Hoy,
So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
Neither Gnocchi nor Oslo cares about whatever bug there is in pbr 2.1.0
that got in banished by requirements Gods. It does not prevent it to be
used e.g. to install the
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017, at 05:54 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hoy,
>
> So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
> some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
>
> Neither Gnocchi nor Oslo cares about whatever bug there is in pbr 2.1.0
> that got in banished by req
On Wed, Apr 19 2017, Clark Boylan wrote:
> I think we know from experience that just stopping (eg reverting to the
> situation we had before requirements and constraints) would lead to
> sadness. Installations would frequently be impossible due to some
> unresolvable error in dependency resolution
Excerpts from Clark Boylan's message of 2017-04-19 08:10:43 -0700:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017, at 05:54 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > Hoy,
> >
> > So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
> > some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
> >
> > Neither Gnocchi nor
We have started this work. I've been working on:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444718/
Which will do requirement checks, as specified in the Pike PTG ehterpad for
Tuesday morning:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/relmgt-stable-requirements-ptg-pike (line
40+).
Once done, Tony and I were going
Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Clark Boylan's message of 2017-04-19 08:10:43 -0700:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017, at 05:54 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hoy,
So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
Neither Gnocchi nor
Excerpts from Matthew Oliver's message of 2017-04-20 14:41:38 +1000:
> We have started this work. I've been working on:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444718/
Wonderful! I'm sorry I didn't realize you were working on it. Thank you!
> Which will do requirement checks, as specified in the Pike
On 20/04/17 01:32 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Wasn't there also some decision made in austin (?) about how we as a
> group stated something along the line of co-installability isn't as
> important as it once was (and may not even be practical or what people
> care about anymore anyway)?
>
> With k
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-04-20 17:12:26 +:
>
> On 20/04/17 01:32 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> > Wasn't there also some decision made in austin (?) about how we as a
> > group stated something along the line of co-installability isn't as
> > important as it once was (and may n
Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-04-20 17:12:26 +:
On 20/04/17 01:32 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Wasn't there also some decision made in austin (?) about how we as a
group stated something along the line of co-installability isn't as
important as it once was (a
2017-04-19 23:10 GMT+08:00 Clark Boylan :
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017, at 05:54 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > Hoy,
> >
> > So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
> > some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
> >
> > Neither Gnocchi nor Oslo cares about whatever
Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2017-04-20 22:31:19 -0700:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-04-20 17:12:26 +:
> >> On 20/04/17 01:32 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> >>> Wasn't there also some decision made in austin (?) about how we as a
> >>> group st
On Fri, Apr 21 2017, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> My memory of the outcome of that session was that we needed to maintain
> co-installability; that we could continue to keep an eye on the
> container space as an alternative; and that a new team of maintainers
> would take over the requirements list (whi
On Wed, Apr 19 2017, Julien Danjou wrote:
> So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
> some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
Same things happened today with Babel. As far as Gnocchi is concerned,
we're going to take the easiest route and remove all our
On 2017-05-16 11:42, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19 2017, Julien Danjou wrote:
>
>> So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
>> some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
>
> Same things happened today with Babel. As far as Gnocchi is concerned,
> we'
On Tue, May 16 2017, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> what exactly happened with Babel?
>
> I see in global-requirements the following:
> Babel>=2.3.4,!=2.4.0 # BSD
>
> that shouldn't case a problem - or does it? Or what's the problem?
Damn, at the moment I pressed the `Sent' button I thought "You just
c
On 2017-05-16 12:10, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Tue, May 16 2017, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
>> what exactly happened with Babel?
>>
>> I see in global-requirements the following:
>> Babel>=2.3.4,!=2.4.0 # BSD
>>
>> that shouldn't case a problem - or does it? Or what's the problem?
>
> Damn, at the
On Tue, May 16 2017, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> It is needed to generate the translations, but can't we move it for
> oslo-i18n into test-requirements?
I've pushed this and it seems to work, pretty sure it's safe.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/465014/
If we can merge this today and then relea
On 05/16/2017 05:42 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19 2017, Julien Danjou wrote:
So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agan) because it depends on "pbr" and
some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
Same things happened today with Babel. As far as Gnocchi is concerned,
we're goin
On Thu, May 18 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
> I'm not understanding this? do you mean this?
In the long run, yes. Unfortunately, we're not happy with the way Oslo
libraries are managed and too OpenStack centric. I've tried for the last
couple of years to move things on, but it's barely possible to de
On 05/18/2017 02:37 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, May 18 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
I'm not understanding this? do you mean this?
In the long run, yes. Unfortunately, we're not happy with the way Oslo
libraries are managed and too OpenStack centric. I've tried for the last
couple of years
On Thu, May 18 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
> replaces oslo.service with a multiprocessing approach that doesn't use
> eventlet. great! any openstack service that rides on oslo.service would like
> to be able to transparently switch from eventlet to multiprocessing the same
> way they can more or les
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:16:20PM -0400, Mike Bayer wrote:
On 05/18/2017 02:37 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, May 18 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
I'm not understanding this? do you mean this?
In the long run, yes. Unfortunately, we're not happy with the way Oslo
libraries are managed and to
On Fri, May 19 2017, Mehdi Abaakouk wrote:
> Not really, I just put some comments on reviews and discus this on IRC.
> Since nobody except Telemetry have expressed/try to get rid of eventlet.
TBH Keystone get rid of it too. But they only provide WSGI servers. They
don't build any daemon so they d
Excerpts from Mehdi Abaakouk's message of 2017-05-19 10:23:09 +0200:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:16:20PM -0400, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 05/18/2017 02:37 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> >>On Thu, May 18 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not understanding this? do you mean this?
> >>
> >>In
Mehdi Abaakouk wrote:
Not really, I just put some comments on reviews and discus this on IRC.
Since nobody except Telemetry have expressed/try to get rid of eventlet.
Octavia is using cotyledon and they have gotten rid of eventlet. Didn't
seem like it was that hard either to do it (of course t
On 05/19/2017 04:23 AM, Mehdi Abaakouk wrote:
And some applications rely
on implicit internal contract/behavior/assumption.
IMO that's a bug for them.I'm inspired to see that Keystone, Nova
etc. are able to move between and eventlet backend and a mod_wsgi
backend.IMO eventlet is
On Fri, May 19 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
> IMO that's a bug for them.
Of course it's a bug. IIRC Mehdi tried to fix it without much success.
> I'm inspired to see that Keystone, Nova etc. are
> able to move between and eventlet backend and a mod_wsgi backend.IMO
> eventlet is really not needed
On 05/20/2017 12:04 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Fri, May 19 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
IMO that's a bug for them.
Of course it's a bug. IIRC Mehdi tried to fix it without much success.
I'm inspired to see that Keystone, Nova etc. are
able to move between and eventlet backend and a mod_wsgi b
29 matches
Mail list logo
