On 03/13/2014 12:48 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/13/2014 03:04 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
These reverts are still confusing me. The use of glance's v2 api
is very limited and easy to protect from errors.
These patches use the v2 glance api for exactly one call - to get
image locations. This has
I disagree with the new dependency graph here, I don't think its reasonable
continue to have the Ephemeral RBD patch behind both glance v2 support and
image-multiple-location. Given the time that this has been in flight, we
should not be holding up features that do exist for features that don't.
I
On 03/13/2014 03:04 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
> These reverts are still confusing me. The use of glance's v2 api
> is very limited and easy to protect from errors.
>
> These patches use the v2 glance api for exactly one call - to get
> image locations. This has been available and used by other
> feat
On 03/12/2014 04:54 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:32 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits
since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this
decision, and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for
Jun
On 3/12/2014 6:32 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits
since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this
decision, and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for Juno.
Jay's fix resolved the immediate problem t
> I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits
> since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this
> decision, and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for Juno.
Jay's fix resolved the immediate problem that was reported by the user.
However,
I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits
since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this decision,
and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for Juno.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 05:51 AM, Daniel
On 03/12/2014 05:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/2014 3:11 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Fri, Ma
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 3/11/2014 3:11 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> >>
> >>On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/07/
Jay thanks your correct analysis and quick fix.
zhiyan
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>
>> On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> >> On 03/07/2014 11
On 3/11/2014 5:11 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
There was a bug reported today [1] that looks like a regression in this
new code, so we need people involved in this looking at it as soon as
possible because we have a proposed revert in cas
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
>>> There was a bug reported today [1] that looks like a regression in this
>>> new code, so we need people involved in this looking at it as soon as
>>> possible because we have a proposed revert in case we need to yank it
>>> out [2].
>>>
>>
On 3/11/2014 3:11 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014
On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
I'd Like to request A FFE for t
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
>>> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
>>> RBD image support chain
>>>
>>> https://review.openstack
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
> What would be awesome in Juno is some CI around RBD/Ceph. I'd feel a lot
> more comfortable with this code if we had CI running Tempest
Seb has been working to add ceph support into devstack which could be a
start, https://review.opensta
On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
>> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
>> RBD image support chain
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/5
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
> RBD image support chain
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
>
> are still open after their dependency
> https
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 19:28 -0800, Josh Durgin wrote:
> On 03/06/2014 05:37 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> > Matt,
> >
> > I'd love to see this too, however I'm not seasoned enough to even know
> > much about how to start implementing that. I'd love some direction,
> > and maybe some support after yo
On 03/06/2014 05:37 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
Matt,
I'd love to see this too, however I'm not seasoned enough to even know
much about how to start implementing that. I'd love some direction,
and maybe some support after you guys are done with the pending
release.
We're working on setting up C
Matt,
I'd love to see this too, however I'm not seasoned enough to even know
much about how to start implementing that. I'd love some direction,
and maybe some support after you guys are done with the pending
release.
As others have illustrated here, the current RBD support in nova is
effectively
On 3/6/2014 2:20 AM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
RBD image support chain
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
are still open after their dependency
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/33409
On 03/06/2014 02:18 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> +1
>
> I can help review these.
OK, great!
If the risk is limited to users of the rbd backend, I'm OK with it if
we can get one more person to agree to review. We have a hard
deadline of merging all code for FFEs by this coming Tuesday, though
+1 on both accounts:
Yes, this change has low impact outside of the RBD driver that has
been out there since September and I agree that it should be exempted
from feature freeze.
And yes, RBD driver in Nova is severely crippled without this code
(which is why this was originally reported as a bug
+1
I can help review these.
Vish
On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
> RBD image support chain
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
>
> are still open after
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> For 59148 patch set 23, we nearly merged and had +2 from Joe Gordon
I am not sponsoring any FFE as I want to focus my attention on fixing
bugs etc. This doesn't mean I am for or against a FFE on this feature
in general.
> and Daniel Berra
For 59148 patch set 23, we nearly merged and had +2 from Joe Gordon
and Daniel Berrange. And appears to have been quite close.
For 59149, we might not be so close, Daniel can you comment further if
you see this landing in the next few days?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
On 03/06/2014 03:20 AM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
> RBD image support chain
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
>
> are still open after their dependency
> https://review.openstac
Big +1 on this.
Missing such support would make the implementation useless.
Sébastien Han
Cloud Engineer
"Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood.”
Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72
Mail: sebastien@enovance.com
Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris
Web : www.enovance.com -
+1! according to the low rise and the usefulness for the real cloud deployment.
zhiyan
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
> RBD image support chain
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
> https://rev
I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
RBD image support chain
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
are still open after their dependency
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/33409/ was merged.
These should be low risk as:
1. W
33 matches
Mail list logo
