The Keystone v2 removal also broke Trove's gate. Trove's functional
and scenario tests had Keystone v2 hard codings and also relied on a >
4 year old 'compat' client package in the python-troveclient that did
not have V3 support.
Both cases required a lot of scrambling find all the v2 hard
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-10-21 13:37:01 +:
> On 2017-10-20 22:50:53 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> [...]
> > Ideally, there should be an OpenStack overarching architecture
> > team of some sort to handle this kind of thing I think.
>
> There was one for a while,
On 2017-10-20 22:50:53 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[...]
> Ideally, there should be an OpenStack overarching architecture
> team of some sort to handle this kind of thing I think.
There was one for a while, but it dissolved due to lack of community
participation. If you'd like to help
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Morgan Fainberg
wrote:
> Let me clarify a few things regarding the V2.0 removal:
>
> * This has been planned for years at this point. At one time (I am
> looking for the documentation, once I find it I'll include it on this
> thread) we
Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: [Openstack-operators][tc] [keystone][all]
v2.0 API removal
Let me clarify a few things regarding the V2.0 removal:
* This has been planned for years at this point. At one time (I am
looking for the documentation, once I find
t; Ideally, there should be an OpenStack overarching architecture team of some
>> sort to handle this kind of thing I think. Without such an entity though, I
>> think the TC is probably currently the best place to discuss it though?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>
such an entity though, I
> think the TC is probably currently the best place to discuss it though?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: Jeremy Stanley [fu...@yuggoth.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:53 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstac
]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:53 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: [Openstack-operators][tc] [keystone][all]
v2.0API removal
On 2017-10-20 17:15:59 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[...]
> I know the TC's been shying away from these so
On 2017-10-20 17:15:59 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[...]
> I know the TC's been shying away from these sorts of questions,
> but this one has a pretty big impact. TC?
[...]
The OpenStack Technical Committee isn't really a bludgeon with which
to beat teams when someone in the community
On 2017-10-20 10:59:36 +0800 (+0800), Yaguang Tang wrote:
> Should this kind of change be discussed and have an agreement of
> the TC and User committee?
[...]
Looks like this thread has split since bouncing back in from the
operators ML, but I replied in the "other" dev ML thread for this
topic
From: Yaguang Tang [heut2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 7:59 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] Fwd: [Openstack-operators][tc] [keystone][all] v2.0
API removal
Should this kind of change be discussed and have an agreement of the TC and
User
Should this kind of change be discussed and have an agreement of the TC
and User committee?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Lance Bragstad
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:08 AM
Subject: [Openstack-operators] [keystone][all] v2.0 API removal
To: "OpenStack
12 matches
Mail list logo