Instead of storing the generated source translation files
(*/locale/*.pot) in git and proposing them as part of the translation
import, we publish these files now whenever we push to the translation
server also to http://tarballs.openstack.org/translation-source/
Therefore, the source files are no
Akihiro Motoki wrote on 05/06/2016 08:20:45 PM:
> From: Akihiro Motoki
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Date: 05/06/2016 08:23 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][osc] Austin Design summit summary
> on the future of Neutron client
>
> n Austin we had a session on the future of n
Recently, the centos binary and source gate failed due to the rabbitmq
container
existed. After making some debug. I do not found the root cause.
does anyone has any idea for this?
see this PS gate result[0]
centos binary gate failed[1]
CentOS source gate failed[2]
[0] https://review.openstack.o
Dirk, Haïkel, Igor, Alan, Tony, Ghe,
Please see brain dump here - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/requirements-tasks
Looking at time overlap, it seems that most of you are in one time
range and Tony and I are outliers
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20160506&p1=43&p2=2
Hi Matt,
I'm open to discuss what would be the best way forward in this topic. First of
all I would like to understand the intention with document structures long term
to see how we can have a scalable and maintainable process.
My experience is that keeping the documentation up to date separate
On 05/07/2016 06:09 PM, Ildikó Váncsa wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I'm open to discuss what would be the best way forward in this topic. First
> of all I would like to understand the intention with document structures long
> term to see how we can have a scalable and maintainable process.
>
> My exper
Hi all,
I've been wanting to recognize the efforts of glance-cores for a while
and send this & alike emails for a while. Found a good time to do so.
Currently, there are 12 (human) core reviewers in the Glance program
(same for all concerned repos) and they have been providing excellent
input to t
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for your email.
I got input from a helpful soul that the generated sample configs should
also be moved to somewhere publishable? Is that effort in progress as
well and any links to share (if so)?
On 5/7/16 4:45 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Instead of storing the generated s
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: May 07, 2016 20:51
> To: Ildikó Váncsa; 'Matt Kassawara'
> Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List; enstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] What's Up, Doc? 6 May 2016
>
> On 05/07/2016 06:09 PM, Ildikó Váncsa w
On 05/07/2016 10:06 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> I got input from a helpful soul that the generated sample configs should
> also be moved to somewhere publishable? Is that effort in progress as
> well and any links to share (if so)?
Nikhil,
look at t
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 05/07/2016 06:09 PM, Ildikó Váncsa wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > I'm open to discuss what would be the best way forward in this topic.
> First of all I would like to understand the intention with document
> structures long term to see how w
On 5/7/16 4:26 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 05/07/2016 10:06 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Thank you for your email.
>>
>> I got input from a helpful soul that the generated sample configs should
>> also be moved to somewhere publishable? Is that effort in progress as
>> well
Hi Team,
We are trying to describe specification [1] regarding to ""cross
OpenStack L2 networking"" [0] as Chaoyi mentioned in previous message.
Honestly that description [0] does not accurately describe what this
project is trying to do. And it's hard to be described by few words as
well.
And he
Hi Team,
Since there was no tag [tricircle] in subject, I'm emailing you again.
Sorry for spam -;
We are trying to describe specification [1] regarding to ""cross
OpenStack L2 networking"" [0] as Chaoyi mentioned in previous message.
Honestly that description [0] does not accurately describe what
Hi,
I see that the minimum kernel version required for ubuntu 14.04 is 4.2
[1]. The precheck job failed on gate because those ubuntu VMs have
kernel version 3.13.
Shall we add kernel upgrade command (i.e., apt-get install
linux-image-generic-lts-wily) in the precheck role?
- Hui
[1]
http://docs
That won't get you running the new kernel; for that you need to change
the image itself.
-Rob
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsu
Robert,
Thanks for you reply. Is there any way to change the VM image on the gate?
BTW, I do see some kolla deploy gate job successes on kernel 3.13 [1].
Is there any reason kolla needs to check 4.2 on ubuntu 14.04?
- Hui
[1]
http://logs.openstack.org/38/313838/1/check/gate-kolla-dsvm-deploy-ub
Hi,
@Robert: I was successful to update the kernel without change the image.
It seems Kolla is quite unstable.
Tutj
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Hui Kang wrote:
> Robert,
> Thanks for you reply. Is there any way to change the VM image on the gate?
>
> BTW, I do see some kolla deploy gate jo
18 matches
Mail list logo
