Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-03-23 Thread Matt Riedemann
On 3/22/2016 5:37 PM, Angus Lees wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 at 06:27 Matt Riedemann > wrote: I stared pretty hard at the nova rootwrap filter change today [1] and tried to keep that in my head along with the devstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-03-22 Thread Angus Lees
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 at 06:27 Matt Riedemann wrote: > I stared pretty hard at the nova rootwrap filter change today [1] and > tried to keep that in my head along with the devstack change and the > changes to os-brick (which depend on the devstack/cinder/nova changes).

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-03-19 Thread Matt Riedemann
On 2/25/2016 5:35 PM, Angus Lees wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 01:28 John Garbutt > wrote: Agreed with the concerns here, but I thought these are the same we raised at the midcycle. Yes, afaik everything is exactly as we discussed

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-25 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +, John Garbutt wrote: > > My understanding of what came out of the midcycle was: > * current rootwrap system horribly breaks upgrade > * adopting privsep in this "sudo" like form fixes upgrade > * this approach is much lower risk than a full conversion at

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-25 Thread Angus Lees
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 01:28 John Garbutt wrote: > Agreed with the concerns here, but I thought these are the same we > raised at the midcycle. > Yes, afaik everything is exactly as we discussed and following the direction we agreed at Nova+CInder mid-cycles. In

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-25 Thread John Garbutt
On 25 February 2016 at 05:32, Angus Lees wrote: > (Reposting my reply to your gerrit comment here as well - conversation will > probably be easier here than in gerrit) > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 00:07 Duncan Thomas wrote: >> >> My (negative) feedback is

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-24 Thread Angus Lees
(Reposting my reply to your gerrit comment here as well - conversation will probably be easier here than in gerrit) On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 00:07 Duncan Thomas wrote: > My (negative) feedback is on the review - I'm really not sure that this > matches what I understood

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-24 Thread Michał Dulko
On 02/24/2016 04:51 AM, Angus Lees wrote: > Re: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277224 > > Most of the various required changes have flushed out by now, and this > change now passes the dsvm-full integration tests(*). > > (*) well, the experimental job anyway. It still relies on a >

[openstack-dev] [os-brick][nova][cinder] os-brick/privsep change is done and awaiting your review

2016-02-23 Thread Angus Lees
Re: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277224 Most of the various required changes have flushed out by now, and this change now passes the dsvm-full integration tests(*). (*) well, the experimental job anyway. It still relies on a merged-but-not-yet-released change in oslo.privsep so gate + 3rd