Hi all,
Here is the invite for [mano-wg] meeting #36, plan for contributions listed to
make it useful for all participants and mano-wg.
Thanks
Prakash
Meeting Times: Every Wednesday (7.00 am PST) at 14.00 UTC, Other Ad-hoc
meeting as per Project requests
For IRC can use can use http://we
Hi Wenjing,
Thanks for responding. With regards to my first question, the question was "is
API testing sufficient for an OPNFV CVP program?". I had understood from the
C&C committee that the answer was no, but thought the TSC might be the right
place to have a deeper discussion. IPv6 of cour
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:19700308T02
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH
Hi TSC members,
I just realized that the original email with the proposed scope has been cut
out in this thread. I'm copying it below again as the part of last call for
feedback regarding to the initial cvp test scope, per today's TSC meeting
action item.
Please keep in mind that we are reques
Hi Chris, and Dave, who also raised this question about ipv6 during the TSC
call,
The question of ipv6 data path testing, like a v6ping, was considered and
analyzed, but the conclusion was that the data path support in opnfv scenarios
is still very weak. The one case that could potentially be s
Hi Morgan
I agree with you that many of these challenges are directly related to “what we
are producing”. I think the Dovetail project is bringing some of the issues out
to the surface. During the Summit, we also shared the analysis we went through
for all projects in Danube to evaluate if som
Hi,
I would like to see if there is any interest in having a UK (possibly
London) OPNFV meetup.
This would be an informal event, either in a pub somewhere or some office
space if a kind donor appears. If it goes well, then we can build from
there.
I hope to see at least five + positives, to sign
Thanks for raising this, Fatih. It echoes some of the perspective I gave at the
summit, i.e. that we have gotten pretty good at repeating past successes, even
if fairly thin ones, but not at going beyond them. The problem with that is
that things always fall apart over time, unless there is a cu
Thanks Trevor!
Just found a bug in my code now its running, so patch on its way.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Trevor Bramwell <
tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hey Luke,
>
> Thanks for the reviews! It looks like the patch[1] fixed the
> verification[2] and anteater is running again.
Hey Luke,
Thanks for the reviews! It looks like the patch[1] fixed the
verification[2] and anteater is running again.
Regards,
Trevor Bramwell
[1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/36601/
[2]
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/job/opnfv-security-audit-verify-master/148/console
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 a
Hi Feng
I finally managed to bring up “os-nosdn-nofeature-noha” scenario using
4.0-20170620 version RPMs. Initially I was able to login to undercloud and
overcloud and create nova instances and neutron networks within overcloud.
However, after keeping that setup idle for a day or two, I noticed
Hi Trevor,
I am ok with going for #1
If should not really be me approving patches in releng, so will let the
other cores chime in.
For #2 I looked at your log and see what you mean. I cannot spot why a
normal user is allowed to install.
This is what I get when trying to install on my home PC (a
Hey Luke,
I'm definitely opting for #1 and have a patch here[1]. This change can
be moved into the docker container later to resolve your concerns about
path changes.
Unrelated to the specific change, there are two questions this raises
which speak to the nature of our CI infra:
1. Why are docke
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Pacific Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T02
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T02000
Hi all,
I updated the page https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Lab+as+a+Service with
additional use cases and updated diagrams for the two main classes of use cases:
* Use Case: OPNFV Developer Access to On-Demand POD
* Use Case: ONAP Developer Access to On-Demand OPNFV+ONAP POD
Unless there's a
Hi,
I haven't been active in OPNFC SFC in some time and would like to step down as
a committer.
Thanks!
Paul
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
Hi,
Patch [1] resulted in docker build failing due to a non root user not
having permissions to write to /usr/lib/python2.7, as seen in job [2]. To
address this I opened [3] and pushed patch [4] which implements a
virtualenv, but this now fails as the anteater path is not known.
There are two way
+1
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Zenghui Shi wrote:
> +1
>
> zenghui
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Georg Kunz
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dovetailers,
>>
>>
>>
>> You are all well aware of the accidental merge of the SDNVPN test case
>> scope and description [1] without a +1 vote from a majority
Hi,
my view is that the difficulty we have to converge to a clear consensus
is directly linked to what we are producing
I fully agree with Fatih's comment on the mail
https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-June/016799.html
Second release had probably the best quality in ter
Hi,
Fuel ODL plugin supports only one odl controller.
ODL driver could be opted via UI settings of plugin.
There are no plans to continue developing of this plugin but ... HA feature
will be in MCP/Ocata soon.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Raúl Alvarez Pinilla <
ralva...@walhalladcs.com> wrot
Thanks Mark,
Got the main idea from your explanation and excellent reference.
I’d like to summarize the current collected test cases below and also as a
reminder for guys feed backing informations.
Please correct me if there is any mistake or misleading message, thanks!
[cid:image001.png@01D2EF
Hi Folks,
Did we come to any conclusions on a couple of outstanding points that come to
my mind as things to come to decisions on as they establish our technical scope:
1) Is it OK for instance that test cases only evaluate API responses? I am
thinking of suites like the IPv6 where we do not pa
22 matches
Mail list logo
