigger gate runs for changes that have failed
tests.
This was previously discussed[1] on this list. There are a few key
things to keep in
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 09:40 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
On 6 December 2013 14:11, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote:
I think the security issue can be handled by not actually giving the
underlying resource to the user in the first place.
So, for example, if I wanted a bare metal
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for
AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers
for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal would be
to add an
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
responsibility, and that has
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:45 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Julien Danjou wrote:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/messaging-decouple-cfg
So I've gone through the code and started to write a plan on how I'd do
things:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:41 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Mark,
If the goal is allow applications to use oslo.messaging without using
oslo.config, then what's driving this? I'm guessing some possible
answers:
5) But I want to avoid any
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:00 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I have updated the Oslo wiki page with these details and would appreciate
feedback on the wording used there.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#Graduation
Thanks Doug, that sounds perfect to me.
Mark.
Hi Kevin,
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 12:39 -0800, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Hi all,
I just want to run a crazy idea up the flag pole. TripleO has the
concept of an under and over cloud. In starting to experiment with
Docker, I see a pattern start to emerge.
* As a User, I may want to allocate a
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +, Douglas Mendizabal wrote:
I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so
much that the project did something different, but rather that choice
was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine
for them to ignore
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 05:01 +, John Wood wrote:
Hello folks,
I was curious if there is an OpenStack project that would be a good
example to follow as we convert Barbican over to oslo messaging.
I've been examining existing OpenStack projects such as Ceilometer and
Keystone to see how
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of
oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make
a commitment to API stability.
It's often
.
On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of
oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API
to commit to API stability.
Mark.
On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:02 +0200, Victor Sergeyev wrote:
Hi folks!
At the moment I and Roman Podoliaka are working on splitting of
openstack.common.db code into a separate library. And it would be nice to
drop dependency on eventlet before oslo.db is released.
Currently, there is only
Hey
Anyone got an update on this?
The keystone blueprint for KDS was marked approved on Tuesday:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server
and a new keystone review was added on Sunday, but it must be a draft
since I can't access it:
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 11:50 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 26/11/13 22:54 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote:
1) Store the commit sha from which the module
Hi,
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:45 +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote:
Moving this to the ml as requested, would appreciate
comments/thoughts/feedback.
Thanks, I too would appreciate input from others.
So, I recently proposed a small patch to the oslo rpc code (initially in
oslo-incubator then
Hi Jarda,
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:39 +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
I think here is the main point where I disagree and which leads to
different approaches. I don't think, that user of TripleO cares *only*
about deploying infrastructure without any knowledge where the things
go. This is
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 14:32 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
I would like to propose that we re-add Dan Prince to the nova-core
review team.
Dan Prince has been involved with Nova since early in OpenStack's
history (Bexar timeframe). He was a member of the nova-core review team
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 13:06 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I tend to follow merges and look for valuable havana backports. A few bug
fixes have merged recently where the associated bug is untriaged (i.e. the
severity is listed as 'Unknown'). I assume that reviewers of a bugfix
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013 8:48 AM, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Collins
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on the recent discussion that came out about not having enough
information in the commit message when syncing oslo-incubator modules,
I was
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 22 November 2013 14:59, Ben Nemec openst...@nemebean.com wrote:
One other thought I had was to add the ability to split one Oslo sync up
into multiple commits, either one per module, or even one per Oslo commit
for some really
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:06 -0600, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
However, as was apparent in the Technical Committee meeting discussion
about it yesterday, most of us are not convinced that establishing and
blessing a
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for
multiple reasons.
- Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having to
wait for a new project to make its
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 15:53 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
I would like to propose adding Matt Riedemann to the nova-core review team.
Matt has been involved with nova for a long time, taking on a wide range
of tasks. He writes good code. He's very engaged with the development
On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 10:43 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 11/19/2013 09:33 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
The idea of this proposal is that every OpenStack project should have
story wiki page. It means to publish every week one short message that
contains most
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:05 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
Scared, heh :)
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark.
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:37 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I'm struggling to care about this until I have some insight into why
it's important. And it's a bit frustrating to have to guess the
rationale for this. Like commit messages, blueprints
Hey Doug,
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:46 +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
Dear OpenStack devs,
A recent review [1] dragged into spotlight how damaging improper use of
external code inside migrations can be.
Basically in my mind the incident raises 2 issues that I think we should
look into:
1) How can
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and asking for more info, but
they keep popping up. I'm really not
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:00 +, Swartzlander, Ben wrote:
Please consider our formal request for incubation status of the Manila
project:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila_Overview
Note that the Manila application was discussed at last week's TC
meeting.
I tried to take some
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 07:40 +, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
We need to distinguish between (1) adding the modules to the Core
OpenStack Project which requires a recommendation by the TC and
approval by the Board and (2) adding the modules to an integrated
release (including Core OpenStack
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself OpenStack Blah
then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
and core. It seems
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 23:06 -0600, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
The current difference in implementation is that to be part of the
Core OpenStack Project, a module must receive Board approval to be in
that set. Another intended difference is that the Core OpenStack
Project definition would be used as
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 07:58 -0600, m...@openstack.org wrote:
Yes.
Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.
1)
*Can* the projects themselves use the word OpenStack such as
OpenStack Orchestration?
Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a done deal and we are
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 11:28 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
We've talked a lot about requirements for new compute drivers [1]. I
think the same sort of standards shold be applied for a new third-party
API, such as the GCE API [2].
Before we can consider taking on a new API, it
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:19 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:01 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 11:28 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
We've talked a lot about requirements for new compute drivers [1]. I
think the same sort of standards shold
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 06:57 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
(Apologies, this started on the TC list, and really should have started
on -dev, correctly posting here now for open discussion)
There were a few chats at summit about this, mostly on the infra /
devstack / qa side of the house. Consider
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:47 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:34 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:16 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Thanks for weighing in, I do hope to keep the conversation going.
Add
to track more complex affiliations.
Our affiliation databases are all keyed off email addresses right now,
so how about if we allowed for encoding affiliation/sponsorship in
addresses? e.g.
Author: Mark McLoughlin markmc+...@redhat.com
and we could register that address as work done by Mark on behalf
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 11:41 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 11/11/2013 10:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:20 +0100, Nicolas Barcet wrote:
Dear TC members,
Our companies are actively encouraging our respective customers to have the
patches
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 09:32 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
On 7 November 2013 13:15, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
Core reviewers look for the /comments/ from people, not just the votes. A
+1 from someone that isn't core is meaningless unless they are known to be
a thoughtful
/able to set up such filtering.)
I know you're discounting filtering here, but FWIW I filter on the email
body containing:
Gerrit-Reviewer: Mark McLoughlin
so that I have all email related to reviews I'm subscribed to in a
single folder. I try hard to stay on top of this folder to avoid being
Hi Nikola,
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:44 +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
Hey all,
During the summit session on the the VMWare driver roadmap, a topic of
validating the passed configuration prior to starting services came up
(see [1] for more detail on how it's connected to that specific topic).
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:07 +, John Garbutt wrote:
On 11 November 2013 10:27, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services)
andrea.r...@hp.com wrote:
Hi
Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
That is my understanding too
+1
But I don't think we should
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 15:37 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
This is a bit of a social norms thread
I've been consistently asking for tests in reviews for a while now,
and I get the occasional push-back. I think this falls into a few
broad camps:
A - there is no test suite at all, adding
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 11:49 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
Another idea that Tom suggested is to use gerrit automation to send back
to first time committers something in addition to the normal 'your patch
is waiting for review' message. The message could be something like:
thank you for
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 21:50 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey all!
We're adding a little bit of code to pbr to make the auto-generated
ChangeLog files a bit more useful. Currently, they are just the git
changelog, which is kinda useless. So we wrote this:
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/22/2013 04:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Talk to the Trove developers and politely ask them whether the copyright
notices in their code reflects what they see as the reality.
I'm sure it would help them if you pointed out
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:19 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/22/2013 04:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
At least
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would
like to know more about
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW queue...
I'm sorry, that is downstream Debian pain
Hi Flavio,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 14:40 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
I'd like to propose to change both ListOpt and DictOpt default values
to [] and {} respectively. These values are, IMHO, saner defaults than
None for this 2 options and behavior won't be altered - unles `is not
Hi
I'd like to offer my self as a candidate for the Technical Committee
election.
About me
I've been working on OpenStack for over two years now and have
particularly focused my contributions on Nova and Oslo, but have also
contributed in smaller ways to most other OpenStack projects.
For the
Hey
I meant to send this as soon as nominations opened - I figure that
incumbent PTLs should make it clear if they don't intend to nominate
themselves for re-election.
To that end - I'm not going to put myself forward for election as Oslo
PTL this time around. This is purely based on a gut
On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 09:16 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I am running for PTL for the OpenStack Common Libraries (Oslo) project.
Excellent!
Doug has been a superb contributor to Oslo and I've particularly
appreciated his keen eye for Python API design. I've no doubt that Doug
would make a
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 15:22 -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
I can submit a summit proposal. I was thinking of making it
more general than just the Policy piece. Here is my proposed
session. Let me
On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and
admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova
to oslo.messaging:
https://review.openstack.org/39929
I'm
Hi
I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and
admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova to
oslo.messaging:
https://review.openstack.org/39929
While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it
would be massively helpful
adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off
on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week.
Cheers,
Mark.
thanks,
dims
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi
I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 01:14 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Agreed, any thoughts from the oslo folks on how this could be done
(without a major refactoring??). Can it even be done?
It will be a continuous problem for libraries which want to be
integrated with the various openstack projects,
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 14:12 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
This may interest data-driven types here.
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/11-proven-practices-for-peer-review/
Note specifically the citation of 200-400 lines as the knee of the review
effectiveness curve: that's
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 11:26 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 14:12 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
This may interest data-driven types here.
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/11-proven-practices-for-peer-review/
Note specifically the citation of 200
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 14:38 -0300, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Note that in some cases, some improvements that do not clearly fall
into the bug category are landed without a blueprint link (or a bug
link). So a first step could be to require that a review always
references a bug or a blueprint
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 18:02 -0300, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 14:06 -0300, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I explained why I prefer it to land in a few weeks rather than now...
Can someone explain why they prefer the reverse ? Why does it have to be
in havana ?
On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 22:09 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi
We're having an IRC meeting on Friday to sync up again on the messaging
work going on:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Oslo
https://etherpad.openstack.org/HavanaOsloMessaging
Feel free to add other topics
Hi
We're having an IRC meeting on Friday to sync up again on the messaging
work going on:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Oslo
https://etherpad.openstack.org/HavanaOsloMessaging
Feel free to add other topics to the wiki
See you on #openstack-meeting at 1400 UTC
Thanks,
Mark.
What do you mean by dangerous code merging in the subject? The body of
your mail doesn't make any reference to whatever danger you're seeing.
On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:16 +0400, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Hi All,
Could somebody answer me, why we are merging oslo code in other projects
and don't
On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 10:55 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Monty Taylor wrote:
* How do we handle proxies ? Giving temporary +2 to a non-TC member
sounds like a bit of pain
I do not think we'd need proxies anymore - as the vote wouldn't have to
happen within the IRC meeting.
Maybe
On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 11:49 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:39:44AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What do you mean by dangerous code merging in the subject? The body of
your mail doesn't make any reference to whatever danger you're seeing.
On Thu, 2013-08-08
On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:32 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 08/08/13 11:49 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:39:44AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What do you mean by dangerous code merging in the subject? The body of
your mail doesn't make any reference to whatever
On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 13:41 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey all!
Currently, there is runtime version handling code in pbr. It's been a
cause of concern for some folks because it means that pbr becomes a
runtime rather than just a build time dependency - so the suggestion has
come across that
Hi Henry,
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 22:10 +0100, Henry Nash wrote:
Hi Mark,
Of particular interest are your views on the changes to
keystone/common/config.py. The requirement is that we need to be able to
instantiate multiple conf objects (built from different sets of config
files). We
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 14:40 -0600, Mike Wilson wrote:
In my opinion:
1. Stop using rootwrap completely and get strong argument checking support
into sudo (regex).
2. Some sort of long lived rootwrap process, either forked by the service
that want's to shell out or a general purpose
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 09:00 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
Anthony Dodd has recently implemented some cool new features that we
discussed at the summit -- driving more automation from commit messages.
Here's what you need to know to use the new features:
Use header style references when
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 11:39 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Following past discussions[1] on the TC, here is my proposal to cover
for release management, stable branch management and VMT efforts within
OpenStack.
Feel free to suggest title or wording changes :)
Official Title: Release
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 10:36 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01 2013, Sam Morrison wrote:
OK so is it that ceilometer just leaves the message on the queue or
only consumes certain messages?
Ceilometer uses its own queue. There might be other processes consuming
this
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 10:36 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01 2013, Sam Morrison wrote:
OK so is it that ceilometer just leaves the message on the queue or
only consumes certain messages?
Ceilometer uses its own queue. There might be other processes consuming
this
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 15:10 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
I propose that we add Nikola Đipanov to the nova-core team [1].
Nikola has been actively contributing to nova for a while now, both in
code and reviews. He provides high quality reviews. so I think he would
make a good
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 09:31 -0700, Alex Gaynor wrote:
I believe Red Hat's new Software Collections things address this issue,
this is to the point which Django (which has historically used RHEL as a
barometer for when we could drop Pythons) will drop 2.6 in our next release.
Yep, that's a very
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 08:51 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
Hello
I have seen lots of discussions on blogs and twitter heating up around
Amazon API compatibility and OpenStack. This seems like a recurring
topic, often raised by pundits and recently joined by members of the
community. I think
101 - 200 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
