On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> At the TC meeting yesterday we discussed Rally program request and
> incubation request. We quickly dismissed the incubation request, as
> Rally appears to be able to live happily on top of OpenStack and would
> benefit from
This came up while reviewing the fix for bug 1327406 [1]. Basically the
os-networks API behaves differently depending on your backing network
manager in nova-network.
We run Tempest in the gate with the FlatDHCPManager, which has the bug;
if you try to list networks as a non-admin user it won
Thanks Matt for bringing this up/
There is a tiny start in flight here [0] - if you plan to work on providing
full testing coverage for the n-net api you may want to create a spec with
a link to an etherpad to help track / split the work.
andrea
[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107552/21
On 08/08/14 00:53, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 07/08/14 13:22, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a ResourceGroup which wraps a custom resource defined in another
>> template:
>>
>> servers:
>>type: OS::Heat::ResourceGroup
>>properties:
>> count: 10
>> r
On 8/8/2014 9:50 AM, Andrea Frittoli wrote:
Thanks Matt for bringing this up/
There is a tiny start in flight here [0] - if you plan to work on
providing full testing coverage for the n-net api you may want to create
a spec with a link to an etherpad to help track / split the work.
andrea
[0
On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote:
Hi,
Following a very interesting and vocal thread on GBP for last couple of
days and the GBP meeting today, GBP sub-team proposes following name
changes to the resource.
policy-point for endpoint
policy-group for endpointgroup (epg)
Please reply if you
Wuhongning [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
>Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like security
>group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself, without
>bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2
Hi all,
I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
glance for network QoS.
There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
* Download rate limiting
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21380/
Was there any discussion in the past summit about thi
The existing constructs will not change.
On Aug 8, 2014 9:49 AM, "CARVER, PAUL" wrote:
> Wuhongning [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
>
> >Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like
> security
> >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself,
> wit
On 2014-08-08 8:54 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 08/07/2014 07:57 AM, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
IMO, moving the burden of such orchestration (and garbage collection)
to the end users would be a mistake. It's not a good UX at all.
I could say that removing auto-creation is like having to create your
v
Hi Paul,
Don't need to worry, you are perfectly right, GBP API is not replacing
anything :).
Also thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter.
Thanks,
Ivar.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> Wuhongning [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
>
> >Does it make sense to mo
Quick Question:
>From what I understand, GBP is a high level declarative way of configuring
the network which ultimately gets mapped to basic Neutron API's via some
business logic. Why can't it be in a module of it own? In that way users
who want to use it can just install that and use it as an int
Is there a straightforward way to determine where the time is going when
I run a command from novaclient?
For instance, if I run "nova list", that's going to run novaclient,
which will send a message to nova-api, which wakes up and does some
processing and sends a message to nova-conductor, wh
Chris,
We working on cross service project profiler OSprofiler [1] and integrating
it in all projects (including gates)
Please join discussion here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103825/
If everting goes well we will get this feature in Juno.
So we will be able to trace request cross service-p
On 08/08/2014 08:55 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
The existing constructs will not change.
A followup question on the above...
If GPB API is merged into Neutron, the next logical steps (from what I
can tell) will be to add drivers that handle policy-based payloads/requests.
Some of these drivers,
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> Michael Still wrote:
> > [...] I think an implied side effect of
> > the runway system is that nova-drivers would -2 blueprint reviews
> > which were not occupying a slot.
> >
> > (If we start doing more -2's I think we will need to explore
Hi Jay,
You can choose. The whole purpose of this is about flexibility, if you want
to use GBP API 'only' with a specific driver you just can.
Additionally, given the 'ML2 like' architecture, the reference mapping
driver can ideally run alongside by filling the core Neutron constructs
without ever
It might be because of the wording used, but it seems to me that you're
making it sound like the group policy effort could have been completely
orthogonal to neutron as we know it now.
What I understood is that the declarative abstraction offered by group
policy could do without any existing neutr
Hi,
For updating keystone from 2014.1.1 to 2014.1.2, I had to:
- Upgrade oslo-config from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade oslo.messaging from 1.3.0~a9 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade python-six from 1.6 to 1.7
- Upgrade python-pycadf from 0.4 to 0.5.1
- Add python-ldappool
- Add python-oslo.db
- Add python
Hi Alistair,
Modules can register their own options and there is no need to call
reload_config_files. The config files are parsed and values stored in case the
option is later declared. The only time you need to reload files is if you add
new config files in the new module. See the example code
On Aug 8, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ganapathy, Sandhya
> wrote:
> This is to discuss Bug #1231298 –
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1231298
>
> ...
> Conclusion reached with this bug is that, we need to modify cinder client in
> order
I'm hearing "friend of a friend" that people have looked at the code and
determined that the order of networks on a VM is not guaranteed. Can anyone
confirm whether this is true? If it is true, is there any reason why this is
not considered a bug? I've never seen it happen myself.
To elaborate,
On 08/08/2014 02:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I agree with Eoghan here. The main goal of an agile/lean system is to
> maximize a development team productivity. The main goal of Open source
> project management is not to maximize productivity. It’s to maximize
> contributions. I wrote about that a
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
into the neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group
policy plugin will make sure they don't violate any policy constraints
before passi
Does your log server allow anonymous uploads that caused it to host malware
or something that led to it being blocked?
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> Trinath:
>
> In looking at your FWaaS review [1], I noticed the site you are using
> for log storage is being blacklisted
On Aug 8, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Piyush Harsh wrote:
> Dear Eoghan,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Although you are correct that rating, charging, and
> billing policies are commercially sensitive to the operators, still if an
> operator has an openstack installation, I do not see why the stack cou
> From: David Stanek [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:25 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Question on decorators in
> Ceilometer pecan framework
> It looks like maybe WSME or Pecan is ins
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to use
> the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated into the
> neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group policy plugin
> will ma
The only issue with the separate service proxying API calls is that it
can't receive requests between the service and core plugins.
What kind of stability requirements were you concerned about? A response
change would be similar to having a custom policy.json file where things
that violate constra
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For updating keystone from 2014.1.1 to 2014.1.2, I had to:
>
> - Upgrade oslo-config from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0.0~a3
> - Upgrade oslo.messaging from 1.3.0~a9 to 1.4.0.0~a3
> - Upgrade python-six from 1.6 to 1.7
> - Upgrade python-pycadf from 0.4 to 0.5.1
> - Add python-ld
Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a GBP service plugin is
deployed with a driver which i
On 08/08/2014 12:29 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a GBP
Actually I am able to access the logs in this CI over the internet and
through my service provider. I have copy-pasted the log from the
latest freescale run here (to validate if this is indeed the latest
run):
http://paste.openstack.org/show/92229/
But good point Kevin, when I was trying to post t
On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Modules can register their own options and there is no need to call
> reload_config_files. The config files are parsed and values stored in case
> the option is later declared. The only time you need to reload files is i
Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Followi
On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton wrote:
> There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
> use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
> into the neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group
> policy plugin will make sure
+1
Sumit Naiksatam wrote on 08/08/2014 02:44:55 PM:
> From: Sumit Naiksatam
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: 08/08/2014 02:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy -
Renaming
>
> Thanks Jay for your constructive fee
"policy target" sounds good. +1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
wrote:
> Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
> that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
> the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
>
> On Fri, Aug
On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Pendergrass, Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been struggling to get a decorator working for proposed new RBAC
> functionality in ceilometer-api. We’re hitting a problem where GET request
> query parameters are mucked up by our decorator. Here’s an example call:
>
It sounds good
+1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
wrote:
> Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
> that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
> the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>
>> There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
>> use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
>> into the neutron project. If someone uses
On 08/08/2014 08:49 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
Hi all,
I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
glance for network QoS.
There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
* Download rate limiting
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21380/
Was
[Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing
development process can be used to stabilize new features in-tree over
the time frame of
On 08/08/2014 04:17 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/08/2014 08:49 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
>> glance for network QoS.
>>
>> There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
>>
>> * Download
GBP is about networking policy and hence limited to networking constructs.
It enhances the networking constructs. Since it follows more or less the
plugin model, it is not in one monolithic module but fans out to the policy
module and is done via extension.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Arman
+1, That’s what suggested in the blueprint a year ago:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/transfer-rate-limiting
"It looks like consensus during summit discussion that rate limiting should be
a separate facility running as a proxy in front of glance.”
Thanks,
Arnaud
On Aug 8, 2014,
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I'll upload a new tarball ASAP. I took down the wrong one. Sorry for the
> inconvenience... the issues here are not a policy problem, they are just
> human error in the original tag, complicated by CI staleness that made
> us think we fixed it while we didn't.
keystone 2014
That's ok for me as well!
+1
On Aug 8, 2014 10:04 PM, "Prasad Vellanki" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> It sounds good
> +1
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
>> that 'policy-tar
On 8/8/14 16:28 , "Arnaud Legendre"
mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
+1, That’s what suggested in the blueprint a year ago:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/transfer-rate-limiting
"It looks like consensus during summit discussion that rate limiting should be
a separate facility
I'm unable to retrigger the turbo-hipster verification job on a change
("recheck migrations" comment retriggers Jenkins but not
turbo-hipster) and I sent an e-mail to [email protected] two days ago
and still have not received a reply. Has anyone else run into this
problem and found a way
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:40:28PM +0800, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >While DB migrations are running things like the nova metadata service
> >can/will misbehave - and user code within instances will be affected.
> >Thats arguably VM downtime.
> >
> >OTOH you could define it more narrowly as 'VMs are no
On 08/08/2014 09:06 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> - instead implement a third party CI with the latest available
>> libvirt release [1]
>
> As for the general idea of doing CI, absolutely. That was discussed
> earlier in the thread, though nobody has picked up the ball yet. I can
> work on it, t
+1 for policy-target
-Original Message-
From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 12:45 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming
Thanks Jay
On 08/06/2014 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 01:40 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
>> On 06/08/14 13:30, Robert Collins wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2014 17:27, Tom Fifield wrote:
On 06/08/14 13:24, Robert Collins wrote:
>>>
> What happened to your DB migrations then? :)
Sorry
Hi Robert,
I think this is a great proposal.
Easy to understand and (at a first glance) easy to implement.
Also, it seems the perfect compromise for those who wanted GBP (as a
representative for this kind of extension) in tree, and those who wanted it
to be more mature first.
Fwiw, You have my su
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Robert Kukura wrote:
> [Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
> proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
> This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing development
> process can be use
>
> Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
> software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
accordance to the same principles and architectural choices made for the
service
>This is the statement that makes me trip over,
I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you are so incredibly
shocked by the stupidity of that statement that you fall down? Or does it
mean something else?
>Policy decision points can be decentralized from the system under scrutiny,
Unfor
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> We seem to be unable to address some key issues in the software we
> produce, and part of it is due to strategic contributors (and core
> reviewers) being overwhelmed just trying to stay afloat of what's
> happening. For such projects, is it
That sounds essentially correct. Note that all 15 vms aren't used in a
normal devtest run, but we create them all anyway because of some
difficulties adding new environments in some situations (namely CI, I
believe).
On 08/05/2014 11:27 AM, LeslieWang wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
"If we want to keep everything the way it is, we have to change everything"
[1]
This is pretty much how I felt after reading this proposal, and I felt that
this quote, which Ivar will probably appreciate, was apt to the situation.
Recent events have spurred a discussion about the need for a change
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 08/05/2014 09:03 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is
>> facing complex challenges. How we handle those might determine the
>> ultimate success or failure o
On 8 August 2014 14:55, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >This is the statement that makes me trip over,
>
> I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you are so incredibly
> shocked by the stupidity of that statement that you fall down? Or does it
> mean something else?
>
Why would you think that? I
On 08/08/14 11:07, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
On 08/08/14 00:53, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 07/08/14 13:22, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
Hi all,
I have a ResourceGroup which wraps a custom resource defined in another
template:
servers:
type: OS::Heat::ResourceGroup
properties:
co
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> That’s right. The preferred approach is to put the register_opt() in
> *runtime* code somewhere before the option will be used. That might be in
> the constructor for a class that uses an option, for example, as described
> in
> http://docs
On Aug 8, 2014, at 14:09 , Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 08/06/2014 01:40 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
>>> On 06/08/14 13:30, Robert Collins wrote:
On 6 August 2014 17:27, Tom Fifield wrote:
> On 06/08/14 13:24, Robert Collins wrote:
>> What
Li Ma,
This is interesting, In general I am in favor of expanding the scope of any
read/write separation capabilities that we have. I'm not clear what exactly
you are proposing, hopefully you can answer some of my questions inline.
The thing I had thought of immediately was detection of whether an
If this is true, I think the issue is not on Neutron side but the Nova
side.
Neutron just receives and handles individual port requests. It has no
notion of the order in which they are attached to the VM.
Can you add the Nova tag to get some visibility to the Nova devs?
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
>> software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
>
>
> I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
> accordance to the same
Hi Eugene,
I dig into few medium priority bugs yesterday and today. Have added
comments there. I started from the bottom in the list at etherpad. I will
continue to go in the reverse order on daily basis as and when I get time.
Let me know if you need any specific help wrt this. ping me on irc (rms
> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the neutron
> common framework such as Keystone authentication where common scoping is
> done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to have such
> scoping
>
The framework you're referring to is common and already reus
Hi,
Robert Kukura's proposal does address the following:
1. Make it explicit to the user that an API is in "preview" until it's
moved out of the preview directories
2. One of the criteria to accept a BP for preview is for the functionality
to be optional via configuration. This will not impact th
i like your idea, as an operator, it gives me new features while keep my
core running fine.
only one think i didn't like it
why all url,api, etc has to include the word 'preview'?
i imagine that i would be consuming the new feature using heat, puppet,
local scripts, custom horizon, whatever. Why
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
>> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the neutron
>> common framework such as Keystone authentication where common scoping is
>> done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to have such
>> scoping
>>
On 08/09/2014 04:34 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> I'll upload a new tarball ASAP. I took down the wrong one. Sorry for the
>> inconvenience... the issues here are not a policy problem, they are just
>> human error in the original tag, complicated by CI staleness that made
>>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> One advantage of the service plugin is that one can leverage the
>>> neutron common framework such as Keystone authentication where common
>>> scoping is done. It would be important in the policy type of framework to
>>> have su
Hi Kyle-
I’m using a paid hosting from GODADDY. The website is
http://fslopenstackci.com. I registered this domain too.
This time it’s not a free hosting that I used long back.
I’m posting to this domain from past 3 months.
Does anyone have the same issue with my logs website?
--
Trinath
Hi Sumit-
When I try to paste a large log text into paste.openstack, It is giving me
image verification and says its spam.
I don't know why its taken as spam/malware. It's a paid hosting I had from
GODADDY.
--
Trinath Somanchi - B39208
[email protected] | extn: 4048
-Original
On 08/08/2014 02:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I'm unable to retrigger the turbo-hipster verification job on a change
> ("recheck migrations" comment retriggers Jenkins but not turbo-hipster)
> and I sent an e-mail to [email protected] two days ago and still have not
> received a re
On 08/08/2014 10:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Sumit-
>
> When I try to paste a large log text into paste.openstack, It is giving me
> image verification and says its spam.
Let's not confuse paste.openstack.org's spam blocker from spam blockers
on servers. They are two separat
On 08/08/2014 07:58 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is
>>> facing complex challenges. Ho
Thanks anita for the reply.
Previously the existing server is accessible by kyle. But now its not being
accessible.
For the paid hosting I have its administered by godaddy and the FTP is only
accessed by Jenkins.
I can try relocating FTP web based file browser script and provide a normal
vi
On 08/08/2014 11:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Thanks anita for the reply.
>
> Previously the existing server is accessible by kyle. But now its not being
> accessible.
>
> For the paid hosting I have its administered by godaddy
If you are paying godaddy to administer the serve
Hi,
Is it possible to send a patch for review (i.e. A) on gerrit based on
multiple commit under the review (i.e. B and C)?
Based on the wiki page to add dependency these command should be used:
A->B, A->C (no dependency between B and C)
#fetch change under review and check out branch based on tha
Hi,
Recently I have noticed the api-paste. ini file in heat has some very
long lines (over the popular 80c).
Wondering if there's recommended length limitation on it?
Sometime, users have to read the file and change the configuration
value, so I think it should be kept readable.
Th
On 08/08/2014 12:12 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
>> contributors' activities
>
> This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go
> uncorrected: we (the OpenStack proj
Dear Eoghan,
Thanks for your comments. Although you are correct that rating, charging,
and billing policies are commercially sensitive to the operators, still if
an operator has an openstack installation, I do not see why the stack could
not offer a service that supports ways for the operator to i
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> Please respond in the usual manner, +1 or concerns.
+1, I would be happy to see Ian joining the team.
Chmouel
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack
just an update: the "Neutron Ryu" CI is getting stable now.
please let me know if you noticed any problems. thank you.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
Hi Nader,
Le 08/08/2014 09:23, Nader Lahouti a écrit :
Hi,
Is it possible to send a patch for review (i.e. A) on gerrit based on
multiple commit under the review (i.e. B and C)?
Based on the wiki page to add dependency these command should be used:
A->B, A->C (no dependency between B and C)
#f
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:43 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
>>> wrote:
hi,
what's the right procedure to deprecate a plugin? we (ryu team) are
considering deprecating ryu plugin, in favor of ofagent. probably in
K-
Dear Andre,
I have not been an active user or IRC, but I have just now started using
it, I use the handle PH7_0 on irc://rajaniemi.freenode.net ... Tell me the
time and date and we can discuss more on cyclops.
Cheers,
Piyush.
___
Dr. Piyush Harsh, Ph.D.
Resear
i made 4 vm 1 controller, 1 network and 2 compute and i want 1 compute to
run as a storage so plz help how can i do such ?
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Hi John,
I have some comments as well. see blow :)
_On 6 August 2014 18:54, Jay Pipes
wrote:
> So, Liyi Meng has an interesting patch up for Nova:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104876
>
> 1) We should just deprecate both the options, with a note in the option help
> te
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 12:01:04PM +0200, Piyush Harsh wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Let me use my first post to this list to introduce Cyclops and initiate a
> discussion towards possibility of this platform as a future incubated project
> in OpenStack.
>
> We at Zurich university of Applied Sciences h
Michael Still wrote:
> [...] I think an implied side effect of
> the runway system is that nova-drivers would -2 blueprint reviews
> which were not occupying a slot.
>
> (If we start doing more -2's I think we will need to explore how to
> not block on someone with -2's taking a vacation. Some sor
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>> My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
>>> contributors' activities
>>
>> This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go
>> uncorrected: we (the OpenStack project as a whole) have a
On 08/08/2014 11:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Personally I think we just need to get better at communicating the
> downstream expectations, so that if we create waste, it's clearly
> upstream fault rather than downstream. Currently it's the lack of
> communication that makes developers produce mo
On 07/08/14 18:54, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:46 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
>>> In any case, the operative point is that CONF. must
>> always be
>>> evaluated inside run-time code, never at module load time.
>>
>> ...unless you call register_opts() safely, which is what I'
On 07/08/14 19:02, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:41 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
>> ... or arg is an object which defines __nonzero__(), or defines
>> __getattr__() and then explodes because of the unexpected lookup of a
>> __nonzero__ attribute. Or it's False (no quotes when p
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
