On 01/12/13 00:27 -0500, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
I think we may all be approaching the planning of this project in the wrong way, because of confusions such as:
Well, I think there is one small misunderstanding. I've never said that
manual way should be primary workflow for us. I agree that we sh
On Sun Dec 1 00:27:30 2013, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
> I think it's far more important that we list out requirements and
> create a design document that people agree upon first. Otherwise, we
> run the risk of focusing on feature X for release 1 without ensuring
> that our architecture supports fea
I think we may all be approaching the planning of this project in the wrong
way, because of confusions such as:
> Well, I think there is one small misunderstanding. I've never said that
> manual way should be primary workflow for us. I agree that we should lean
> toward as much automation and sm
Hi all,
just a few thoughts (subjective opinions) regarding the whole debate:
* I think that having a manually picking images for machines approach
would make TripleO more usable in the beginning. I think it will take a
good deal of time to get our smart solution working with the admin
rather
On 2013/27/11 16:37, James Slagle wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
V0: basic slick installer - flexibility and control first
- enable user to auto-discover (or manual register) nodes
- let user decide, which node is going to be controller, which is going to
be comp
Hi Mark,
thanks for your insight, I mostly agree. Just few points below.
On 2013/27/11 21:54, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Jarda,
...
Yes, I buy this. And I think it's the point worth dwelling on.
It would be quite a bit of work to substantiate the point with hard data
- e.g. doing user testing
Hello,
just few notes from me:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-feature-map sounds like a great
idea, we should go through them one by one maybe on meeting.
We should agree on what is doable for I, without violating the Openstack
way in some very ugly way. So do we want to be Openstack
On 2013/28/11 06:41, Robert Collins wrote:
Certainly. Do we have Personas for those people? (And have we done any
validation of them?)
We have shorter paragraph to each. But not verified by any survey, so we
don't have very solid basis in this area right now and I believe we all
are trying to
On 28 November 2013 09:54, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> We take away an awful lot of placement control away from the
> self-service in order to allow the operator to provide a usable,
> large-scale, multi-tenant service.
>
> The difference with TripleO is that we assume the undercloud operator
> and
Hey, I realise I've done a sort of point-bypoint thing below - sorry.
Let me say that I'm glad you're focused on what will help users, and
their needs - I am too. Hopefully we can figure out why we have
different opinions about what things are key, and/or how we can get
data to better understand ou
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
- Original Message -
>
> On 2013/27/11 00:00, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26 November 2013 07:41, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> can we add 'Slick Overcloud deployment through the UI' to the list? There
> was no session about that, but we discussed it afterwords
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
> V0: basic slick installer - flexibility and control first
> - enable user to auto-discover (or manual register) nodes
> - let user decide, which node is going to be controller, which is going to
> be compute or storage
> - associate images
On 2013/27/11 00:00, Robert Collins wrote:
On 26 November 2013 07:41, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
Hey Rob,
can we add 'Slick Overcloud deployment through the UI' to the list? There
was no session about that, but we discussed it afterwords and agreed that it
is high priority for Icehouse as well.
I
On 26 November 2013 07:41, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
> Hey Rob,
>
> can we add 'Slick Overcloud deployment through the UI' to the list? There
> was no session about that, but we discussed it afterwords and agreed that it
> is high priority for Icehouse as well.
>
> I just want to keep it on the list,
Hey Rob,
can we add 'Slick Overcloud deployment through the UI' to the list?
There was no session about that, but we discussed it afterwords and
agreed that it is high priority for Icehouse as well.
I just want to keep it on the list, so we are aware of that.
Thanks
-- Jarda
On 2013/25/11 0
I've now gone through and done the post summit cleanup of blueprints
and migration of design docs into blueprints as appropriate.
We had 50 odd blueprints, many of where were really not effective
blueprints - they described single work items with little coordination
need, were not changelog items,
17 matches
Mail list logo
