On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:20:20PM -0700, Lance Albertson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Iustin Pop ius...@google.com wrote:
Some updates on this plan. 2.7 was delayed as 2.6 itself was a couple of
months late. As such, we've decided to slightly tweak this plan.
Any guess on a
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:37:49pm +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
This will have the following advantages:
- allow base Ganeti to depend on htools, and hence promote integration
- simplify the build configurations and requirements (hopefully they
will be simpler, due to the reduction in the
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:57:10PM +0300, Vangelis Koukis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:37:49pm +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
This will have the following advantages:
- allow base Ganeti to depend on htools, and hence promote integration
- simplify the build configurations and
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:18:15PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
Hi all,
Over the past 6 months, we have discussed (at length) on what is the
best direction for Ganeti, given that the current code-base, while
working well for us, has accumulated a lot of technical debt in terms
of internal
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Iustin Pop ius...@google.com wrote:
Some updates on this plan. 2.7 was delayed as 2.6 itself was a couple of
months late. As such, we've decided to slightly tweak this plan.
Any guess on a timeframe when 2.7 might be released?
So the new plan is as follows:
Hello Iustin!
Thanks for your detailed description of upcoming plans, some comments
are inline.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:18:20pm +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
Over the past 6 months, we have discussed (at length) on what is the
best direction for Ganeti, given that the current code-base, while
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:40:43pm +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
Things I'd like to see moving forwards in terms of features are
primarily better support for generic instances.
I am using ganeti to run a clients office, they have a nice pair of
Dell R210 II's and 8 VM's, all of different
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:36:40PM +0300, Vangelis Koukis wrote:
Hello Iustin!
Thanks for your detailed description of upcoming plans, some comments
are inline.
Hi Vangelis, thanks for the comments. I am definitely interested in your
(grnet's) comments, as you are our biggest contributors.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:27:38AM -0700, MartÃn B. wrote:
Hi Iustin Ganeti Devs,
I've thought about this a bit. It seems that your proposal make sense. As
an end user, it seems that the only downside is the
increased probability of bugs during the transition. This is something that
I'm
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Doug Dumitru wrote:
Hello all,
First, I am somewhat of two minds as to whether to respond to this
thread or not. I am not a ganeti developer, although I did push a
small fix last year.
My real concern is that ganeti is too monolithic. Perhaps my
Hi Jake,
Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 08:36:53PM +1000, Jake Anderson wrote:
I'm somewhat against the idea of adding another language to it (or
making it more prominent).
Just on a gut feel level it seems like mixing the two languages will
cause more work
Hi all,
Over the past 6 months, we have discussed (at length) on what is the
best direction for Ganeti, given that the current code-base, while
working well for us, has accumulated a lot of technical debt in terms
of internal architecture deficiencies, programming language issues,
testability,
12 matches
Mail list logo
