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

Hi all,     There seems to be a possibility of a race condition in the Cyborg/Nova flow. Apologies for missing this earlier. (You can refer to the proposed Cyborg/Nova spec for details.) Consider the scenario

[openstack-dev] [nova] Does Cell v2 support for muti-cell deployment in Pike?

Hi, Does Cell v2 support for multi-cell deployment in pike? Is there any good document about the deployment?__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

[openstack-dev] [nova] about rebuild instance booted from volume

Hi,all This is the spec about rebuild a instance booted from volume, anyone who is interested in booted from volume can help to review this. Any suggestion is welcome.Thank you very much! The link is here. Re:the rebuild

[openstack-dev] [nova] EC2 cleanup ?

seems we have a EC2 implementation in api layer and deprecated since Mitaka, maybe eligible to be removed this cycle? Best Regards! Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨 Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet: jiche...@cn.ibm.com Phone: +86-10-82451493 Address: 3/F Ring

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][vpnaas]

Hi, Yes. I think It is possible. You need to create new endpoint groups which include the current subnet and a new subnet. Then just update the ipsec connections with corresponding endpoints. Best regards, Hoang From: vidyadhar reddy [mailto:vidyadharredd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March

Re: [openstack-dev] Is openstacksdk backward compatible?

Thanks for the answer, openstacksdk provides a more uniform interface, which is better __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

[openstack-dev] [glance] python-glanceclient release status

As promised at today's Glance meeting, here's an update on the release status for the glanceclient bugfix release for stable/queens. There's another bug I think needs to be addressed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-glanceclient/+bug/1758149 I've got a patch up so I can get feedback

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:12:47 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 3/22/2018 2:59 PM, melanie witt wrote: And (MHO) I'm not sure we need help in reviewing more specs. I wholly disagree here. If you're on the core team, or want to be on the core team, you should be reviewing specs, because those are

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On 3/22/2018 2:59 PM, melanie witt wrote: And (MHO) I'm not sure we need help in reviewing more specs. I wholly disagree here. If you're on the core team, or want to be on the core team, you should be reviewing specs, because those are the things that lay out the high level design and

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][releases][requirements][l2gw] Latest requirements

As requested, I have deleted the following from PyPI (they can still be found on tarballs.openstack.org if needed): networking_l2gw 2015.1.1 networking_l2gw 2016.1.0 The "highest" release version available on PyPI is now networking_l2gw 12.0.1. Let me know if you spot any similar

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

WFM. November Oscar Victor Alpha you are cleared for takeoff. On 03/22/2018 03:18 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 3/22/2018 2:59 PM, melanie witt wrote: >> Maybe a good compromise would be to start runways now and move spec >> freeze out to r-2 (Jun 7). That way we have less pressure on spec >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On 3/22/2018 2:59 PM, melanie witt wrote: Maybe a good compromise would be to start runways now and move spec freeze out to r-2 (Jun 7). That way we have less pressure on spec review earlier on, more time to review the current queue of approved implementations via runways, and a chance to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][requirements] a plan to stop syncing requirements into projects

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-03-21 16:02:06 -0400: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-03-15 07:03:11 -0400: > > > > TL;DR > > - > > > > Let's stop copying exact dependency specifications into all our > > projects to allow them to reflect the actual versions of

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:26:48 -0500, Eric Fried wrote: I think the only concern around moving spec freeze out would be that I thought the original purpose of the spec freeze was to set expectations early about what was approved and not approved instead of having folks potentially in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [heat] microversion_parse.middleware.MicroversionMiddleware

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Chris Dent wrote: Last week at the PTG, during the API-SIG session, there was discussion of extracting the microversion handling middleware that is used in the placement service into the relatively small microversion-parse library. This is so people who want to adopt

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] storyboard evaluation

Sounds like we have fungi set to run the migration of tripleO bugs with the 'ui' tag for tomorrow after he gets done with the ironic migration. So excited to have you guys start moving over! Any idea what squad will want to go next/when they might want to go? No rush, I'm curious more than

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding "not docs" banner to specs website?

Excerpts from Rochelle Grober's message of 2018-03-22 01:05:42 +: > It could be *really* useful if you could include the date (month/year > would be good enough)of the last significant patch (not including > the reformat to Openstackdocstheme). That could give folks a great > stick in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][infra][dib] Gate "out of disk" errors and diskimage-builder 2.12.0

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Wesley Hayutin wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: > >> On 03/21/2018 03:39 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: >> >>> We will prepare dib 2.12.1 with the fix. As usual there are >>> complications, since

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

> I think the only concern around moving spec freeze out would be that I > thought the original purpose of the spec freeze was to set expectations > early about what was approved and not approved instead of having folks > potentially in the situation where it's technically "maybe" for a large >

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][releases][requirements][l2gw] Latest requirements

On 2018-03-22 10:53:37 -0500 (-0500), Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] > Although, if this is a blocker for the project for now, I would be fine with > just taking it down now and working out any issues directly with anyone that > does need access to it for some reason. And would still be available

[openstack-dev] [release] Release countdown for week R-22, March 26-30

Welcome back to our regular release countdown email. Development Focus - Teams should be focusing on planning what can be done for Rocky. General Information --- All teams should review their release liaison information and make sure it is up to date [1]. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:40:20 +, John Garbutt wrote: On 20 March 2018 at 23:44, melanie witt > wrote: We were thinking of starting the runways process after the spec review freeze (which is April 19) so that reviewers won't be split

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding Brian Haley to the Neutron Drivers team

I’m not part of drivers team but big +1 for Brian from me :) — Best regards Slawek Kaplonski sla...@kaplonski.pl > Wiadomość napisana przez Miguel Lavalle w dniu > 22.03.2018, o godz. 17:25: > > Hi Neutrinos, > > As we all know, the Neutron Drivers team plays a

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding Brian Haley to the Neutron Drivers team

+1 From: Miguel Lavalle Reply-To: OpenStack List Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:26 PM To: OpenStack List Subject: [openstack-dev] Adding Brian Haley to the Neutron Drivers team Hi Neutrinos, As we

[openstack-dev] [all][api] POST /api-sig/news

Greetings OpenStack community, Another jovial meeting of the API-SIG was convened today. We began with a few housekeeping notes and then moved into a discussion of the api-ref work and how we might continue to assist Graham Hayes with the os-api-ref changes[7] that will output a machine-readable

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:38:38 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 3/20/2018 6:44 PM, melanie witt wrote: We were thinking of starting the runways process after the spec review freeze (which is April 19) so that reviewers won't be split between spec reviews and reviews of work in runways. I'm going

[openstack-dev] [os-tempest][libvirt]

Dear colleagues, I have recently moved my environment over to openstack-ansible 16.0.8 and when I run tempest testing as the last step of the deployment it is failing with the following errors logged in daemon.log on the compute server. Before I use up more time looking into the details of

Re: [openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

I can run test migrations today for the rest of the OSC launchpad projects just to make sure it all goes smoothly and report back. -Kendall (diablo_rojo) On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, 5:54 am Dean Troyer, wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Akihiro Motoki

[openstack-dev] Adding Brian Haley to the Neutron Drivers team

Hi Neutrinos, As we all know, the Neutron Drivers team plays a crucial role in helping the community to evolve the OpenStack Networking architecture to meet the needs of our current and future users [1]. To strengthen this team, I have decided to add Brian Haley to it. Brian has two decades of

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][releases][requirements][l2gw] Latest requirements

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:48:18AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 18-03-22 14:50:43, Gary Kotton wrote: > > Hi, > > We have a problem with the l2gw tags. The requirements file indicates that > > we should be pulling in >=12.0.0 and in fact its pulling > > networking_l2gw-2016.1.0 > > Please

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][releases][requirements][l2gw] Latest requirements

On 18-03-22 14:50:43, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > We have a problem with the l2gw tags. The requirements file indicates that we > should be pulling in >=12.0.0 and in fact its pulling networking_l2gw-2016.1.0 > Please see >

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > That's unfortunate. What we really need is a migration path from the > > 'pbr' way of doing things to something else. I see three possible > > avenues at this point in time: > > > >1. Start using 'sphinx.ext.autosummary'. Apparently this can do similar > > things to

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

Hi So I am really excited for us to try runways out, ASAP. On 20 March 2018 at 23:44, melanie witt wrote: > We were thinking of starting the runways process after the spec review > freeze (which is April 19) so that reviewers won't be split between spec > reviews and

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Review runways this cycle

On 3/20/2018 6:44 PM, melanie witt wrote: We were thinking of starting the runways process after the spec review freeze (which is April 19) so that reviewers won't be split between spec reviews and reviews of work in runways. I'm going to try and reign in the other thread [1] and bring it

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] OpenStack "S" Release Naming Preliminary Results

+1 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:32:38PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > > :6. Spandau loses to Solar by 195–88, loses to Springer by 125–118 > > Given this is at #6 and formal vetting is yet to come it's probably > not

Re: [openstack-dev] [virt-tools-list] Project for profiles and defaults for libvirt domains

[ I fixed up ovirt-de...@redhat.com to be de...@ovirt.org since the former is deprecated. I'm also not trimming down much of the reply so that they can get the whole picture. Sorry for the confusion ] On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:10:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2018

[openstack-dev] [requirements][l2gw] Latest requirements

Hi, We have a problem with the l2gw tags. The requirements file indicates that we should be pulling in >=12.0.0 and in fact its pulling networking_l2gw-2016.1.0 Please see http://207.189.188.190/logs/neutron/554292/4/tempest-api-vmware-tvd-t/logs/stack.sh.log.txt.gz#_2018-03-22_08_56_03_905

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][neutron] tools/tox_install changes - breakage with constraints

On 3/14/18 6:59 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 07:16:11AM +0900, Akihiro Motoki wrote: >> (1) it makes difficult to run tests in local environment >> We have only released version of neutron/horizon on PyPI. It means >> PyPI version (i.e. queens) is installed when we run tox in

Re: [openstack-dev] [k8s] Hosting location for OpenStack Kubernetes Provider

FYI, New repo is ready! https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack We could use a lot of help. So please join us. -- Dims On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: > At the PTG in Dublin, SIG-K8s started working towards migrating the > external

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] OpenStack "S" Release Naming Preliminary Results

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:32:38PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: :6. Spandau loses to Solar by 195–88, loses to Springer by 125–118 Given this is at #6 and formal vetting is yet to come it's probably not much of an issue, but "Spandau's" first association for many will be Nazi war criminals via

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > Unfortunately this will not work to just revert the changes. That may fix > > things locally, but they will not pass in gate by going back to the old way. > > > > Any cases of this will have to actually be updated to not use the > > unsupported > > pieces you point out. But the doc

Re: [openstack-dev] [kubevirt-dev] Re: [libvirt] [virt-tools-list] Project for profiles and defaults for libvirt domains

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:56:12AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:34:23PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:39:52PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 03:00:41PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar

Re: [openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > 2018-03-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 Monty Taylor : >> I could see waiting until we move python-openstackclient. However, we've >> got the issue already with shade bugs being in storyboard already and sdk >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

2018-03-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 Monty Taylor : > On 03/22/2018 02:51 AM, Jens Harbott wrote: > >> 2018-03-21 21:44 GMT+01:00 Monty Taylor : >> >>> Hey everybody! >>> >>> This upcoming Friday we're scheduled to complete the transition from >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

On 03/22/2018 02:51 AM, Jens Harbott wrote: 2018-03-21 21:44 GMT+01:00 Monty Taylor : Hey everybody! This upcoming Friday we're scheduled to complete the transition from python-openstacksdk to openstacksdk. This was started a while back (Tue Jun 16 12:05:38 2015 to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][infra][dib] Gate "out of disk" errors and diskimage-builder 2.12.0

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: > On 03/21/2018 03:39 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: > >> We will prepare dib 2.12.1 with the fix. As usual there are >> complications, since the dib gate is broken due to unrelated triple-o >> issues [2]. In the mean time,

Re: [openstack-dev] Is openstacksdk backward compatible?

On 03/22/2018 05:14 AM, zijian1...@163.com wrote: Hello, everyone The openstack version I deployed was Newton,  now I am ready to use openstacksdk for development, *, *I noticed that the latest *openstacksdk *version is 0.12

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting > > them to the new PTI for docs. > > > > [snip] > > > > I've gone through and proposed a couple

[openstack-dev] Is openstacksdk backward compatible?

Hello, everyone The openstack version I deployed was Newton, now I am ready to use openstacksdk for development, , I noticed that the latest openstacksdk version is 0.12，this makes me a bit confused, How do I know if this sdk(0.12) is compatible with my openstack(Newton)? I also noticed that

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Support share backup to different projects?

On 21/03, TommyLike Hu wrote: > Hey Gorka, > Thanks for your input:) I think I need to clarify that our idea is to > share the backup resource to another tenants, that is different with > transfer as the original tenant still can fully control the backup > resource, and the tenants that have

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Prevent ARP spoofing

Kevin, thank you for your help. Currently, we already have a similar patch for Pike release. We started this discuss that to pay attention to the degradation of flexibility and discuss to need to create a RFE. 2018-03-22 11:48 GMT+03:00 Kevin Benton : > I understand. I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Prevent ARP spoofing

I understand. I think you will likely need to run a bit of custom code for Pike if you want to override the default behavior of the port security extension. You should be able to use something like the following (untested) code as a service plugin. Install it somewhere on the server and then put

[openstack-dev] [ALL][PTLs] [Community goal] Toggle the debug option at runtime

Hi, I took care of implementation of [1] in Neutron and I have couple questions to about this goal. 1. Should we only change "restart_method" to mutate as is described in [2] ? I did already something like that in [3] - is it what is expected? 2. How I can check if this change is fine and

Re: [openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

2018-03-21 21:44 GMT+01:00 Monty Taylor : > Hey everybody! > > This upcoming Friday we're scheduled to complete the transition from > python-openstacksdk to openstacksdk. This was started a while back (Tue Jun > 16 12:05:38 2015 to be exact) by changing the name of what gets

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]Does neutron-server support the main backup redundancy？

Hi, Neutron agents communicate with server through RPC messages. So agent don't need to know how many servers are on the other end of queue to consume messages. If You will start new neutron-server it will connect to same rabbitmq as other servers and to same db and will start processing