[openstack-dev] any known issue on http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/requirements link?

Hi All, Seems like many of the repository link on http://git.openstack.org stopped working where no issue on github.com. any known issue, i cannot run tox due to that and so gate. -gmann __ OpenStack Development Mailing

Re: [openstack-dev] An idea about how to deploy multi Nova cells v2 using devstack

Hello, Currently Nova has one patch in review to deploy multi-cells for Cells V2, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436094/ And Tricircle also provide one documentation on how how to deploy nova cells v2 + Tricricle:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [dev] [doc] Operations Guide future

Hi Alex, On 2 June 2017 at 23:13, Alexandra Settle wrote: > O I like your thinking – I’m a pandoc fan, so, I’d be interested in > moving this along using any tools to make it easier. I can't realistically offer much time on this but I would be happy to help (ad-hoc)

[openstack-dev] An idea about how to deploy multi Nova cells v2 using devstack

Hello, I would like to experiment multi Nova cells v2. I found some references about Nova cells v2. But It's not about multi cells v2 and how to deploy it. I really want to know if there is a document or idea about how to deploy multi Nova cells v2. I want to know where I can refer and what is

[openstack-dev] Is it possible to configure ssl options for glance-api?

It does not appear that the glance-api.conf file has any SSL or WSGI options. I'd like to disable sslv2, and tls1/tls1.1 but the options do not appear to be available. Is this something that can be done? Thanks Avery __

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all][ptl] Most Supported Queens Goals and Improving Goal Completion

I like the idea, which means some projects lack of resources could benefit more from the whole community :) Cheers, Lingxian Kong (Larry) On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Mike Perez wrote: > Hey all, > > In the community wide goals, we started as a group discussing goals at

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all][ptl] Most Supported Queens Goals and Improving Goal Completion

> > > > An idea that came from the meeting was creating a role of "Champions", > > who are the drum beaters to get a goal done by helping projects with > > tracking status and sometimes doing code patches. These would be > > interested volunteers who have a good understanding of their selected > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Gnocchi] Difference between Gnocchi-api and uwsgi

On 22/06/17 04:23 PM, mate...@mailbox.org wrote: > Hello everyone ! > > I'm sorry that I'm disturbing you, but I was sent here from > openstack-operators ML. > On my Mitaka test stack I installed Gnocchi as database for measurements, but > I have problems with > api part. Firstly, I ran it

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

On 22 June 2017 at 17:24, Édouard Thuleau wrote: > Hi Armando, > > I did not opened any bug report. But if a core plugin implements only > the NeutronPluginBaseV2 interface [1] and not the NeutronDbPluginV2 > interface [2], most of the service plugins of that list will

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

(Top posting. Deal with it ;) You're both right! Making OpenStack monolithic is not the answer. In fact, rearranging Git repos has nothing to do with the answer. But back in the day we had a process (incubation) for adding stuff to OpenStack that it made sense to depend on being there. It

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

No, I'm not necessarily advocating a monolithic approach. I'm saying that they have decided to start with functionality and accept whats needed to get the task done. Theres not really such strong walls between the various functionality, rbac/secrets/kublet/etc. They don't spawn off a whole new

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptls][all][tc][docs] Documentation migration spec

Excerpts from Alexandra Settle's message of 2017-06-08 15:17:34 +: > Hi everyone, > > Doug and I have written up a spec following on from the conversation [0] that > we had regarding the documentation publishing future. > > Please take the time out of your day to review the spec as this

[openstack-dev] [Gnocchi] Difference between Gnocchi-api and uwsgi

Hello everyone ! I'm sorry that I'm disturbing you, but I was sent here from openstack-operators ML. On my Mitaka test stack I installed Gnocchi as database for measurements, but I have problems with api part. Firstly, I ran it directly executing gnocchi-api -p 8041. I noted the warning

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah. No interop interaction to see here. These are not the api's you are looking for;-) I think Chris Dent's response about extending the gabbi based tests is great. I'm a firm believer in never discouraging anyone from writing more tests, especially when

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

> -Original Message- > From: Zane Bitter [mailto:zbit...@redhat.com] > Sent: June-20-17 4:57 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect > Trove > > On 20/06/17 11:45, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Good discussion, Zane.

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

On 2017-06-22 06:11:39 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: [...] > It doesn't look like either (pinned repos or topics) are currently > available over the API (topics in get format are experimental, but no > edit as of yet). The pinned repositories aren't such a big deal, we're > talking a handful

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all][ptl] Most Supported Queens Goals and Improving Goal Completion

On 06/22/2017 12:57 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > Hey all, > > In the community wide goals, we started as a group discussing goals at > the OpenStack Forum. Then we brought those ideas to the mailing list > to continue the discussion and include those that were not able to be > at the forum. The

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

On 2017-06-22 05:54:41 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/22/2017 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > > Jeremy is right that the GitHub mirroring goes beyond an infrastructure > > service: it's a marketing exercise, an online presence more than a > > technical need. As such it needs to

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

tl;dr - I think Trove's successor has a future, but there are two conflicting ideas presented and Trove should pick one or the other. Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2017-06-18 07:35:49 -0400: > > We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in > v2. Some of

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

Greetings OpenStack community, Today's meeting was even shorter and sweeter than last week's, as only edleafe was present, due to cdent being on PTO and elmiko being on the road. Prior to the meeting, though, we had decided that the guideline change for raising the minimum microversion was

[openstack-dev] [tc][all][ptl] Most Supported Queens Goals and Improving Goal Completion

Hey all, In the community wide goals, we started as a group discussing goals at the OpenStack Forum. Then we brought those ideas to the mailing list to continue the discussion and include those that were not able to be at the forum. The discussions help the TC decide on what goals we will do for

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

On 06/22/2017 01:22 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Rocky, we have tests, we just don't have API samples for documentation > purposes like in the compute API reference docs. > > This doesn't have anything to do with interop guidelines, and it > wouldn't, since the Placement APIs are all admin-only

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

On 6/21/2017 4:28 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote: From: Matt On 6/21/2017 7:04 AM, Shewale, Bhagyashri wrote: I would like to write functional tests to check the exact req/resp for each placement API for all supported versions similar to what is already done for other APIs under

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

On 06/22/2017 11:59 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: My $0.02. That view of dependencies is why Kubernetes development is outpacing OpenStacks and some users are leaving IMO. Not trying to be mean here but trying to shine some light on this issue. Kubernetes at its core has essentially something kind

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

2017-06-22 18:59 GMT+03:00 Fox, Kevin M : > My $0.02. > > That view of dependencies is why Kubernetes development is outpacing > OpenStacks and some users are leaving IMO. Not trying to be mean here but > trying to shine some light on this issue. > > Kubernetes at its core has

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

My $0.02. That view of dependencies is why Kubernetes development is outpacing OpenStacks and some users are leaving IMO. Not trying to be mean here but trying to shine some light on this issue. Kubernetes at its core has essentially something kind of equivalent to keystone (k8s rbac), nova

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

Samuel Cassiba wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2017, at 03:01, Sean Dague wrote: >> The micro repositories for config management and packaging create this >> overwhelming wall of projects from the outside. I realize that git repos >> are cheap from a dev perspective, but they are expensive

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi All, > Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. > Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the > stable-maint-core team. > > With the merge of [1] The have the groundwork for that team. I'd like > to nominate: > > * dmllr

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

On 06/22/2017 01:47 AM, Henning Schild wrote: Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:40:14 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : On 06/21/2017 10:46 AM, Henning Schild wrote: As we know from our setup, and as Luiz confirmed - it is _not_ "critical to separate emulator threads for

[openstack-dev] [QA] QA meeting cancelled today

Hello everyone, unfortunately I have to cancel the QA meeting today as I won't be able to attend. Sorry about the short notice! Kind regards andreaf __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Stepping down from core

Fei Long: On behalf of the entire Glance team, thank you for your extensive past service to Glance. We hope that you'll be able to find time to work on Glance again in the future. cheers, brian On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

Hi Armando, I did not opened any bug report. But if a core plugin implements only the NeutronPluginBaseV2 interface [1] and not the NeutronDbPluginV2 interface [2], most of the service plugins of that list will be initialized without any errors (only the timestamp plugin fails to initialize

Re: [openstack-dev] [Watcher] handle multiple data sources in watcher

Bin Zhou, IMHO, we should have a new configuration that introduces weights for each metrics backend we intend to use. Then, we use the datasource with the biggest weight that actually provides the metric we are requesting. This way, only one datasource will ever serve a given metric although many

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

> On Jun 22, 2017, at 03:01, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 06/21/2017 09:52 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: >> >>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> >>> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote: >>> [...] To make this

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2][drivers][openvswitch] Question

thanks. I met an issue , I configured three ovs bridge ( br-ex, provision, provider) in ml2_conf.ini but after I reboot the node , found only 2 bridges flow table is normal , the other one bridge's flow table is empty. the bridge sometimes is "provision" , sometimes is "provider" , which

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-06-22 11:48:09 +1000: > Hi All, > Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. > Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the > stable-maint-core team. > > With the merge of [1] The have the groundwork for that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][uc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Shamail Tahir wrote: > Hi, > > In the past, governance has helped (on the UC WG side) to reduce > overlaps/duplication in WGs chartered for similar objectives. I would like > to understand how we will handle this (if at all) with the new

[openstack-dev] [Watcher] handle multiple data sources in watcher

Hi All, I am working on the blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/watcher-multi-datasource. It is a good idea to construct an abstract layer and hide data source details from the consumer of the data. But I have one doubt about the possibility of using multiple metrics data

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][mistral][tripleo][horizon][nova][releases] release models for projects tracked in global-requirements.txt

On 22 June 2017 at 11:01, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Renat Akhmerov wrote: > >> We have a weekly meeting next Monday, will it be too late? > > > > Before Thursday EOD (when the Pike-2 deadline hits) should be OK. > > If there was a decision, I missed

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On 21/06/17 08:41 PM, Zhipeng Huang wrote: > 2. Enhance dev/non-dev comms. I doubt more meetings will be the solution. > > a. I would suggest projects when doing their planning at Forum or > PTG, always leave a spot for requirement from WGs. And WG chairs > should participate this

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

>> * who or what needs to consume these JSON samples? The users of placement API can rely on the request/response for different supported placement versions based on some tests running on the OpenStack CI infrastructure. Right now, most of the placement APIs are well documented and others are

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] First Vitrage Pike release by the end of this week

Hi Yujun, Yes, I already tagged the current Vitrage releases for Pike: vitrage 1.6.0 python-vitrageclient 1.2.0 vitrage-dashboard 1.2.0 I also tagged the stable/ocata releases: vitrage 1.5.2 python-vitrageclient 1.1.2 (vitrage-dashboard is the same as Ocata – 1.1.1) You can get the releases by

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-ansible] Proposing Surya (spsurya) for core

+1 2017-06-22 11:12 GMT+01:00 Christian Berendt : > +1 > > > On 14. Jun 2017, at 17:46, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > With great pleasure I'm kicking off another core voting to > > kolla-ansible and kolla teams:) this one is

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kolla-ansible] Proposing Surya (spsurya) for core

+1 > On 14. Jun 2017, at 17:46, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > > Hello, > > With great pleasure I'm kicking off another core voting to > kolla-ansible and kolla teams:) this one is about spsurya. Voting will > be open for 2 weeks (till 28th Jun). > > Consider this mail my +1

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

On 06/21/2017 05:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote: > [...] >> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our >> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in >> the world explore software. If you look at OpenStack

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

On 21/06/17 16:27 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 06/21/2017 02:52 PM, Lauren Sell wrote: Two things we should address: 1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of OpenStack. It’s possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious. I am one of the people who laments the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][mistral][tripleo][horizon][nova][releases] release models for projects tracked in global-requirements.txt

Thierry Carrez wrote: > Renat Akhmerov wrote: >> We have a weekly meeting next Monday, will it be too late? > > Before Thursday EOD (when the Pike-2 deadline hits) should be OK. If there was a decision, I missed it (and in the mean time Mistral published 5.0.0.0b2 for the Pike-2 milestone).

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

On 06/21/2017 09:52 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> >> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote: >> [...] >>> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our >>> repositories, but for better or worse it's

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

On 06/22/2017 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Sean Dague wrote: >> [...] >> I think even if it was only solvable on github, and not cgit, it would >> help a lot. The idea of using github project tags and pinning suggested >> by Lauren seems great to me. >> >> If we replicated the pinning on

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Shewale, Bhagyashri wrote: I would like to write functional tests to check the exact req/resp for each placement API for all supported versions similar to what is already done for other APIs under nova/tests/functional/api_sample_tests/api_samples/*. These

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

Jeremy Stanley wrote: > [...] > This is one of my biggest concerns as well where high-cost (in the > sense of increasingly valuable Infra team member time) solutions are > being tossed around to solve the "what's official?" dilemma, while > not taking into account that the overwhelming majority of

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

Sean Dague wrote: > [...] > I think even if it was only solvable on github, and not cgit, it would > help a lot. The idea of using github project tags and pinning suggested > by Lauren seems great to me. > > If we replicated the pinning on github.com/openstack to "popular > projects" here -

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

Fox, Kevin M wrote: > [...] > If you build a Tessmaster clone just to do mariadb, then you share nothing > with the other communities and have to reinvent the wheel, yet again. > Operators load increases because the tool doesn't function like other tools. > > If you rely on a container

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:40:14 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : > On 06/21/2017 10:46 AM, Henning Schild wrote: > > Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:04:52 -0600 > > schrieb Chris Friesen : > > > i guess you are talking about that section from [1]: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-dev[[nova] Simple question about sorting CPU topologies

Thanks all for the reply, I guess it will be better to config those preference using flavor/image according to different hardware then. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jay Pipes

Re: [openstack-dev] diskimage builder works for trusty but not for xenial

It works fine Thanks 2017-06-22 0:24 GMT+02:00 Ian Wienand : > On 06/21/2017 04:44 PM, Ignazio Cassano wrote: > >> * Connection #0 to host cloud-images.ubuntu.com left intact >> Downloaded and cached >> http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/xenial/current/xenial-server- >>