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:
