Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][heat] - making Neutron more friendly for orchestration

We chatted a bit about this on IRC. The issue here is that subnets that belong to router:external networks are not visible unless the network is shared as well. So the only way the users can learn about which subnets to pick are in the list of subnet UUIDs in the json body of the network 'subnets'

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Validations before upgrades and updates

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Graeme Gillies wrote: > On 08/05/17 21:45, Marios Andreou wrote: > > Hi folks, after some discussion locally with colleagues about improving > > the upgrades experience, one of the items that came up was pre-upgrade > > and update

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

On 廿十七年五月廿四日 朝 09:38, Rochelle Grober wrote: From: Ildiko > On 2017. May 23., at 15:43, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:50:50PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: [snip] Hey

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] [devstack] [infra] heat api services with uwsgi

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 23/05/17 01:23, Rabi Mishra wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> As per the updated community goal[1] for api deployment with wsgi, >> we've to transition to use uwsgi rather than mod_wsgi at the gate. It >> also seems mod_wsgi

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] Running tests

Ok so started the tests using: tox -e py27-postgresql-file The suite starts running fine, but then I get a failing test: == Failed 1 tests - output below: == gnocchi.tests.test_indexer.TestIndexerDriver.test_list_resources_without_history

[openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cells] Stupid question: Cells v2 & AZs

Hi Devs and Implementers, A question came up tonight in the Colorado OpenStack meetup regarding cells v2 and availability zones. Can a cell contain multiple AZs? (I assume this is yes.) Can an AZ contain mutliple cells (I assumed this is no, but now in thinking about it, that's probably not

Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] Meeting time

Hi Paul, I'm open to changing the meeting time, although I'd like some input from Murano cores, too. What times work for you and your colleagues? I can create a patch in infra and add you and others to it to allow for people to effectively vote for what times you prefer. Felipe On Tue, May 23,

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

From: Ildiko > On 2017. May 23., at 15:43, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:50:50PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: > >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Sean McGinnis > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >> > >> Hey

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Validations before upgrades and updates

On 08/05/17 21:45, Marios Andreou wrote: > Hi folks, after some discussion locally with colleagues about improving > the upgrades experience, one of the items that came up was pre-upgrade > and update validations. I took an AI to look at the current status of > tripleo-validations [0] and posted a

Re: [openstack-dev] on the subject of when we should be deprecating API's in a release cycle

> -Original Message- > From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mriede...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:59 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] on the subject of when we should be deprecating > API's in a release cycle > > On 5/23/2017 7:50 PM,

Re: [openstack-dev] on the subject of when we should be deprecating API's in a release cycle

On 5/23/2017 7:50 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote: TL;DR When IaaS projects in OpenStack deprecate their API's after milestone 1, it puts PaaS projects in a pickle. I think it would be much better for PaaS projects if the IaaS projects could please do their deprecations well before milestone-1 The

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > >> If it's just too much debt and risk of slippery slope type arguments on > >> the Nova side (and that's fair, after lengthy

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

It’s definitely a nice feature to have for end user, actually we implemented it our own because we need this but nova doesn’t support. Yingjun > On May 24, 2017, at 6:58 AM, Jay Bryant wrote: > > > On 5/23/2017 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> >> >> On 23 May 2017

[openstack-dev] on the subject of when we should be deprecating API's in a release cycle

TL;DR When IaaS projects in OpenStack deprecate their API's after milestone 1, it puts PaaS projects in a pickle. I think it would be much better for PaaS projects if the IaaS projects could please do their deprecations well before milestone-1 The longer issue: OK, the guy from Trove is

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On 5/23/2017 4:43 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: In this particular case it may not be necessary, but I think early implementation of composite features in clients is actually the right way to prove the utility of these things going forward. Establish and document the process, implement in a way for

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 07:07 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: And how can someone, that is trying to deploy OpenStack, understand/find the right config for db? Or it's Ops tasks and community doesn't care about them? Neither. It's the ops responsibility to understand database configuration fundamentals

Re: [openstack-dev] Save the Date- Queens PTG

On 05/23/2017 06:27 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2017-05-23 07:25 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2017-04-05 06:05 PM, Erin Disney wrote: We are excited to announce the September Project Teams Gathering in Denver, CO at the Denver Renaissance Stapleton Hotel this September 11th-15th. As mentioned at the

Re: [openstack-dev] Save the Date- Queens PTG

On 2017-05-23 07:25 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2017-04-05 06:05 PM, Erin Disney wrote: We are excited to announce the September Project Teams Gathering in Denver, CO at the Denver Renaissance Stapleton Hotel this September 11th-15th. As mentioned at the Atlanta PTG feedback session in

Re: [openstack-dev] Save the Date- Queens PTG

On 2017-04-05 06:05 PM, Erin Disney wrote: We are excited to announce the September Project Teams Gathering in Denver, CO at the Denver Renaissance Stapleton Hotel this September 11th-15th. As mentioned at the Atlanta PTG feedback session in February, we had narrowed down our PTG location

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

Zane, > This is your periodic reminder that we have ~50 applications sharing the > same database and not only do none of them know how the deployer will > configure the database, most will not even have an idea which set of > assumptions the other ~49 are making about how the deployer will

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On 5/23/2017 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 23 May 2017 4:51 am, "Matt Riedemann" > wrote: Is this really something we are going to have to deny at least once per release? My God how is it that this is the #1 thing everyone

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 21

On 2017-05-23 20:44:54 +0100 (+0100), Chris Dent wrote: [...] > ## OpenStack moving too fast and too slow [...] > summit happened, people moved on to other things and there wasn't > much in the way of resolution. Is there anything we could or > should be doing here? [...] The session for this

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptg] How to slice the week to minimize conflicts

I had expected more cinder/nova sessions the first days, so I like that proposal. If we are able to minimize project overlap or have alternatives the last 3 days I think we are moving towards a better solution. Jay On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM Thierry Carrez wrote: >

[openstack-dev] [MassivelyDistributed] IRC Meeting tomorrow15:00 UTC

Dear all, A gentle reminder for our meeting tomorrow. As usual, the agenda is available at: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/massively_distributed_ircmeetings_2017 (line 597) Please feel free to add items. Best, ad_rien_

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 21

On 5/23/2017 2:44 PM, Chris Dent wrote: Doing LTS is probably too big for that, but "stable branch reviews" is not. Oh if we only had more things to review on stable branches. It's also just at a bare minimum having people propose backports. Very few people/organizations actually do that

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > >> If it's just too much debt and risk of slippery slope type arguments on >> the Nova side (and that's fair, after lengthy conversations with Nova folks >> I get it), do we consider just orchestrating this from say

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 21/05/17 15:38, Monty Taylor wrote: One might argue that HA strategies are an operator concern, but in reality the set of workable HA strategies is tightly constrained by how the application works, and the pairing an application expecting one HA strategy with a deployment implementing a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

If it's just too much debt and risk of slippery slope type arguments on the Nova side (and that's fair, after lengthy conversations with Nova folks I get it), do we consider just orchestrating this from say OpenStack Client completely? The last resort (and it's an awful option) is

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

I'm in favor of option #1. I think it encourages our developers to become better writers with guidance from the docs team. While ensuring docs are proposed prior to merging the implementation cross-repository is totally possible, I think #1 makes that flow easier. Thanks for putting together the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][tc][infra][security][stable] Proposal for shipping binaries and containers

On 23 May 2017 at 08:13, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-05-23 10:44:30 -0400: >> Team, >> >> Background: >> For projects based on Go and Containers we need to ship binaries, for > > Can you elaborate on the use of the term

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 03:16 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: On May 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [1] Witness the join constructs in Golang in Kubernetes as they work around etcd not being a relational data store: Maybe it’s just me, but I found that Go code more

[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 21

With the advent Thierry's weekly status reports[^1] on the proposals currently under review by the TC and the optionality of the weekly TC meetings, this report becomes less about meeting minutes and more about reporting on the things that crossed my TC radar that seemed important and/or that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

Thanks. It’s more of a question of not leaving people high and dry when they have made a reasonable choice in the past based on the choices supported at the time. Tim On 23.05.17, 21:14, "Sean Dague" wrote: On 05/23/2017 02:35 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a proposal

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

Excerpts from John Dickinson's message of 2017-05-23 09:12:29 -0700: > > I can sympathize with the "do it tomorrow" turns into 6 weeks later... > > Part of the issue for me, personally, is that a governance patch > does *not* feel simple or lightweight. I assume (in part based on > experience)

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 03:16 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: On May 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [1] Witness the join constructs in Golang in Kubernetes as they work around etcd not being a relational data store: Maybe it’s just me, but I found that Go code more understandable

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On May 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > [1] Witness the join constructs in Golang in Kubernetes as they work around > etcd not being a relational data store: Maybe it’s just me, but I found that Go code more understandable than some of the SQL we are using in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

On 05/23/2017 02:35 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a proposal where deployments who chose Postgres on good faith can > find migration path to a MySQL based solution? Yes, a migration tool exploration is action #2 in the current proposal. Also, to be clear, we're not at the stage of removing

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 5/23/2017 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> Is it entirely unreasonable to turn the question around and ask why, >> given it is such a commonly requested feature, the Nova team are so >> resistant to it? >> > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Jay Pipes wrote: Err, in my experience, having a *completely* dumb persistence layer -- i.e. one that tries to assuage the differences between, say, relational and non-relational stores -- is a recipe for disaster. The developer just ends up writing join constructs in

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > John, > > I had heard this a few time in Boston Summit. So want to put this to bed :) > > -- Dims > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:43 PM, John Griffith > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][heat] - making Neutron more friendly for orchestration

On 19/05/17 19:53, Kevin Benton wrote: So making a subnet ID mandatory for a port creation and a RouterInterface ID mandatory for a Floating IP creation are both possible in Heat without Neutron changes. Presumably you haven't done that because it's backwards-incompatible, but you would need to

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

John, I had heard this a few time in Boston Summit. So want to put this to bed :) -- Dims On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:43 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> This has come up

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 07:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote: That "higher dev cost" is one of my objections to the 'active' approach but it is another implication that worries me more. If we limit deployer architecture choices at the persistence layer then it seems very likely that we will be tempted to build more

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Folks, > > This has come up several times in various conversations. > > Can we please stop activity on > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/golang-client/ and just > settle down on

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

Is there a proposal where deployments who chose Postgres on good faith can find migration path to a MySQL based solution? Tim On 23.05.17, 18:35, "Octave J. Orgeron" wrote: As OpenStack has evolved and grown, we are ending up with more and more MySQL-isms

[openstack-dev] [publiccloud-wg] Tomorrows meeting PublicCloudWorkingGroup

Hi everyone, First of all, really fun to see the interest for the group and the forum sessions we moderated in Boston. I hope that we can keep up that spirit and looking forward to a lot of participants in the bi-weekly meetings for this cycle. So, reminder for tomorrows meeting for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] [devstack] [infra] heat api services with uwsgi

On 23/05/17 01:23, Rabi Mishra wrote: Hi All, As per the updated community goal[1] for api deployment with wsgi, we've to transition to use uwsgi rather than mod_wsgi at the gate. It also seems mod_wsgi support would be removed from devstack in Queens. I've been working on a patch[2] for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 01:10 PM, Octave J. Orgeron wrote: Comments below.. On 5/21/2017 1:38 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: For example: An HA strategy using slave promotion and a VIP that points at the current write master paired with an application incorrectly configured to do such a thing can lead to

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] A proposal for hackathon to reduce deploy time of TripleO

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: >> Hi, all >> >> I'd like to propose an idea to make one or two days hackathon in TripleO >> project with main goal - to reduce deployment time

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible][security] Rename openstack-ansible-security role?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/17/2017 12:25 PM, Major Hayden wrote: > So my questions are: > > 1) Should the openstack-ansible-security role be > renamed to alleviate confusion? > > 2) If it should be renamed, what's your suggestion? Thanks for all of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

Comments below.. On 5/21/2017 1:38 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: Hi all! As the discussion around PostgreSQL has progressed, it has come clear to me that there is a decently deep philosophical question on which we do not currently share either definition or agreement. I believe that the lack of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

As OpenStack has evolved and grown, we are ending up with more and more MySQL-isms in the code. I'd love to see OpenStack support every database out there, but that is becoming more and more difficult. I've tried to get OpenStack to work with other databases like Oracle DB, MongoDB, TimesTen,

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

+1 as again it can assist us as an entire community (dev/non-dev) to galvanize around one tool On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Folks, > > > > This has come up several times in

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On 5/23/2017 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: Is it entirely unreasonable to turn the question around and ask why, given it is such a commonly requested feature, the Nova team are so resistant to it? Because it's technical debt for one thing. Adding more orchestration adds complexity, which

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

On 23 May 2017, at 8:05, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2017-05-23 08:58:08 -0500: - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers from projects that are obviously unaffected) >>> >>> I've thought about this, OSC was

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] why is glance image service code so complex?

On 05/23/2017 05:52 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi all, I've started to dig through the part of Ironic code that deals with glance and I am confused by some things: 1) Glance image service classes have methods to create, update and delete images. What's the use case behind them? Is

[openstack-dev] [murano] Meeting time

Hi Felipe / Murano community, I was wondering how would people feel about revising the time for the Murano weekly meeting? Personally the current time is difficult for me to attend as it falls at the end of a work day, I also have some colleagues that would like to attend but can't at the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Issues with reno

Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-05-22 21:48:37 -0500: > I think Doug and I have talked about this before, but it came up again > tonight. > > There seems to be an issue where release notes for the current series > don't show up in the published release notes, but unreleased

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] A proposal for hackathon to reduce deploy time of TripleO

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > Hi, all > > I'd like to propose an idea to make one or two days hackathon in TripleO > project with main goal - to reduce deployment time of TripleO. > > - How could it be arranged? > > We can arrange a separate IRC

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

Hi Alex, First of all thank you for writing this up the summary and list options with their expected impacts. > > 1. We could combine all of the documentation builds, so that each project has > a single doc/source directory that includes developer, contributor, and user > documentation. This

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][infra][puppet][stable] Re: [Release-job-failures] Release of openstack/puppet-nova failed

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-05-22 19:16:34 +: >> On 2017-05-22 12:31:49 -0600 (-0600), Alex Schultz wrote: >> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> > >

[openstack-dev] [ironic] why is glance image service code so complex?

Hi all, I've started to dig through the part of Ironic code that deals with glance and I am confused by some things: 1) Glance image service classes have methods to create, update and delete images. What's the use case behind them? Is ironic supposed to actively manage images? Besides, these do

Re: [openstack-dev] Save the Date- Queens PTG

W dniu 06.04.2017 o 00:05, Erin Disney pisze: > We will share registration and sponsorship information soon on this > mailing list. Mark your calendars and we hope to see you in Denver! Any update? I need to collect info about costs for my trip.

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Folks, > > This has come up several times in various conversations. > > Can we please stop activity on > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/golang-client/ and just > settle down on

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

> > > > > > > What if we also require +1 from the "core six" projects on goal proposals? > > If we at least have buy in from those projects, then we can know that we > > should be able to get them as a minimum, with other projects more than > > likely to then follow suit. > > Because we do not

Re: [openstack-dev] Is the pendulum swinging on PaaS layers?

On 22/05/17 22:58, Jay Pipes wrote: On 05/22/2017 12:01 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 19/05/17 17:59, Matt Riedemann wrote: I'm not really sure what you're referring to here with 'update' and [1]. Can you expand on that? I know it's a bit of a tangent. If the user does a stack update that

[openstack-dev] [ironic] this week's priorities and subteam reports

Hi, We are glad to present this week's priorities and subteam report for Ironic. As usual, this is pulled directly from the Ironic whiteboard[0] and formatted. This Week's Priorities (as of the weekly ironic meeting) 1. rolling upgrades

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][tc][infra][security][stable] Proposal for shipping binaries and containers

Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-05-23 10:44:30 -0400: > Team, > > Background: > For projects based on Go and Containers we need to ship binaries, for Can you elaborate on the use of the term "need" here. Is that because otherwise the projects can't be consumed? Is it the

[openstack-dev] [murano] Murano meeting cancelled 5/23/2017

The Murano meeting is cancelled today because I have a company-related event I must attend and cannot find anyone to cover the meeting for me. Should anyone have any questions, feel free to reach me on IRC (felipemonteiro). Felipe

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][tc][infra][security][stable] Proposal for shipping binaries and containers

On 23/05/17 10:44 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Team, Background: For projects based on Go and Containers we need to ship binaries, for example Kubernetes, etcd both ship binaries and maintain stable branches as well. https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/releases

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2017-05-23 08:58:08 -0500: > > > > > > - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers > > > from projects that are obviously unaffected) > > > > I've thought about this, OSC was unaffected by one of the goals but > > not the other, so

[openstack-dev] [heat] [devstack] [infra] heat api services with uwsgi

Apologies for the spam. Resending with the earlier missed [openstack-dev] tag to the subject for greater visibility. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Rabi Mishra wrote: > Hi All, > > As per the updated community goal[1] for api deployment with wsgi, we've > to transition

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

> On 2017. May 23., at 15:43, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:50:50PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Sean McGinnis >> wrote: >> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >> >> Hey Sean, is the "right to merge" the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On 23 May 2017 4:51 am, "Matt Riedemann" wrote: Is this really something we are going to have to deny at least once per release? My God how is it that this is the #1 thing everyone for all time has always wanted Nova to do for them? Is it entirely unreasonable to turn

[openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

Folks, This has come up several times in various conversations. Can we please stop activity on https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/golang-client/ and just settle down on https://github.com/gophercloud/gophercloud ? This becomes important since new container-y projects like

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-05-23 13:57:53 +: > On 2017-05-23 05:40:05 -0500 (-0500), Dean Troyer wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Thierry Carrez > > wrote: > [...] > > > - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers

[openstack-dev] [release][tc][infra][security][stable] Proposal for shipping binaries and containers

Team, Background: For projects based on Go and Containers we need to ship binaries, for example Kubernetes, etcd both ship binaries and maintain stable branches as well. https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/releases https://github.com/coreos/etcd/releases/ Kubernetes for example ships

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 22/05/17 05:39, Alexandra Settle wrote: > >> 1. We could combine all of the documentation builds, so that each >> project has a single doc/source directory that includes developer, >> contributor, and user

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

On 23/05/17 08:35, Alexandra Settle wrote: So, I’ve been a docs core for the OpenStack-Ansible project for some time now and this works really well within our structure. I do not merge anything unless it has a dev +2 before I come along (unless it is a trivial doc-only spelling/grammar

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:47:44PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Just wanted to point out that someone else requested this again today: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466595/ > > 30 seconds going through launchpad for old blueprints found at least 4 > others: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

> > > > - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers > > from projects that are obviously unaffected) > > I've thought about this, OSC was unaffected by one of the goals but > not the other, so I can't really hide in this bucket. It really is > not that hard to put up a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

On 2017-05-23 05:40:05 -0500 (-0500), Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > > - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers > > from projects that are obviously unaffected) > > I've thought about this,

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

On 22/05/17 05:39, Alexandra Settle wrote: 1. We could combine all of the documentation builds, so that each project has a single doc/source directory that includes developer, contributor, and user documentation. This option would reduce the number of build jobs we have to run, and cut down on

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:50:50PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > Hey Sean, is the "right to merge" the top difficulty you envision with 1 or > 2? Or is it finding people to do the writing and

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] A proposal for hackathon to reduce deploy time of TripleO

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > Hi, all > > I'd like to propose an idea to make one or two days hackathon in TripleO > project with main goal - to reduce deployment time of TripleO. > > - How could it be arranged? > > We can arrange a separate IRC

[openstack-dev] OpenStack and OVN integration is failing on multi-node physical machines.(probably a bug)

Hi, We are building a multi-node physical set-up of OpenStack Newton. The goal is to finally integrate the set-up with OVN. Lab details: 1 Controller, 2 computes CentOS-7.3, OpenStack Newton, separate network for mgmt and tunnel OVS version: 2.6.1 I followed the following guide to deploy

Re: [openstack-dev] uWSGI help for Congress

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Eric K wrote: If someone out there knows uWSGI and has a couple spare cycles to help Congress project, we'd super appreciate it. The regular contributors to Congress don't have experience with uWSGI and could definitely use some help getting started with this goal. Thanks

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][ptls][all] Documentation publishing future

> I prefer option 1, which should be obvious from Anne's reference to my exiting work to enable that. Option 2 seems yucky (to me) because it adds yet another docs tree and sphinx config to projects, and thus is counter to my hope that we'll have one single docs tree per repo. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Sean Dague wrote: Do you have an example of an Open Source project that (after it was widely deployed) replaced their core storage engine for their existing users? That's not the point here. The point is that new deployments may choose to use a different one and old ones

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

Not an offender, apparently, but lemme throw some less optimistic views here. On 05/23/2017 12:40 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: OK, I'll bite, being one of the until-last-week offenders... On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: As part of release management we

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

On 05/22/2017 11:26 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 5/22/2017 10:58 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> I think these are actually compatible concerns. The current proposal to >> me actually tries to address A1 & B1, with a hint about why A2 is >> valuable and we would want to do that. >> >> It feels like

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On 05/23/2017 07:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote: >> Some operations have one and only one "right" way to be done. For >> those operations if we take an 'active' approach, we can implement >> them once and not make all of our deployers and distributors each >> implement and run them. However, there is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] revised Postgresql deprecation patch for governance

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Sean Dague wrote: This feels like what a Tier 2 support looks like. A basic SQLA and pray so that if you live behind SQLA you are probably fine (though not tested), and then test and advanced feature roll out on a single platform. Any of that work might port to other

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

On Sun, 21 May 2017, Monty Taylor wrote: As the discussion around PostgreSQL has progressed, it has come clear to me that there is a decently deep philosophical question on which we do not currently share either definition or agreement. I believe that the lack of clarity on this point is one

[openstack-dev] [L2-Gateway] Query on redundant configuration of OpenStack's L2 gateway

Hi All, I have a query on usage of L2GW NB API. I have to integrate L2GW with ODL. And there are two L2GW nodes named l2gw1 and l2gw2. OVS HW VTEP Emulator is running on each node. Does the following command work for configuring these two nodes a L2GW HA Cluster? neutron

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] A proposal for hackathon to reduce deploy time of TripleO

Hi, all I'd like to propose an idea to make one or two days hackathon in TripleO project with main goal - to reduce deployment time of TripleO. - How could it be arranged? We can arrange a separate IRC channel and Bluejeans video conference session for hackathon in these days to create a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

OK, I'll bite, being one of the until-last-week offenders... On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > As part of release management we remind projects of the release cycle > deadlines, including the ones regarding the release goals process. > > According to

[openstack-dev] [vitrage] Vitrage attendance in the PTG in September

Hi, The next PTG (Project Team Gathering) will be held in Denver in September. We need to decide whether we would like to reserve a room for Vitrage, where we could hold design sessions for the next release. What do you say? Are you interested in attending the PTG? Thanks, Ifat.

[openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals

Hi! As part of release management we remind projects of the release cycle deadlines, including the ones regarding the release goals process. According to [1], "each PTL is responsible for adding their planning artifact links to the goal document before the first milestone deadline", and "if the

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuxi][stackube][kuryr] IRC meeting

Hi Hongbin: I am very intresting to this topic. Can you give more details about it. You said this topic may regarding to kuryr and stackube. I am not very understand the scope of this topic. Is this topic going to talk about how to supply storage for K8S by Openstack in project of Stackube?

  1   2   >