Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-kubernete][tc][openstack-helm]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

On March 31, 2018 at 6:45:03 AM, Jeremy Stanley (fu...@yuggoth.org) wrote: [...] Given this, it sounds like the current Kolla mission statement of "provide production-ready containers and deployment tools for operating OpenStack clouds" could use some adjustment to drop

Re: [openstack-dev] [Vitrage] New proposal for analysis.

Hi Minwook, I understand your concern about the security issue. But how would that be different if the API call is passed through Vitrage API? The authentication from vitrage-dashboard to vitrage API will work, but then Vitrage will call an external API and you’ll have the same security issue,

Re: [openstack-dev] [barbican][nova-powervm][pyghmi][solum][trove] Switching to cryptography from pycrypto

Mr. Fire- > nova-powervm: no open reviews > - in test-requirements, but not actually used? > - made https://review.openstack.org/558091 for it Thanks for that. It passed all our tests; we should merge it early next week. -efried

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-kubernete][tc][openstack-helm]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

So my take on the issue. I think splitting Kolla and Kolla-Ansible to completely new project (including name change and all) might look good from purity perspective (they're effectively separate), but would cause chaos and damage to production deployments people use. While code will be the same,

Re: [openstack-dev] [placement] Anchor/Relay Providers

/me responds to self Good progress has been made here. Tetsuro solved the piece where provider summaries were only showing resources that had been requested - with [8] they show usage information for *all* their resources. In order to make use of both [1] and [8], I had to shuffle them into the

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-kubernete][tc][openstack-helm]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

On 2018-03-31 18:06:07 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > I appreciate your personal interest in attempting to clarify the > Kolla mission statement. > > The change in the Kolla mission statement you propose is > unnecessary. [...] I should probably have been more clear. The Kolla

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc][openstack-helm][tripleo]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

On 2018-03-31 22:07:03 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: [...] > The problems raised in this thread (tension - tight coupling - > second class citizens - stratification) was predicted early on - > prior to Kolla 1.0. That prediction led to the creation of a > technical solution - the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][oslo] what to do with problematic mocking in nova unit tests

Hi Doug, I made this [2] for you. I tested it locally with oslo.config master, and whereas I started off with a slightly different set of errors than you show at [1], they were in the same suites. Since I didn't want to tox the world locally, I went ahead and added a Depends-On from [3]. Let's

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc][openstack-helm][tripleo]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

On March 31, 2018 at 12:35:31 PM, Jeremy Stanley (fu...@yuggoth.org) wrote: On 2018-03-31 18:06:07 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > I appreciate your personal interest in attempting to clarify the > Kolla mission statement. > > The change in the Kolla

[openstack-dev] [barbican][nova-powervm][pyghmi][solum][trove] Switching to cryptography from pycrypto

Here's the current status. I'd like to ask the projects what's keeping them from removing pycrypto in facor of a maintained library. Open reviews barbican: - (merge conflict) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458196 - (merge conflict) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/544873 nova-powervm: no

[openstack-dev] [requirements] Our job is done, time to close up shop.

The requirements project had a good run, but things seem to be winding down. We only break openstack a couple times a cycle now, and that's just not acceptable. The graph must go up and to the right. So, it's time for the requirements project to close up shop. So long and thanks for all the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [cyborg] Race condition in the Cyborg/Nova flow

Hi Eric and all,     Thank you very much for considering my concerns and coming back with an improved solution. Glad that no blood was shed in the process. I took this proposal and worked out its details, as I understand them, in this etherpad:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/networking-midonet failed

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 06:17:41AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack Stable Branch test reports. wrote: > Build failed. > > - build-openstack-sphinx-docs >

Re: [openstack-dev] [midonet][Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/networking-midonet failed

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 06:17:07AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack Stable Branch test reports. wrote: > Build failed. > > - build-openstack-sphinx-docs >

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc][openstack-helm][tripleo]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

Thanks to all guys. The mail is a little off-topic. First of all, let us back to the topic of this mail. **kolla-kubernetes** The root issue for kolla-kubernetes is no active contributors. if more person is interested in this project, I would like to give more time to this project. But leave

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] RFC: Next minimum libvirt / QEMU versions for "Solar" release

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 09:49:17AM -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > While at it, we should also discuss about what will be the NEXT_MIN > > > > libvirt and QEMU versions for the "Solar" release. To that end, I've > > > > spent going through

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] RFC: Next minimum libvirt / QEMU versions for "Solar" release

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 03:17:52PM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 09:49:17AM -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] > > > Taking the DistroSupportMatrix into picture, for the sake of discussion, > > > how about the following NEXT_MIN versions for "Solar" release:

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-kubernete][tc][openstack-helm]propose retire kolla-kubernetes project

On 2018-03-31 03:13:01 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: [...] > When contributors joined the Kolla project, we had a clear mission > of providing containers and deployment tools. Our ultimate > objective was to make deployment *EASY* and solve from my > perspective as PTL at the time

[openstack-dev] [infra][qa] Pip 10 is on the way

According to a notice[1] posted to the pypa-announce and distutils-sig mailing lists, pip 10.0.0.b1 is on PyPI now and 10.0.0 is expected to be released in two weeks (over the April 14/15 weekend). We know it's at least going to start breaking[2] DevStack and we need to come up with a plan for

Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Next minimum libvirt / QEMU versions for "Stein" release

[Meta comment: corrected the email subject: "Solar" --> "Stein"] On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 04:26:43PM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > The last version bump was in "Pike" release (commit: b980df0, > 11-Feb-2017), and we didn't do any bump during "Queens". So it's time > to increment the versions

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][qa] Pip 10 is on the way

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 03:00:27PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > According to a notice[1] posted to the pypa-announce and > distutils-sig mailing lists, pip 10.0.0.b1 is on PyPI now and 10.0.0 > is expected to be released in two weeks (over the April 14/15 > weekend). We know it's at least going