Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

>> Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request [1] to replace Celery >> with oslo.messaging. > > wow. That was quick! > > /me is impressed Ha! Just trying to put the polish on! Thanks for the feedback and hope it is a step in the right direction. I'll look to add testing for it on Monday or b

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/06/2013 08:35 AM, John Wood wrote: > Hello folks, > > Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request [1] to replace Celery > with oslo.messaging. wow. That was quick! /me is impressed Since you jumped on that - I went ahead and jumped on a pbr-ification patch for you. It may not work ye

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

Hello folks, Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request [1] to replace Celery with oslo.messaging. I've tagged it as a work in progress per this note: "Please review this CR, which replaces Celery with oslo.messaging components. I've verified that this works in my local environment, but I

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/06/2013 01:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: >>> >>> I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so >>> much that the project did something different, but rather that choice >>> was apparently made because the

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: > > > >I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so > >much that the project did something different, but rather that choice > >was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine > >for them to i

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

> >I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so >much that the project did something different, but rather that choice >was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine >for them to ignore what other OpenStack projects do and go off and do >its own thin

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 16:43 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > > The API and developer documentation is at > >http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/ > > This is great, thanks for the link. Would there be any objections to > adding this to the github repo and the openstack wiki pages? I spent

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 17:33 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 05:09 PM, Jarret Raim wrote: ... > >> I'd like to address the use of Celery. > >> > >> WTF > >> > >> Barbican has been around for 9 months, which means that it does not > >> predate the work that has become oslo.messaging. It

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 22:09 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > It looks like the project was moved to its own repo in April. However, I > can¹t seem to find the docs anywhere? The only thing I see is a design doc > here [1]. Are there plans for it to be packaged and put into Pypi? > ... > > [1] https:/

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

>> >> I think this conversation has gotten away from our incubation request >>and >> into an argument about what makes a good library and when and how >>projects >> should choose between oslo and other options. I¹m happy to have the >>second >> one in another thread, but that seems like a longer

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/03/2013 01:26 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > Unless the requirements change, so far it > looks like this request should be deferred a bit longer. And note that this is just my opinion, and note a statement of position on behalf of the entire TC. We can still officially consider the request at

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/03/2013 11:40 AM, Jarret Raim wrote: > >> I think there's something else you should take under consideration. >> Oslo messaging is not just an OpenStack library. It's the RPC library >> that all projects are relying on and one of the strong goals we have >> in OpenStack is to reduce code and

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 2013-12-03 16:43:32 + (+), Jarret Raim wrote: > This is great, thanks for the link. Would there be any objections to > adding this to the github repo I think you meant the "git" repo. What's a gi-thub? http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.messaging/tree/doc/source/ > > and the

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

> The API and developer documentation is at >http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/ This is great, thanks for the link. Would there be any objections to adding this to the github repo and the openstack wiki pages? I spent a bunch of time looking and wasn¹t able to turn this up. Add

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

>I think there's something else you should take under consideration. >Oslo messaging is not just an OpenStack library. It's the RPC library >that all projects are relying on and one of the strong goals we have >in OpenStack is to reduce code and efforts duplications. We'd love to >have more people

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Jarret Raim wrote: > > There are two big parts to this, I think. One is techincal - a > significant > > portion > > of OpenStack deployments will not work with this because Celery does not > > work with their deployed messaging architecture. > > See another reply

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 03/12/13 03:12 +, Jarret Raim wrote: There are two big parts to this, I think. One is techincal - a significant portion of OpenStack deployments will not work with this because Celery does not work with their deployed messaging architecture. See another reply in this thread for an exampl

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

g List (not for usage questions); Russell Bryant Cc: openstack...@lists.openstack.org; cloudkeep@googlegroups. com; barbi...@lists.rackspace.com Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican > I've been anxious to try out Barbican, but haven't had quite enou

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

> I've been anxious to try out Barbican, but haven't had quite enough time to > try it yet. But finding out it won't work with Qpid makes it unworkable for us > at the moment. I think a large swath of the OpenStack community won't be > able to use it in this form too. As mentioned in the other thr

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

> There are two big parts to this, I think. One is techincal - a significant > portion > of OpenStack deployments will not work with this because Celery does not > work with their deployed messaging architecture. > See another reply in this thread for an example of someone that sees the > inabil

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/02/2013 06:46 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Russell Bryant > wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > >>> * Scope > >>> ** Project must have

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

pace.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Russell Bryant mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 12/02/2013 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> * Scope >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 12/02/2013 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > >>> * Scope > >>> ** Project must have a clear and defined scope > >> > >> This is missing > >> > >>> ** Project should not inadvertently dup

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

Hi Jarret, 2013/12/2 Jarret Raim > > > >It's also pretty easy for a stackforge project to opt-in to the global > >requirements sync job now too. > > Are there some docs on how to do this somewhere? I added a task for us to > complete the work as part of the incubation request here: > https://wik

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/02/2013 05:09 PM, Jarret Raim wrote: > * Process ** Project must be hosted under stackforge (and therefore use git as its VCS) >>> >>> I see that barbican is now on stackforge, but python-barbicanclient is >>> still on github. Is that being moved soon? >>> ** Proje

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

>>> * Process >>> ** Project must be hosted under stackforge (and therefore use git as >>>its VCS) >> >> I see that barbican is now on stackforge, but python-barbicanclient is >> still on github. Is that being moved soon? >> >>> ** Project must obey OpenStack coordinated project interface (

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/02/2013 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> * Scope >>> ** Project must have a clear and defined scope >> >> This is missing >> >>> ** Project should not inadvertently duplicate functionality present in >>> other >>> OpenStack projects. If

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 12/02/2013 10:19 AM, Jarret Raim wrote: >> All, >> >> Barbican is the OpenStack key management service and we’d like to >> request incubation for the Icehouse release. A Rackspace sponsored team >> has been working for about 9 months now, includi