Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral]I think Mistral need K8S action

Thanks for your reply. I will continue to pay attention. Regards, Xian Jun Hong From: Renat Akhmerov Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 1:48 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral]I think Mistral need K8S action

Hi, I completely agree with you that having such an action would be useful. However, I don’t think this kind of action should be provided by Mistral out of the box. Actions and triggers are integration pieces for Mistral and are natively external to Mistral code base. In other words, this

[openstack-dev] [sig][upgrades] Upgrade SIG IRC meeting poll

Hello everyone, Sorry for keeping you waiting! Since we have launched Upgrade SIG [1], we are now happy to invite everyone who is interested to take a vote so that we can find a good time for our regular IRC meeting. Please kindly look at the weekdays in the poll only, not the actual date.

[openstack-dev] Initiate the discussion for FPGA reconfigurability

Hi Team, While wrapping up spec for FPGA programmability, I think we still miss the reconfigurability part of Accelerators For instance, in the FPGA case, after the bitstream is loaded, a user might still need to tune the clock frequency, VF numbers, do reset, etc. These reconfigurations can be

[openstack-dev] [cinder][nova]

Hello Nova, Cinder developers, I would like to ask you a question concerns a Cinder patch [1]. In this patch, it mentioned that RBD features were incompatible with multi-attach, which disabled multi-attach for RBD. I would like to know which RBD features that are incompatible? In the

[openstack-dev] [Mistral]I think Mistral need K8S action

Hello Mistral team. I'm doing some work on the K8S but I observed that there is only Docker's action in Mistral. I would like to ask Mistral Team, why there is no K8S action in the mistral. I think it would be useful in Mistral. If you feel it's necessary, could I add K8S action to mistral?

[openstack-dev] [nova] meeting log from today 2018-04-12 at 21:00 UTC

Howdy everyone, The meetbot was restarted in the middle of our meeting, so the log and minutes could not be collected (after the restart) and will not be found at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova/2018/. Here's a link to the #openstack-meeting channel log for the meeting if you

[openstack-dev] Save $500 on OpenStack Summit Vancouver Hotel + Ticket

Hi everyone, For a limited time, you can now purchase a discounted package including a Vancouver Summit ticket and hotel stay at the beautiful Pan Pacific Hotel for savings of more than $500 USD! This discount runs until April 25 pending availability - book your ticket & hotel room now for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

> Is avoiding three lines of code really worth making future cleanup > harder? Is a three line change really blocking "an approved blueprint > with ready code"? Nope. What's blocking is deciding that that's the right thing to do. Which we clearly don't have consensus on, based on what's

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

I don't understand why you think the alternative is so hard. Here's how ironic does it: global ironic if ironic is None: ironic = importutils.import_module('ironicclient') Is avoiding three lines of code really worth making future cleanup harder? Is a three line

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2018-04-12 13:54:46 -0500: > On 04/12/2018 11:27 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> I also seem to remember that [extras] was less than user-friendly for > >> some reason, but maybe that was just because

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] z/VM introducing a new config drive format

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:31:45 +1000, Michael Still wrote: The more I think about it, the more I dislike how the proposed driver also "lies" about it using iso9660. That's definitely wrong:         if CONF.config_drive_format in ['iso9660']:             # cloud-init only support iso9660 and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

On 04/12/2018 11:27 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: I also seem to remember that [extras] was less than user-friendly for some reason, but maybe that was just because of how our CI jobs are setup? Or I'm just making that up. I know it's pretty

[openstack-dev] [release] Release countdown for week R-19, April 16-20

Welcome to our regular release countdown email. Development Focus - Team focus should be on spec approval and implementation for priority features. The first Rocky milestone is this coming Thursday, the 19th. While there aren't any OpenStack-wide deadlines for this milestone,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Recap of Python 3 testing session at PTG

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Javier Pena wrote: > One point we should add here: to test Python 3 we need some base operating system to work on. For now, our plan is to create a set of stabilized Fedora 28 repositories and use them only for CI jobs. See [1] for details on

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

On 4/12/2018 7:42 AM, Eric Fried wrote: This sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad the issue was raised, but IMO it shouldn't derail progress on an approved blueprint with ready code. Jichen, would you please go ahead and file that blueprint template (no need to write a spec yet) and link it in a

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

Greetings OpenStack community, It was a fairly quick meeting today, as we weren't able to find anything to argue about. That doesn't happen too often. :) We agreed that the revamped HTTP guidelines [8] should be merged, as they were strictly formatting changes, and no content change. We also

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > I also seem to remember that [extras] was less than user-friendly for > some reason, but maybe that was just because of how our CI jobs are > setup? Or I'm just making that up. I know it's pretty simple to install > the stuff from extras

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: [...] > Deploy own registry as part of UC deployment or use external. For >> instance, for production use I would like to have a cluster of 3-5 >> registries with HAProxy in front to speed up 1k nodes deployments. >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote: [...] > > One of the great outcomes of this blueprint is that in Rocky, the > operator > > won't have to run all the "openstack overcloud container" commands to > > prepare the container registry and upload the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

On 04/12/2018 07:42 AM, Eric Fried wrote: +1 This sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad the issue was raised, but IMO it shouldn't derail progress on an approved blueprint with ready code. The one thing I will note, because we're dealing with it in oslo.messaging right now, is that there's no

[openstack-dev] Fwd: Summary of PyPI overhaul in new LWN article

I thought some folks from our community would be interested in the ongoing work on the Python Package Index (PyPI). The article mentioned in this post to the distutils mailing list provides a good history and a description of the new and planned features for "Warehouse". Doug --- Begin

[openstack-dev] Forum Submissions Reminder + Vancouver Info

Hello! A quick reminder that the Vancouver Forum Submission deadline is this coming Sunday, April 15th. Submission Process Please proceed to http://forumtopics.openstack.org/ to submit your topics. What is the Forum? If you'd like more details about the Forum, go to

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][charms] Openstack + OVN

Hello, Any update on getting to the development of this charm? I need some guidance on this. Thank you, Aakash On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Aakash Kt wrote: > Hello, > > So an update about current status. The charm spec for charm-os-ovn has > been merged

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

+1 This sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad the issue was raised, but IMO it shouldn't derail progress on an approved blueprint with ready code. Jichen, would you please go ahead and file that blueprint template (no need to write a spec yet) and link it in a review comment on the bottom zvm patch

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Ironic Bug Day on Thursday April 12th @ 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM (UTC)

Hi Mike, This works for me. We can refine/discuss at the bug squashing event. Thanks! --ruby On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Michael Turek wrote: > Sorry this is so late but as for the format of the event I think we should > do something like this: > > 1) Go

[openstack-dev] service/package dependencies

Hello guys. Is there a way to automatically find out the dependencies (build tree of dependencies) of openstack services: for example, ceilometer depends on rabbitmq, etc. We are developing a troubleshooting system for openstack and we want to let the user know when some service/package

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ui] Dependency management

On 2 March 2018 at 22:52, Alan Pevec wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Julie Pichon wrote: >> On 19 January 2018 at 18:43, Honza Pokorny wrote: >>> We've recently discovered an issue with the way we handle dependencies for >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform specific, dependancies in requirements.txt

Thanks for Michael for raising this question and detailed information from Clark As indicated in the mail, xen, vmware etc might already have this kind of requirements (and I guess might be more than that) , can we accept z/VM requirements first by following other existing ones then next I can

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On 4/12/18 12:38 AM, Steve Baker wrote: On 11/04/18 12:50, Emilien Macchi wrote: Greetings, Steve Baker and I had a quick chat today about the work that is being done around containers workflow in Rocky cycle. If you're not familiar with the topic, I suggest to first read the blueprint

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On 4/12/18 12:38 AM, Steve Baker wrote: On 11/04/18 12:50, Emilien Macchi wrote: Greetings, Steve Baker and I had a quick chat today about the work that is being done around containers workflow in Rocky cycle. If you're not familiar with the topic, I suggest to first read the blueprint

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On 4/12/18 10:08 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote: Hi, Thank you very much for brining up this topic. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: Greetings, Steve Baker and I had a quick chat today about the work that is being done around containers workflow in

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

On 4/12/18 12:38 AM, Steve Baker wrote: On 11/04/18 12:50, Emilien Macchi wrote: Greetings, Steve Baker and I had a quick chat today about the work that is being done around containers workflow in Rocky cycle. If you're not familiar with the topic, I suggest to first read the blueprint

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] roadmap on containers workflow

Hi, Thank you very much for brining up this topic. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Greetings, > > Steve Baker and I had a quick chat today about the work that is being done > around containers workflow in Rocky cycle. > > If you're not familiar with