On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 19:50 +, Jason Smith wrote:
Hello,
I understand why we had to give up Quantum code name but rather than
just refer to it as networking let's come up with a new code name!
Yes, this was discussed at the summit:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/ProjectsReNaming
The
Hey,
In the time since the Folsom release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/folsom branch according to our safe
source of high-impact fixes criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
We're happy to announce the 2012.2.1 release, the first
to you:
http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/2012.2.1
Cheers,
Mark.
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 21:50 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
We're hoping to publish Nova, Glance, Keystone, Quantum, Cinder and
Horizon 2012.2.1 next week (Nov 29).
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen
Hey,
We're hoping to publish Nova, Glance, Keystone, Quantum, Cinder and
Horizon 2012.2.1 next week (Nov 29).
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.2.1
https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/2012.2.1
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 10:02 -0700, Michael Still wrote:
On 10/17/2012 09:41 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I tried to approve a few new CLA signers and noticed
that the http://wiki.openstack.org/Contributors page is missing.
Trying to restore a previous version resulted in an error.
Could
Hey,
In the time since the Essex release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/essex branch according to our safe
source of high-impact fixes criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
We're happy to announce the 2012.1.3 release, the latest
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 22:53 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
We're hoping to publish Nova, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.3 releases
this Thursday (Oct 11).
Doh, I only noticed the incorrect subject line after sending :)
Cheers,
Mark.
___
Mailing
Hey,
We're hoping to publish Nova, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.3 releases
this Thursday (Oct 11).
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.3
https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/2012.1.3
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 08:14 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
As I did for Folsom,
Doh, I meant As I did for Essex i.e. this:
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg09650.html
Oops :)
Cheers,
Mark.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 16:36 +0900, Tomokazu Hirai wrote:
Hi,
I installed essex on sepalated nodes and used Ubuntu Server 12.04
LTS. I used this installation manual.
http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/starter/os-compute-starterguide-trunk.pdf
I could install all in one
Hi,
I'd like to put my name forward as a candidate for openstack-common PTL.
I helped start the project with Jason Kölker in January and wrote the
plan we've been following:
http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary
Since then, I've been doing reviews, triaging bugs and organizing the
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 00:23 -0900, Simon Walter wrote:
Nova does not respect the options set in the /etc/nova/nova.conf file.
I've seen some examples with -- prefixing the flags, as if they are
command line arguments. I've also seen examples without.
I've tried removing the --, that does
Hey,
We're hoping to do Nova, Glance and Keystone 2012.1.2 releases this
Friday (Aug 10).
I've add a bunch of details here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranchRelease
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.2
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:47 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Eric Windisch e...@cloudscaling.com wrote:
The scope of common is expanding. I believe it is time to seriously
consider a proper PTL. Preferably, before the PTL elections.
+1
So, I guess I've been
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 10:50 -0500, George Reese wrote:
I must be missing something, but I can't find any docs on how to suspend or
stop a VM via API.
Any pointers, please? :)
Try 'nova --debug pause $instance'
Shows e.g.
POST /v2/$tenant/servers/$instance/action HTTP/1.1
Host:
Hi Atul,
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote:
We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that
hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for
the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands
for, and we do not
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 11:43 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Atul,
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote:
We are also working on process improvements for nominations and
elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please
speak up or contact me or Mark
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:36 -0400, Chuck Short wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if there is an aversion to remove ietadm support
from folsom.
I have checked the iscsitarget sourceforge site and there
hasn't been a new version of iscsitarget in about 2 years. The kernel
module doesn't compile
Hi Rick,
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:37 -0500, Rick Clark wrote:
Who is the election official, running this election. Nomination should
be an open process, similar to the core dev process. It is currently
closed and subject to manipulation.
I would also suggest that if you are a candidate,
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:09 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hello Everyone!
Padraig has been contributing a lot of code to all parts of nova, and
has been contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he would make a
great addition to nova-core.
Big +1, Pádraig has been consistently doing
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:10 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hello Everyone!
Yun has been putting a lot of effort into cleaning up our state
management, and has been contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he
would make a great addition to nova-core.
+1, Yun has been doing great work
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:13 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hello Everyone!
Michael wrote the image cache management code, did all of the
remaining conversions of instance_id - instance_uuid, and has been
contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he would make a great
addition to
(Sorry, was away for a couple of weeks)
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 15:26 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 07/02/2012 03:16 PM, Andrew Bogott wrote:
Background:
The openstack-common project is subject to a standard code-review
process (and, soon, will also have Jenkins testing gates.)
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 18:59 +, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
The notion that copying code is any protection against APIs that may
change is a red herring. It's the exact same effect as pegging a
version of a dependency (whether it's a commit hash or a real version
number), except now you have code
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 14:47 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote:
Like most people in this thread, I too long for an end to the weird
double-commit process that we're using now. So I'm happy to set aside
my original Best Practices proposal until there's some consensus
regarding how much longer
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:57 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Monty Taylor wrote:
However, with a versioned library model, the projects can consume things
pinned to specific versions, and then they can submit a change that
updates the version depend and the code which needs to be updated to
Hey,
In the time since the Essex release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/essex branch according to our safe
source of high-impact fixes criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
Well, those fixes are now available as 2011.3.1 releases!
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 16:29 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
[..]
Having people report bugs for our software is a chance, and we should
not discourage anyone by not giving the resulting reports the minimal
attention they deserve.
[..]
Totally!
So how do we, Nova developers, collectively
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:21 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote:
Hey all,
We've had a number of stable/essex reviews up that were abandoned due
to lack of reviews. We have re-enabled them and are hoping to get
some eyes on these so we can release 2012.1.1:
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:21 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote:
Hey all,
We've had a number of stable/essex reviews up that were abandoned due
to lack of reviews. We have re-enabled them and are hoping to get
some eyes on these so we can release 2012.1.1:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7718/
Hey,
Does the PPB vote last night mean that the all-mighty PPB, in its
infinite wisdom, has decreed that nothing useful can come from further
discussion? :-)
I certainly hope not ...
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:07 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
It is terrible for the public cloud implementations who
Hi Monty,
Thanks for sending.
For reference, this was the link you posted last week:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/LibraryProjectDefinition
One question I had on that is re:
the ability to release a client library outside of the core project
release cycle (requests have
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:25 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
One question I had on that is re:
the ability to release a client library outside of the core project
release cycle (requests have been coming in to our release manager for
this)
Who were
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
[..]
However they also inherited the release scheme of the server project
(new version every 6 months), which was (or was not) synced to PyPI
depending of who was owning the PyPI project. More confusion as PyPI
Hey,
We're hoping to do Nova, Glance, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.1 releases
Thursday (Jun 21).
I've add a bunch of details here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranchRelease
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.1
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 12:05 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Ceilometer is currently importing bits we need either directly from nova or
openstack-common (by importing I mean literally using the import
statement in our code, not copying the required modules into the ceilometer
code base). I was
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:41 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote:
Sorry if this has already been posted somewhere and I just can't find it,
but is there an openstack common weekly meeting where you guys talk about
your blueprints and determine what is going into common and in what form?
I think I
Hi Sean,
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 16:15 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
I'm reworking the virt driver loading so that it's using importutils
(and thus looking more like the other driver interfaces), which means
eventually connection_type parameter in nova.conf goes away, and
computer_driver is used
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote:
Hi Mark,
Please forgive the top-posting! I always get way too wordy with
inline replies.
Regarding configuration, I think there is another option I'd like us
to adopt. We should implement the code as in your option #1, but then
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:48 -0400, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
+1 :-)
In all seriousness - Mark made two separate points. Which one are you
top-posting a +1 to?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Mark Washenberger
mark.washenber...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
Please forgive the top-posting!
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 14:43 -0600, Everett Toews wrote:
Hi All,
If you have a relatively long-lived topic branch, what's the best way to
remotely save changes?
If you wanted to fork an OpenStack project on github, it would work
something like:
1. Fork the project on github.com to your
Hi Pete,
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 17:48 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
Hi, Monty:
The python-swiftclient has something that I believe you added:
[zaitcev@lembas python-swiftclient-tip]$ git log
swiftclient/openstack/__init__.py
commit 7df012329f0b22e19f878cee2602407cb23042ef
Author: Monty
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:48 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote:
Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com said:
On 05/29/2012 04:04 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Adopting this pattern across all projects will actually help
openstack-common more generally. For example, Russell is moving the RPC
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 08:58 -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
* let the consumer code decide when to ack a message
(although maybe the concept of acking doesn't exist for all
implementations?)
My XenAPI idempotency branch delays ACKs until after it's done
processing the message to ensure
/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:bp/cfg-global-object,n,z
Cheers,
Mark.
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 10:10 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
The original cfg design[1] assumed certain usage patterns that I hoped
would be adopted by all projects using it. In gerrit, we're debating a
set of patch
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:22 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote:
-1 to introducing formal processes around this. This will happen from
time to time. Development may be briefly impacted on other platforms
but hindering innovation and telling developers that they are
responsible for package availability
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:40 -0500, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 08:31 -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
A couple of quick questions on how this quota class mechanism is
intended to work ...
- how is the mapping between project and quota-class established?
I was expecting a
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 15:32 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote:
I would appreciate comments on the nascent Nova plugin framework
that I'm working on. My Nova code is in a fairly modern forked branch here:
https://github.com/andrewbogott/nova/tree/plugin
I've also written two
Hey,
Hi On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 14:51 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
James E. Blair wrote:
Vish, Thierry, and I spent some time together this week at UDS trying to
reconcile their needs and your suggestions. I believe Thierry is going
to write that up and send it to the list soon.
While at
Hey,
cdub sent on these interesting links:
http://lwn.net/Articles/328438/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/489
tl;dr on those is that you're likely to be flamed as a f*cking moron by
Linus unless you manage to understand every little nuance about how he
thinks git should be used :-)
It's
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 17:11 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
* Mark McLoughlin (mar...@redhat.com) wrote:
- Subsystem branches would not rebase unless the project dictator
outright rejects a merge request from the subsystem branch (i.e.
I'm not merging commit abcdef0! Fix
Hi James,
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 14:03 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
so many of us involved and we
Hey,
So, one thing came really stuck out to me when comparing our process to
the kernel process:
In the kernel process, maintainers are responsible for running
'git-merge' and they see it as their job to resolve conflicts.
In our process, Jenkins runs 'git-merge' and runs away screaming
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:34 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I rarely -2, because I see it as a strong veto which blocks the patch or
later revisions of the patch until I remove the -2. Maybe it's just the
fact that I know I'm likely to be slow to come back and review later
revisions of a patch
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 19:58 +, Matt Dietz wrote:
The problem here is there are two opposing points: the idea that there are
too many core reviewers, and the idea that patches aren't being reviewed
fast enough.
*Drags a yak into the room* Beyond that, what makes 20 better than 25, or
://review.openstack.org/#/c/6774/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7048/
Cheers,
Mark.
Vish
On May 3, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:41 -0400, Yun Mao wrote:
Hi,
I've uploaded some code as work in progress towards what we discussed
at the Folsom summit, nova orchestration session. Where I'm going is
more or less described in this blueprint.
Hey,
I just realised there's a thread on the openstack-poc list about how
OpenStack should view implementations of APIs other than the OpenStack
API:
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack-poc/msg00448.html
(PPB members - please note that other folks can't subscribe to the POC
list. If you
Hey,
I see this list gets a bunch of bug spam because the POC team is listed
as a driver for the openstack-common library:
https://launchpad.net/~openstack-common-drivers/+members#active
The doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone have an objection to me
removing the POC team?
Cheers,
Mark.
Hey,
I just realised there's a thread on the openstack-poc list about how
OpenStack should view implementations of APIs other than the OpenStack
API:
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack-poc/msg00448.html
(PPB members - please note that other folks can't subscribe to the POC
list. If you
** Project changed: openstack-common = openstack-ci
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/946573
Title:
404 handler for doc sites
Status in OpenStack Core
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = 2012.1
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Low
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers,
Think this is fixed by: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6906/
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = folsom-1
** Changed in: openstack-common
Assignee: (unassigned) = Russell Bryant (russellb)
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in:
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = 2012.1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
Moving to Opinion, no progress in 18+ months and a blueprint would be
better
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: New = Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = 2012.1
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Low
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers,
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = 2012.1
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = High
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers,
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: New = Confirmed
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
Ok, based on Brian Waldon's comment in the review I'm going to close
this
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: In Progress = Invalid
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: New = Fix Committed
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = folsom-1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = 2012.1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers,
openstack-common fix: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/5712/
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: New = Fix Released
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: openstack-common
Assignee: (unassigned) = Sean Dague (sdague-b)
** Changed in:
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: In Progress = Fix Committed
** Also affects: nova
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: swift
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: horizon
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received
Could do with more details here, I'm not sure I follow what the issue is
** Changed in: openstack-common
Assignee: (unassigned) = Jason Kölker (jason-koelker)
** Changed in: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided = Low
** Changed in: openstack-common
Milestone: None = folsom-1
--
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 14:37 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
I recently submitted a few fixes to the test suite in various components
of openstack.
Thanks for that!
These fixes are being merged in master, but the code remains broken in
the stable/essex branch. Review requests for
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 10:51 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
Hi Mark, thanks for your answer.
On 05/03/2012 10:25 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 14:37 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
I recently submitted a few fixes to the test suite in various components
of openstack
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
so many of us involved and we all were either wanting to discuss
slightly different things or had a slightly different understanding of
what we were
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 14:24 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Ok, what are subsystem branches and how would they work?
[...]
- It would be up to the project dictators to help drive patches
through the right subsystem branches - e.g. they might object
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 16:46 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 14:24 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
And how about feature branches?
- Feature branches are relatively short-lived (i.e. weeks or months
rather than years) branches
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 10:08 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
My impression is that the notifications system is intended to cover
all
billable usage in at least Nova and Glance.
It's also my understanding. Regarding swift, how would you suggest we
approach the problem ? I see two possible courses:
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
To prepare for the next meeting ( thursday 3rd, may 2012
http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/MeteringAgenda ) I cleaned up and
reorganized the Metering blueprint so that it ( hopefully )
incorporates all the information
Hey,
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:05 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
On 05/01/2012 06:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
- I agree that we don't want to go too far with aggregation and lose
useful data like which instances have
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:05 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
On 05/01/2012 06:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
To prepare for the next meeting ( thursday 3rd, may 2012
http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/MeteringAgenda ) I cleaned
Definite +1
Mark.
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 11:09 -0400, Dan Prince wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote the Nova Qpid rpc implementation and is a member of the
Nova security team. He has been helping chipping away at reviews and
contributing to discussions for some time now.
I'd like to seem him
I'd like the defaults to be configurable by distributors, distutils,
etc. and this is a common pattern with autoconf based projects.
What I don't accept, though, is that we should require users to specify
config options just because we can't figure out a mechanism to get sane
defaults right out
Hi Ghe,
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 12:15 +0200, Ghe Rivero wrote:
Hi Everyone,
i've been looking through wsgi code, and i have found a lot of
duplicated code between all the projects.
Thanks for looking into this. It sounds quite daunting.
I wonder could we do this iteratively by extract the
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 13:26 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
23. apr. 2012 17.15 skrev Justin Santa Barbara jus...@fathomdb.com:
With one native API, we can focus all our energies on making sure that API
works. Then, knowing that the native API works, we can build other APIs on
top through
./etc/default_catalog.template is not a good default for template_file,
I agree. But /etc/keystone/catalog.template or similar would be a fine
default to include in the code. The tests would override the default
As for error messages - I completely agree we should have good error
handling like
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 16:23 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
One new addition in 2.3 is draft changes. The idea behind a draft
change in Gerrit is that it is a change that is not ready for merging,
or even general code review, but you would like to share it with some
people to get early
Hi,
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:13 -0700, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
I've updated http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch to put Diablo in
the past, and Essex as the current stable release.
I'm delighted to see that Mark McLoughlin already has Stable Branch
on the agenda for the Summit,
http
%)
Johannes Erdfelt 146 (4.2%)
Vishvananda Ishaya 116 (3.3%)
Dolph Mathews 98 (2.8%)
Dan Prince 84 (2.4%)
Ziad Sawalha80 (2.3%)
Jason Kölker 77 (2.2%)
Mark McLoughlin 73 (2.1%)
Jake Dahn
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Fix Committed = In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960487
Title:
Request deserializer does not pass
Hey Russell,
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 16:26 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
There was a thread on this list a little while ago about moving the
notification drivers that are in nova and glance into openstack.common
since they provide very similar functionality, but have implementations
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 11:18 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote:
1) I can back out my new style-guide from openstack-common
openstack-common still needs a HACKING file for itself :)
Cheers,
Mark.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 22:00 -0700, Andy Smith wrote:
It is something pulled from the google style guide.
You know what else is in the Google style guide? Avoid global
variables :-)
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/pyguide.html?showone=Global_variables#Global_variables
Mark.
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 17:57 -0500, Josh Kearney wrote:
Is this is really a problem that needs solving? I'd like to believe that no
member of Nova Core would approve something that they aren't familiar with.
I think the issue is more a case of allowing some time for other
reviewers to come along
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:50 -0800, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
In my view the price tag for the sponsorship and the ultimate means
for raising the money is not what drives OpenStack’s vendor
independence principles. What matters the most is the degree of
decoupling between the front-end,
It turns out the issue wasn't interpolation at all
http://review.openstack.org/5142
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: Confirmed = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant for openstack-common.
: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Mark McLoughlin (markmc)
Status: Confirmed
** Changed in: openstack-common
Assignee: (unassigned) = Mark McLoughlin (markmc)
** Changed in: openstack-common
Status: New = Confirmed
--
You received this bug
: https://review.openstack.org/4547
** Affects: openstack-common
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Mark McLoughlin (markmc)
Status: Confirmed
** Tags: cfg
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenStack
Common Drivers, which is the registrant
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
