Hi,
I would like to raise a topic when horizon nova-network support can be dropped.
I added [tc] tag as it is related to
"assert:follows-standard-deprecation" tag in the governance.
Can horizon drop nova-network support based on the deprecation of nova-network
from the nova team?
or does horizon
On 3/28/2017 9:04 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
Hi,
I would like to raise a topic when horizon nova-network support can be dropped.
I added [tc] tag as it is related to
"assert:follows-standard-deprecation" tag in the governance.
Can horizon drop nova-network support based on the deprecation of nov
Frankly, it sounds like we can pretty comfortably drop support for nova-net in
Pike. I'm fine with that, from a Horizon point of view.
Rob
On 28 March 2017 at 21:06, Matt Riedemann
mailto:mriede...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 3/28/2017 9:04 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to raise a
2017-03-29 5:06 GMT+09:00 Matt Riedemann :
> On 3/28/2017 9:04 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to raise a topic when horizon nova-network support can be
>> dropped.
>> I added [tc] tag as it is related to
>> "assert:follows-standard-deprecation" tag in the governance.
>>
>> C
I am okay to drop nova-network feature in Pike.
More generally, can we horizon team say the following?
A feature deprecated in a back-end project is automatically
deprecated in Horizon
and a feature in horizon will be dropped if a corresponding support
is dropped in
a back-end project and/or i
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
> (question not directly related to this topic)
> I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
> network management
> and newer API versions for other compute operation.
This is probably true for Horizon, where the app ins
On 4/10/2017 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
Is there any deprecation policy in novaclient python binding?
I was not aware of deprecation warnings.
If novaclient follows nova deprecation, it sounds reasonable to me.
Yes we deprecated the CLIs in this change in Newton:
https://review.openstack.
On 4/10/2017 9:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
network management
and newer API versions for other compute operation.
This is probabl
2017-04-10 23:19 GMT+09:00 Dean Troyer :
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>> (question not directly related to this topic)
>> I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
>> network management
>> and newer API versions for other compute operation.
>
> Th
On 04/10/2017 11:19 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 9:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki
>> wrote:
>>> (question not directly related to this topic)
>>> I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
>>> network management
>>> an
On 04/10/2017 09:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
network management
and newer API versions for other compute operation.
This is proba
On 04/10/2017 10:37 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 04/10/2017 09:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki
wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
network management
and newer API versions
On 04/10/2017 10:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 04/10/2017 11:19 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki
wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 fo
On 04/10/2017 10:23 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
2017-04-10 23:19 GMT+09:00 Dean Troyer :
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 for
network management
and newer API versions
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> How long are we expected to be carrying this deprecated bridge code? If you
> need these CLIs/API bindings in the client, then don't upgrade to 8.0.0, or
> run different versions of novaclient in venvs or containers if you need to
> really
On 4/10/2017 1:51 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
How long are we expected to be carrying this deprecated bridge code? If you
need these CLIs/API bindings in the client, then don't upgrade to 8.0.0, or
run different versions of novaclient in venvs
On 4/10/2017 11:14 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 04/10/2017 10:37 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 04/10/2017 09:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Akihiro Motoki
wrote:
(question not directly related to this topic)
I am not sure there is a case where users still use API 2.36 f
17 matches
Mail list logo