On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Robert Kukura wrote:
> [Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
> proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
> This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing development
> process can be use
>
> Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
> software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
accordance to the same principles and architectural choices made for the
service
>This is the statement that makes me trip over,
I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you are so incredibly
shocked by the stupidity of that statement that you fall down? Or does it
mean something else?
>Policy decision points can be decentralized from the system under scrutiny,
Unfor
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> We seem to be unable to address some key issues in the software we
> produce, and part of it is due to strategic contributors (and core
> reviewers) being overwhelmed just trying to stay afloat of what's
> happening. For such projects, is it
That sounds essentially correct. Note that all 15 vms aren't used in a
normal devtest run, but we create them all anyway because of some
difficulties adding new environments in some situations (namely CI, I
believe).
On 08/05/2014 11:27 AM, LeslieWang wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
"If we want to keep everything the way it is, we have to change everything"
[1]
This is pretty much how I felt after reading this proposal, and I felt that
this quote, which Ivar will probably appreciate, was apt to the situation.
Recent events have spurred a discussion about the need for a change
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 08/05/2014 09:03 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is
>> facing complex challenges. How we handle those might determine the
>> ultimate success or failure o
On 8 August 2014 14:55, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >This is the statement that makes me trip over,
>
> I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you are so incredibly
> shocked by the stupidity of that statement that you fall down? Or does it
> mean something else?
>
Why would you think that? I
On 08/08/14 11:07, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
On 08/08/14 00:53, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 07/08/14 13:22, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
Hi all,
I have a ResourceGroup which wraps a custom resource defined in another
template:
servers:
type: OS::Heat::ResourceGroup
properties:
co
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> That’s right. The preferred approach is to put the register_opt() in
> *runtime* code somewhere before the option will be used. That might be in
> the constructor for a class that uses an option, for example, as described
> in
> http://docs
On Aug 8, 2014, at 14:09 , Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 08/06/2014 01:40 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
>>> On 06/08/14 13:30, Robert Collins wrote:
On 6 August 2014 17:27, Tom Fifield wrote:
> On 06/08/14 13:24, Robert Collins wrote:
>> What
Li Ma,
This is interesting, In general I am in favor of expanding the scope of any
read/write separation capabilities that we have. I'm not clear what exactly
you are proposing, hopefully you can answer some of my questions inline.
The thing I had thought of immediately was detection of whether an
If this is true, I think the issue is not on Neutron side but the Nova
side.
Neutron just receives and handles individual port requests. It has no
notion of the order in which they are attached to the VM.
Can you add the Nova tag to get some visibility to the Nova devs?
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
>> software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
>
>
> I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
> accordance to the same
Hi Eugene,
I dig into few medium priority bugs yesterday and today. Have added
comments there. I started from the bottom in the list at etherpad. I will
continue to go in the reverse order on daily basis as and when I get time.
Let me know if you need any specific help wrt this. ping me on irc (rms
> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the neutron
> common framework such as Keystone authentication where common scoping is
> done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to have such
> scoping
>
The framework you're referring to is common and already reus
Hi,
Robert Kukura's proposal does address the following:
1. Make it explicit to the user that an API is in "preview" until it's
moved out of the preview directories
2. One of the criteria to accept a BP for preview is for the functionality
to be optional via configuration. This will not impact th
i like your idea, as an operator, it gives me new features while keep my
core running fine.
only one think i didn't like it
why all url,api, etc has to include the word 'preview'?
i imagine that i would be consuming the new feature using heat, puppet,
local scripts, custom horizon, whatever. Why
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
>> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the neutron
>> common framework such as Keystone authentication where common scoping is
>> done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to have such
>> scoping
>>
On 08/09/2014 04:34 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> I'll upload a new tarball ASAP. I took down the wrong one. Sorry for the
>> inconvenience... the issues here are not a policy problem, they are just
>> human error in the original tag, complicated by CI staleness that made
>>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the
>>> neutron common framework such as Keystone authentication where common
>>> scoping is done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to
>>> have su
Hi Kyle-
I’m using a paid hosting from GODADDY. The website is
http://fslopenstackci.com. I registered this domain too.
This time it’s not a free hosting that I used long back.
I’m posting to this domain from past 3 months.
Does anyone have the same issue with my logs website?
--
Trinath
Hi Sumit-
When I try to paste a large log text into paste.openstack, It is giving me
image verification and says its spam.
I don't know why its taken as spam/malware. It's a paid hosting I had from
GODADDY.
--
Trinath Somanchi - B39208
trinath.soman...@freescale.com | extn: 4048
-Original
On 08/08/2014 02:53 PM, jswar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I'm unable to retrigger the turbo-hipster verification job on a change
> ("recheck migrations" comment retriggers Jenkins but not turbo-hipster)
> and I sent an e-mail to rc...@rcbops.com two days ago and still have not
> received a re
On 08/08/2014 10:06 PM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com wrote:
> Hi Sumit-
>
> When I try to paste a large log text into paste.openstack, It is giving me
> image verification and says its spam.
Let's not confuse paste.openstack.org's spam blocker from spam blockers
on servers. They are two separat
On 08/08/2014 07:58 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is
>>> facing complex challenges. Ho
Thanks anita for the reply.
Previously the existing server is accessible by kyle. But now its not being
accessible.
For the paid hosting I have its administered by godaddy and the FTP is only
accessed by Jenkins.
I can try relocating FTP web based file browser script and provide a normal
vi
On 08/08/2014 11:27 PM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com wrote:
> Thanks anita for the reply.
>
> Previously the existing server is accessible by kyle. But now its not being
> accessible.
>
> For the paid hosting I have its administered by godaddy
If you are paying godaddy to administer the serve
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
