On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 12:51 -0400, Zane Bitter wrote:
> So my question to the TC candidates (and incumbent TC members, or
> anyone else, if they want to answer) is: what does the hypothetical
> OpenStack user that is top-of-mind in your head look like? Who are
> _you_ building OpenStack for?
There
On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 03:08 +, joehuang wrote:
> Hello, Jay,
>
> Sorry, I don't know why my mail-agent(Microsoft Outlook Web App) did
> not carry the thread message-id information in the reply. I'll check
> and avoid to create a new thread for reply in existing thread.
It's a common proble
On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 17:09 +1000, Mike Carden wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Antoni Segura Puimedon <
> toni+openstac...@midokura.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be really awesome if, in true OSt and OSS spirit this work
> > happened in an OpenStack repository with an open, text based f
On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Devdatta Kulkarni wrote:
> > As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single
> > -vendor tag, I have following thoughts/questions on this issue.
>
> In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the
> table
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 13:43 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would
> > just like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very
> > little diversity is
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +:
> > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects
> > from our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively
> > developed under the principles of "
n
their own. Architectural decisions in this model are driven locally
not globally.
James
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: James Bottomley [james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Maili
subsystem
maintainers (some equivalence to openstack projects/PTLs) doing this on
a case by case basis.
James
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: James Bottomley [james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:57 AM
> To:
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 21:24 +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 19:57, James Bottomley <
> james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, I accept your analogy, even though I would view currency as the
> > will to create and push
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 16:08 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> +1 to the finding of a middle ground.
Thanks ... I have actually been an enterprise architect (I just keep
very quiet about it when talking Open Source).
> The problem I've seen with your suggested OpenSource solution is the
> current socia
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 11:58 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19 2016, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if we form and start working together as a group, we can
> > disect why nothing happened, build consensus on the most important
> > thing to do next, and actually fix some architectura
On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 21:28 -0500, Edward Leafe wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Joshua Harlow
> wrote:
> >
> > That's sad, how can we fix the fact that users/deployments have
> > gone off into their own silos and may be running their own forks;
> > what went wrong (besides some of the obviou
On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 17:48 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 05:34 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > While I accept there is potentially a gaming problem in all forms
> > of Open Source (we see this in the kernel with the attempt to boost
> > patch counts with tri
On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 15:57 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 03:10 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >
> > > > Current thinking would be to give preferential rates to access
> > > > the main summit to people who are present to other events (like
> > > > this new separated contributors-oriented e
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 17:24 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:55:52AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:03 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:03 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02/22/2016 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 12:40 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Qiming Teng wrote:
> > [...]
> > Week 1:
> >Wednesday-Friday: 3 days Summit.
> > * Primarily an event for marketing, sales, CTOs, architects,
> >operators, journalists, ...
> > * Contributors can decide whether they wa
On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 11:40 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/24/2016 11:28 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:48 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> > > We have a specific bug around aggregrate metadata setting in Nova
> > > which
> > > exposes
On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:48 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> We have a specific bug around aggregrate metadata setting in Nova
> which
> exposes a larger issue with our mysql schema.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1538011
>
> On mysql the following will explode with a 500:
>
> > nova aggregate-
On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 13:25 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 09:28 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Are people confused about what OpenStack is because they're looking
> > for a single turn-key system from a vendor? Because they don't know
> > what features they want/need? Or are we just doing a
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 04:36 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>
> > > Honestly I don't know of any communication between two cores at a
> > > +2 party that couldn't have just as easily happened surrounded by
> > > other contributors. Nor, I hope, does anyone put in the
> > > substantial reviewing effor
On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 13:26 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > * much of the problem with the lavish parties is IMO
> > > > > related to
> > > > > the
> > > > > *exclusivity* of certain shindigs, as opposed to devs
> > > > > socializing at
> > > > > summit being inapp
On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 07:45 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > * much of the problem with the lavish parties is IMO related to
> > > the
> > > *exclusivity* of certain shindigs, as opposed to devs
> > > socializing at
> > > summit being inappropriate per se. In that vein, I t
On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 15:07 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> tl;dr
> =
>
> I have long thought that the OpenStack Summits have become too
> commercial and provide little value to the software engineers
> contributing to OpenStack.
>
> I propose the following:
>
> 1) Separate the d
On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 12:50 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 11:56 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 09:43 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > > On 02/08/2016 09:03 AM, Fausto Marzi wrote:
> > > > The OpenStack Summit is a great thing as it
On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 09:43 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 09:03 AM, Fausto Marzi wrote:
> > The OpenStack Summit is a great thing as it is now. It creates big
> > momentum, it's a strong motivator for the engineers (as enjoy our
> > time
> > there)
>
> I disagree with you on this. The de
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 21:49 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2016 17:43, "James Bottomley" <
> james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > The 3x difference in the benchmarks would seem to indicate a local
> > tuning or configuration problem,
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:54 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Zane Bitter wrote:
> > [...] Honestly, it
> > sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given
> > up.
>
> I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should
> naturally
> come up with bursts of feature addition
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:58 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> Hi Matt, James,
>
> any thoughts on the below notes?
To be honest, not really. You've repeated stage two of the Oracle
argument: wheel out benchmarks and attack alleged "complexity". I
don't really have a great interest in repeating a h
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 13:40 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we
> start some activity in this area.
You still haven't answered Anita's question: when you say "sponsor" do
you mean provide resources to existing developer
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:38 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time,
> > I'll
> > be heard.
> >
> > Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code.
> >
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 20:48 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time,
> I'll be heard.
>
> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file
> copyright h
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 18:11 +0530, Nitin Agarwal wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> A very Happy New Year 2016 !!
>
> I have started a new group "Open Containers" on LinkedIn to provide a
> common platform to all the Containers and Docker enthusiasts and
> passionate
> people. In this group, we will be
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 16:55 -0800, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> > > I read the patent and it looks like UEFI or for that matter any
> > > non
> > > -Windows implementation of FAT would probably not infringe on the
> > > patent.
> >
> > Well, I'm not going to give you a legal opinion. However, most
> > peop
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 18:03 +, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> James Bottomley writes:
> > As you can see, they're mostly expired (in the US) but the last one
> > will expire in 2020 (if I calculate the date correctly).
> If you are referring to US6286013,
That's the latest
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 22:48 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:25 PM, James Bottomley <
> james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 20:35 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> Clint,
>
> On
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 20:35 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> Clint,
>
> > On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com]
> > > Sent: 15 December 2015 22:40
> > > To: openstack-dev
> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 08:46 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> > > That seems weird enough that I'd rather push back on our Platinum
> > > Board
> > > member to fix the licensing before we le
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 17:25 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:52:37AM -0400, Adam Young wrote:
> > On 06/24/2015 06:28 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> > >Gerrit and our spec template are a horrible tool for
> > >discussing design.
> > This is the heart of the problem.
> >
>
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 13:05 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:33:56AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 02:43 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:09PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> > > &g
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 02:43 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:09PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> > What about code history and respect of commit ownership?
> > I'm personally wondering if it's fair to copy/paste several thousands of
> > lines of code from another Open
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 17:45 +0300, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> James B.
>
> One more time.
> Everybody makes mistakes and it's perfectly OK.
> I don't want to punish anybody and my goal is to make system
> that catch most of them (human mistakes) no matter how it is complicated.
I'm not saying never
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 09:29 +0300, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> *- Why not just trust people*
>
> People get tired and make mistakes (very often).
> That's why we have blocking CI system that checks patches,
> That's why we have rule 2 cores / review (sometimes even 3,4,5...)...
>
> In ideal work Lieu
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 16:55 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> I will also mention that it’s natural to be allergic to the idea of
> nested virtualization. We all know that creating multiple levels of
> hardware virtualization leads to bad performance outcomes. However,
> "nested containers" do not carry
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:54 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hugh Blemings wrote:
> > +2
> >
> > I think asking LWN if they have the bandwidth and interest to do this
> > would be ideal - they've credibility in the Free/Open Source space and a
> > proven track record. Nice people too.
>
> On the b
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:39 -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> > James Bottomley <mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>
> > May 5, 2015 at 9:53 AM
> > On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:45 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Joe Gordon wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:45 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Joe Gordon wrote:
> > [...]
> > To tackle this I would like to propose the idea of a periodic developer
> > oriented newsletter, and if we agree to go forward with this, hopefully
> > the foundation can help us find someone to write newslet
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 14:24 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 01:35 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > If I look at the history, I also see some reviewers dropping out once
> > their concerns and review comments have been addressed (after giving a
> > +1), so the
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 18:12 +, Tim Bell wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Bottomley [mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> > Sent: 07 April 2015 19:03
> > To: Michael Still
> > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not fo
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 13:35 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 01:02 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> >> Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover
> >> the review load. It doe
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover
> the review load. It doesn't have to be a core that notices a problem
> with a patch -- anyone can do that. There are many people who do help
> out with non-core reviews,
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 07:03 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 06:54 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 06:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2015 06:33 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 06:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 06:33 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> I just spent a chunk of the morning purging out some really old
> &g
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > I just spent a chunk of the morning purging out some really old
> > Incomplete bugs because about 9 months ago we disabled the auto
> > expiration bit in launchpad -
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+configure-bugtr
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 17:01 +, Tim Bell wrote:
> From the stats
> (http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-user-survey-insights-november-2014),
>
>
> -43% of production clouds use OVS (the default for Neutron)
>
> -30% of production clouds are Nova network based
>
On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 11:19 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old
> >> vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Actually, this is possible: look at Linux, it freezes for 10 weeks of a
> > 12 month release cycle (or 6 weeks of an 8 week one). More on this
> > below.
>
> I'd be careful
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > [...]
> > The key observations
> >
> >
> > The first key observation from the schedule is that although we have
> > a 6 month release cycle, we in fact make 4 releases in that six
> > mont
On Sat, 2015-02-07 at 00:44 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> Magnum Team,
>
> In our initial spec, we addressed the subject of resource scheduling. Our
> plan was to begin with a naive scheduler that places resources on a specified
> Node and can sequentially fill Nodes if one is not specified.
>
>
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 11:24 -0400, David Vossel wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:52 -0400, David Vossel wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > Ok, why are you so down on running systemd in a container?
> > >
> > > It goes against the grain.
>
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:52 -0400, David Vossel wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > Ok, why are you so down on running systemd in a container?
>
> It goes against the grain.
>
> From a distributed systems view, we gain quite a bit of control by maintaining
> "one service per container".
On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:20 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 15:35, James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
> > OK, so look at a concrete example: in 2002, the Linux kernel went with
> > bitkeeper precisely because we'd reached the scaling limit of a single
> &g
On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 07:36 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> b) The conflict Dan is speaking of is around the current situation where
> >>> we
> >>> have a limited core review team bandwidth and we have to pick and choose
> >>> which virt driver-specific features we will review. This leads to bad
>
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 17:20 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:07 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Actually, I don't think this analysis is accurate. Some people are
> > simply interested in small aspects of a project. It's the "scratch your
> >
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:14 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > For a long time I've use the LKML 'subsystem maintainers' model as the
> > reference point for ideas. In a more LKML like model, each virt team
> > (or other subsystem team) would have their own separate GIT re
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:02 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12:37AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 09/05/2014 06:40 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> >>> A handy example of this I can think of is the currently granted FFE for
On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 22:31 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> CORRECTION: This event happens July 28-31. Sorry for any confusion!
> Corrected Announcement:
I'm afraid all the Parallels guys (including me) will be in Moscow on
these dates for an already booked company meet up.
James
_
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 05:36:59PM +0400, Dmitry Guryanov wrote:
> > I have a question about mounts - in OpenVZ project each container has its
> > own
> > filesystem in an image file. So to start a container we mount this
> > filesys
On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 17:55 -0400, Eric Windisch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why would you mount it from within the container? CAP_SYS_ADMIN is a
> > per process property, so you use nsenter to execute the mount in the
> > required mount namespace with CAP_SYS_ADMIN from outside of the
> > container (i.e.
On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 09:09 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:57:41PM +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> > Containers Team,
> >
> > The nova-docker developers are currently discussing options for
> > implementation for supporting mounting of Cinder volumes in
> > containers, a
On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 21:57 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
> Containers Team,
>
> The nova-docker developers are currently discussing options for
> implementation for supporting mounting of Cinder volumes in
> containers, and creation of unprivileged containers-in-containters.
> Both of these currently
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:07 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 09:32 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> > In the past, I've been able to get authors of bug fixes attached to
> > Launchpad bugs to sign the CLA and submit the patch through gerrit...
> > although, in one case it took quite a bit of
On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 16:23 +, Justin Hammond wrote:
> I am a developer who is currently having troubles keeping up with the
> mailing list due to volume, and my inability to organize it in my client.
> I am nearly forced to use Outlook 2011 for Mac and I have read and
> attempted to implement
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 13:46 -0500, Eric Windisch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:28 -0800, Stuart Fox wrote:
> >> Hey all
> >>
> >> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one),
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:28 -0800, Stuart Fox wrote:
> Hey all
>
> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
> give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
> service?
> It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, after all,
> just anoth
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 00:21 +, Day, Phil wrote:
> >
> > Leaving a mark.
> > ===
> >
> > You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since
> > you
> > did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
> > *something* wrong. So you find some nitpick
76 matches
Mail list logo
