On 07/31/2015 01:45 AM, Armando M. wrote:
On 29 July 2015 at 22:42, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:37 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Hi,
Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the
Neutron
core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right
On 29 July 2015 at 22:42, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:37 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Hi,
Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the
Neutron
core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right guidance to
resolve
the apparent conflict
On 07/29/2015 02:37 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Hi,
Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the Neutron
core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right guidance to resolve
the apparent conflict between the two proposals.
As some reviewers mentioned, we should
On 07/27/2015 07:15 PM, Cathy Zhang wrote:
Hi Anita,
Not sure if you read the logs. The concern on
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/ and duplication were brought up by
Sean.
The goal is to have one set of API instead of multiple APIs with minor
differences. The consensus is that
Hi,
Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the Neutron
core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right guidance to resolve
the apparent conflict between the two proposals.
As some reviewers mentioned, we should really strive to catch two birds
with one stone, and
All,
My suggestion was as follows:
sc68cal I'd say maybe an e-mail to the ML, with the results of this
meeting, and say that we want to try and converge where
there is commonality
I think there is overlap between the two APIs. Let's keep collaborating
on both the networking-sfc and packet
On 07/24/2015 06:50 PM, Cathy Zhang wrote:
Hi Everyone,
In our last networking-sfc project IRC meeting, an issue was brought up that
the API proposed in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/ has a lot of
duplication to the SFC API https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192933/ that is
being
Hi Anita,
Not sure if you read the logs. The concern on
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/ and duplication were brought up by
Sean.
The goal is to have one set of API instead of multiple APIs with minor
differences. The consensus is that the SFC API seems more general than the
Anita,
The spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204695/ has this history: it is
the latest
in a series of patches on the spec 'API for Service Chaining'
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192933/.
On Jun 17 Armando ported our original spec 'Neutron API for Service Chaining'
On 7/27/2015 5:20 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:
I think you need to acknowledge in both email topic and in content that
Sean tried to draw the fact that you are duplicating this work on July
16th. Collaboration is much more than our meeting decided you shouldn't
do your work. Perhaps taking a step back
Hi Everyone,
In our last networking-sfc project IRC meeting, an issue was brought up that
the API proposed in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/ has a lot of
duplication to the SFC API https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192933/ that is
being currently implemented. In the IRC meeting, the
11 matches
Mail list logo
