Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] stable branches maintenance

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0300, Denis Meltsaykin wrote: > Greetings everyone! > > Since the development of fuel-related projects is currently not so active > as it used to be, I want to propose a change in how we maintain stable > branches. > > -Motivation- > As for now to commit

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][kolla][release] Policy regarding backports of gate code

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:38:44PM -0700, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On 06/05/2017 09:42 AM, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > > My question is, is it ok to backport gate logic to stable branch? > > Regular code doesn't change so it might not be considered a feature > > backport (users won't see a thing).

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi all, > I'm late in sending this announement, but I'm glad to see several projects > have already requested EOL releases to make it trivial and obvious where to > apply the tag. > > I'm proposing to EOL all projects that meet

[openstack-dev] [heat] Deprecate/Remove deferred_auth_method=password config option

Hi All, As we know, 'deferred_auth_method=trusts' being the default, we use trust_auth_plugin whenever a resource requires deferred_auth (any resource derived from SignalResponder and StackResource). We also support 'deferred_auth_method=password' where 'X-Auth-User'/username and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

HI Vikash I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Vikash Kumar < vikash.ku...@oneconvergence.com> wrote: > I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for > deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it short, talking to number of people across industry/academic/government institutions, got a sense that its necessary that there should be a official tool more than Devstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 06:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack' >> > and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo >> > created last weekend' >> > >> > this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent ==

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Strict validation in query parameters

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 6/15/2017 8:43 PM, Alex Xu wrote: >> >> We added new decorator 'query_schema' to support validate the query >> parameters by JSON-Schema. >> >> It provides more strict valiadation as below: >> * set the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:43 AM, wrote: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ may be an example If this is case which is ceph related, i think we already discussed these kind of cases, where functionality depends on backend storage and how to handle corresponding

[openstack-dev] [devstack] etcd v3.2.0?

Hi All, I just push a review [1] to bump the minimum etcd version to 3.2.0 which works on intel and ppc64le. I know we're pretty late in the cycle to be making changes like this but releasing pike with a dependacy on 3.1.x make it harder for users on ppc64le (not many but a few :D) Yours

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Strict validation in query parameters

On 6/15/2017 8:43 PM, Alex Xu wrote: We added new decorator 'query_schema' to support validate the query parameters by JSON-Schema. It provides more strict valiadation as below: * set the 'additionalProperties=False' in the schema, it means that reject any invalid query parameters and return

[openstack-dev] [nova][api] Strict validation in query parameters

We added new decorator 'query_schema' to support validate the query parameters by JSON-Schema. It provides more strict valiadation as below: * set the 'additionalProperties=False' in the schema, it means that reject any invalid query parameters and return HTTPBadRequest 400 to the user. * use the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

I'm confused by the proposal; you've made a 1-1 substitution of "big tent" with "openstack project" and then there are some "openstack hosted projects". How does that clarify the situation? It does not help me answer the question "Is Trove part of OpenStack?" with any more clarity than before.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ may be an example Original Mail Sender: To: Date: 2017/06/16 05:25 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 20:24:06 +: > > On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not > > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our > > infrastructure services. We expect

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][glance][nova][neutron][horizon][cinder][osc][swift][manila][telemetry][heat][ptls][all][tc][docs] Documentation migration spec

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-06-12 11:43:25 -0400: > I added subject tags for the projects most affected by this change. It > would be good to have the PTLs or liaisons from those teams review the > spec so there are no surprises when we start moving files around. I have set up

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-dev] [Congress] [Designate]

This error happens happens when the translator thinks there's an object/dictionary when in actuality there's just a string. I don't know of a good way to know where in the translator the problem is, other than simplifying the input and the translator and rerunning (which you're already doing).

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 16:35:15 -0500 (-0500), Ed Leafe wrote: [...] > I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care", or > "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame > away! Nah. Now SoylentStack on the other hand, that one _is_ people but have you actually tried it? Not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting > aspects: free software development is as much about community and > politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so). Another way to look at

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: > This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite > a few times recently. > > Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not > gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in > tempest,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Right on the point Rocky (no wonder you have release named after you) We also need to update https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator/ To align with whatever decision agreed upon. And we better make decision stick and not change it again in a year or two. Arkady -Original

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] does neutron actually use the salve_connection ?

No, it currently does not. As we implement https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/enginefacade-switch that will change, but that won't be available until Pike or Queens. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:47 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > > > > > > > I am looking to improve the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:56:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say > > it's the cost of getting a project under governance. > > Well, sort of. We took the slightly

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official > OpenStack projects list". Nice to hear Jay! :) It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment space, we allowed those

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 06/15/2017 11:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this race. On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200),

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 15:22:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: [...] > God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week > reading about what new process or thing we're going to call > something, rather than actually working on getting stuff done for > the release or reviewing changes.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> >> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are >> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through >> that. But reality is,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our > infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way, > but we have even imported projects when we've

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused, and needs help figuring it out.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

OK. So, our naming is like branding. We are techies -- not good at marketing. But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team. And they end up fielding a lot of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the OpenStack Dev culture. Perhaps it would be worth explaining

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

Excerpts from Brian Rosmaita's message of 2017-06-15 13:04:39 -0400: > This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite > a few times recently. > > Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not > gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-dev] [Congress] [Designate]

Hi Carmine, Yes, I¹d guess that the translator you defined attempted to go deeper than the structure obtained by API. If you push the changes to review.openstack.org you may get better feedback =) Eric From: Carmine Annunziata Reply-To: "OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-06-15 12:06:53 -0400: > On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Jay Pipes wrote: > >> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official > >> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely > >> a Red

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: >> >> Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this >> race. >> >> On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> >>> On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage-dashboard] Alarm Header Blueprint

Alon, Just checking if you’ve had a chance to look at the following blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/vitrage-dashboard/+spec/alarm-header The HORIZON blueprint that it depends on is, I believe, on the verge of being approved ... Horizon maintainers want to move forward with it, they’ve

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 18:56:22 +: > > On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/ > > "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the > > OpenStack Big Tent initiative." >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/ > "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the > OpenStack Big Tent initiative." ah i see, i imagine you could correct those who are corporate sponsors (and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Brant Knudson wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote: >> >> Recently I decided to remove deprecated parameters from keystone_authtoken >> mistral config and replace them with recommended function of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Sorry, re-reading my email :) On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, gordon chung wrote: > > > On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing >> that label with "projects under governance". What i meant was "Folks are

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Extensible Header Blueprint

Just wondering if Horizon Team has had a chance to review the following blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/extensible-header let me know, interested in your feedback, Greg. From: Greg Waines Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM To:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote: > Recently I decided to remove deprecated parameters from keystone_authtoken > mistral config and replace them with recommended function of devstack [1]. > In doing so, I discovered a strange behavior of configuration

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing > that label with "projects under governance". wait, the big tent isn't the projects under governance? that's what i thought it was based on all the noise... more confused than i

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

First of all, we definitely need that distinction to be clear. Second, what are incentives to actually be an OpenStack project? 1. TC oversight - it's more a requirement than incentive 2. PTG space - definitely incentive ...anything else? What else? TC has an important role, we need oversight to

[openstack-dev] [glance] priorities for the coming week (06/16-06/22)

As discussed at today's Glance meeting, the priorities for this week are: 1 WSGI community goal - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/glance+branch:master+topic:goal-deploy-api-in-wsgi - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459451/ Just one priority, let's knock this out

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, gordon chung wrote: > > > On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under >> governance and those that are not. > > going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

And since Electrons are neither waves or particles, it is difficult to pin them down ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality Tim -Original Message- From: Sean McGinnis Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Containers Deep Dive - 15th June

Thanks for putting this together, Jirka. The recording is very much worth anyone's time! On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jiří Stránský wrote: > On 15.6.2017 18:25, Jiří Stránský wrote: >> >> On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> as discussed

[openstack-dev] [deployment][kolla][openstack-ansible][openstack-helm][tripleo] ansible role to produce oslo.config files for openstack services

I missed [tripleo] tag. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > If you haven't followed the "Configuration management with etcd / > confd" thread [1], Doug found out that using confd to generate > configuration files wouldn't work for the Cinder case where

[openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite a few times recently. Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in tempest, but wind up breaking our gate. We aren't claiming that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under > governance and those that are not. going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance? projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of

[openstack-dev] [all][api] POST /api-wg/news

Greetings OpenStack community, Today's meeting was short and sweet. We merged some frozen reivews (see below) and determined that other pending reviews are still pending. The survey to get some feedback on how to express the earliest possible date a microversion might raise didn't get a ton

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote: > OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons? > > Tim > Hah, love it! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Not touching the separate gerrit topic, but I genuinely like the "community" name. In my opinion it very well covers the "projects not governed by TC" definition. Regards, Kirill > Le 15 июня 2017 г. à 18:28, Davanum Srinivas a écrit : > >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Containers Deep Dive - 15th June

On 15.6.2017 18:25, Jiří Stránský wrote: On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote: Hello, as discussed previously on the list and at the weekly meeting, we'll do a deep dive about containers. The time: Thursday 15th June, 14:00 UTC (the usual time) Link for attending will be at the deep dives

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Containers Deep Dive - 15th June

On 9.6.2017 16:49, Jiří Stránský wrote: Hello, as discussed previously on the list and at the weekly meeting, we'll do a deep dive about containers. The time: Thursday 15th June, 14:00 UTC (the usual time) Link for attending will be at the deep dives etherpad [1], preliminary agenda is in

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Please note that this ended up being discussed during (and before and after) the TC office hour today on #openstack-tc: For those interested, see: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-06-15.log.html#t2017-06-15T13:00:53 TL;DR: We are still deep in initial

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 2017-06-15 12:05:42 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: [...] > Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He > specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal. [...] It is, when the danger of being single-vendor becomes manifest in that vendor ceasing their

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:07:11 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: [...] > I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or > friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we > mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would > just need to be an extra piece of info in

[openstack-dev] [deployment][kolla][openstack-ansible][kolla][openstack-helm] ansible role to produce oslo.config files for openstack services

If you haven't followed the "Configuration management with etcd / confd" thread [1], Doug found out that using confd to generate configuration files wouldn't work for the Cinder case where we don't know in advance of the deployment what settings to tell confd to look at. We are still looking for a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Jay Pipes wrote: While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely a Red Hat project: http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this race. On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] I think that,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Jay Pipes wrote: > While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official > projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely > a Red Hat project: > > http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group > http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this race. On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote: > We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say > it's the cost of getting a project under governance. Well, sort of. We took the slightly less work (for the Infra team) approach of renaming repos within a single

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Jeremy, We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say it's the cost of getting a project under governance. -- Dims On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote: > [...] >> Maybe

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 06/15/2017 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure" some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project infrastructure ultimate madness) or... OpenStack Stadium, shortened.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or > friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we > mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would > just need to be an extra piece

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons? Tim -Original Message- From: Thierry Carrez Organization: OpenStack Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 14:57 To:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote: [...] > Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community" > projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a > second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the > separation is clear and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would be used across the board. It was worth

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung wrote: > > > On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have >>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> > >> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have >> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything >> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

> > > > > auth_url is actually a dynamic parameter and depends on the > keystone > > auth plugin used > > (auth_type=xxx). The plugin which needs this parameter, registers it. > > > > > > > > Based on this http://paste.openstack.org/show/612664/ I would say that > > the plugin doesn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 06/15/2017 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: >> [...] >>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted >>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and >>> "Projects

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

> > auth_url is actually a dynamic parameter and depends on the > keystone auth plugin used > (auth_type=xxx). The plugin which needs this parameter, registers it. > > > > Based on this http://paste.openstack.org/show/612664/ I would say that the > plugin doesn't register it :( It

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 07:03 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being an > "OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse. > I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like > names would be easier to decide. Some things we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: > [...] >> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted >> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and >> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

Thanks György! On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Gyorgy Szombathelyi < gyorgy.szombathe...@doclerholding.com> wrote: > Hi Mikhail, > > (I'm not from the Keystone team, but did some patches for using > keystonauth1). > > > > > 2. Even if auth_url is set, it can't be used later, because it is not >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted > projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and > "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all > still under the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become > what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would > be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried, > but I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure, > inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in > town, was not working anymore. The "integrated

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On 15/06/17 10:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss whether we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 14:09 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure" some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 11:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure" > some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project > infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects > "Opium projects".

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:20PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Sean Dague wrote: > > [...] > > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was > > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts > > that aren't official projects. It may be too

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Just my .02, I agree with those who have said distinction is still difficult with initial thoughts and possibly fleshing out more clearly how that would be handled - opium branding, questions/criteria proposed by Chris, etc. - can address the identified potential confusion. I like the idea of

[openstack-dev] [neutron] security group OVO change

Hi, The commit https://review.openstack.org/284738 has broken decomposed plugins (those that extend security groups and rules). The reason for this is that there is a extend callback that we use which expects to get a database object and the aforementioned patch passes a new neutron object. I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Sean Dague wrote: > [...] > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts > that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think > the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200: > Hi everyone, > > Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that > have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult > discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd

[openstack-dev] [fuel] stable branches maintenance

Greetings everyone! Since the development of fuel-related projects is currently not so active as it used to be, I want to propose a change in how we maintain stable branches. -Motivation- As for now to commit anything into a stable branch of a fuel-related project one should get at least one

[openstack-dev] [neutron] does neutron actually use the salve_connection ?

Hello, I am looking to improve the database load distribution and one of the things that may help with this is to spread out the reads. >From the configuration reference it looks like neutron dues support a >slave_connection parameter but when I enabled it and enabled query logging on >the

Re: [openstack-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Tripleo] deploy software on Openstack controller on the Overcloud

On 6/14/17, 6:00 PM, "Abhishek Kane" wrote: >Thank you for the comments Emilien! > >Updated as per your suggestions: >puppet-veritas-hyperscale: >https://github.com/abhishek-kane/puppet-veritas-hyperscale > >Also, please find the inline replies to your comments. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:39:23AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 to drop Fuel from governance > > -- Dims > +1 from me too. Sean __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote: > > >On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > >>I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted > >>projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

+1 to drop Fuel from governance -- Dims On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that > have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 06/15/2017 05:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure, > inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in > town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up > producing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote: I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all still

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

An [official] OpenStack project is also a hosted project by OpenStack [infra]. I agree that "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very distinct from "OpenStack projects". Furthermore the "hosted" part is not unique to either category. I don't have an immediate suggestion for an alternative, but I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote: I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).

  1   2   >