Sorry for my bad. Let me correct. auth_token configuration in quantum.conf also works with Folsom. I was poiinted out on Launchpad.
I was confused with common logging and common config... This requires common confg. (In Quantum folsom common logging is not used.) I confirmed it works with stable/folsom using devstack. But I agreed the policy of backporting. If users want to configure auth_token in quantum.conf, it also works with folsom. >>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:08:56 +0200 >>>>> From: Gary Kotton <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Quantum-core] Move auth_token configurations to >>>>> quantum.conf, > > Thanks for the clarification. > > On 02/13/2013 08:56 AM, Akihiro MOTOKI wrote: > > We alerady decided not to backport it. I would like to share the detail. > > > > Actually auth_token configuration in quantum.conf does not work in > > stable/folsom > > and we cannot backport it. In Folsom, keystone provides auth_token > > middleware and this middle does not check the configurations in > > quantum.conf. > > > > In Grizzly, auth_token middleware is moved to keystoneclient and this > > middleware is enhanced > > to check the auth_token configurations in the configurations in the > > main application in addition to api-paste.ini. "auth_token" middleware > > also exists in keystone and it is a wrapper to call keystoneclient > > auth_token. This provides backward compatibility with Folsom. > > > > (2013/02/13 4:09), Gary Kotton wrote: > >> On 02/12/2013 09:08 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: > >>> Agreed. This is an enhancement. > >>> We should backport only patches which fix things which were broken. > >> > >> ok, agreed. thanks for the inputs > >>> > >>> Salvatore > >>> > >>> On 12 February 2013 18:40, Dan Wendlandt<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> My personal feeling is that while it may not break things if we > >>>> backport to > >>>> folsom, at this point, we should be focusing our resources on > >>>> making grizzly > >>>> solid and thus should only backport things that are truly broken in > >>>> Folsom. > >>>> Under that criteria, I don't think this would be something we > >>>> backport, but > >>>> I'll leave it to garyk and the masters of stable/folsom to decide > >>>> if that's > >>>> the right criteria. > >>>> > >>>> Dan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Salvatore > >>>> Orlando<[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Is this change bw compatible? > >>>>> I think it's ok to backport to folsom only if users will not have to > >>>>> change their configuration files once they update their packages. > >>>>> > >>>>> Salvatore > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12 February 2013 18:27, Gary Kotton<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> Is this something that we want to backport: > >>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21648/ > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> Gary > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > >>>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > >>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > >>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > >>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> Dan Wendlandt > >>>> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com > >>>> twitter: danwendlandt > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> > > > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
