On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Shamail wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Nov 16, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different
>> responses that may be getting conflated.
>>
>> Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts ar
We have large scale physical servers to manage depend on our services, and
built multiple openstack env.(regions), does any one how to manage these
individual openstacks in one operation portal?We developed our own UI for
it(not horizon).
Thanks a lot!
Jeff
_
I think it’s a good idea. I think scripts and such that don’t pass the
listing tools can go into the contrib repos and if they get cleaned up then
they can move over to the regular ones.
I don’t actually like some of the PEP8 and bashate rules, but I’d rather
have a consistent style than have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
NOTE: I get what I'm about to propose will open a HUGE can of worms, but
we need it, so I'll start the conversation.
We had some initial discussion and thoughts on coding standards when we
first started this project. It got shot down, but not before
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>
> Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different
> responses that may be getting conflated.
>
> Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we
> look at ways to increase remote participation. (o
Hello Everyone,
DefCore committee would like to hear your input on this issue:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244782/
The issue is not really vendor specific. At the heart of the issue is this
question: for interoperability reasons, should certified OpenStack powered
compute clouds be able to
I’ll +1 option 1 too, if we can get remote participation that would suffice.
From: Joe Topjian [mailto:j...@topjian.net]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:57 PM
To: Jonathan Proulx
Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.
+1
+1 Option 1
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>
> Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different
> responses that may be getting conflated.
>
> Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we
> look at ways to increase remote part
I second Matt's opinion here. We would prefer a singular meeting,
regardless of location.
- jlk
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I think that sticking with a singular official one is the plan. It's
> difficult enough for the foundation to line up sponsors/hosts etc for a
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:37:59AM -0700, Matt Fischer wrote:
:I think that sticking with a singular official one is the plan. It's
:difficult enough for the foundation to line up sponsors/hosts etc for a
:single meet-up.
Thanks for bring that up.
I was just wondering howmuch Foundation resource
For us NZ (and maybe Aus) folk to attend, getting to Europe is (literally)
twice the distance of US, but Asia is about the same (language aside).I
find the Summit really valuable in that a large and diverse group get
together and the discussion is live, and in the same time zone - I'd be sad
to
Multiple meetups in parallel does make it more difficult to get the PTLs and
product working group involved. There have been many benefits from their work
with operators and defining the roadmaps.
It may be that not everyone can attend but there is also the opportunity for
those who have neve
I think that sticking with a singular official one is the plan. It's
difficult enough for the foundation to line up sponsors/hosts etc for a
single meet-up. I also think that there are some US/Asia folks that will
attend a midcycle in Europe and by also hosting a competing one locally you
may reduc
Hi,
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>
>
> Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different
> responses that may be getting conflated.
>
> Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we
> look at ways to increase remote participati
OK - thanks! It actually works for the OpenStack UX team because we have
folks in most of those regions that would be able to attend.
It¹s worth noting that we should be consistent in how the operators are
engaged during the meetings so that the team is able to generalize across
regions.
Piet
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:55:33PM +, Kruithof, Piet wrote:
:Sorry, late to the conversation and maybe missing a bit of context.
:
:How may regional meetings are we thinking? 2-3? Or more?
My basic question was One or Many.
If Many then that's a further question, but probably 3 (north americ
Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different
responses that may be getting conflated.
Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we
look at ways to increase remote participation. (obviously this doesn't
preclude other meetups)
Option 2: There are mu
Sorry, late to the conversation and maybe missing a bit of context.
How may regional meetings are we thinking? 2-3? Or more?
Piet
Piet Kruithof
Sr UX Architect, HP Helion Cloud
PTL, OpenStack UX project
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.”
H L Me
+1 from me, although I am admittedly biased ;) Personally I think the wider
participation in the ops feedback loop can only be a positive thing, and
there are definitely different perspectives and concerns to be had from
European operators given the different commercial landscape. I'm sure the
same
I'd second this idea. If we can gather the pertinent result from each meeting,
that would be ideal.
-Original Message-
From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:10 AM
To: Donald Talton; Jonathan Proulx; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
I am in the same position that Donald here. It is hard to justify that trip,
however I believe we can multiple Ops Meet-ups around the world without
expecting an official one.
As long as during the meet-up the feedback is collected and open, it should be
enough to move forward.
Edgar
On 11/
I think it's good to move the meeting around out of fairness. Although like you
said, I would not be able to justify travel expenses for my staff (US-based)
for a mid-cycle meetup.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Proulx [mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:51
I thought we were working toward a regional approach rather than
having an "official" single meetup. Are you proposing to scrap the
North America meetup entirely? What does official vs. unofficial
entail?
-Erik
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> 1st User Commi
Hi All,
1st User Committee IRC meeting will be today at 19:00UTC on
#openstack-meeting, we haven't exactly settled on an agenda yet but I
hope to raise this issue the...
It has been suggested that we make the February 15-16 European Ops
Meetup in Manchester UK [1] the 'official' OPs Midcycle. Pr
Thanks,
I tried to backport this patch to Juno but it is not that trivial for
me. I have 2 tests failing, about volume cloning and create a volume
without layering.
https://github.com/zioproto/cinder/commit/0d26cae585f54c7bda5ba5b423d8d9ddc87e0b34
https://github.com/zioproto/cinder/commits/backpo
25 matches
Mail list logo
