Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hi, Since older Postgres doesn't introduce bugs and it won't harm new features, I would vote for downgrade to 9.2 The reasons are: 1. not to support own package for Centos (as far as I know 9.3 for Ubuntu is already there) 2. should Fuel some day be a part of upstream Centos? If yes, or there is

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disable 3.[3-7] gates for master?

On 2015-12-16 15:42, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski > wrote: >> Fuelers, >> >> with the switch to CentOS 7, we also started using Puppet 3.8 in place >> of 3.4. Is there any reason to run entire range of >> gate-fuel-library-puppet-unit-3.*-dsvm-centos

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

Hi Although I agree that it should be done, the removal of Docker doesn't seem an urgent feature to me. It is not blocking anything besides moving to full package-based deployment of Fuel, as far as I understand. So it could be easily delayed for one milestone, especially if it is already almost d

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

> > > What if user choose CentOS bootstrap? We ship it on ISO, so why do > > we need to show error message? > > CentOS bootstrap still is not activated > Its pretty simple case-flow: If selected ubuntu: - Try build -- Notify if build and activate fail -- Notify if build and activate ok If sel

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

Vladimir, I have other activities planned for the time immediately after SCF (separating UI from fuel-web, maybe it is even more invasive :-)) and it is not a big deal to postpone this feature or another. I am against the approach itself of postponing something because it is too invasive. If we cr

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

Vladimir I am pretty much for removing docker, but I do not think that we should startle our developers/QA folks with additional efforts on fixing 2 different environments. Let's just think from the point of development velocity here and at delay such changes for at least after NY. Because if we d

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 12/15/2015 02:53 PM, Andrew Maksimov wrote: > +1 to Igor suggestion to downgrade Postgres to 9.2. Our users don't work > directly with Postgres, so there is no any deprecation of Fuel features. > Maintaining our own custom Postgres package just because we want "JSON > column" is not a rational

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 12/15/2015 11:39 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > Hey Mike, > > Thanks for your input. > >> actually not. if you replace your ARRAY columns with JSON entirely, > > It still needs to fix the code, i.e. change ARRAY-specific queries > with JSON ones around the code. ;) > >> there's already a mos

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental Task Based Deployment Landed into Master

Great job, especially considering complexity of the problem and late arrival. This proves that magic still can happen :) Regards, > On 12 Dec 2015, at 00:25, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > > Fuelers > > I am thrilled to announce that task based deployment engine [0] has been just > merged into F

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disable 3.[3-7] gates for master?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > Fuelers, > > with the switch to CentOS 7, we also started using Puppet 3.8 in place > of 3.4. Is there any reason to run entire range of > gate-fuel-library-puppet-unit-3.*-dsvm-centos7 tests? > > I suppose we could leave only 3.8 and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

> Bootstrap building *is* a part of master node deployment. Not always, user can set flag `skip_default_img_build` then building bootstrap will not executed. > If you guys show "deployment is successful" before running building bootstrap, > then it's something you have to fix. fuel-bootstrap-cli

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

> As I already told deployment was finished, but bootstrap wasn't built. Bootstrap building *is* a part of master node deployment. If you guys show "deployment is successful" before running building bootstrap, then it's something you have to fix. > Fuel deploying => WebUI blocked => deployment

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

Hi Dmitry, I also don't think that we should duplicate the data in configdb, because in this case there will be +2 additional interfaces which will require to covert the data into configdb and after that from configdb to Solar, which seems redundant overhead. But we should be able to put the data

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

> We keep it As Is, and say "user should not use Fuel until Fuel > Master deployment is finished". Yep deployment can be finished, but was it successful? As I already told deployment was finished, but bootstrap wasn't built. Command for building bootstrap wasn't called because of some reason. > W

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: > Data resources shall fill the configdb by results of the fetched data > shaped by data processors aka serializers. The shaping process assumes > applying of all versioning and schema transformations knowledge required > to convert data fro

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

+1 to Vladimir Kozhukalov, Entire point of moving branches creation to SCF was to perform such changes as early as possible in the release, I see no reasons to wait for HCF. Thanks, On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > -1 > > We already disc

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

> I really don't like setting the error message as the default one in > the DB schema and consider it as a last resort solution. If > possible update the message to error one just before you start > to build the image. +1. > What about add some check or some message > "Fuel-master Deployment in p

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

> From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can > anyone point me to a bug caused by that? AFAIK, there's no such bugs. Some folks have just *concerns*. Anyway, it's up to packaging team to decide whether to package or not. From Nailgun POV, I'd like to see classical RDB

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

On 16.12.2015 00:03, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: > Hello folks, > > This topic is about configuration storage which will connect data > sources (nailgun/bareon/others) and orchestration. And right now we are > developing two projects that will overlap a bit. > > I understand there is not enough contex

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

+1 for Lukasz concerns. But if we really need operate with "solar resources database" as a kv store, then we could implement service on top of it, It could be then separate project, which would work as separate service. Would it fulfill the requirements ? (we could implement it using some already

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

Hi Dima, On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: > Hello folks, > > This topic is about configuration storage which will connect data sources > (nailgun/bareon/others) and orchestration. And right now we are developing > two projects that will overlap a bit. What 2 projects? > >

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disable 3.[3-7] gates for master?

Fuelers, with the switch to CentOS 7, we also started using Puppet 3.8 in place of 3.4. Is there any reason to run entire range of gate-fuel-library-puppet-unit-3.*-dsvm-centos7 tests? I suppose we could leave only 3.8 and 4.0 there (at least for master). For stable branches we could keep just 3.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

Actually, its gloval problem : UI accessible for user *earlier* then deployment has been done. I think we should also handle this somehow - otherwise user can start doing "some things" like spawning HW - and fail . What about add some check or some message "Fuel-master Deployment in progress, plea

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Different versions for different components

On 2015-12-15 18:16, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > Aleksandra, > > thank you for the clarification, it makes sense to me now. > > In my opinion our current approach is not flexible at all and very outdated. After splitting fuel-web to smaller components we realized that some of them may be actual

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote: >> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully >> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who >> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote: > We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully > consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who > already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements. That will be way too late for that, as it will make upgra

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Wow such a hot topic... I'm also the one who voted for 9.2. But I also voted like Alexey S., "I'm conservative..." - I am actually mostly conservative, and would question every new cool tool/feature of library unless there is a very good proof on using it. You can't build a product which will have

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

-1 We already discussed this and we have made a decision to move stable branch creation from HCF to SCF. There were reasons for this. We agreed that once stable branch is created, master becomes open for new features. Let's avoid discussing this again. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

+1 Regards, Bulat Gaifullin Mirantis Inc. > On 15 Dec 2015, at 22:19, Andrew Maksimov wrote: > > +1 > > Regards, > Andrey Maximov > Fuel Project Manager > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Vladimir Kuklin > wrote: > Folks > > This email is a proposal to push

[openstack-dev] [Fuel][Solar] SolarDB/ConfigDB place in Fuel

Hello folks, This topic is about configuration storage which will connect data sources (nailgun/bareon/others) and orchestration. And right now we are developing two projects that will overlap a bit. I understand there is not enough context to dive into this thread right away, but i will apprecia

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Dmitry, Thank you for this document! Please move it on https://etherpad.openstack.org to make it accessible Best regards, Alexey Shtokolov 2015-12-16 1:38 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Teselkin : > Hello, > > I made an attempt to gather all valuable points 'for' and 'against' > 9.2.x in one document [1]. Pl

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hello, I made an attempt to gather all valuable points 'for' and 'against' 9.2.x in one document [1]. Please take a look on it, I also put some comments there to keep everything in one place. I believe this can help us to make deliberated decision. Please add more pros / cons there as I don't pre

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > * 11 votes for keeping 9.2 > * 4 votes for restoring 9.3 Igor, please remove my vote from "9.2", I voted for "I'm too conservative, I want to see classic RDBMS approach" , but not to keep accidentally downgraded PostgreSQL If you're asking

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] OpenStack versioning in Fuel

I have a few changes in review [0] that implement a plan outlined in the bug [1] for seamless merge of the new versioning schema (liberty-8.0). With those changes merged in order, we should be OK without changing ISO in Fuel infra. I also have version of ISO with green BVT that incorporates change

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

+1 to Vova and Sasha, I voted for 9.2 at the beginning of the thread due to potential packaging and infrastructure issues, but since Artem and Sasha insist on 9.3, I see no reasons to keep 9.2. 2015-12-15 22:19 GMT+03:00 Aleksandra Fedorova : > Igor, > > that's an anonymous vote for question sta

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

+1 to Igor suggestion to downgrade Postgres to 9.2. Our users don't work directly with Postgres, so there is no any deprecation of Fuel features. Maintaining our own custom Postgres package just because we want "JSON column" is not a rational decision. Come on, fuel is not a billing system with tho

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Igor Sorry, this vote is irrelevant as it is not about all the concerns rasied by Artem, Aleksandra and me. It is about JSON vs non-JSON Postgres which is not exactly the case. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have > > * 11 votes fo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Igor, that's an anonymous vote for question stated in a wrong way. Sorry, but it doesn't really look like a valuable input for the discussion. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have > > * 11 votes for keeping 9.2 > * 4 votes for resto

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

+1 Regards, Andrey Maximov Fuel Project Manager On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > Folks > > This email is a proposal to push Docker containers removal from the master > node to the date beyond 8.0 HCF. > > Here is why I propose to do so. > > Removal of Docker is a rather

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Folks Let me add my 2c here. I am for using Postgres 9.3. Here is an additional argument to the ones provided by Artem, Aleksandra and others. Fuel is being sometimes highly customized by our users for their specific needs. It has been Postgres 9.3 for a while and they might have as well gotten

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Proposal to Delay Docker Removal From Fuel Master Node

Folks This email is a proposal to push Docker containers removal from the master node to the date beyond 8.0 HCF. Here is why I propose to do so. Removal of Docker is a rather invasive change and may introduce a lot of regressions. It is well may affect how bugs are fixed - we might have 2 ways

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have * 11 votes for keeping 9.2 * 4 votes for restoring 9.3 [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RNcEVFsg7GdHIXlJl-6LCELhlwQ_zmTbd40Bk_jH1m4/edit?usp=sharing On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > Folks > > Let me add my 2c here.

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] OpenStack versioning in Fuel

Hi folks, I would propose to keep current versioning schema until fuel release schedule is fully aligned with OpenStack releases. AFAIK it is expected to happen since 9.0. After it we can switch to OpenStack version names. BR, Dmitry. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > Fo

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] OpenStack versioning in Fuel

Folks, I want to bring this up again. There were no progress since last Oleg's mail, and we must decide. It's good that we still have "2015.1.0-8.0" version while OpenStack uses "Liberty" name for versions. Let's decide which name to use, file a bug and finally resolve it. - Igor On Thu, Oct 22

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Different versions for different components

Aleksandra, thank you for the clarification, it makes sense to me now. In my opinion our current approach is not flexible at all and very outdated. After splitting fuel-web to smaller components we realized that some of them may be actually used outside of a master node as standalone things. In

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

Hi, I really don't like setting the error message as the default one in the DB schema and consider it as a last resort solution. If possible update the message to error one just before you start to build the image. 2015-12-15 18:48 GMT+03:00 Artur Svechnikov : > Hi folks, > Recently was introduc

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hey Mike, Thanks for your input. > actually not. if you replace your ARRAY columns with JSON entirely, It still needs to fix the code, i.e. change ARRAY-specific queries with JSON ones around the code. ;) > there's already a mostly finished PR for SQLAlchemy support in the queue. Does it mean

[openstack-dev] [Fuel][Ubuntu bootstrap] WebUI notification

Hi folks, Recently was introduced special notification about absented bootstrap image. Currently this notification is sent from fuel-bootstrap-cli. It means that error message will not be sent when failure occurs before first building (like in [1]). I think it will be better to set error message o

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hello! We use mysql-wsrep-5.6 which is latest for galera. It is based on MySQL-5.6.27. So JSON features here is not available yet. Regards, Artem Silenkov --- MOS-Packaging On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > On 12/15/2015 07:20 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > > Hey Julien, >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 12/15/2015 07:20 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > Hey Julien, > >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql > > I believe this blueprint is about DB for OpenStack cloud (we use > Galera now), while here we're talking about DB backend for Fuel > itself. Fuel has a s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Artem - > PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0]. Python 2.7 will reach end-of-life at the beginning of 2020. However, we don't drop Python 2.7 and don't start using Python 3.5 instead. Moreover we aren't going to have CentOS 7 forever. I believe either new Cent

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

I'd support PostgreSQL 9.3 in 8.0. * It is clear that PostgreSQL downgrade wasn't planned and discussed before Feature Freeze, so this change is accidental. We didn't investigate all possible consequences and changes required for the switch. * In Infra we have all our unit tests run on PostgreSQL

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hello! I got another few points against downgrading. 1. PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0]. With high probability it means that we will have 9.2 version in centos repos when fuel9.0 arrives. It means that we will have to repackage it anyway just later a littl

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hey Julien, > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql I believe this blueprint is about DB for OpenStack cloud (we use Galera now), while here we're talking about DB backend for Fuel itself. Fuel has a separate node (so called Fuel Master) and we use PostgreSQL no

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Different versions for different components

Roman, we use 8.0 version everywhere in Fuel code _before_ 8.0 release. We don't use bump&tag approach, rather bump version, run a development and test cycle, then create release and tag it. In more details: 1) there is a master branch, in which development for upcoming release (currently 8.0) h

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Different versions for different components

Folks, I can see that version for python-fuelclient package is already [1] set to 8.0.0. However, there’s still no corresponding tag and so the version was not released to PyPi. The question is it finally safe to tag different versions for different components? As for Fuel client we need to tag

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Ways to improve plugin links handling in 9.0

Igor, 2015-12-15 13:14 GMT+03:00 Igor Kalnitsky : > Hey Vitaly, > > I agree that having a lot of logic (receiving auth token, creating > payload and doing post request) in RPM post_install section is a huge > overhead, and definitely it's not a way to go. We have to find better > solution, and I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On Mon, Dec 14 2015, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > The things I want to notice are: > > * Currently we aren't tied up to PostgreSQL 9.3. > * There's a patch [2] that ties Fuel up to PostgreSQL 9.3+ by using a > set of JSON operations. I'm curious and have just a small side question: does that mean Fuel

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Ways to improve plugin links handling in 9.0

Hey Vitaly, I agree that having a lot of logic (receiving auth token, creating payload and doing post request) in RPM post_install section is a huge overhead, and definitely it's not a way to go. We have to find better solution, and I think it should be done declaratively (via some YAML). Moreove

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Ways to improve plugin links handling in 9.0

Hi, As you may know, in Fuel 8.0 we've implemented blueprint external-dashboard-links-in-fuel-dashboard . It will allow plugins to add links to their dashboards to the Fuel UI after deployment. As link construc

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

+1 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Anastasia Urlapova wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Roman Vyalov > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin > > wrote: >> >>> +1. >>> >>> >>> Aleksey Kasatkin >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Vladimi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

+1 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Roman Vyalov wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin > wrote: > >> +1. >> >> >> Aleksey Kasatkin >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Vladimir Sharshov < >> vshars...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> +1 from me to Bulat.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

It's important to note that given the change in the upgrade method, there will be no actual downgrade of the package, since Fuel 8.0 Admin Node will be installed on a clean system. So, from the upgrade standpoint I see no obstacles to have 9.2 in Fuel 8.0. I also greet any chance to reduce the numb

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hi, If we can stick with upstream PostgresSQL that would be really nice. Otherwise security updates and regular package update will be a burden of package maintainers. Ideally we should have as less forked packages as possible. -- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser On M

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

> One of potential disadvantages is that it is harder to track package > dependencies, but I think > a deployment script should be a root of the package dependency tree. That's something I'd try to avoid. Let's be close to distro upstream practice. I never saw something like "fuel-deploy" that ru

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Dropping Python 2.6

Sorry for duplicating discussions. os-dev subsription was broken for me for a while so I missed a lot :( > 14 груд. 2015 р. о 15:23 Evgeniy L написав(ла): > > Hi Roman, > > We've discussed it [1], so +1 > > [1] > https://openstack.nimeyo.com/67521/openstac

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Dropping Python 2.6

Hi Roman, We've discussed it [1], so +1 [1] https://openstack.nimeyo.com/67521/openstack-dev-fuel-dropping-python2-6-compatibility On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > Fuelers, > > Since Mitaka OpenStack Infra has no resources to test python 2.6 su

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Dropping Python 2.6

+1 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > Fuelers, > > Since Mitaka OpenStack Infra has no resources to test python 2.6 support > so the corresponding jobs are not running anymore. Since Fuel master node > is on CentOS 7 now, let’s drop Python 2.6 support in Fuel. > > > -

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Dropping Python 2.6

Fuelers, Since Mitaka OpenStack Infra has no resources to test python 2.6 support so the corresponding jobs are not running anymore. Since Fuel master node is on CentOS 7 now, let’s drop Python 2.6 support in Fuel. - romcheg signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMai

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hi, > Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user experience +1 to this. Let's keep PostgreSQL 9.3. Regards, Alex On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Artem Silenkov wrote: > Hello! > > Vote for update. > > 1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such comp

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

> Meantime we can provide fuel-menu which will become a configuration > gate for different subprojects. Perhaps we could consider to use > pluggable approach, so each component will export plugin for fuel-menu > with own settings. fuel-menu could be a configuration gate for fuel deployment script

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hello! Vote for update. 1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such complicated package without any reason is not good thing at all. User experience could suffer a lot. 2. The next reason is tests. We have tested only 9.3, 9.2 was not tested at all. I'm sure we could bring seriou

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][QA] New version of fuel-devops (2.9.15)

+openstack-dev On 12/14/2015 02:40 PM, Dennis Dmitriev wrote: > Hi All, > > We have updated the version of 'fuel-devops' framework to the 2.9.15. > > This is mainly bugfix update. > > Version 2.9.15 will be updated on our product CI during next several days. > > Changes since 2.9.13: > > - Process

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

On 2015-12-14 13:12, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > My opinion here is that I don't like that we're going to build and > maintain one more custom package (just take a look at this patch [4] > if you don't believe me), but I'd like to hear more opinion here. > > Thanks, > Igor > > [1] https://bugs.launch

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

+1 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin wrote: > +1. > > > Aleksey Kasatkin > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Vladimir Sharshov < > vshars...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> +1 from me to Bulat. >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Igor Kalnitsky >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fue

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] PostgreSQL 9.3 and JSON operations

Hi Fuelers, As you might know, recently we moved to CentOS 7 and as a result we got a small regression with PostgreSQL: * Fuel 7 runs on CentOS 6.6 and uses manually built PostgreSQL 9.3. * Fuel 8 runs on CentOS 7 and uses PostgreSQL 9.2 from CentOS upstream repos. There are different opinions

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

+1. Aleksey Kasatkin On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Vladimir Sharshov wrote: > Hi, > > +1 from me to Bulat. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Igor Kalnitsky > wrote: > >> Hi Fuelers, >> >> I'd like to nominate Bulat Gaifulin [1] for >> >> * fuel-web-core [2] >> * fuel-mirror-core [3] >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Configuration management for Fuel 7.0

Dmitry, Q1. Yes. > where do you plan to actually perform settings manipulation? It was one of the critical blockers. Most of the settings are baked inside fuel-library. Your feature [1] partially fixes this BTW. Which is good. Partially, because only limited number of tasks has defined overrides

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

Hi, +1 from me to Bulat. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: > Hi Fuelers, > > I'd like to nominate Bulat Gaifulin [1] for > > * fuel-web-core [2] > * fuel-mirror-core [3] > > Bulat's doing a really good review with detailed feedback and he's a > regular participant in IRC. H

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

Hi, Vladimir, Please be informed that we'll have to also make an appropriate changes on the fuel-agent side. But yes, it's possible to do it before SCF. 2015-12-11 20:05 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Kozhukalov : > If there are no any objections, let's do fix fuel-menu ASAP. As Fedor said > this approach w

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Nominate Bulat Gaifulin for fuel-web & fuel-mirror cores

Hi Fuelers, I'd like to nominate Bulat Gaifulin [1] for * fuel-web-core [2] * fuel-mirror-core [3] Bulat's doing a really good review with detailed feedback and he's a regular participant in IRC. He's co-author of packetary and fuel-mirror projects, and he made valuable contribution to fuel-web

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

Vladimir, Thanks for raising this question. I totally support idea of separating provisioning and deployment steps. I believe it'll simplify a lot of things. However I have some comments regarding this topic, see them inline. :) > For a package it is absolutely normal to throw a user dialog. It

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental Task Based Deployment Landed into Master

+1 It's really good job folks. On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > Fuelers > > I am thrilled to announce that task based deployment engine [0] has been > just merged into Fuel master. We checked it against existing BVT test cases > for regressions as well as against functio

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

Oleg, Thanks a lot for your opinion. Here are some more thoughts on this topic. 1) For a package it is absolutely normal to throw a user dialog. But probably there is kind of standard for the dialog that does not allow to use fuelmenu. AFAIK, for DEB packages it is debconf and there is a tutorial

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Feature Freeze Exceptions

Latest update: all implemented now. Task-based deployment was the last one, and it got merged today: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-December/082093.html . Great work everyone! On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:48 PM Sergii Golovatiuk wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental Task Based Deployment Landed into Master

Fuelers I am thrilled to announce that task based deployment engine [0] has been just merged into Fuel master. We checked it against existing BVT test cases for regressions as well as against functional testing for several cases of deployment. All the OSTF and network verification tests have succe

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disabling root SSH access to slave nodes.

Hello Fuelers, Due to a very large scope of the original bp/spec, it had to be split into 3 smaller ones. Currently, there is one blueprint[1] available. It covers root access to openstack nodes. It basically comes down to following: - Allow user to specify account name(s) to create and configur

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Feature Freeze Exceptions

Hi all, On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Mike Scherbakov wrote: > Hi all, > we ran a meeting and made a decision on feature freeze exceptions. Full > log is here: > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-8.0-FF-meeting > > The following features were granted with feature freeze exception: > >1

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

For the package-based deployment, we need to get rid of 'deployment script' whatsoever. All configuration stuff should be done in package specs, or by the user later on (maybe via some fuelmenu-like lightweight UI, or via WebUI). Thus, fuel package must install everything that is required for runn

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate master node provisioning and deployment

Dear colleagues, At the moment part of the Fuel master deployment logic is located in ISO kickstart file, which is bad. We'd better carefully split provisioning and deployment stages so as to install base operating system during provisioning stage and then everything else on the deployment stage.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Configuration management for Fuel 7.0

Oleg, thanks. I've tried it [1], looks like it works. - GOOD. "override_resource" resource. Like "back door" into puppet modules. - BAD. It allows just apply, not track changes. Moreover works weird, if multiple changes uploaded, applying not the latest, but initial config change. - BAD. Just lim

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

If there are no any objections, let's do fix fuel-menu ASAP. As Fedor said this approach was suggested first, but then it was rejected during review process. It should not be so hard to get it back. Fedor, could you please confirm that it is possible to do this before SCF? Here is the bug https://b

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Moved blueprints out of 8.0

Hi Dmitry, I would like not to overcomplicate blueprints. If additional work is required there should be additional dependent blueprint. This will help us to deliver all blueprints on time while other teams are working on own blueprints (e.g. Documentation) with own release cadence. [1] https://w

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disable stringify_facts in 9.0

I think we should turn it on in the next release. That would be really nice to have it. -- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Aleksandr Didenko wrote: > Hi, > > I agree, let's do this. > > Regards, > Alex > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:0

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Important: Functional tests are back. Please rebase

Fuelers, for a long time functional tests in Fuel Client were not triggered by Fuel CI because of a pesky bug [1] in our tox.ini. The fix [2] for it was landed a few minutes ago. Since we don’t have gate jobs that trigger functional tests, I gently ask you to rebase your patches for Fuel Clien

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Extend FFE for "Disable queue mirroring for RPC queues in RabbitMQ"

Folks, First, let me report current feature status: we continued the work with Bogdan Dobrelya and Sergii Golovatiuk. I have incorporated their feedback into the change. Also, I have fully tested it on custom ISO and Fuel CI passes successfully. Also, I have an approval from Bogdan on the implemen

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

BTW, here you can see an example http://demo.fuel-infra.org:8000 Just go to any cluster and see Repositories section on the settings tab. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > I'd like this module > https://github.com/openst

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

I'd like this module https://github.com/openstack/fuel-menu/blob/master/fuelmenu/modules/bootstrapimg.py to be fixed so a user can define several repos independently. This particular ML thread is not about internal repo data format, it is not about particular format that we expose to end user. This

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

Hello, Vladimir. Seems nothing is better for end-user in UI/fuel-mirror/image-bootstrap than 'You Get What You See' because system administrator should not learn new standard: http://url trusty main http://anotherurl trusty universe multiverse restricted http://yet-another-url trusty-my-favorite-up

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Multiple repos UX

Folks, when you get consensus here, please file a bug - it's most likely fixable in 8.0. 2015-12-11 14:44 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Kozhukalov : > Regarding to UI. Of course, we could provide native format to a user on > UI. Although I don't think it would be much easier to edit, but it is > flexible en

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >