Ahmed El Gamil wrote:
(nova.compute.manager): TRACE: Error: Unexpected error while running
command.
(nova.compute.manager): TRACE: Command: /usr/bin/curl --fail
--silent http://ip address:/_images/2/image -H 'Date: Wed, 16
Feb 2011 14:23:23 GMT' -H 'Authorization: AWS
Hey Ahmed,
TL;DR Glance doesn't appear to be supported with libvirt driver yet.
Judging by the stack trace, it looks like the code is taking an S3 code path
even though you've selected the GlanceImageService.
Looking through the code, it doesn't appear that the libvirt/Glance code is
there
Soren Hansen wrote:
That's really a corollary to this proposal: Being in nova-core means you have
a review day once every N days (where N is the amount of (human) members of
nova-core). As such, if you're not prepared to accept such a review day, you
don't get to be part of the team. Simple.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
That's really a corollary to this proposal: Being in nova-core means you have
a review day once every N days (where N is the amount of (human) members of
nova-core). As such, if you're not prepared to accept such a review day, you
don't get to
I'll throw my hat in the ring for core if deemed worthy.
Soren's point about 1 review day per # core developers was refreshing. I had
previously held back from applying because I was afraid all my time would be
tied up with reviews.
?
From:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
That's really a corollary to this proposal: Being in nova-core means you have
a review day once every N days (where N is the amount of (human) members of
nova-core). As such, if
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Paul Voccio paul.voc...@rackspace.com wrote:
Not sure what the etiquette is for removing someone. Michael Gundlach is
still listed but is no longer participating.
I think these sorts of things can be resolved on the mailing list just
fine. It's not a big deal
Josh Kearney wrote:
I'm with Sandy on this. I'd like to step in as well.
Could you each start a new thread about your application ? That should
make it easier to track the lazy consensus described in:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Approved/CoreDevProcess
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release
I'd like to help out on the review process as per
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Approved/CoreDevProcess
I like quiet walks in the park and black and white movies.
-Sandy
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the
Soren, can you clarify what you mean by Ubuntu being the primary platform? Why
is that the reference? What limitations does this introduce?
Jim
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/2/17 Brian Schott bfsch...@gmail.com:
One thing we saw in the list and experienced first
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Trey Morris trey.mor...@rackspace.com wrote:
I don't like that it currently only runs on ubuntu + the ppa. If it doesn't
work with existing versions I think we're doing something wrong. Even when
natty comes out, I don't like the idea of having to ensure I have
+1 for jk0
Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya
vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Jk0 has been contributing a lot and doing reviews even when they don't
count.
All reviews count :)
-jay
___
2011/2/17 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
Also, good point to keep in mind: Membership to nova-core isn't a
privilege or even any fun. It's a responsibility and a duty to your
fellow contributors :)
The first draft of my e-mail said something about it being a chore,
but I decided to edit that
2011/2/17 Jim Curry jim.cu...@rackspace.com:
Soren, can you clarify what you mean by Ubuntu being the primary platform?
Why is that the reference? What limitations does this introduce?
It's the primary platform because it's the platform we test everything
on, it's the platform we spend time
+1 :-D
From: Josh Kearney
josh.kear...@rackspace.commailto:josh.kear...@rackspace.com
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:32:04 -0600
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.netmailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] Proposal to be a member of Nova Core
I'd like to volunteer my time to help out
I think the best way to get involved is to just start doing reviews.
A branch still requires 2 core reviews to be merged, but that doesn't mean
other people can't jump in and give their 2 cents in the meantime. So just
dive on in and you can start learning about the review process and helping
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Trey Morris trey.mor...@rackspace.com wrote:
sounds like a good plan to me :)
Awesome. I'm glad you're taking the lead on this ;)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/720941
Cheers!
jay
___
Mailing list:
I would agree with Devin. Monsyne, I'd like to see some of your
reviews before I give a thumbs up to nova-core. Please do participate
in the review process so we've got a bit more to base a decision on.
:) Of course, I may just be missing reviews you have done? If so,
please don't hesitate to
Devs:
The time to decide on GSOC is fast approaching. As I indicated earlier this
month, we will decide to proceed based on the projects developers would like to
submit. As of today, there are no project submissions at the Wiki page at
http://wiki.openstack.org/Project%20List. The schedule
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Paul Voccio paul.voc...@rackspace.com wrote:
Jay,
Thanks for throwing this out. How would we build this with Hudson? What
would a standard deploy of Nova even look like for integration tests?
I replied with some specifics to Trey, who had a similar question,
No disagreement with anything you say below, Matt. More testing of all
kinds, including unit tests, should be a priority.
Cheers,
jay
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Matt Dietz matt.di...@rackspace.com wrote:
These are all great points Jay.
I'd like to re-echo the comment about unit tests.
Great thoughts Jay - I think a push to improve test coverage is a great goal
for Cactus.
It seems like we are getting new contributors faster than ever these days. I
would like to suggest that we create a blueprint called something like improve
test coverage and create a number of bug
+1, this is a great suggestion.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Although Soren adequately explained why he thinks that running
run_tests.sh on Hudson should *not* be against a pip/virtualenv setup,
I would like to state that I think it would be a good idea to have
Hudson do
+1! (Yup, that was +factorial(1), for those keeping score at home)
2011/2/17 Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com:
I'd like to help out on the review process as
per http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Approved/CoreDevProcess
I like quiet walks in the park and black and white movies.
-Sandy
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
I understand the motivation, I'm just not sure I want the latter to
actually block a merge. As an example, the recent race condition I
spotted and fixed required a patch to land in eventlet. If the latter
was allowed to block a merge, we'd
Got it. But the primary tradeoff is simply that we need to make sure any
changes we make to another platforms don't break the Ubuntu integration? And
in general that should not be a major issue...?
Jim
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/2/17 Jim Curry
Thanks to everyone who gave great feedback on the first queue service
thread. I've updated the wiki page to include the suggestions.
http://wiki.openstack.org/QueueService
With a decent vision of what we want to build, the next step is
figuring out how. In a previous thread it was suggested that
By defining an unbreakable reference platform, are we necessarily limiting its
ability to integrate on other platforms? That is my underlying question. I
understand the need for a reference platform but am trying to understand to
what extent that results in us not being able to easily support
2011/2/17 Jim Curry jim.cu...@rackspace.com:
By defining an unbreakable reference platform, are we necessarily limiting
its ability to integrate on other platforms? That is my underlying question.
I understand the need for a reference platform but am trying to understand
to what extent
I wanted to put out into the open where we think the evolution of the apis will
go over the next few releases. This is by no means the only way to do this, but
I thought it would be a start of conversation.
http://wiki.openstack.org/api_transition
I also wanted to clear up some confusion that
Believe, me we know. Our team is bringing up OpenStack on our heterogeneous
testbed, a 1TB 256core SGI UltraViolet machine, three Nvidia S2050 boards
connected to three SGI XE500 boxes (exposing the GPUs to new instance types
using a modified gVirtuS driver), and a nova-compute proxy managing
Pulling volumes images out into separate services (and moving from AMQP to
REST) sounds like a huge breaking change, so if that is indeed the plan,
let's do that asap (i.e. Cactus).
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Paul Voccio paul.voc...@rackspace.comwrote:
I wanted to put out into the
Agreed. I don't think bleeding-edge pip should block a merge either. It could
cause a lot of false-positives.
I do think up-to-date Natty, Maverick, and Lucid with build-depends from PPA
should be tested, probably CentOS and SUSE if that can be automated. You want
apt-get dist-upgrade ;
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Justin Santa Barbara
jus...@fathomdb.com wrote:
Pulling volumes images out into separate services (and moving from AMQP to
REST) sounds like a huge breaking change, so if that is indeed the plan,
let's do that asap (i.e. Cactus).
Sorry, I have to disagree with
An API is for life, not just for Cactus.
I agree that stability is important. I don't see how we can claim to
deliver 'stability' when the plan is then immediately to destablize
everything with a very disruptive change soon after, including customer
facing API changes and massive internal
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/2/17 Lorin Hochstein lo...@isi.edu:
For those who deploy on platforms other than Ubuntu, are these
customizations recorded somewhere in the OpenStack documentation?
Hmm.. No. I submitted it upstream, applied it in Ubuntu, and uploaded
Sorry, I don't view the proposed changes from AMQP to REST as being
customer facing API changes. Could you explain? These are internal
interfaces, no?
-jay
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Justin Santa Barbara
jus...@fathomdb.com wrote:
An API is for life, not just for Cactus.
I agree that
Trey Morris wrote:
I don't like that it currently only runs on ubuntu + the ppa. If it
doesn't work with existing versions I think we're doing something wrong.
Even when natty comes out, I don't like the idea of having to ensure I
have latest ubuntu for openstack to run.
Maybe with my Ubuntu
Reminder that we've got a meeting today at 2100UTC/3:00 PM central.
On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
In the meeting last week, we approved the 2011 Scope and Charter and
discussed the image format proposal and intermediate releases without any
final decision. John Purrier
Hi,
I'm working to provide a way in Nova to pass configurable boot
parameters to XenServer instances based on the os type of the image.
We (Rackspace) have been doing this in our older code base for some
time. Linux instances are provided certain parameters and Windows
instances get others. I'd
40 matches
Mail list logo
