Rochelle Grober wrote:
> In many ways, having the PWG at the PTG is a great idea. The only
> problem with that is that the PWG and the InteropWG would overlap in the
> current way the PTG is arranged. Having both at the same place is great
> for synergy, but having them at the same times is not L
Hi everyone,
I wrote a congress datasource driver and its unit test for designate, but i
got the following errors in the method test_update_from_datasource. It's
something wrong in the translation.
Here is the traceback:
File "congress/tests/datasources/test_designate_driver.py", line 34, in
setU
On 06/14/2017 01:09 AM, Alex Schultz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:
Hi,
we would like to use nfs-ganesha for accessing shares on ceph storage
cluster[1]. There is not yet a puppet module which would install and
configure nfs-ganesha service. So to be able to set up
Hi everyone,
Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack pr
Hi everyone,
Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
Hi Ricardo,
That sounds like a totally valid approach to me, but I was wondering if
there'd be a way to mock that API call. If just using the dummy driver
would achieve that then I'd be more than happy to see that modification.
Cheers!
Daniel
El 15/06/17 a las 06:38, Ricardo Noriega De Soto esc
Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there
will still be confusion (perhaps more).
(Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)
Regards - Neil
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carre
+1000
Thanks for the proposal, " OpenStack projects" vs "OpenStack-Hosted
projects" is more clear for everyone. That also helps people uderstand the
scope of OpenStack projects when evaluating the maturity of OpenStack.
We would gain more benifit. I like the idea.
2017-06-15 17:15 GMT+08:00 Th
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there will
still be confusion (perhaps more).
This was my reaction as well. For people who misunderstood of
+1000
very clearly.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
>> Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
>> distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there
>> will still be c
Recently I decided to remove deprecated parameters from keystone_authtoken
mistral config and replace them with recommended function of devstack [1].
In doing so, I discovered a strange behavior of configuration mechanism,
and specifically parameters auth_uri and auth_url.
1. The parameter auth_ur
Hi Mikhail,
(I'm not from the Keystone team, but did some patches for using keystonauth1).
>
> 2. Even if auth_url is set, it can't be used later, because it is not
> registered in
> oslo_config [5]
auth_url is actually a dynamic parameter and depends on the keystone auth
plugin used
(auth_ty
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'l
An [official] OpenStack project is also a hosted project by OpenStack
[infra].
I agree that "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very distinct from
"OpenStack projects". Furthermore the "hosted" part is not unique to either
category.
I don't have an immediate suggestion for an alternative, but I mi
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still un
On 06/15/2017 05:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was
+1 to drop Fuel from governance
-- Dims
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> >>projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:39:23AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to drop Fuel from governance
>
> -- Dims
>
+1 from me too.
Sean
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack
On 6/14/17, 6:00 PM, "Abhishek Kane" wrote:
>Thank you for the comments Emilien!
>
>Updated as per your suggestions:
>puppet-veritas-hyperscale:
>https://github.com/abhishek-kane/puppet-veritas-hyperscale
>
>Also, please find the inline replies to your comments.
>
>We had been able to call the
Hello,
I am looking to improve the database load distribution and one of the things
that may help with this is to spread out the reads.
>From the configuration reference it looks like neutron dues support a
>slave_connection parameter but when I enabled it and enabled query logging on
>the se
Greetings everyone!
Since the development of fuel-related projects is currently not so active
as it used to be, I want to propose a change in how we maintain stable
branches.
-Motivation-
As for now to commit anything into a stable branch of a fuel-related
project one should get at least one appr
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd lik
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix
Hi,
The commit https://review.openstack.org/284738 has broken decomposed plugins
(those that extend security groups and rules). The reason for this is that
there is a extend callback that we use which expects to get a database object
and the aforementioned patch passes a new neutron object.
I ha
Just my .02,
I agree with those who have said distinction is still difficult with
initial thoughts and possibly fleshing out more clearly how that would be
handled - opium branding, questions/criteria proposed by Chris, etc. - can
address the identified potential confusion. I like the idea of bran
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:20PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too inf
On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename
On 15/06/17 11:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). W
On 15/06/17 14:09 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call th
On 15/06/17 10:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> pro
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I thi
On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the opens
Thanks György!
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Gyorgy Szombathelyi <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> (I'm not from the Keystone team, but did some patches for using
> keystonauth1).
>
> >
> > 2. Even if auth_url is set, it can't be used later, because it is not
>
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side
On 15/06/17 07:03 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being an
> "OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse.
> I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like
> names would be easier to decide. Some things we might
>
> auth_url is actually a dynamic parameter and depends on the
> keystone auth plugin used
> (auth_type=xxx). The plugin which needs this parameter, registers it.
>
>
>
> Based on this http://paste.openstack.org/show/612664/ I would say that the
> plugin doesn't register it :( It e
On 06/15/2017 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>>> "Projects
>
> >
> > auth_url is actually a dynamic parameter and depends on the
> keystone
> > auth plugin used
> > (auth_type=xxx). The plugin which needs this parameter, registers it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on this http://paste.openstack.org/show/612664/ I would say that
> > the plugin doesn't regi
On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
>> > opposi
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>>> > else?" Why m
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth
On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
> projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
> second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
> separation is clear and dis
OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez
Organization: OpenStack
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 14:57
To: "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: [openstack
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in our pro
On 06/15/2017 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness)
or... OpenStack Stadium, shortened.
_
Jeremy,
We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
-- Dims
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe we should call those
On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
Well, sort of. We took the slightly less work (for the Infra team)
approach of renaming repos within a single G
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did
Jay Pipes wrote:
> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> a Red Hat project:
>
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group&metric=commits
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, desp
On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Jay Pipes wrote:
While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com
If you haven't followed the "Configuration management with etcd /
confd" thread [1], Doug found out that using confd to generate
configuration files wouldn't work for the Cinder case where we don't
know in advance of the deployment what settings to tell confd to look
at.
We are still looking for a
On 2017-06-15 11:07:11 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in
On 2017-06-15 12:05:42 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
> Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He
> specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.
[...]
It is, when the danger of being single-vendor becomes manifest in
that vendor ceasing their interest
Please note that this ended up being discussed during (and before and
after) the TC office hour today on #openstack-tc:
For those interested, see:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-06-15.log.html#t2017-06-15T13:00:53
TL;DR: We are still deep in initial d
On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote:
Hello,
as discussed previously on the list and at the weekly meeting, we'll do
a deep dive about containers. The time:
Thursday 15th June, 14:00 UTC (the usual time)
Link for attending will be at the deep dives etherpad [1], preliminary
agenda is in anot
On 15.6.2017 18:25, Jiří Stránský wrote:
On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote:
Hello,
as discussed previously on the list and at the weekly meeting, we'll do
a deep dive about containers. The time:
Thursday 15th June, 14:00 UTC (the usual time)
Link for attending will be at the deep dives e
Not touching the separate gerrit topic, but I genuinely like the "community"
name. In my opinion it very well covers the "projects not governed by TC"
definition.
Regards, Kirill
> Le 15 июня 2017 г. à 18:28, Davanum Srinivas a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung wrot
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
>
> Tim
>
Hah, love it!
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ
Greetings OpenStack community,
Today's meeting was short and sweet. We merged some frozen reivews (see below) and
determined that other pending reviews are still pending. The survey to get some feedback
on how to express the earliest possible date a microversion might raise didn't get a ton
o
On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
> governance and those that are not.
going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of
acc
This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
a few times recently.
Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in
tempest, but wind up breaking our gate. We aren't claiming that the
a
I missed [tripleo] tag.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> If you haven't followed the "Configuration management with etcd /
> confd" thread [1], Doug found out that using confd to generate
> configuration files wouldn't work for the Cinder case where we don't
> know in adv
Thanks for putting this together, Jirka. The recording is very much
worth anyone's time!
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jiří Stránský wrote:
> On 15.6.2017 18:25, Jiří Stránský wrote:
>>
>> On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> as discussed previously on the list and a
And since Electrons are neither waves or particles, it is difficult to pin them
down (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Sean McGinnis
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Thursday, 15 Ju
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
>> governance and those that are not.
>
> going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
> projects th
As discussed at today's Glance meeting, the priorities for this week are:
1 WSGI community goal
-
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/glance+branch:master+topic:goal-deploy-api-in-wsgi
- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459451/
Just one priority, let's knock this out
First of all, we definitely need that distinction to be clear.
Second, what are incentives to actually be an OpenStack project?
1. TC oversight - it's more a requirement than incentive
2. PTG space - definitely incentive
...anything else?
What else? TC has an important role, we need oversight to k
On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
> that label with "projects under governance".
wait, the big tent isn't the projects under governance? that's what i
thought it was based on all the noise... more confused than i
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
> Recently I decided to remove deprecated parameters from keystone_authtoken
> mistral config and replace them with recommended function of devstack [1].
> In doing so, I discovered a strange behavior of configuration mechanism,
> and specif
Just wondering if Horizon Team has had a chance to review the following
blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/extensible-header
let me know,
interested in your feedback,
Greg.
From: Greg Waines
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM
To: "[email protected]"
Sorry, re-reading my email :)
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
>> that label with "projects under governance".
What i meant was "Folks are equating Big-T
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
>>
>> Recently I decided to remove deprecated parameters from keystone_authtoken
>> mistral config and replace them with recommended function of devstack [1].
>> In doing so, I disc
On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> OpenStack Big Tent initiative."
ah i see, i imagine you could correct those who are corporate sponsors
(and
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 18:56:22 +:
>
> On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> > "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> > OpenStack Big Tent initiative."
>
Alon,
Just checking if you’ve had a chance to look at the following blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/vitrage-dashboard/+spec/alarm-header
The HORIZON blueprint that it depends on is, I believe, on the verge of
being approved ... Horizon maintainers want to move forward with it,
they’ve
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
>>
>> Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this
>> race.
>>
>> On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-06-15 12:06:53 -0400:
> On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> >> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> >> a Red H
Hi Carmine,
Yes, I¹d guess that the translator you defined attempted to go deeper than
the structure obtained by API. If you push the changes to
review.openstack.org you may get better feedback =)
Eric
From: Carmine Annunziata
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage quest
Excerpts from Brian Rosmaita's message of 2017-06-15 13:04:39 -0400:
> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
> a few times recently.
>
> Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
> gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be
OK. So, our naming is like branding. We are techies -- not good at marketing.
But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team. And they end up fielding a lot
of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the
OpenStack Dev culture. Perhaps it would be worth explaining what
On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
and needs help figuring it out. Giving
On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way,
> but we have even imported projects when we've
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
>> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
>> that. But reality is, the majority of the r
On 2017-06-15 15:22:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote:
[...]
> God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week
> reading about what new process or thing we're going to call
> something, rather than actually working on getting stuff done for
> the release or reviewing changes. I'
On 06/15/2017 11:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thie
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
> OpenStack projects list".
Nice to hear Jay! :)
It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:56:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> > it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
>
> Well, sort of. We took the slightly l
No, it currently does not. As we implement
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/enginefacade-switch that
will change, but that won't be available until Pike or Queens.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:47 AM, wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am looking to improve the database load distributio
Right on the point Rocky (no wonder you have release named after you)
We also need to update https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator/
To align with whatever decision agreed upon.
And we better make decision stick and not change it again in a year or two.
Arkady
-Original Message-
On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
> a few times recently.
>
> Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
> gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in
> tempest, bu
On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
Another way to look at it is how we see our
On 2017-06-15 16:35:15 -0500 (-0500), Ed Leafe wrote:
[...]
> I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care", or
> "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame
> away!
Nah. Now SoylentStack on the other hand, that one _is_ people but
have you actually tried it? Not ve
This error happens happens when the translator thinks there's an
object/dictionary when in actuality there's just a string. I don't know of
a good way to know where in the translator the problem is, other than
simplifying the input and the translator and rerunning (which you're
already doing).
Ti
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-06-12 11:43:25 -0400:
> I added subject tags for the projects most affected by this change. It
> would be good to have the PTLs or liaisons from those teams review the
> spec so there are no surprises when we start moving files around.
I have set up pa
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 20:24:06 +:
>
> On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> > infrastructure services. We expect th
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ may be an example
Original Mail
Sender:
To:
Date: 2017/06/16 05:25
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems
On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we'
I'm confused by the proposal; you've made a 1-1 substitution of "big tent"
with "openstack project" and then there are some "openstack hosted
projects".
How does that clarify the situation?
It does not help me answer the question "Is Trove part of OpenStack?" with
any more clarity than before.
S
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
