All,
Glad to see the thread coming back to life (plus comments on the wiki) :-)
Definitely understand concerns about the composite score. Maybe another
option would be to start by looking at 4 areas (git, Jira, wiki, etc.)
individually.
I also want to suggest that if a project is active (and eve
Hello All.
My take on this and sorry maybe a bit blunt, but I don’t see what the purpose
is here?
While guideline, guidance and such are good things, the discussion below seems
awfully heavy and very boxed in.
As Chris in the evaluation on how to improve the community, I am not sure how
w
Good comments Dave and everyone, I’d like to share my take on it is this.
I don’t see any problem in looking at the metrics we already publish and using
them to help us create a better understanding across our community on how we go
about getting things done. (Maybe also helping find ways of i
Bumping the thread to remind people that the poll closes in 2 days :-)
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Raymond Paik
wrote:
> Everyone:
>
> Here's the link to the D-release naming poll: https://www.
> surveymonkey.com/r/6639ZCC
>
> The poll will close at 5pm Pacific Time on September 9th (Friday)
Hi,
Thank you Tim! Script used in Fuel sfc scenario is pointing to SFC_colorado
branch of your repository, so it also should pick up this change automatically
in next CI job run.
Regards,
Michal
> On 07 Sep 2016, at 21:03, Tim Rozet wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I just fixed/tested fixing the VNF ord
Hello community,
There is no new project proposal in the backlog. And there is not urgent issue
to discuss either.
So I propose to cancel our technical discussion tomorrow (9/8) so that everyone
can focus on the last mile of Colorado release.
Thank you
Bin
_
Edgar,
Thank you for your point.
I think we are discussing *doc-only projects*, and the docs produced by those
projects. So in your example, “State of NFV and OPNFV update” is not applicable
here. Those documents are handled by different teams in different ways, and out
of scope of our discuss
Not to add to an already long discussion, but I suppose my main question is
what's the most effective way to get this sort of documentation out there.
I hear all the points about a formal publication process about the
requirements, and I think Daniel's point about requesting input and
comments is v
Hi Bin,
To your point, and to Georg’s point earlier: yes, it’s possible to create these
artificial linkages for milestones. And I am sure there are documents that will
be of value to be aligned with a release.
However, I don’t think all documents are tied to a release, and, yes, I think a
docu
Hi NetReady folks,
as promised in our last meeting, I would like to start a discussion about the
scope of NetReady for the D-release cycle. Hoping for triggering good
discussions, I have started to put together an initial list of items I'd like
to propose for the D-release cycle.
At first, a b
David,
Please refer to
http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2016-September/012465.html
for an example of possible milestones, i.e. a subset of current milestones that
are applicable to doc-only projects.
Thanks
Bin
From: David McBride [mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent:
Hi All,
I just fixed/tested fixing the VNF ordering issue. I created/deleted a bunch
of chains with different ordering for 3 VNFs, all were in the correct order in
the RSP.
The JIRA is:
https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SFC-47
There is also a link there to the commit, and it has been merged into th
Hi,
I pulled the Apex build from last night, and it looks like the problem (as
previously thought) is fixed in RC2. Our build last night included an
autorelease RC2 build, and I can ssh into cirros instances via floating IP.
Our daily has not made it to the SFC deployment yet, but I expect fun
Thanks for input from all. Since this is an
issue that tracks multiple projects (Genesis, Pharos, Relneg,
etc) I think having a Infra WG wiki page is
where I will start. Then farm out JIRA tasks per project
as needed. I think most of the
Thanks, Bryan. When I said "quality metrics", I was just using Bin's
language.
I'm still skeptical about the need for documentation-only projects to
participate in a release. To be clear, it isn't a matter of whether I
think these projects are important. I also think that there are other ways
f
Hi everyone:
I like to describe tests in terms of bridged port pairs (much like the PVP used
today) but with adding a little more detail.
P = Physical port
V = Virtual port
{} = Used to indicate a test scenario
(A,B) = Bridged port pairing between ports A and B, using OVS
and furthermore:
P_Da
For Apex, we have a wiki page where we try to keep a log of all the upstream
work we have done (although I'm sure we are missing things). Might be a good
place to start if we want to try to highlight upstream work:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/apex/Upstream+Tracking
Tim Rozet
Red Hat SDN Tea
This is absolutely one of the value-adds that OPNFV brings to the table – very
much in line with part of the current mission statement we have been iterating
on: “ .. by facilitating the development and evolution of NFV components in
upstream open source projects and …”.
We may need our Marketi
Tim and Bin Hu,
Great stuff, thanks. I'm simply wondering if there's a way for us to
communicate more formally to the industry on some of the things that we've
learned for those who aren't involved as deeply in the
development/bug-fixing work or reading our (awesome) documentation in
detail. This
Congratulations to the new TSC members. This is an important step in our
continued efforts to sustain broad-based participation in OPNFV.
- Prodip
From: opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
[mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Paik
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:32
Understood and agreed.
Yes, we will need sooner or later to refactor our test scripts. That is a good
sign, though. Means we are adding more and good stuff, and continue learning :-)
Carlos
From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 September 2016 16:20
To: Carlos Goncalves; T
It's fine for me to skip spec review step if it is just a simple task to
track or we have already submit a blueprint in upstream.
My idea is that when we have something complicated to implement in doctor.
We'd better launch a spec review in gerrit.
As the run.sh growing larger, it might become a
Hello All,
We will shortly be sharing the results of the threat analysis audit that
is underway within the security group.
This will be in the format of a email sent to the PTL of each audited
project, with a restricted Google Drive link to the report.
The PTL’s email, will be added with view /
Hi,
On 09/07/2016 02:24 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> +1.
>
> Also note that when we defined the project lifecycle we used metrics
> like the ones mentioned only as guidance rather than something to
> compute a composite value – and even there, we did not constrain things
> to metrics i
Hi Folks
I've added the suggested info to the following wiki
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/VSPERF+Deployment+Topology+Description+Scheme
for review later today
Thanks
Maryam
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf O
Hi Edgar,
Would a document repository really solve our problem here? What do we mean by
“current documents”? Aren’t the gaps we identify somehow related to the state
of the upstream projects we build an OPNFV release on? So, while a requirements
doc will certainly be a living document across OP
I didn’t mention earlier but we do use Gerrit for reviewing OpenStack specs
before submitting upstream to review.openstack.org.
Still, the point you are raising is that you feel we need to introduce specs
for Doctor in general. Have you felt already the drawbacks you mentioned of
using Jira whe
Hi Tapio,
While it might seem helpful for newcomers to see a ranking of projects by
activity, I am wondering if newcomers really pick the projects they want to
engage in based on activity rather than interest or need. If that is the case,
I am wondering if smaller projects with less activity wo
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:W. Australia Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:DAY
In a short word
- initial proposals to select => etherpad
- draft specs to review => gerrit
- approved items to track => JIRA
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:47 PM Yujun Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Carlos
>
> The etherpad for release B looks good and I think we should continue using
> it.
>
> On the w
Hi, Carlos
The etherpad for release B looks good and I think we should continue using
it.
On the working items, personally I don't think JIRA is a good system for
storing the spec for some reasons.
1. it is difficult to comment inline in JIRA issues
2. it is difficult to track the change h
Hello, team,
Last week, some topics to be worked in D-release were discussed, let's discuss
more on these topics
Agenda of Sept.8 2016
* Next step for Multisite project, scope, focus, etc
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=opnfv-meeting 7:00-8:00 UTC (During
summer time, means CET
We’ve been using etherpad, weekly meeting and F2F team meetings for
brainstorming. The team even strives to plan and align public presentations
(e.g. OpenStack and OPNFV Summit events).
Examples:
https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/doctor
https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/doctor_use_case_for_b_release
https
This topic was raised in the last meeting but one [1] which I was absent
from. I'm not sure if there is any conclusion out.
Here are my proposals. Please feel free to comment
1. using etherpad for brainstorming, since it is lightweight and real
time
2. submit detail proposals to gerrit f
34 matches
Mail list logo
