Josh,
The Kata team is talking to QEMU maintainers about how best to move
forward. Specially around stripping down things that's not needed for
their use case. They are not adding code from what i got to know (just
removing stuff).
-- Dims
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Slightly off topic but,
Have you by any chance looked at what kata has forked for qemu:
https://github.com/kata-containers/qemu/tree/qemu-lite-2.11.0
I'd be interested in an audit of that code for similar reasons to this
libvirt fork (hard to know from my view point if there are new issues in
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 01:54:59PM -0500, Dean Troyer wrote:
> StarlingX (aka STX) was announced this week at the summit, there is a
> PR to create project repos in Gerrit at [0]. STX is basically Wind
From a cursory look at the libvirt fork, there are some questionable
choices. E.g. the config
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:41:18PM -0400, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, Dean, but you aren't seriously
> > suggesting that anyone outside of Windriver/Intel would ever contribute
> > to these repos are you?
> >
> >
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> I'd like to understand the phrase "StarlingX is an OpenStack Foundation Edge
> focus area project".
>
> My understanding of the current situation is that "StarlingX would like to be
> OpenStack Foundation Edge focus area
age questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 11:08
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions
> For example, I look at your nova fork and it has a "don't allow this
> call during an upgrade" decorator on many API calls. Why wasn't that
> done upstream? It doesn't seem overly controversial, so it would be
> useful to understand the reasoning for that change.
Interesting. We have internal
On 23/05/18 11:25, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a
different point of view that might not have been able to play out in
Ironic is a bit different in
I think a good start would be a concrete list of the places you felt you
needed to change upstream and the specific reasons for each that it wasn't
done as part of the community.
For example, I look at your nova fork and it has a "don't allow this call
during an upgrade" decorator on many API
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> Even doing that is work - going through changes, finding nuggets, proposing
> new specs I don't think we can expect a project to even go there, it has
> to be driven by someone already involved in StarlingX, IMHO.
In
On 2018-05-23 15:20:28 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote:
> On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from
> > > StarlingX into upstream repos. That
On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote:
[...]
I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from
StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should
have been done (i.e. upstream first),
On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 8:07 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
> > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on
> > openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity.
> >
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Rather than literally making this a priority, I expect most of the feeling
> is that because of the politics and pressure of competition with a fork in
> another foundation is driving the defensiveness about feeling
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
> There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a
> different point of view that might not have been able to play out in
Ironic is a bit different in this regard to the released code since
On 5/23/2018 11:00 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
I have yet to see anyone suggest it should be prioritized over other
work. I expect the extracted and proposed changes/specs
corresponding to the divergence would be viewed on their own merits
just like any other change and ignored, reviewed,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
> It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on
> openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity.
> StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion the code hosting is
On 2018-05-23 13:48:56 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
> I believe you may be confusing packages (or package specs) with
> distributions?
>
> Mirantis OpenStack was never hosted on an openstack
> infrastructure. Fuel is, as are deb spec files and Puppet
> manifests, etc. But the
On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote:
[...]
> I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from
> StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should
> have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I don't see how a project would
>
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
[trim]
> I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from
> StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should
> have been done (i.e.
On 05/23/2018 12:49 PM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at
https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org
infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate.
Hang
On 2018-05-23 18:49:16 +0200 (+0200), Colleen Murphy wrote:
[...]
> It's also important to make the distinction between hosting
> something on openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an
> official capacity. StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion
> the code hosting is not the
On 5/23/2018 9:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list I see Mirantis, Debian, Ubuntu,
and RedHat, who all have (or had until recently) significant parts of their
distros hosted on openstack.org infrastructure and are/were even official
OpenStack projects
On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at
> https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org
> infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate.
Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list
Also I am concerned that the repo just seems to have mega-commits like:
https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-glance/commit/1ec64167057e3368f27a1a81aca294b771e79c5e
https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-nova/commit/71acfeae0d1c59fdc77704527d763bd85a276f9a
(not so mega)
On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Warning: strong opinions ahead.
On 05/22/2018 02:54 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
Developers will need to re-create a repo locally in
order to work or test the code and create reviews (there are more git
challenges here). It would be challenging to do
Warning: strong opinions ahead.
On 05/22/2018 02:54 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
Developers will need to re-create a repo locally in
order to work or test the code and create reviews (there are more git
challenges here). It would be challenging to do functional testing on
the rest of STX in CI
StarlingX (aka STX) was announced this week at the summit, there is a
PR to create project repos in Gerrit at [0]. STX is basically Wind
River's Titanium Cloud product, which is a turn-key cloud deployment.
For background I have started putting notes, some faq-ish questions
and references to
28 matches
Mail list logo