eview.openstack.org/#/c/204198
Sorry to be slow reviewing those, travel to the and paying attention
to the midcycle distracted me.
I've given them a review now, but there are some issues. Since they
are urgent, would you like me to pick them up and apply my desired
changes to them for you?
There seem to be quite a backlog in openstack/requirements.
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/requirements-reviewers-30.txt
there are roughly 10x new changes to the number of reviews cores are
managing to do.
This worries me, and I'd like to help.
How can I best do so?
-Rob
--
R
in the Ubuntu
trusty upload queue; I'll try to find out if there any unexpected
delays there etc.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usa
On 17 July 2015 at 15:49, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert Collins
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 6:48 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [
On 17 Jul 2015 12:30, "Steven Dake (stdake)" wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
>
> The bloat on the from-source comes from the C toolchain. The bloat on
the binary images comes from our common dependency layer. We can probably
just get rid of all the Python dependency installs that occur in the common
la
deprecate this in pbr (but not
remove - backwards compat is for life :)).
The other two are problematic because they are not synchronised with
global-requirements and that leads to things being out of sync across
the project, which leads to non-coinstallability and confusion.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
we have a bug
and its not fixed. LOTS of them. Where fixing them needs better
plumbing, lets be bold - but not hasty.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development
sn't address active-active setups],
latency (e.g. 99th percentile time-to-schedule) or <...> ?
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Maili
On 13 July 2015 at 06:19, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
> On 7/11/15 6:04 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>> Wearing my upstream hat, testr is *still* intended to be used differently
>> than OpenStack is doing. Running all the tests for all python versions at
>> once in pa
ng against
3.5's unittest,mock too.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ..
; parameter lacking default value
Please see if this is a problem in python 3.5's unittest.mock. If it
is: file it in the Python bug tracker (and +nosy me there
[rbcollins]). If its not a problem in python 3.5's unittest.mock, then
file it in the mock bug tracker, and I'll figur
ns)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Develo
On 10 July 2015 at 22:07, Kevin Benton wrote:
> No prob. The fixes for Neutron were relatively trivial.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/
>
> The only one that was a bit surprising was the failure of autospec in this
> file:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/4/neutron/tests/unit/s
or lxc or something in both the CI system and
widely available for devs.
So its a non-trivial impact; we can do it to move things forward, but
it would be a lot cheaper not to.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
___
On 13 July 2015 at 20:08, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/13/2015 03:29 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> So, we've got constraints support for tox coming together nicely.
>>
>> The rollout for that will be pe
ments value
> set([Requirement(package='Routes', location='',
> specifiers='!=2.0,!=2.1,>=1.12.3', markers='', comment='')])
>
>
> Am I supposed to propose a change to the global-requirements to make
> this work?
>
> Thanks.
w in master. Its' my understanding that
they were meant to be disabled during kilo but they've fallen through
the cracks.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Developme
On 11 July 2015 at 22:04, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 11 July 2015 at 12:38, Matthew Treinish wrote:
>> The whole argument for making testr live outside of the venv and being an
>> implicit dependency like tox is based around tracking the results between the
>> tox venvs r
On 11 July 2015 at 12:38, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:16AM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 9 July 2015 at 10:52, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> > On 2015-07-09 10:37:17 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>> >> So - I'm looking to:
&
On 11 July 2015 at 15:54, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> On 7/10/15, 18:34, "Monty Taylor" wrote:
>
>>On 07/10/2015 07:19 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>>> On 10 July 2015 at 01:59, Morgan Fainberg
>>>wrote:
>>>> Or a database per python major version (o
On 11 July 2015 at 11:34, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 07/10/2015 07:19 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 10 July 2015 at 01:59, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
>>> Or a database per python major version (or at least gracefully handle the
>>> incompatibility).
>>
>> So
On 9 July 2015 at 10:52, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-07-09 10:37:17 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>> So - I'm looking to:
>>
>> A) have a discussion and identify any issues with moving testr out of
>> the venvs. (Note: this doesn't mean stop us
On 9 July 2015 at 18:34, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 08/07/15 22:52 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-07-09 10:37:17 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> So - I'm looking to:
>>>
>>> A) have a discussion and identify any is
it happen.
>>
>> How much work would it be to make testrepository use a database format
>> that would be the same under all versions of python?
I'd love a patch. Relevant tests:
Mac OS X's default Python
Ubuntu's default Python 2.x + 3.x, for newest LTS + c
Since all our current releases of things are unbounded, there's no
immediate wedge that we'd create by adding this.
https://review.openstack.org/200758
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
underway for applying constraints files to tox
> envs as well: https://review.openstack.org/198620
Yup. The requirements-management spec is only partly implemented. tox
is one of the key targets and will be reached in a couple weeks I
hope.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technol
dependency, or it fails to apply, in the
> package. I see jobs failing with it, as well as my local tox environment
> s:
There was a bug in pbr's handling of markers; its addressed in 1.3.0
and we're going to have new images in CI shortly.
-Rob
--
Robert C
On 10 July 2015 at 23:34, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 07/10/2015 01:13 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> I see that a lot of code started breaking due to
>
> side_effect = Exception()
>
> no longer working. Which was a declared way for some time, at least to my
> best knowledge.
> Any ideas?
> Dmitry.
[1]: There is one under investigation from Neutron, but it certainly
wasn't a known issue, and the fairly extensive test suite doesn't show
it.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_
On 10 July 2015 at 22:07, Kevin Benton wrote:
> No prob. The fixes for Neutron were relatively trivial.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/
>
> The only one that was a bit surprising was the failure of autospec in this
> file:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/4/neutron/tests/unit/s
due to the many times that bug has caused non-deterministic
> failures.
Fair enough; I was feeling a little miffed at breaking so many
projects; sorry :)
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_
On 10 July 2015 at 20:18, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> Good news everybody, mock 1.1.0 is now out. This backports all the
...
>> 1.1.0 makes that an error, for methods with assert prefixes - unless
>> unsafe is specifically requested. So a big chunk of the
lode later. More details here:
> https://github.com/openstack/neutron/commit/1b60df85ba3ad442c2e4e7e52538e1b9a1bf9378
Thats fixed in 1.1.0. So you should be able to unwind that. If you
need a short term workaround, its in mock.mock now.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished
now inspects its signature
when matching calls, so that arguments can be matched positionally or
by name.
- Issue #15323: improve failure message of Mock.assert_called_once_with
- Issue #14857: fix regression in references to PEP 3135 implicit __class__
closure variable (Reopens is
as we go forward.
Right now I see human review as a necessary evil for the interim, not
a goal to hold. Perhaps that will change over time :).
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenS
On 9 July 2015 at 21:13, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if we should not refresh them less often. Some of those
>>> will trigger some discussion before approval
>>
>> ^ if they do, its bogus discussion. We never had discuss
d proceed as follows:
- seek consensus that its a needed thing (its not clear that it is to me)
- draw up a spec (I'll help)
- implement
Today however, it would be new, and I think we just don't have human
capacity to do it by hand.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
d).
We can't require that CI finds the *same result* because noone would
ever be able to land anything - the landscape moves too fast for our
review latency.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
x isn't in
test-requirements.txt).
B) Capture that in a spec if its non-trivial.
C) find volunteers to make it happen.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
On 8 July 2015 at 21:01, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> We've finally gotten all the kinks worked out and now
>> upper-constraints proposals should be coming in daily.
>>
>> *** These are timely and important: without them, no new releas
I'm putting all this into the documentation too, of course.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstac
sm to check that
whatever account *is* doing releases [looking forward to automation
here] has the right permissions on all the projects listed as being
managed in the governance repo.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged
- update-constraints (aka) update.py etc etc
- the integration tests, build-wheels.sh etc
- everything else
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
any sense to me.
The dependency chain is entirely sound and resolvable. There's no
tricky bootstrap problem that requires archive intervention for
instance, nor anything that requires local binary builds to bootstrap.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
tool via the CLI is very
different (by the GPL's design) to using it as a library.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage q
Yes. Use environment markers to specify<= 2 for portion 2.7 and uncapped
for 3.4.
On 4 Jul 2015 2:19 pm, "Qiming Teng" wrote:
>
> The recent change to global-requirements is excluding both 2.0 and 2.1
> version of Routes. That is forcing us to use Routes 1.13. However,
> Routes 1.13 cannot pass p
On 3 July 2015 at 21:25, Dave Walker wrote:
> On 3 July 2015 at 10:17, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 3 July 2015 at 21:01, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>>> - Does that (or should that) also affect stable/kilo and stable/juno ?
>>> (there is no upper-constraints
On 3 July 2015 at 21:01, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> I want to give an update on
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-specs/specs/requirements-management.html
>> - we've just passed a critical milestone there, and this affects how
>&g
ent libraries.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subj
On 3 July 2015 at 08:22, Dave Walker wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 04:59, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Hi, so we're nearly ready to deprecate the python-version-specific
>> requirements files. Once we have infra's requirements cross checking
>> jobs all copacetic a
y life miserable. Please
> don't do it, thanks.
Since the entire job of the dh-* script ecosystem is to automate
repeated patterns without making individual developers figure things
out, I find 'miserable' comes across as a massive exaggeration. Surely
its a single one-off dh scri
On 2 July 2015 at 11:36, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 15:59, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Hi, so we're nearly ready to deprecate the python-version-specific
>> requirements files. Once we have infra's requirements cross checking
>> jobs all copacetic a
On 29 June 2015 at 15:59, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hi, so we're nearly ready to deprecate the python-version-specific
> requirements files. Once we have infra's requirements cross checking
> jobs all copacetic again, we should be able to move forward.
So we've got them
On 29 June 2015 at 23:56, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> I think we should do three things:
>> - error if universal builds are requested and python versioned
>> requirements files are present.
> That may break some of the Oslo stable libs, since not all of them were
> ready for Python 3 last cycle, a
ut I think that that is tolerable. If its not, we
could write a timestamp somewhere and only warn once/day, but I think
that that is likely to lead to confusion, not clarity.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
___
lidate that logic
into pbr, as its really got nothing to do with any one API server per
se.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
rading stuff which makes it
incompatible with other versions on the system.
I'd say 'or use the published upper-constraints.txt' file, but we
haven't got the constraints logic passing tests or included in a pip
release yet, so its a little premature. But very very close.
-Rob
--
R
irements in
the meantime, so it's not a total wedge.
Rob
On 24 Jun 2015 10:21 pm, "Sean Dague" wrote:
> On 06/23/2015 07:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> > You may have seen your requirements update proposals start to include
> > things like:
> > MySQL-pyt
On 25 Jun 2015 1:24 am, "Jeremy Stanley" wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-24 16:03:18 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
> > We also have a strict/nonstrict mode which appears to be the same to me.
>
> The requirements validation check compares old vs. new versions
and -f in non-strict mode, if
thats desired: but I don't really want to have to chase some number of
projects to be stricter as part of this.
While this is discussed, I'm going to prep the basic patch set, and
can fine tune based on the resulting discussion.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
nstraints everywhere in master.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstac
ing is that the requirements code now parses and
regenerates the specifiers as I mentioned last week. So this is
normal, but one-time.
Thanks,
Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenSt
3.4 and 3.5, or just 3.4 and then just 3.5
is an ecosystem question IMO, not an upstream one. 3.4 and 3.5 are
very similar when you consider the feature set crossover with 2.7.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
___
xt week, or
whenever I get reminded of this.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-re
> for Horizon?
Yes - https://twitter.com/john_papa/status/574074485944385536
[I haven't dug into the details, but thats a tweak announcing eslint
john papa support].
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Tech
t is
> disqualified because of the license. JSCS is disqualified because it is too
> focused, and only partially useful on its own.
I welcome our new ESLint overlords.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Techno
I'm writing the code to do this at the moment, and in the absence of
folk crying out loudly here, hope to have it in as soon as a find
reviewers for openstack/requirements (which btw for all that I have
hear much interest in +2 folk timeslices are rare as hens teeth!)
-Rob
--
Rober
On 12 June 2015 at 05:39, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Robert Collins
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 June 2015 at 17:16, Robert Collins
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This test conflates setup and execution. Better like my example,
>> ...
&
up.py install - either by hand, or by
using an install tool such as pip."
As pip doesn't yet support setup_requires itself, this will currently
need a manual 'sudo pip install pbr' beforehand :/
-Rob
--
Robe
On 11 June 2015 at 17:16, Robert Collins wrote:
> This test conflates setup and execution. Better like my example,
...
Just had it pointed out to me that I've let my inner asshole out again
- sorry. I'm going to step away from the thread for a bit; my personal
state (daughter just
eing a bug
today.
Optimising away under a M of data when we shouldn't have that many
rows/items/whatever in memory in the first place is just entirely
missing the point of programming in Python.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
On 11 June 2015 at 03:29, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:37 PM Robert Collins
> wrote:
> There are two package managers in the JavaScript world right now, one that
> focuses on node.js/server dependencies (karma, lint, express, etc), and one
&g
nts to
pick slightly different versions: we can't assert that it will work,
but unless we know it doesnt', we won't preclude you trying :)
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
O
On 10 June 2015 at 21:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 06/10/2015 02:15 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports.
>>
>> I'd like to call attention to one little wart in
ds 1 million object
pointers. The size of a list with those pointers in it is 1M (pointer
size in bytes). E.g. 4M or 8M. Nothing to worry about given the
footprint of such a program :)
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_
on.
If you're going to be there, please put your name up :)
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe
T
but it had.
pypy -m timeit -n 1000 -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i
in d.items(): pass'
1000 loops, best of 3: 64.3 msec per loop
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
___
ckage}.json files to proffer an
useful opinion. [Perhaps you covered this in IRC - it didn't come
through in your summary].
Also, I'm in the middle of rearranging update.py to handle PEP 426 and
so we should probably coordinate so we don'
n pbr 1.1.0..1.1.1
---
e41a918 Revert "Remove sphinx_config.init_values() manual call"
Diffstat (except docs and test files)
-
pbr/builddoc.py | 9 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--
Robert Collins
I volunteer for the team.
On 10 Jun 2015 5:25 am, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
> Until now we have encouraged project teams to prepare their own
> library releases as new versions of projects were needed. We've
> started running into a couple of problems with that, with releases
> not coming often enou
2
+sphinx>=1.1.2,!=1.2.0,!=1.3b1,<1.3
@@ -12 +15 @@ testscenarios>=0.4
-testtools>=0.9.34
+testtools>=0.9.36,!=1.2.0
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mai
On 9 June 2015 at 07:53, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 06/08/2015 12:30 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>> On 9 June 2015 at 03:50, Chris Friesen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2015 04:22 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi, original reporter
On 9 June 2015 at 03:50, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 06/07/2015 04:22 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hi, original reporter here.
>
> There's no LB involved. The issue was noticed in a test lab that is tight
> on disk space. When an instance failed to boot the person using the l
On 9 June 2015 at 03:48, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-06-08 10:54:32 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 8 June 2015 at 10:14, Alan Pevec wrote:
>> > 2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco :
>> >> Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38
On 9 June 2015 at 04:19, Doug Wiegley wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>> [...]
>>> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
>>>
On 9 June 2015 at 03:58, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
>> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
>> eventually, but thats a separate transition - and one could still use
>> test-r
On 8 June 2015 at 19:50, Robert Collins wrote:
> We have coinor.pulp in our global-requirements, added by:
> I'd like to replace that with just PuLP
> (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PuLP/1.5.9) which is the actual thing,
> and appears to be maintained and tested on current
PuLP/1.5.9) which is the actual thing,
and appears to be maintained and tested on current Pythons.
Any objections?
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing Lis
ts.txt to setup.cfg
eventually, but thats a separate transition - and one could still use
test-requirements.txt there to provide git references.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenSt
an reference with -r in tox.ini. (And -c in
future, but that hasn't landed yet).
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questi
On 4 June 2015 at 21:06, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 06/03/2015 11:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
...
>> One question that this raises, and this is why I wrote the email:
>> is there any need to support this at all:-
ecause
> nothing existed that converted to a *sane* rpm version string, although this
> supposedly exists now via a new PBR function).
Well is has the thing you collaborated on. Whether thats sane, an RPM
person needs to say :)
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguis
but PBR doesn't support that.
PBR supports it fine. Whats the issue?
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage question
On 8 June 2015 at 10:45, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> You'll also note that according to PEP 440, (as Jeremy pointed out) .postN
>> is meant for non-code changes. If we want to be pedantic about the version
>> numbers generated by PBR (at the gate, in tox, etc.), it
wedge, and as a result 0.11 and above interpret .postN as
.devN for backwards compatibility reasons - so we can't use .postN
trivially, even if it was semantically appropriate - and as you note,
its not).
We can alter pbr to do more digits if that will solve a problem, but I
haven't seen
t/openstack/glance/tree/glance/api/v2/image_d
> ata.py#n222). I think the problem we'll have is that webob provides
> nothing on a Response
> (https://webob.readthedocs.org/en/latest/modules/webob.html#response) to
> hook into so we can close the ChunkedFile.
>
> I wo
nding on network
resources... so its actively harmful anyway.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: opens
rder
- project mgmt overheads increase
- project identity becomes more amorphous
These aren't necessarily bad things, but they are things, and since
the purported goal is to reduce the likelyhood of defects entering
rally's codebase, I'd be wary of those consequences.
-Rob
--
Robert
t our heads around the idea that folk are
able to make promises ('I will only commit changes relevant to the DB
abstraction/transaction management') and honour them. And if they
don't - well, remove their access. *even with* CD in the picture,
thats a wholly acceptable risk IMO.
-Ro
On 1 Jun 2015 8:07 pm, "Alan Pevec" wrote:
>
> >> One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting
> >> tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those
> >> wouldn't be signed.
> >
> > Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed?
>
201 - 300 of 1124 matches
Mail list logo
