Since people will be on a plane soon,
I threw this together as a example of a quota engine (the zookeeper code
does even work, and yes it provides transactional semantics due to the
nice abilities of zookeeper znode versions[1] and its inherent
consistency model, yippe).
https://gist.github.
Hi,
I wanted to add my yaml as new resources (via
/etc/heat/environment.d/default.yaml, but we use some external files in the
OS::Nova::Server personality section.
It looks like the heat cli handles that when you pass yaml to it, but I
couldn't get it to work either through horizon, or even he
In case it wasn't already assumed, anyone is welcome to contact me directly
(irc: gus, email, or in Austin) if they have questions or want help with
privsep integration work. It's early days still and the docs aren't
extensive (ahem).
os-brick privsep change just recently merged (yay), and I have
I got confirmation from Mesosphere that we can use the open source DC/OS in
Magnum now, it is a good time to enhance the Mesos Bay to Open Source DCOS.
From Mesosphere
DC/OS software is licensed under the Apache License, so you should feel
free to use it within the
Safe travels! See you in austin.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tony Breeds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:13:15PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as
> > many of you are. With that in mind, we are going to hold off on
> >
@hongbin,
FYI, there is a patch from yolanda to using fedora atomic images built
in our mirros https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306283/
On 2016年04月22日 10:41, Hongbin Lu wrote:
Hi team,
Based on a request, I created a link to the latest atomic image that
Magnum is using:
https://fedorape
Hi team,
Based on a request, I created a link to the latest atomic image that Magnum is
using: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/magnum/fedora-atomic-latest.qcow2 . We
plan to keep this link pointing to the newest atomic image so that we can avoid
updating the name of the image for every image up
Inline below ... thread is too long, will catch you in Austin.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:08 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] More on the topic of DELIMITER, the Quota
> Mana
Hi
I get the latest sources and delete the /etc/vitrage/vitrage.conf,do
unstack.sh and stack.sh.
But deploy failed. The local.cnof is the same as before.
Is there any vitrage configures i missed?
Use openstack user create cli to create nova,glance and etc is successful.
Thanks for your help. :)
H
On 3/31/2016 7:31 AM, Znoinski, Waldemar wrote:
[WZ] See comments below about full/small wiki but would the below is enough or
you'd want or to see more:
- networking-ci runs (with exceptions):
tempest.api.network
tempest.scenario.test_network_basic_ops
- nfv-ci runs (with exceptions):
tempest
On 3/30/2016 8:47 PM, yongli he wrote:
Hi, mriedem
Shaohe is on vacation. And Intel SRIOV CI comment to Neutron. running
the macvtap vnic SRIOV testing and plus required neutron smoking test.
[4] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/Intel-SRIOV-CI
Regards
Yongli He
在 2016年0
On 04/21/2016 07:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hmm, where do I start... I think I will just cut to the two primary
disagreements I have. And I will top-post because this email is way too
big.
1) On serializable isolation level.
No, you don't need it at all to prevent races in claiming. Just use a
com
On 04/20/2016 06:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Note that I think the only time Nova gets details about ports in the API
during a server create request is when doing the network request
validation, and that's only if there is a fixed IP address or specific
port(s) in the request, otherwise Nova jus
I like Malini’s suggestion on meeting for a lunch to get to know each other,
then continue on Thursday.
So let’s meet at "Salon C" for lunch from 12:30pm~1:50pm on Wednesday and then
continue the discussion at Room 400 at 3:10pm Thursday.
Since Salon C is a big room, I will put a sign “Common Flo
Hmm, where do I start... I think I will just cut to the two primary
disagreements I have. And I will top-post because this email is way too big.
1) On serializable isolation level.
No, you don't need it at all to prevent races in claiming. Just use a
compare-and-update with retries strategy. P
Yup, Murano indeed may be part of the solution. The problem is much larger then
any one single OpenStack project though, so its good to have the discussions
with the various projects to see where the pieces best fit. If Magnum at the
end of the day rejects the idea that a COE abstraction is not
+1. That's a very good list. Thanks for writing it up. :)
Kevin
From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:16 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalo
Amrith,
Very well thought out. Thanks. :)
I agree a nova driver that let you treat containers the same way as vm's, bare
metal, and lxc containers would be a great thing, and if it could plug into
magnum managed clusters well, would be awesome.
I think a bit of the conversation around it gets
Thats cool. Hopefully something great will come of it. :)
Thanks for sharing the link. :)
Kevin
From: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:06 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:13:15PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as
> many of you are. With that in mind, we are going to hold off on
> releasing anything until 2 May, unless there is some sort of critical
> issue or gate blockage.
Hi Monty,
I respect your position, but I want to point out that there is not only one
human wants this. There are a group of people want this. I have been working
for Magnum in about a year and a half. Along the way, I have been researching
how to attract users to Magnum. My observation is ther
Yeah. its good to disagree and talk through it. sometimes there just isn't a
way to see eye to eye on something. thats fine too. I was just objecting to the
assertion:
"I do not believe anyone in the world wants us to build an
> abstraction layer on top of the _use_ of swarm/k8s/mesos. People wh
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Franck Barillaud wrote:
> I've been using Kola to deploy Mitaka on x86 and it works great. Now I would
> like to do the same thing on IBM Power8 systems (ppc64). I've setup a local
> registry with an Ubuntu image.
> I've docker and a local registry running on a Po
Thanks! somehow I missed it earlier.
On 4/11/16 9:53 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 06:18 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed on a recent merge to glance [1] that the bot updated the bug
>> [2] with comment from "in progress" to "fix released" vs. earlier
>> behavi
I've been using Kola to deploy Mitaka on x86 and it works great. Now I
would like to do the same thing on IBM Power8 systems (ppc64). I've setup
a local registry with an Ubuntu image.
I've docker and a local registry running on a Power8 system. When I issue
the following command:
kolla-build -
As I was preparing some thoughts for the Board/TC meeting on Sunday that will
discuss this topic, I made the notes below and was going to post them on a
topic specific etherpad but I didn't find one.
I want to represent the view point of a consumer of compute services in
OpenStack. Trove is a c
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Bray [mailto:keith.b...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:11 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified
> abstraction for all COEs
>
>
100% agreed on all your points… with the addition that the level of
functionality you are asking for doesn’t need to be baked into an API
service such as Magnum. I.e., Magnum doesn’t have to be the thing
providing the easy-button app deployment — Magnum isn’t and shouldn’t be a
Docker Hub alternat
I thought this was also what the goal of https://cncf.io/ was starting
to be? Maybe to early to tell if that standardization will be an real
outcome vs just an imagined outcome :-P
-Josh
Fox, Kevin M wrote:
The COE's have a pressure not to standardize their api's between competing
COE's. If
+1 on Wednesday lunch
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka
wrote:
> Cathy Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the
>> two topics.
>> Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C"
>> during Mo
On 04/21/2016 03:18 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Here's where we disagree.
We may have to agree to disagree.
Your speaking for everyone in the world now, and all you need is one
counter example. I'll be that guy. Me. I want a common abstraction
for some common LCD stuff.
We also disagree on this
Team,
A "bicycle" will have to be present anyway, as a code which interacts with
Ansible, because as far as I understand Ansible on it's own cannot provide
all the functionality in one go, so a wrapper for it will have to be
present anyway.
I think me and Alexander we will look into converting Ti
I believe you just described Murano.
On 04/21/2016 03:31 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
There are a few reasons, but the primary one that affects me is Its from the
app-catalog use case.
To gain user support for a product like OpenStack, you need users. The easier you make it
to use, the more users
There are a few reasons, but the primary one that affects me is Its from the
app-catalog use case.
To gain user support for a product like OpenStack, you need users. The easier
you make it to use, the more users you can potentially get. Traditional
Operating Systems learned this a while back.
Here's where we disagree.
Your speaking for everyone in the world now, and all you need is one counter
example. I'll be that guy. Me. I want a common abstraction for some common LCD
stuff.
Both Sahara and Trove have LCD abstractions for very common things. Magnum
should too.
You are falsely a
On 4/21/16 1:38 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> This might be harder in retrying, but I think I can help u make
> something that will work, since retrying has a way to provide a custom
> delay function.
Thanks for that. My question was if this might be useful as a new
backoff in retrying (vs a custom
On 04/21/2016 04:04 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 04/21/2016 02:08 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>> The first cross-project design summit tracks were held at the following
>> summit, in Atlanta, though I recall it lacking the necessary
>> participation to be successful. Today, we have many more
If you don¹t want a user to have to choose a COE, can¹t we just offer an
option for the operator to mark a particular COE as the ³Default COE² that
could be defaulted to if one isn¹t specified in the Bay create call? If
the operator didn¹t specify a default one, then the CLI/UI must submit one
in
On 04/21/2016 02:08 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck
mailto:krotsch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey everyone-
So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons
are varied - internal sponsors have moved to other project
I agree with that, and thats why providing some bare minimum abstraction will
help the users not have to choose a COE themselves. If we can't decide, why can
they? If all they want to do is launch a container, they should be able to
script up "magnum launch-container foo/bar:latest" and get one.
Boden Russell wrote:
I haven't spent much time on this, so the answers below are a first
approximation based on a quick visual inspection (e.g. subject to change
when I get a chance to hack on some code).
On 4/21/16 12:10 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
Can you share more details on the "few thing
The COE's have a pressure not to standardize their api's between competing
COE's. If you can lock a user into your api, then they cant go to your
competitor.
The standard api really needs to come from those invested in not being locked
in. OpenStack's been largely about that since the beginning
+1.
From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:50 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified
abstraction for all COEs
> -Origi
Ricardo,
That is great! It is good to hear Magnum works well in your side.
Best regards,
Hongbin
> -Original Message-
> From: Ricardo Rocha [mailto:rocha.po...@gmail.com]
> Sent: April-21-16 1:48 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openst
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck
wrote:
> Hey everyone-
>
> So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
> varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has
> drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format
Cathy Zhang wrote:
Hi everyone,
We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the
two topics.
Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C"
during Monday or Wednesday lunch time.
Room 400 at 3:10pm is a closed room while the Salon C is a big
I haven't spent much time on this, so the answers below are a first
approximation based on a quick visual inspection (e.g. subject to change
when I get a chance to hack on some code).
On 4/21/16 12:10 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> Can you share more details on the "few things we need" that
> retr
I vote for Monday to get the ball rolling, meet the interested parties, and
Continue on Thursday at 3:10 in a quieter setting ... so we leave with some
consensus.
Thanks Cathy!
Malini
-Original Message-
From: Cathy Zhang [mailto:cathy.h.zh...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>
> On 21/04/16 19:40, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>
> >Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200:
> >> Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So.. while I understand the need for calmer parties during the week, I
> >> think
On 21/04/16 19:40, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200:
>> Michael Krotscheck wrote:
>>
>>
>> So.. while I understand the need for calmer parties during the week, I
>> think the general trends is to have less parties and more small group
Hi everyone,
We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the two
topics.
Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C" during
Monday or Wednesday lunch time.
Room 400 at 3:10pm is a closed room while the Salon C is a big open room which
can host
Boden Russell wrote:
On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we
need minor modifications, before we create something new.
We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirements).
It lacks a few things we need,
Salvatore Orlando wrote:
On 21 April 2016 at 16:54, Boden Russell mailto:boden...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we
> need minor modifications, before we create something new.
W
On 4/11/2016 3:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
A few people have been asking about planning for the nova midcycle for
newton. Looking at the schedule [1] I'm thinking weeks R-15 or R-11 work
the best. R-14 is close to the US July 4th holiday, R-13 is during the
week of the US July 4th holiday, and R
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-21 17:54:37 +:
> On 2016-04-21 13:40:15 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > I didn't realize the tag was being used that way. I agree it's
> > completely inappropriate, and I wish someone had asked.
> [...]
>
> It's likely seen by s
The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as
many of you are. With that in mind, we are going to hold off on
releasing anything until 2 May, unless there is some sort of critical
issue or gate blockage. Please feel free to submit release requests to
openstack/releases, but
On 21 April 2016 at 16:54, Boden Russell wrote:
> On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we
> > need minor modifications, before we create something new.
>
> We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirem
On 2016-04-21 17:54:56 + (+), Adrian Otto wrote:
> Below is an excerpt from:
> https://www.openstack.org/legal/community-code-of-conduct/
>
> "When we disagree, we consult others. Disagreements, both social
> and technical, happen all the time and the OpenStack community is
> no exception.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM Monty Taylor wrote:
> Neat! Maybe let's find a time at the summit to sit down and look through
> things. I'm guessing that adding a second language consumer to the
> config will raise a ton of useful questions around documentation, data
> format, etc - but those w
Hi.
The thread is a month old, but I sent a shorter version of this to
Daneyon before with some info on the things we dealt with to get
Magnum deployed successfully. We wrapped it up in a post (there's a
video linked there with some demos at the end):
http://openstack-in-production.blogspot.ch/20
On 2016-04-21 13:40:15 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> I didn't realize the tag was being used that way. I agree it's
> completely inappropriate, and I wish someone had asked.
[...]
It's likely seen by some as a big-tent proxy for the old integrated
vs. incubated distinction.
--
Jerem
Excerpts from Colette Alexander's message of 2016-04-21 08:07:52 -0700:
> >
> >
> > >> Colette Alexander wrote:
> > >>> Hi everyone!
> > >>>
> > >>> Quick summary of where we're at with leadership training: dates are
> > >>> confirmed as available with ZingTrain, and we're finalizing trainers
> > >
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200:
> Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> > So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
> > varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent
> > has drastically increased the # of cores, and th
Folks,
I'd like to request workroom sessions swap.
I planned to lead a discussion of Fuel UI modularization on Wed
11.00-11.40, but at the same time there will be discussion of handling JS
dependencies of Horizon which I'd really like to attend.
So I request to swap my discussion with discussion
On 04/21/2016 11:03 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
On 21/04/16 17:38, "Hongbin Lu" wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][
On 04/21/2016 11:01 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 21/04/16 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joshua Harlow wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Adrian Otto wrote:
This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container
APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. Th
On 04/21/2016 10:35 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:28 AM Monty Taylor mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote:
On 04/21/2016 10:05 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
>> used piecemeal, however trying to maintain code con
On 04/21/2016 10:32 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:10 AM Hayes, Graham mailto:graham.ha...@hpe.com>> wrote:
On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
python-openstackclient does require the creation of a new repo for each
project (unless you are one of
Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think it's inappropriate because it gives a wrong incentive to become
a core reviewer. Core reviewing should just be a duty you sign up to,
not necessarily a way to get into a cool party. It was also a bit
exclusive of other types of contributions.
Apparently in Aus
Hello!
Today I'm happy to present you a demo of a new service called Glare (means
GLance Artifact REpository) which will be used as a unified catalog of
artifacts in OpenStack. This service appeared in Mitaka in February
and it succeeded
Glance v3 API, that has become the experimental version of G
On 21/04/16 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joshua Harlow wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Adrian Otto wrote:
This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container
APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. The
lowest common denominator of all COEs is an r
Michael Krotscheck wrote:
So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent
has drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format
change creates quite a bit of uncertainty on everything
There¹s one more issue with lowest common denominator API. Every time a
new version of native client is released, magnum will be responsible for
making those sure the common denominator API works with that version of
native client. Since the native client will always have more
functions/features th
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck
wrote:
> Hey everyone-
>
> So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
> varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has
> drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format
On 20/04/16 13:00, Rico Lin wrote:
Hi team
Let plan for more informal meetup(relax) time! Let all heaters and any
other projects can have fun and chance for technical discussions together.
After discuss in meeting, we will have a pre-meetup-meetup on Friday
morning to have a cup of cafe or some
Hey everyone-
So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has
drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format change
creates quite a bit of uncertainty on everything surrounding t
On 21/04/16 17:38, "Hongbin Lu" wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
>> Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build uni
+1 re Mon, though Fri could work as well.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Jay Dobies wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/16 1:00 PM, Rico Lin wrote:
>
>> Hi team
>> Let plan for more informal meetup(relax) time! Let all heaters and any
>> other projects can have fun and chance for technical discussions togeth
Hello folks.
As we agreed at the last IRC meeting [1], RefStack weekly IRC meetings will
be moved to Tuesday at 19:00 UTC [2]. In addition, the next two meetings
are skipped. We will resume weekly IRC meeting on Tuesday May 10, 2016.
[1]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/refstack/2016/r
On 2016-04-21 14:05:17 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> On 20 April 2016 at 03:00, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> > When we were firming up the constraints idea in Vancouver, if my
> > memory is correct (which it quite often is not these days), part of
> > the long tail Robert suggested was t
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:28 AM Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 04/21/2016 10:05 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> > On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> >> used piecemeal, however trying to maintain code consistency across
> >> multiple different projects is a hard lesson that others have already
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified
> abstraction for all COEs
>
>
> > On Apr 2
The work on the plug-ins can still be done by Magnum core contributors (or
anyone). My point is that the work doesn’t have to be code-coupled to
Magnum except via the plug-in interface, which, like heat resources,
should be relatively straight forward. Creating the plug-in framework in
this way all
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:10 AM Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
>
> python-openstackclient does require the creation of a new repo for each
> project (unless you are one of the chosen few).
>
> Does this mean you will accept all projects to the library, or ju
On 04/21/2016 10:05 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
[...]
New: js-openstacklib
This new project will be incubated as a single, gate-tested JavaScript
API client library for the OpenStack API’s. Its audience is software
engineers who wish to build their ow
+1
From: "Fox, Kevin M" mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:14 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-d
>
>
> >> Colette Alexander wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone!
> >>>
> >>> Quick summary of where we're at with leadership training: dates are
> >>> confirmed as available with ZingTrain, and we're finalizing trainers
> >>> with them right now. *June 28/29th in Ann Arbor, Michigan.*
> >>>
> >>> https://ether
On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
[...]
> New: js-openstacklib
>
> This new project will be incubated as a single, gate-tested JavaScript
> API client library for the OpenStack API’s. Its audience is software
> engineers who wish to build their own user interface using modern
> javascr
Hello folks.
As we agreed at the last meeting [0], the next two meetings are skipped (28
Apr and 5 May)
[0]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/sahara/2016/sahara.2016-04-21-14.00.log.html#l-126
--
Best Regards,
Vitaly Gridnev
Mirantis, Inc
__
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Gordon [mailto:sgor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: April-21-16 9:39 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified
> abstraction for all COEs
>
> - Original Messa
On 19/04/16 16:52, Irina Povolotskaya wrote:
> Hi to everyone,
>
> as you possibly know (at least, those dev. teams working on their Fuel
> plugins) we have a fuel-plugins Launchpad project [1] which serves as
> all-in-one entry point for filing bugs, related
> to plugin-specific problems.
>
> neve
Dear all,
I am glad to announce Mitaka release of Fuel (a.k.a Fuel 9.0) - deployment
and lifecycle management tool for OpenStack.
This release introduces support for OpenStack Mitaka and adds
a number of new features and enhancements.
Some highlights:
- Support lifecycle management operations
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:22:46AM -0400, John Dennis wrote:
> On 04/18/2016 12:34 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> >(** ECP is a new feature, not supported by all IdP's, that at (second)
> >best requires reconfiguration of core authentication services at each
> >customer, and at worst requires custome
On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we
> need minor modifications, before we create something new.
We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirements).
It lacks a few things we need, but those can be impl
Hi all,
So I've been attempting to beat our launchpad project into shape today, and
have made a few changes with a view to making the tool more useful for
tracking things during the Newton cycle:
1. New "TripleO Drivers" team
I created https://launchpad.net/~tripleo-drivers which is a restricted
FWIW, we were using retrying in oslo.concurrency at one point:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130872
It looks like that got removed somewhere in the move to fasteners though.
On 04/20/2016 04:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-04-20 22:16:10 +0100:
>>
>> Wi
This post contains the current working draft of the JavaScript roadmap
which myself and Beth Elwell will be working on in Newton. It’s a big list,
and we need help - Overall themes for this cycle are Consistency,
Interoperability, and engaging with the JavaScript community at large. Our
end goal is
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Adrian Otto wrote:
>>> This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container
>>> APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. The
>>> lowest common denominator of all COEs is an
On 04/18/2016 12:34 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
(** ECP is a new feature, not supported by all IdP's, that at (second)
best requires reconfiguration of core authentication services at each
customer, and at worst requires customers to change IdP software
completely. This is a varying degree of show
Hi Igor,
Thanks for understanding. Let's continue the discussion over the submitted
spec.
Thanks
Vikram
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Duarte Cardoso, Igor <
igor.duarte.card...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Vikram,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response. I’m happy to provide enhancements instead of
> buil
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo