Re: [openstack-dev] [CI] How to set a proxy for zuul.
On 07/14/2015 01:46 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Instead of it use reusable_node option. Thanks. Problem resolved. :) BTW, single_use_node is written in layout.yaml by default. If it doesn't exist anymore, do we need a patch to fix it ? For someone who uses CI for the first time, it is really a problem.. And also, if I want to post patch for zuul, where should I post the patch ? Thanks. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com mailto:tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, All, I found the problem. My /etc/zuul/layout/layout.yaml has the following config: jobs: - name: ^dsvm-tempest.*$ parameter-function: single_use_node But in _parseConfig() in zuul/scheduler.py, it failed to find single_use_node(). fname = config_job.get('parameter-function', None) if fname: func = config_env.get(fname, None) if not func: raise Exception(Unable to find function %s % fname) So projects section was not parsed. Does anyone know why ? Thanks. On 07/14/2015 10:54 AM, Tang Chen wrote: Hi Abhishek, I printed the self.layout.projects in zuul/scheduler.py, it is empty. So the project was not found. But I did do the jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/ And I did configure openstack-dev/sandbox in layout.yaml. Do you have any idea what's wrong here ? Thanks. On 07/13/2015 05:58 PM, Tang Chen wrote: On 07/13/2015 04:35 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Updating jobs using sudo jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/. Also update the myvendor in examples.yaml Sorry, I updated the jobs, restart the whole machine. But it still doesn't work. By the way, there is no vendor in examples.yaml. It is still this error: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found Anything else should I pay attention to? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com mailto:tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: On 07/13/2015 03:50 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Use tester or something, also are you updating the jobs or not? I used tester as my vendor. It doesn't work. And what do you mean by updating the jobs ? I built the noop-check-cimmunitication job once in Jenkins UI. Does it matter ? All the others are not touched. And referring to the error, Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found, it seems like somewhere the project name was wrong. right ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com mailto:tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, Thanks for the quick reply. On 07/13/2015 03:16 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Also check that Gearman is connecting or not through Jenkins UI. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava abhis...@cloudbyte.com mailto:abhis...@cloudbyte.com wrote: First of all, change the vendor to your vendor name in /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/projects.yaml file. Also, restart the zuul and zuul merger. I did the check. Gearman plugin works find. In Jenkins UI, I tested the connection, and it succeeded. And also, I restarted zuul and zuul merger every time I modified the yaml files. But it doesn't work. And the vendor, does that matter ? And what vendor name should I provide ? I cannot find any vendor info in my Gerrit service account profile. For example, is XXX OK ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com mailto:tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi all, I have constructed my CI system. When I tested it with sandbox project, I posted a patch to Gerrit. https://review.openstack.org/201002 But I got this error in zuul scheduler: 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Run handler awake 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Fetching trigger event 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Processing trigger event TriggerEvent comment-added openstack-dev/sandbox master 201002,1 Verified:1 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found
Re: [openstack-dev] [CI] How to set a proxy for zuul.
Also if you want to change it you will need to talk with Asselin Ramy who is the owner of the repo you followed. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava abhis...@cloudbyte.com wrote: Basically it is not required, and if you see /etc/jenkins_jobs/config folder you will find one dsvm-cinder-tempest.yaml which is to be used basically not examples.yaml. So its not an issue. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: On 07/14/2015 01:46 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Instead of it use reusable_node option. Thanks. Problem resolved. :) BTW, single_use_node is written in layout.yaml by default. If it doesn't exist anymore, do we need a patch to fix it ? For someone who uses CI for the first time, it is really a problem.. And also, if I want to post patch for zuul, where should I post the patch ? Thanks. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, All, I found the problem. My /etc/zuul/layout/layout.yaml has the following config: jobs: - name: ^dsvm-tempest.*$ parameter-function: single_use_node But in _parseConfig() in zuul/scheduler.py, it failed to find single_use_node(). fname = config_job.get('parameter-function', None) if fname: func = config_env.get(fname, None) if not func: raise Exception(Unable to find function %s % fname) So projects section was not parsed. Does anyone know why ? Thanks. On 07/14/2015 10:54 AM, Tang Chen wrote: Hi Abhishek, I printed the self.layout.projects in zuul/scheduler.py, it is empty. So the project was not found. But I did do the jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/ And I did configure openstack-dev/sandbox in layout.yaml. Do you have any idea what's wrong here ? Thanks. On 07/13/2015 05:58 PM, Tang Chen wrote: On 07/13/2015 04:35 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Updating jobs using sudo jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/. Also update the myvendor in examples.yaml Sorry, I updated the jobs, restart the whole machine. But it still doesn't work. By the way, there is no vendor in examples.yaml. It is still this error: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found Anything else should I pay attention to? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: On 07/13/2015 03:50 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Use tester or something, also are you updating the jobs or not? I used tester as my vendor. It doesn't work. And what do you mean by updating the jobs ? I built the noop-check-cimmunitication job once in Jenkins UI. Does it matter ? All the others are not touched. And referring to the error, Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found, it seems like somewhere the project name was wrong. right ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, Thanks for the quick reply. On 07/13/2015 03:16 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Also check that Gearman is connecting or not through Jenkins UI. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava abhis...@cloudbyte.com wrote: First of all, change the vendor to your vendor name in /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/projects.yaml file. Also, restart the zuul and zuul merger. I did the check. Gearman plugin works find. In Jenkins UI, I tested the connection, and it succeeded. And also, I restarted zuul and zuul merger every time I modified the yaml files. But it doesn't work. And the vendor, does that matter ? And what vendor name should I provide ? I cannot find any vendor info in my Gerrit service account profile. For example, is XXX OK ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi all, I have constructed my CI system. When I tested it with sandbox project, I posted a patch to Gerrit. https://review.openstack.org/201002 But I got this error in zuul scheduler: 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Run handler awake 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Fetching trigger event 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Processing trigger event TriggerEvent comment-added openstack-dev/sandbox master 201002,1 Verified:1 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Run handler sleeping My /etc/zuul/layout/layout.yaml looks like this: projects: - name: openstack-dev/sandbox check: - noop-check-communication My /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/projects.yaml looks like this: - project: name: sandbox github-org: openstack-dev node: master vendor: myvendor jobs: - noop-check-communication - dsvm-tempest-full: node: 'devstack_slave || devstack-precise-check ||
[openstack-dev] [neutron][security-group] rules for filter mac-addresses
Hi, all: Here is a requirement: deny/permit incoming packets on VM by mac addresses, I have tried to find better method than modifying neutron code, but failed. Any suggesion is grateful. Thank you. Yan. yan_xing...@163.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stackforge][deb][packges] Upstream repositories for OpenStack deb “server” packages
On 07/13/2015 08:44 PM, Igor Yozhikov wrote: Hello everyone. During the Liberty summit in Vancouver, the idea to maintain OpenStack packages for Debian and Ubuntu on upstream infra sparked. As part of the Openstack and Debian community we still want to push for it. Instead of trying to directly go for the /openstack namespace, we currently want to start with smaller baby steps, using Stackforge. Mostly, it is server packages for Debian which we want to see maintained there. All of the dependencies (including Oslo libraries and python-*client) will continue to be maintained using git.debian.orghttp://git.debian.org, as a shared effort between Debian and Ubuntu. Purpose: * One centralized place at stackforge to maintain package build manifests/specs for main OpenStack projects. * Stackforge already has gerrit where could be attached additional gates for building and testing OpenStack packages for deb based Linux distributions. * All changes related to the ways of how one or another OpenStack project should be installed would be represented or proposed to one place. So not only famous package maintainers can work on build manifests for packages, but also the entire community interested in packaging of OpenStack projects. Also this place could become as main base for packages for all deb based Linux distributions like Debian and Ubuntu. * Package build manifests could be reviewed or adjusted not only by package maintainers, but also by python developers, that are writing OpenStack code and that's could be very valuable due to possible changes in configuration, paths and so on. Projects list: Here I propose list of OpenStack projects, it consists of about 25 of projects which of course would be changed with time due to possible birth of new projects . Project name Possible stackforge repository ceilometer http://github.com/stackforge/deb-ceilometer ceilometermiddleware http://github.com/stackforge/deb-ceilometermiddleware cinder http://github.com/stackforge/deb-cinder glance http://github.com/stackforge/deb-glance glance_store http://github.com/stackforge/deb-glance_store heat http://github.com/stackforge/deb-heat horizon http://github.com/stackforge/deb-horizon ironic http://github.com/stackforge/deb-ironic keystone http://github.com/stackforge/deb-keystone keystonemiddleware http://github.com/stackforge/deb-keystonemiddleware mistral http://github.com/stackforge/deb-mistral mistral-dashboard http://github.com/stackforge/deb-mistral-dashboard murano http://github.com/stackforge/deb-murano murano-dashboard http://github.com/stackforge/deb-murano-dashboard neutron http://github.com/stackforge/deb-neutron neutron-fwaas http://github.com/stackforge/deb-neutron-fwaas neutron-lbaas http://github.com/stackforge/deb-neutron-lbaas neutron-vpnaas http://github.com/stackforge/deb-neutron-vpnaas nova http://github.com/stackforge/deb-nova rally http://github.com/stackforge/deb-rally sahara http://github.com/stackforge/deb-sahara sahara-dashboard http://github.com/stackforge/deb-sahara-dashboard swift http://github.com/stackforge/deb-swift tempest http://github.com/stackforge/deb-tempest trove http://github.com/stackforge/deb-trove Thanks, Igor Yozhikov Senior Deployment Engineer at Mirantishttp://www.mirantis.com skype: igor.yozhikov cellular: +7 901 5331200 slack: iyozhikov http://www.hp.com/ You are missing designate (which is already packaged by both Debian and Ubuntu). We also now have a dashboard repo, along the same lines as sahara, mistral and murano. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][heat][oslo] Public show and validation clients methods
Doug, Terry. Thank you for the feedback. I will create a BP with list of desired public methods and will add all projects to it. Regards, Sergey. On 9 July 2015 at 21:20, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: Excerpts from Sergey Kraynev's message of 2015-07-09 18:26:09 +0300: Hi community. I want to raise couple questions about openstack clients. In Heat we use other python-*clients for manipulating service's resources, but some stuff placed in shell.py modules and we are forced to duplicate some existing code. There are couple examples which I met last time: - getting resource by name or id All clients implement this logic in the shell.py module and it's not possible to re-use it from client directly as single call of some function resolve_by_name_or_id (unfortunately same is for Heat too ). As result all external developers (and we too as orchestration tool) should copy logic in our repos and implement similar resolve methods for all services/resources. - show command for clients some of clients use base Resource class and they have ._info attribute, but it's private and use it is not right too. But I did not see another solution, because clients have not some *_show public method for it too (except neutron :) ). Also there is additional issue, when clients use their own classes, without this attribute, e.g. glance v2. So my question: can we create mentioned above public methods for such stuff and make it as standard for all clients or may be discuss list of common public interfaces for all clients? Until the SDK is ready for use, adding public methods or attributes seems like the best approach. Doug If it was raised early please point me, because this issue is really painful, when you try to implement common approach for all projects. Regards, Sergey. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
I just saw this Nova review come in - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200908 Why are we merging 2.6 requirements for projects that don't support 2.6? That seems potentially confusing to end users that now think the project does, because there are still references in the code. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Time to remove Python2.6 jobs from master
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/14/2015 01:46 AM, Perry, Sean wrote: -Original Message- From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:d...@doughellmann.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:41 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Time to remove Python2.6 jobs from master Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2015-07-14 09:05:43 +1200: On 14 July 2015 at 02:10, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote: On 2015-07-13 09:39:36 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] On the other hand, how much longer will we be supporting Juno? A matter of months, right? The reason it's being brought up again at this point is to ask whether it's more important that we keep master clients/libs working with 2.6 for several more months, or be able to push forward with our constraints overhaul between now and then. I'll be hard to have the necessary tooling in place before the liberty release if we can't actually use it before then (since that's roughly when juno EOL is scheduled). Additional detail: - generating 2.6 pins for global requirements requires access to 2.6 where the periodic job runs *and where devs are generating updates*. - so that means docker or lxc or something in both the CI system and widely available for devs. So its a non-trivial impact; we can do it to move things forward, but it would be a lot cheaper not to. I don't *want* to keep 2.6 support around, and I do understand that the requirements work will be made easier. I'm just trying to understand what other impact dropping it will have. It will break RHEL 5 (maybe early 6 too) and older RH systems. Ubuntu older than 9 I think (which is beyond unsupported). Not sure about other Linux dists. Basically if RHEL 5 is no longer a valid target and we are sure all of the 6s have updated then let's nuke it from orbit. I don't believe there was any release of RHEL-OSP that targeted RHEL 5. As for RHEL 6, the last version that got support for it was OSP5 which is based on Icehouse. Speaking of RDO, there were attempts to get nova pieces of Juno backported to RHEL 6 (mostly for CERN). Other than that, I don't think anyone considers to run anything Kilo+ on RHEL 6, and it will probably fail to work properly since a lot of underlying platform components in RHEL 6 would be not ready for new features. (RHEL-OSP could potentially get all the needed pieces in place, but there was a decision not to go this route and instead require RHEL 7 for anything Juno+). Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpMlOAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57aqMH/jUqVjZeYTFGIG5ncxU62IuU Jenu/c5GaGiwMdU4dDG4x25hH6NRN3vNmbXE6oF5HrkbCq7oqih7IjoTI/3Wfo6U Pwk951VU986duN8syxH+dINWZiOrZ8UNDgO2VI3Tn15TUG/S3eZtMTuM9BHoLn2K cQYlqZrKQnKVK+zNHdZI7X58P728BNeWONUl5ry7mwOZcWDs7PzvsGJ1t8zrDsE4 sGT3QT3x9VCi+tVD17DW7ZuBA+W1oVtNp3RdDkIN5fsaSE0WDZPr9PPW6jIxHNKo BP+GS7GPvqZEOK2A4I1foZg6tpkDYlxQo1D5Pz7Ep/9LIDahvE5EUQHRQoUPVH8= =CuFo -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [neutron] [ml2] Any other patch needed for hierarchical port binding?
We want to try hierarchical port binding for some TOR vtep. However it seems that the patch [1] could not be applied directly onto JUNO release. So are there any other patch needed when merging this patch? Thanks a lot! [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ml2-hierarchical-port-binding __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder: July 16 is non-priority feature proposal freeze
Hi, Please note, the non-priority feature freeze is on: July 30 Blueprint assignees (as always, but especially now), please update your blueprint to: * NeedsCodeReview, once all your code ready for review * Implemented, once all your code has merged Not doing this, will force me to guess randomly, which is unlikely to go well. This proposal freeze is designed to optimise the number of completed blueprints by the above freeze date. This freeze is to ensure the priority items for Liberty get the attention they need. For more details, please see: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule#Non-priority_Blueprint_Feature_Freeze https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule#Why_is_there_a_non-priority_Feature_Freeze_in_Nova.3F I am expecting zero proposal freeze exceptions at this point, given the amount of really useful features that are already up for review. Please contact me directly, ideally on IRC, if you need an exception. Many thanks, John PS There are some good proposals being drawn up for an alternative process to the non-priority feature proposal freeze: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule#Runways We will discuss these ideas, and more, during the midcycle, in the hope we can get some agreement (and work) on a new process, before the start of the M release. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tests] Fix it friday! [mock failure in CI]
Oh, no I didn't. By the time I got around to it I saw 264 and figured that would cover the issue. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 10 July 2015 at 22:07, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: No prob. The fixes for Neutron were relatively trivial. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/ The only one that was a bit surprising was the failure of autospec in this file: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200420/4/neutron/tests/unit/services/metering/agents/test_metering_agent.py It was coming back with argument count mismatch failures. It seems like the log decorator[1] trips up autospec in the new version. 1. https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/services/metering/drivers/noop/noop_driver.py#L22 Did you file a bug for that on mock? I don't recall seeing one. https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock/issues/264 has a patch upstream and it works on mock itself, so I'm applying that to cPython and backporting now. -Rob __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Kevin Benton __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Time to remove Python2.6 jobs from master
On Tuesday 14 of July 2015 10:33:18 Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: On 07/14/2015 01:46 AM, Perry, Sean wrote: -Original Message- From: Doug Hellmann I don't *want* to keep 2.6 support around, and I do understand that the requirements work will be made easier. I'm just trying to understand what other impact dropping it will have. It will break RHEL 5 (maybe early 6 too) and older RH systems. Ubuntu older than 9 I think (which is beyond unsupported). Not sure about other Linux dists. Basically if RHEL 5 is no longer a valid target and we are sure all of the 6s have updated then let's nuke it from orbit. I don't believe there was any release of RHEL-OSP that targeted RHEL 5. As for RHEL 6, the last version that got support for it was OSP5 which is based on Icehouse. Speaking of RDO, there were attempts to get nova pieces of Juno backported to RHEL 6 (mostly for CERN). Other than that, I don't think anyone considers to run anything Kilo+ on RHEL 6, and it will probably fail to work properly since a lot of underlying platform components in RHEL 6 would be not ready for new features. (RHEL-OSP could potentially get all the needed pieces in place, but there was a decision not to go this route and instead require RHEL 7 for anything Juno+). Some Sahara plugins (HDP, CDH) supports only CentOS6/RHEL6. In order to generate images for them, even if diskimage-builder some scripts need to run on the guest directly. So at least diskimage-builder should keep Python 2.6 support for guests (RHEL6 ships with Python 2.6) Ciao -- Luigi __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Switching the bug status of ~200 bugs at once; Problem?
Markus Zoeller/Germany/IBM@IBMDE wrote on 07/10/2015 03:55 [...] So you have a bunch of bugs that are Confirmed (or Triaged) + an assignee set. I would argue that you need to separate two cases: the bug had no activity for the last 60 days: assignee should be removed the bug had activity in the last 60 days: status should be in progress otherwise you further hide the fact that the bug is abandoned by setting status in addition to the assignee. Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Right. My first intention was to switch all to in progress and then switch a subset of that back to the previous status, depending on their activity. I see now that this would cause confusion. I'll process them seperately like Thierry suggested to avoid that confusion. I'll announce the expected changes in the next days before I actually execute them. Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) Here are the numbers. From the currently 215 Confirmed and Triaged bugs which have an assignee (= inconsistency), there are: active inactive - Triaged 4 5 Confirmed57 149 active = there is a comment within the last 60 days in Launchpad - or - the bug mentions at least one patch set in gerrit which is * under review * verified by Jenkins * and without negative code reviews (older than 28 days) inactive = the last update of the bug is older than 60 days - and - the bug mentions no active patch sets or only patch sets which have -1s which are not addressed for 28 days. I'm not sure why the number of the inactive confirmed bugs is so big. Could it be that this is a way to bookmark bugs where one wants to work on in the future? Below are the details of the Confirmed and Triaged bugs which would be affected as soon as I run the mentioned script in 'active' mode. Maybe a short note why I think that this could improve Nova: I assume that the average turnaround time of the bugs, from their creation until they get closed with appropriate patch sets, can be decreased if the 'stale' bugs get a regular cleanup to enable other contributers to work on them. I'll wait a week until I execute this to give you some time to speak up. Details: Legend: --- =In Progress: Switch the status of the bug to In Progress -Assignee: Remove the current assignee Age : Days since the last update (in LP or Gerrit) Patch Set ...: A summary of a patch set in Gerrit. Constructed as: [review-id] (+2s +1s -1s -2s) (G:Jenkins Vote W:Workflow Flag) last update in days === CleanUpReport(9 Items): 'Triaged' bugs with an assignee === Bug ID Title Age Contributer Cleanup Action --- 1467409 HyperV destroy vm fails on Wi[...] 21 Adelina Tuve =In Progress 1177570 Hyper-V tests can be refactor[...] 368 Alessandro P -Assignee 1355171 Can not have IPv4 or IPv6 onl[...] 91 Chris Gacsal -Assignee 1412480 Hyper-V: Instance booted from[...] 175 Claudiu Belu -Assignee 1458013 ec2 code uses requests to tal[...] 29 Deepti Ramak =In Progress 1436079 There is no API samples funct[...] 103 Eli Qiao -Assignee 1458934 Ironic: heavy polling 25 Lucas Alvare =In Progress 1441361 Don't trace on InstanceInfoCa[...] 96 Matt Riedema -Assignee 1415087 [OSSA 2015-011] Format-guessi[...] 7 Tony Breeds =In Progress --- 4 x =In Progress 5 x -Assignee === === CleanUpReport(206 Items): 'Confirmed' bugs with an assignee === Bug ID Title Age Contributer Cleanup Action --- 1309184 nova should delete neutron po[...] 305 Aaron Rosen -Assignee 1265447 floating-ip-bulk-delete metho[...] 151 Abhishek Tal -Assignee 1301368 Hyper-V configdrive is not at[...] 105 Adrian Vladu -Assignee 1335784 remove secgroup rule won't cu[...] 305 Akash Gangil -Assignee 1153842 nova volume-attach vmid vo[...] 500 Alessandro P -Assignee 1408176 Nova instance not boot after [...] 26 Alex Xu =In Progress 1301532 Quotas can be exceeded by mak[...] 90 Alex Xu -Assignee Patch Set: [110863] (2 1 0 0) (G:0 W:None) age(d):341 - MERGED 1443494 Return supported micro-versio[...] 69 Alex Xu -Assignee 1253571
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][security-group] rules for filter mac-addresses
Unfortunately the security groups API does not have mac-level rules right now. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:17 AM, yan_xing...@163.com yan_xing...@163.com wrote: Hi, all: Here is a requirement: deny/permit incoming packets on VM by mac addresses, I have tried to find better method than modifying neutron code, but failed. Any suggesion is grateful. Thank you. Yan. -- yan_xing...@163.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Kevin Benton __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-announce] End of life for managed stable/icehouse branches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/14/2015 12:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: I missed this announce... On 07/02/2015 05:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Per the Icehouse EOL discussion[1] last month, now that the final 2014.1.5 release[2] is behind us I have followed our usual end of life steps for stable/icehouse branches on repos under the control of the OpenStack Release Cycle Management project-team. Specifically, for any repos with the release:managed[3] tag, icehouse-specific test jobs were removed from our CI system and all open change reviews were abandoned for stable/icehouse. Then the final states of the branches were tagged as icehouse-eol and the branches subsequently deleted. I believe I asked you about 10 times to keep these branches alive, so that distributions could work together on a longer support, even without a CI behind it. I have also asked for a private gerrit for maintaining the Icehouse patches after EOL. While I understand the later means some significant work, I don't understand why you have deleted the Icehouse branches. Effectively, under these conditions, I am giving up doing any kind of coordination between distros for security patches of Icehouse. :( As far as I know, there was no real coordination on those patches before, neither I saw any real steps from any side to get it up. That said, anyone can come up with an initiative to maintain those branches under some 3party roof (just push -eol tag into github and advertise), and if there is real (and not just anticipated) collaboration going on around it, then the project may reconsider getting it back in the big stadium. I am tired to say that again and again, but there should be some resource investment from interested parties, upfront, before infra takes part of the burden on their shoulders. Asking won't help. Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpMhVAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57wY8IAN0Sjyjl+l25ZJQi0o/z/DDA GZo7NbQu1IynGK8KB2nBxBJUCo8NZORNbh5NPJIHKItHpZn60C7GUCo8AGWRjryf BFFGZERPfAXgJ9z/6+Vun34YX1R/uorZnhKitJlbCneBQygJRzHEV5IxybnHzvWf j9koqCIjwZQzvDGT5CjkX+W83+FLvwdc7Sl57Ej091rHMzdvZO36tmulfMmGt/R0 lo8GMrHp9swasvZwt1mynYJkbQhProav5dxDNoLKhhawhseLWjYKwepWvJoweYT9 jMm1P0asdwWdpDcLR53ni1ljHh5lLNV1/H+uQJS1+hcKm75M7VYHxXDMY/Bodxo= =q6Od -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] Versioning of Murano packages and MuranoPL classes
Gosha, Could you please elaborate what do you mean by extra blocks? Glance V3 comes with Glance out-of-the box, no extra deployment is needed. The only thing one will have to install is Murano Package Type plugin - but it will be installed at the same time with Murano. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Gosha, Supporting versioning in existing backend will require us to re-implement the significant part of Artifact Repository in Murano API: we'll need to add versions and dependencies concepts into our model (which is already complicated and dirty enough), extend appropriate API calls etc. And all the efforts will be a waste of time once we finally migrate to Artifacts. Also, what do you mean by set by default? V3 API is experimental, but it is already merged into upstream Glance, so there is no problem with using it in Murano right away. This is exactly why I have these concerns. I wonder how much customers will use experimental API in production. I just don't want to add extra block on Murano adoption way. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Alex, Thank you for the great summary. I have a concern about item #8. Can we add an option to Murano to use previous storage engine rather then Glance v3? We need to make sure that v3 API in Glance is set by default before we do a hard dependency on it in Murano. Thanks Gosha On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, Ability to manage multiple versions of application packages and their dependencies was always an important item in Murano roadmap, however we still don't have a clear spec for this feature. Yesterday we hosted a small design session to come up with a plan on what can be done in Liberty timeframe to have proper versioning for MuranoPL classes and packages. Stan Lagun, Kirill Zaitsev and myself participated offline, some other muranoers joined remotely. Thanks to everybody who joined us. TL;DR: it turns out that now we have a clear plan which will allow us to achieve proper versioning of the packages and classes, and we'll try to implement the most important parts of it in Liberty. Here is the detailed outcome of the session: 1. We'll use the standard Semantic Versioning format ('Major.Minor.Patch[-dev-build.label[+metadata.label]]') to version our packages: changes which break backwards-compatibility should increment the major segment, non-breaking new features increment the minor segment and all non-breaking bugfixes increment the patch segment. The developers should be carefull with the new features part: if you add a new method to a class, it may be considered a breaking change if the existing subclasses of this class have the same method already declared. We still assume that such changes should lead to increment of 'minor' segment, however it is up to best judgement of developers in particular case: if the risk of such method override is really high it may worth to increment the 'major' segment. Proper guideline on the versioning rules will be published closer to L release. 2. A new field 'Version' is introduced into package manifest file which should define package version in complete semver format. The field itself is optional (so existing apps are not broken), if it is not specified the package is assumed to have version '0.0.0' 3. The existing 'Require' block of Application manifest will be used to specify the package dependencies. Currently it is a yaml-based dictionary, with the keys set to fully-qualified names of the dependency packages and the values set to the version of those dependencies. Currently this block is used only for integration with apps stored at apps.openstack.org. It is suggested to use this block in the deployment process as well, and extend its semantics. The version of the dependency specified there should also follow the semver notation, however it may be specified in the shortened format, i.e. without specifying the 'patch' or 'patch' and 'minior' components. In this case the dependency will be specified as a range of allowed versions. For example, a dependency version 1.2 will mean a (1.2.0 = version 1.3) range. If the version of a dependency is not specified (like in this existing app - [1]) then we assume the version 0 - i.e. the last available pre-release version of a package. 4. Murano core library is also a package which has its own version. The current one is assumed to have a version 0.1.0, the one which is going to be released in L will be probably called 0.2.0. The
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Friday July 10 is Nova's non-priority feature review bash day
On 10 July 2015 at 19:08, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 7/7/2015 12:35 PM, John Garbutt wrote: Hi, Friday is: non-priority feature review bash day https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule#Dates_overview The idea is the whole nova community is invited to concentrate on reviewing some some of the low priority blueprints that have been hanging around for a while. *Note* the whole nova community are invited, its not just core reviewers, as with all review efforts The suggested starting point are low priority blueprints marked as NeedsCodeReview here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/liberty To help focus our efforts I am trying to curate a list of blueprints that have been waiting a long time for a review, see the Low priority, and longest waiting Blueprint patches section of the usual etherpad as a starting point: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-priorities-tracking Please lets group together and really get some of these long standing blueprints merged before next weeks non-priority feature proposal freeze, and the upcoming non-priority feature freeze. As usual, any questions or ideas, please do get in touch. Thanks, johnthetubaguy __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev This is a good idea and thanks for pulling together the list in the etherpad. However, Friday is probably not the best for this (as I'm writing this at 1pm on the day of the bash). We are having gate issues today draining some resources, plus quite a few people aren't really around, and I had a big lunch and it's quiet and I feel like sleeping. :) So maybe we should reschedule this for like, Tuesday 7/14 when people are actually around? Sorry, I have been out over the weekend and yesterday, so only just seen this. Emergencies happen. It was really just a Friday, as it used to be considered the best day for these review pushes in the past, open to trying other days. I think the list is still valid. Lets all catch up on IRC to pick a time to push hard on some more reviews of these blueprint. Thanks, John __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Liberty SFE Request - Dynamic Policies
I am +1 on this SFE. Dynamic Policy team has been working hard on this and they will for sure deliver nice features for Liberty. -- Marek Denis [marek.de...@cern.ch] __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
Hi! It looks like novaclient still supports py26 :) At least, there is a gate-python-novaclient-python26 job. Also, I checked several commands(boot, *list, delete ) with python 2.6 env and they work as expected for me. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: I just saw this Nova review come in - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200908 Why are we merging 2.6 requirements for projects that don't support 2.6? That seems potentially confusing to end users that now think the project does, because there are still references in the code. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Andrey Kurilin. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
no-brainer: +1 Op 14-07-15 om 13:19 schreef Ryan Hallisey: +1 I echo all the prior comments. -Ryan - Original Message - From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:40:11 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
On 2015-07-14 07:03:34 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: I just saw this Nova review come in - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200908 Why are we merging 2.6 requirements for projects that don't support 2.6? That seems potentially confusing to end users that now think the project does, because there are still references in the code. We could likely consider treating 2.6+2.7-supporting vs 2.7-only (and 2.7+3.4-supporting? and 2.6+2.7+3.4?) repos differently where requirements sync and enforcement are concerned, but a first step for that would involve coming up with and maintaining a list of which repos have support on which branches for which Python versions. We don't have such a thing today as far as I'm aware, as it's merely an emergent property based on a combination of factors in zuul's layout file (the names of 2.6-based jobs, which repos run them, and the branches on which they're allowed to run). -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
On 07/14/2015 08:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-07-14 07:03:34 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: I just saw this Nova review come in - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200908 Why are we merging 2.6 requirements for projects that don't support 2.6? That seems potentially confusing to end users that now think the project does, because there are still references in the code. We could likely consider treating 2.6+2.7-supporting vs 2.7-only (and 2.7+3.4-supporting? and 2.6+2.7+3.4?) repos differently where requirements sync and enforcement are concerned, but a first step for that would involve coming up with and maintaining a list of which repos have support on which branches for which Python versions. We don't have such a thing today as far as I'm aware, as it's merely an emergent property based on a combination of factors in zuul's layout file (the names of 2.6-based jobs, which repos run them, and the branches on which they're allowed to run). There is trove classification in the projects themselves right? [metadata] name = nova version = 12.0.0 summary = Cloud computing fabric controller description-file = README.rst author = OpenStack author-email = openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org home-page = http://www.openstack.org/ classifier = Environment :: OpenStack Intended Audience :: Information Technology Intended Audience :: System Administrators License :: OSI Approved :: Apache Software License Operating System :: POSIX :: Linux Programming Language :: Python Programming Language :: Python :: 2 Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7 That seems like it should be enough information to know the 2.6 question. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
On 2015-07-14 08:38:57 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: There is trove classification in the projects themselves right? [...] That seems like it should be enough information to know the 2.6 question. I got to thinking through what this might look like, and while filtering down the markers based on versions stated in trove classifiers is fairly trivial when it's just a single == or != (such as your example), we would also want to take into account inequality operators for version ranges and logical constructions (and, or, parenthetical ordering) which suggest that any marker simplification routine is probably better implemented in setuptools/pkg_resources which is already parsing these. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][security-group] rules for filter mac-addresses
Thank you, Kevin. I search the blueprint about this point in launchpad.net, and got nothing, then register one at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/security-group-mac-rule Yan Xing'an From: Kevin Benton Date: 2015-07-14 18:31 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][security-group] rules for filter mac-addresses Unfortunately the security groups API does not have mac-level rules right now. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:17 AM, yan_xing...@163.com yan_xing...@163.com wrote: Hi, all: Here is a requirement: deny/permit incoming packets on VM by mac addresses, I have tried to find better method than modifying neutron code, but failed. Any suggesion is grateful. Thank you. Yan. yan_xing...@163.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Kevin Benton __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
On 07/14/2015 08:11 AM, Andrey Kurilin wrote: Hi! It looks like novaclient still supports py26 :) At least, there is a gate-python-novaclient-python26 job. Also, I checked several commands(boot, *list, delete ) with python 2.6 env and they work as expected for me. Ah, right fair, my bad. I had thought we'd adjusted that with all the branching. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate repo for Fuel Agent
Dear colleagues, New repository [1] has been created. So, please port all your review requests to stackforge/fuel-web related to Fuel Agent to this new repository. Currently, I am testing these two patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200595 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200025. If they work, we need to merge them and that is it. Review is welcome. [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-agent.git Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Ok, guys. Looks like there are no any objections. At the moment I need to create actual version of upstream repository which is going to be sucked in by OpenStack Infra. Please, be informed that all patches changing fuel-web/fuel_agent that will be merged after this moment will need to be ported into the new fuel-agent repository. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Guys, we are next to moving fuel_agent directory into a separate repository. Action flow is going to be as follows: 1) Create verify jobs on our CI https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/9186 (DONE) 2) Freeze fuel_agent directory in https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web (will announce in a separate mail thread). That means we stop merging patches into master which change fuel_agent directory. Unfortunately, all review requests need to be re-sent, but it is not going to be very difficult. 3) Create temporary upstream repository with fuel_agent/* as a content. I'm not planning to move 5.x and 6.x branches. Only master. So, all fixes for 5.x and 6.x will be living in fuel-web. 4) This upstream repository is going to be sucked in by openstack-infra. Patch is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/ (review is welcome) I don't know how long it is going to take. Will try to poke infra people to do this today. 5) Then we need to accept two patches into new fuel-agent repository: - rpm spec (extraction from fuel-web/specs/nailgun.spec) (ready, but there is no review request) - run_tests.sh (to run tests) (ready, but there is no review request) !!! By this moment there won't be any impact on ISO build process !!! 6) Then we need to change two things at the same time (review is welcome) - fuel-web/specs/nailgun.spec in order to prevent fuel-agent package building https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200595 - fuel-main so as to introduce new fuel-agent repository into the build process https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200025 And good luck to me -) Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: There were some questions from Alexandra Fedorova about independent release cycle. according to the configuration [1] Infra team won't be able to do branching or any kind of release management for new repository. Could you please clarify, do we plan to version new repository the same way as we do for main fuel repositories or there going to be separate releases as in python-fuelclient [2]? Who should drive the release process for this repo and how this change will affect Fuel ISO release? [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/1/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel-agent.config,cm [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/068837.html IMO all Fuel components should be as much independent as possible with highly defined APIs used for their interaction, with their own teams, with their own independent release cycles. But we cannot switch to this model immediately. For the start, we can just move those components into separate repositories, leaving the same access rights and core team as we have for fuel-web. When Fuel Agent is a separate repository we discuss team. It looks like a team leader is the best person to manage releases for a particular component. This thread is totally about separation stuff and how to do this not breaking anything. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Dear colleagues, I am going to move Fuel Agent into a separate git repository. The thing is that we have quite a few review requests to fuel-web with changes for Fuel Agent. The new repository is going to look like this https://github.com/kozhukalov/fuel-agent i.e. there is no additional sub-directory fuel_agent. In fact, I don't think it is a big deal to update all fuel agent related review requests. Work items: 0) request to openstack-infra https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/1 0.1) upstream for this request with commit history https://github.com/kozhukalov/fuel-agent 1) fuel-agent/specs/fuel-agent.spec is an extraction from fuel-web/specs/nailgun.spec (separate commit, in progress) 2) modify fuel-main to build fuel-agent package (in progress) 3) create jenkins-jobs/servers/fuel-ci/verify-fuel-agent.yaml (in progress) For the start Fuel Agent core team
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
On 2015-07-14 08:38:57 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: There is trove classification in the projects themselves right? [...] That seems like it should be enough information to know the 2.6 question. Only if it's kept up to date. If we're going to rely on it (not a terrible idea) then we should enforce it in tests somewhere first. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
+1 I echo all the prior comments. -Ryan - Original Message - From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:40:11 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder as generic volume manager
On 07/10/2015 12:19 AM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: On 07/09/2015 12:21 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote: Hi all, Just FYI, here is a sample script I'm using for testing os-brick which attaches/detaches the cinder volume to the host using cinderclient and os-brick: https://gist.github.com/tsekiyama/ee56cc0a953368a179f9 python attach.py volume-uuid will attach the volume to the executed host and shows a volume path. When you hit the enter key, the volume is detached. Note this is skipping reserve or start_detaching APIs so the volume state is not changed to Attaching or Detaching. Regards, Tomoki Very cool Tomoki. After chatting with folks in the Cinder IRC channel it looks like we are going to look at going with something more like what your script is doing. We are most likely going to create a separate command line tool that does this same orchestration, using cinder client, a new Cinder API that John Griffith is working on, and os-brick. Very cool indeed, it looks exactly like as what I need. Jan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] Versioning of Murano packages and MuranoPL classes
Alexander, do you plan to update the https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140402/ versioning spec? We can possibly try to make it a joint effort, if you like. -- Kirill Zaitsev Murano team Software Engineer Mirantis, Inc On 14 Jul 2015 at 11:34:56, Alexander Tivelkov (ativel...@mirantis.com) wrote: Gosha, Could you please elaborate what do you mean by extra blocks? Glance V3 comes with Glance out-of-the box, no extra deployment is needed. The only thing one will have to install is Murano Package Type plugin - but it will be installed at the same time with Murano. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Gosha, Supporting versioning in existing backend will require us to re-implement the significant part of Artifact Repository in Murano API: we'll need to add versions and dependencies concepts into our model (which is already complicated and dirty enough), extend appropriate API calls etc. And all the efforts will be a waste of time once we finally migrate to Artifacts. Also, what do you mean by set by default? V3 API is experimental, but it is already merged into upstream Glance, so there is no problem with using it in Murano right away. This is exactly why I have these concerns. I wonder how much customers will use experimental API in production. I just don't want to add extra block on Murano adoption way. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Alex, Thank you for the great summary. I have a concern about item #8. Can we add an option to Murano to use previous storage engine rather then Glance v3? We need to make sure that v3 API in Glance is set by default before we do a hard dependency on it in Murano. Thanks Gosha On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, Ability to manage multiple versions of application packages and their dependencies was always an important item in Murano roadmap, however we still don't have a clear spec for this feature. Yesterday we hosted a small design session to come up with a plan on what can be done in Liberty timeframe to have proper versioning for MuranoPL classes and packages. Stan Lagun, Kirill Zaitsev and myself participated offline, some other muranoers joined remotely. Thanks to everybody who joined us. TL;DR: it turns out that now we have a clear plan which will allow us to achieve proper versioning of the packages and classes, and we'll try to implement the most important parts of it in Liberty. Here is the detailed outcome of the session: We'll use the standard Semantic Versioning format ('Major.Minor.Patch[-dev-build.label[+metadata.label]]') to version our packages: changes which break backwards-compatibility should increment the major segment, non-breaking new features increment the minor segment and all non-breaking bugfixes increment the patch segment. The developers should be carefull with the new features part: if you add a new method to a class, it may be considered a breaking change if the existing subclasses of this class have the same method already declared. We still assume that such changes should lead to increment of 'minor' segment, however it is up to best judgement of developers in particular case: if the risk of such method override is really high it may worth to increment the 'major' segment. Proper guideline on the versioning rules will be published closer to L release. A new field 'Version' is introduced into package manifest file which should define package version in complete semver format. The field itself is optional (so existing apps are not broken), if it is not specified the package is assumed to have version '0.0.0' The existing 'Require' block of Application manifest will be used to specify the package dependencies. Currently it is a yaml-based dictionary, with the keys set to fully-qualified names of the dependency packages and the values set to the version of those dependencies. Currently this block is used only for integration with apps stored at apps.openstack.org. It is suggested to use this block in the deployment process as well, and extend its semantics. The version of the dependency specified there should also follow the semver notation, however it may be specified in the shortened format, i.e. without specifying the 'patch' or 'patch' and 'minior' components. In this case the dependency will be specified as a range of allowed versions. For example, a dependency version 1.2 will mean a (1.2.0 = version 1.3) range. If the version of a dependency is not specified (like in this existing app - [1]) then we assume the version 0 - i.e. the last available pre-release version of a package. Murano core library is also a package which has its own version. The
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Adding results to extension callbacks (ml2 port_update ext handling).
I haven't had a chance to review this patch in detail yet, but am wondering if this is being integrated with ML2 as an extension driver? If so, that should clearly address how dictionaries are extended and input values are validated. If not, why? -Bob On 7/13/15 10:50 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo wrote: Inline reply (I've added to CC relevant people for ml2/plugin.py port_update extension handing -via git blame-) as they probably have an opinion here (specially the last two options). Kevin Benton wrote: This sounds like a lot of overlap with the dict extend functions. Why weren't they adequate for the QoS use case? Let me explain, I believe Mike exceeded the proposal with AFTER_READ, that's not the plan, even if we could do as he proposed, AFTER_READ dict extension is just a temporary workaround until we have a separate explicit api @armax is working on. Making explicit that your service is going to extend resources, and handled that in an ordered way is a good thing. Afterwards, the source of this review has came from ML2 implementation of AFTER_CREATE/AFTER_UPDATE notification for ports/nets. Let me explain: As a decoupled, mixinless service extending core resources, we need to do two things: 1) Extending the core resources as other extensions would do, adding stuff to the port/network dicts, here's where it comes the current AFTER_READ dict extension, and future API making that more explicit and more controlled. 2) Verifying the extended values we receive on core resources, by registering to BEFORE_* callbacks. For example, if a tenant is trying to use a qos_profile_id he doesn't have access to, or that doesn't exist, we can cancel the operation by throwing an exception. We need to extend the notifications for ports and networks, as that's not notified currently. Mike will work on that too in a separate patch. 3) Taking the finally extended values and store associations in database (AFTER_UPDATE/AFTER_CREATE) so any later reads of the port/network will get the right qos_profile_later in after read. We have found that AFTER_CREATE/AFTER_UPDATE happens at plugin level (neutron/plugins/ml2/plugin.py / update_port) and that information passed down is very brief to our case (basically a None port if no ml2-know attribute is changed), and ml2 has to be aware of every single extension. Here there are two options: a) we make ml2 also aware of qos_profile_id changes, complicating the business logic down there, or... b) we send the AFTER_CREATE/UPDATE events, and we listen to the callback listeners to such notification, and they will tell us if there's any relevant field which must be propagated down to agents. Then it's up to the agents to use such field or not. Mike's patch proposal is in the direction of (b), he's a long term thinker, I was proposing him to just go (a) for now, but let's discuss and find what's more right. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mike Kolesnikmkole...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I sent a simple patch to check the possibility to add results to callbacks: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201127/ This will allow us to decouple the callback logic from the ML2 plugin in the QoS scenario where we need to update the agents in case the profile_id on a port/network changes. It will also allow for a cleaner way to extend resource attributes as AFTER_READ callbacks can return a dict of fields to add to the original resource instead of mutating it directly. Please let me know what you think of this idea. Regards, Mike __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Setting epoch in setup.cfg??
On 7/13/15, 16:19, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote: Ian Cordasco wrote: On 7/13/15, 15:09, Dave Walkerem...@daviey.com wrote: On 13 Jul 2015 8:52 pm, Ian Cordascoian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote: On 7/13/15, 03:38, Thierry Carrezthie...@openstack.org wrote: SNIP By counter-productive, I meant: likely to generate more confusion than clarity. If you provide an epoch in the version and it doesn't match downstream packagers ones, it's hard to rely on it. I see what you mean now. The thing is that for Debian/Fedora the epoch syntax is different from PEP 440 For them it's [distro-epoch]:[upstream-version][otherstuff] PEP 440 epochs are separated by a !, so let's say $(distro) has an epoch value of 1 and we choose 2, for glance the version would look ugly but would be: 1:2!11.0.0 SNIP This would be a problem for at least Ubuntu and Debian as the version string is specifically not allowed to contain a '!'. The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics and the characters . +- : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and should start with a digit. [0] Thanks for the input Dave. I didn't see that part since I was specifically looking for how epochs are denoted. I still am quite certain that we have no choice but to use the proper versioning tools upstream though and that means using ! to indicate the epoch in our version strings because these are fundamentally Python packages. +1 we produce python versions, and people use them (whether they are uploaded to pypi or not) so we should try to do the right thing here no matter what. If downstream distro (rh, ubuntu, other...) wants to convert that into its local epoch scheme that's cool (and I would expect them to do that in the correct manner that is appropriate for there packages). Since the mailing list reaches the largest number of people, I thought I'd continue some of this discussion here. Yesterday some further discussion happened in #openstack-infra (on IRC), and the crux of the argument against Epochs seems to be that they make it hard to deal with archives on the command line, e.g., you'd have an archive generated that looks like: nova-1!12.0.0.tar.gz Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but any relatively modern shell that allows for tab completion will properly tab-complete that when using the filename. Another argument is that this is something ugly that we'll have to live with for the rest of OpenStack's life. Without it, however, we'll have to live with 12.0.0 (the last four years of version numbers) as a sorting mechanism as far as Python packaging is concerned. There's also the argument that (paraphrasing) this isn't really a problem for people using pip because you can do `pip install -U nova==12.0.0` once and you're done. Except that if you have a local package index and you're support reproducible builds of multiple versions, say, Juno (2014.2.x), Kilo (2015.1.y), Liberty (your version number depends on project but is strictly less than both Juno and Kilo), and M. If you upgrade a project from Liberty to M, you have to still use `pip install -U nova==13.0.0` because `pip install -U nova` will install Kilo because neither Liberty nor M are using an epoch. We're effectively saying if you support more than one release at a time using the python packaging ecosystem, you're a second class citizen in OpenStack. In other words, this will be an ongoing problem. Epochs are clearly a necessity, otherwise our downstream distributors wouldn't be using them and the PEP 440 authors wouldn't have included them. Epochs were designed exactly for this situation, and while they're ugly, they're the absolutely correct approach here. As a sidenote, in case people are wondering how epochs even work with pip, 2015.1.0 has an implicit epoch of 0, e.g., the version can be equivalently written as 0!2015.1.0. 1!12.0.0 would sort higher because 1 has a higher value than the implicit 0. 1!13.0.0 then defers to the rest of the version string because they belong to the same epoch. Cheers, Ian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [docs] [tc] Project and service names
Hi all, Renamed the thread to get some topics in the subject, and I wanted to bring this review to everyone's attention. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201160/ I will reconsider these guidelines based on feedback. That said, I have done the legwork to ask about legal guidance and I still believe that lowercase nearly always is best to reduce cognitive burden. Thanks, Anne On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Anne Gentle annegen...@justwriteclick.com wrote: Forwarded Message Subject:[openstack-dev] Should project name be uppercase or lowercase? Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:21:57 +0900 From: Yuiko Takada yuikotakada0...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Hi folks, I found the difference between wiki[1] and governance[2]. Yes, we are aware of the differences. I have asked the OpenStack Foundation legal counsel and they do not have a legal reason to capitalize project names. So, in documentation for consistency and to work on more valuable efforts, we need to stick to the established Documentation Conventions that have been in place since October 2013. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions#Service_and_project_names wiki says Generally the capitalization of the project team names like swift is lowercase. But in governance, written as uppercase like Nova, Swift. I don't believe a machine-readable YAML file indicates style or conventions for capitalization for a collection. Yes, I will be doing a patch for service names since it is a source of reference and if we think it will alleviate confusion I'll also lowercase the names of the projects in a separate patch. How do you think which should we use uppercase vs lowercase for representing project names? I'll be patching the governance repo with some guidelines we have been using to make them official. The projects.yaml file is the reference point for the service catalog and documentation, and the doc team maintains a lookup list on the wiki page referenced above. Conventions for service names: - Uppercase first letter of first word only. - Do not use OpenStack in the name of the service. - Use module if it is consuming other services (such as heat). - Use service in general as that is mostly what is being added as projects. Conventions for project names: - In documentation published to docs.openstack.org, use lower case for project names except at the beginning of a sentence or heading title. (Note that all heading titles use sentence case for ease of learning capitalization rules.) - In the service catalog, use lower case. I hope this clarification helps. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Hi again all, I have Thanks, Anne [1]https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions [2] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml Best Regards, Yuiko Takada -- Christian Berendt Cloud Solution Architect Tel.: +49-171-5542175 Mail: bere...@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- Anne Gentle Rackspace Principal Engineer www.justwriteclick.com -- Anne Gentle Rackspace Principal Engineer www.justwriteclick.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] why merging 2.6 requirements for non 2.6 supporting projects
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2015-07-14 13:08:46 +: On 2015-07-14 08:38:57 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: There is trove classification in the projects themselves right? [...] That seems like it should be enough information to know the 2.6 question. I got to thinking through what this might look like, and while filtering down the markers based on versions stated in trove classifiers is fairly trivial when it's just a single == or != (such as your example), we would also want to take into account inequality operators for version ranges and logical constructions (and, or, parenthetical ordering) which suggest that any marker simplification routine is probably better implemented in setuptools/pkg_resources which is already parsing these. I did some work to find the supported versions in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181165/4/inc/python,cm as part of the changes to devstack to support python 3. Doug __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [requirements][all] policy on approving constraint changes
At one point Robert proposed that we change the policy for approving constraint changes like https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201408/ to allow a single reviewer to approve it, assuming the tests were green. Is that our current policy, or are we waiting for the integration of constraints with our tox environments before deciding whether to make that change? Doug __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
+1 From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Setting epoch in setup.cfg??
On 07/14/2015 11:08 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: On 7/13/15, 16:19, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote: Ian Cordasco wrote: On 7/13/15, 15:09, Dave Walkerem...@daviey.com wrote: On 13 Jul 2015 8:52 pm, Ian Cordascoian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote: On 7/13/15, 03:38, Thierry Carrezthie...@openstack.org wrote: SNIP By counter-productive, I meant: likely to generate more confusion than clarity. If you provide an epoch in the version and it doesn't match downstream packagers ones, it's hard to rely on it. I see what you mean now. The thing is that for Debian/Fedora the epoch syntax is different from PEP 440 For them it's [distro-epoch]:[upstream-version][otherstuff] PEP 440 epochs are separated by a !, so let's say $(distro) has an epoch value of 1 and we choose 2, for glance the version would look ugly but would be: 1:2!11.0.0 SNIP This would be a problem for at least Ubuntu and Debian as the version string is specifically not allowed to contain a '!'. The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics and the characters . +- : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and should start with a digit. [0] Thanks for the input Dave. I didn't see that part since I was specifically looking for how epochs are denoted. I still am quite certain that we have no choice but to use the proper versioning tools upstream though and that means using ! to indicate the epoch in our version strings because these are fundamentally Python packages. +1 we produce python versions, and people use them (whether they are uploaded to pypi or not) so we should try to do the right thing here no matter what. If downstream distro (rh, ubuntu, other...) wants to convert that into its local epoch scheme that's cool (and I would expect them to do that in the correct manner that is appropriate for there packages). Since the mailing list reaches the largest number of people, I thought I'd continue some of this discussion here. Yesterday some further discussion happened in #openstack-infra (on IRC), and the crux of the argument against Epochs seems to be that they make it hard to deal with archives on the command line, e.g., you'd have an archive generated that looks like: nova-1!12.0.0.tar.gz Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but any relatively modern shell that allows for tab completion will properly tab-complete that when using the filename. Another argument is that this is something ugly that we'll have to live with for the rest of OpenStack's life. Without it, however, we'll have to live with 12.0.0 (the last four years of version numbers) as a sorting mechanism as far as Python packaging is concerned. There's also the argument that (paraphrasing) this isn't really a problem for people using pip because you can do `pip install -U nova==12.0.0` once and you're done. Except that if you have a local package index and you're support reproducible builds of multiple versions, say, Juno (2014.2.x), Kilo (2015.1.y), Liberty (your version number depends on project but is strictly less than both Juno and Kilo), and M. If you upgrade a project from Liberty to M, you have to still use `pip install -U nova==13.0.0` because `pip install -U nova` will install Kilo because neither Liberty nor M are using an epoch. We're effectively saying if you support more than one release at a time using the python packaging ecosystem, you're a second class citizen in OpenStack. In other words, this will be an ongoing problem. Epochs are clearly a necessity, otherwise our downstream distributors wouldn't be using them and the PEP 440 authors wouldn't have included them. Epochs were designed exactly for this situation, and while they're ugly, they're the absolutely correct approach here. As a sidenote, in case people are wondering how epochs even work with pip, 2015.1.0 has an implicit epoch of 0, e.g., the version can be equivalently written as 0!2015.1.0. 1!12.0.0 would sort higher because 1 has a higher value than the implicit 0. 1!13.0.0 then defers to the rest of the version string because they belong to the same epoch. Those are all only physical manifestations of the concern I shared, not the concerns themselves. Here are my actual thoughts and concerns: pip is not a downstream distribution. It is not as rich as dpkg or rpm. The issues that they solve by using epochs are not the same problem space pip exists in. In downstream distros, such as debian and fedora, the work of and complexity of epochs are packager concerns. End users are not generally exposed to them, because a release of a Linux distro has one version of a given thing at any time. So the problem space as a user is I want to install the version of the software that exists in the current release of my distro contains In that problem space, epochs provide a tool when an upstream (like us) does something that conflicts with the version sorting rules in the distro. With pip/pypi, all of
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
Well that is unanimous. Welcome to the core team Paul! Regards -steve From: Daneyon Hansen (danehans) daneh...@cisco.commailto:daneh...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 8:56 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core +1 From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
Thanks very much all it's a privilege. Look forward to continuing to help out as much as possible; please feel free to drop me a line on IRC or email any time. -Paul On 14/07/15 17:01, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: Well that is unanimous. Welcome to the core team Paul! Regards -steve From: Daneyon Hansen (danehans) daneh...@cisco.com mailto:daneh...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 8:56 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core +1 From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com mailto:std...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Quobyte Cinder Driver revert?
Thanks for the hint, Ramy! I did talk about this a longer time ago in the 3rdParty weekly but it was hard to for people to help as it was an issue quite specific to our setup. On other occasions, however, that meeting has been greatly helpful and I recommend it, too! Silvan 2015-07-07 6:01 GMT+02:00 Asselin, Ramy ramy.asse...@hp.com: HI Silvan, A great resource to resolve such issues is the third-party ci meetings [1]. It’s a dedicated time slot to ask questions and get help from other community members such as yourself. Oftentimes, someone else has run into the same issue and already as an answer. Ramy [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty *From:* Silvan Kaiser [mailto:sil...@quobyte.com] *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 9:06 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Quobyte Cinder Driver revert? Hello again! Ok, now i did find the review [1], sorry i did not earlier. We will solve the CI issues asap in order to provide the requirements to recommit the Quobyte driver. We've been trying to solve the CIs networking issue i wrote about since then but were unable to nail it down completely as we're only a small company and restricted in resources. After the mail from Mike Perez regarding missing reports [2] i had brief contact with him directly via email [3] and once more on the third party mailing list [4]. As i did not receive a message after the replies i did not expect there to be a defined deadline and I did not see information about the impending revert on gerrit, and thus was unable to comment on that. My apologies for that. We're focusing on this with all the team now. Silvan Kaiser [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191192/ [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/third-party-announce/2015-June/000200.html [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/third-party-announce/2015-June/000213.html [4] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/third-party-announce/2015-June/000214.html 2015-07-03 16:31 GMT+02:00 Silvan Kaiser sil...@quobyte.com: Hello! I just found the following commit in the cinder log: commit a3f4eed52efce50c2eb1176725bc578272949d7b Merge: 6939b4a e896ae2 Author: Jenkins jenk...@review.openstack.org Date: Thu Jul 2 23:14:39 2015 + Merge Revert First version of Cinder driver for Quobyte Is this part of some restructuring work, etc. that i did miss? I could not find a gerrit review for this and had no prior information? I did not see any related information when i did my weekly checks of the cinder weekly meeting logs and am confused to find this commit. We're still working on the CI issues discussed on the CI mailing list and am fully aware that we've to get this stably reporting. This is not a removal because of the CI issues? Best regards Silvan Kaiser -- Dr. Silvan Kaiser Quobyte GmbH Boyenstr. 41 - 10115 Berlin-Mitte - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.comhttp://www.quobyte.com/ Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B Management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender -- Dr. Silvan Kaiser Quobyte GmbH Boyenstr. 41 - 10115 Berlin-Mitte - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.comhttp://www.quobyte.com/ Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B Management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender -- *Quobyte* GmbH Hardenbergplatz 2 - 10623 Berlin - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.com Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Dr. Silvan Kaiser Quobyte GmbH Boyenstr. 41 - 10115 Berlin-Mitte - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.comhttp://www.quobyte.com/ Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B Management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender -- -- *Quobyte* GmbH Hardenbergplatz 2 - 10623 Berlin - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.com Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Cinder] FFE Request: Re-add Quobyte Cinder Driver
Hello Cinder Community! I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for change [1], re-adding the Quobyte driver to Cinder. The driver was removed in change [2] due to missing CI activity [3], it was originally added in the kilo release [4]. We've been able to remove the CI's issues and it has been reporting for a week now [5], stably testing and consistently showing two bugs (one in Nova and one in our driver/Cinder), referenced on the CIs status page [6]. We're monitoring the CI results continuously and the detected bugs are beeing addressed. The complete logs can be reviewed at [7]. CI status changes are published on the Quobyte CI Status page in the wiki [6], where there’s also our contact information. Thanks a lot for considering and best regards Silvan Kaiser (kaisers/casusbelli in IRC) [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201507/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191192/ [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/068609.html [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94186/ [5] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069183.html [6] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/Quobyte_CI [7] http://176.9.127.22:8081/?C=M;O=D -- -- *Quobyte* GmbH Hardenbergplatz 2 - 10623 Berlin - Germany +49-30-814 591 800 - www.quobyte.com Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 149012B management board: Dr. Felix Hupfeld, Dr. Björn Kolbeck, Dr. Jan Stender __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] weekly meeting #42
On 07/13/2015 09:23 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: Hello Puppet masters! Here's an initial agenda for our weekly meeting, tomorrow at 1500 UTC in #openstack-meeting-4: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-openstack-weekly-meeting-20150714 Please add additional items you'd like to discuss. If our schedule allows it, we'll make bug triage during the meeting. See you there! We did our meeting, you can read the notes here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-openstack-weekly-meeting-20150714 Have a great day! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Emilien Macchi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] First Sprint proposal
We decided during our weekly meeting that the Sprint will happen virtually on IRC on Wed 9/2 – Fri 9/4. We will use #openstack-sprint (freenode) IRC channel and Google Hangout / Bluejeans if needed. We made progress on defining an agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-liberty-mid-cycle Please have a look and feel free to add / complete the topics. See you there, On 07/13/2015 09:03 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: I just closed the poll after one week. It will happen on Wed 9/2 – Fri 9/4. We'll work on the agenda during the following weeks. Best, On 07/06/2015 10:26 PM, Matt Fischer wrote: Operators mid-cycle is Aug 17-21 at a TBD location, I voted accordingly. Thanks. On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Emilien Macchi emil...@redhat.com mailto:emil...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/06/2015 02:05 PM, Matt Fischer wrote: I think this is a great idea. I'd like to get a firm date on the operators mid-cycle before I vote though. If it overlaps, we can add more slots. Feel free to ping me on IRC for that, I'll update the doodle. Thanks, On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Emilien Macchi emil...@redhat.com mailto:emil...@redhat.com mailto:emil...@redhat.com mailto:emil...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I would like to organize our first sprint for contributing to our Puppet OpenStack modules. It will happen in Red Hat Montreal (Canada) office, during 3 days. If you're interested to participate, please find the slots that may work for you [1]. Any slot suggestion is welcome though. Also, please bring on the etherpad any topics we should work on together [2]. We will groom topics during a meeting and prepare the agenda before the sprint. [1] http://doodle.com/xk2sfgu4xsi4y6n4r46t7u9k [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-liberty-mid-cycle Regards, -- Emilien Macchi __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Emilien Macchi __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Emilien Macchi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:56:16PM +0200, Harm Weites wrote: no-brainer: +1 Op 14-07-15 om 13:19 schreef Ryan Hallisey: +1 I echo all the prior comments. -Ryan - Original Message - From: Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:40:11 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for Paul Bourke for Kolla Core Hey folks, I am proposing Paul Bourke for the Kolla core team. He did a fantastic job getting Kolla into shape to support multiple distros and from source/from binary installation. His statistics are fantastic including both code and reviews. His reviews are not only voluminous, but consistently good. Paul is helping on many fronts and I would feel make a fantastic addition to our core reviewer team. Consider my proposal to count as one +1 vote. Any Kolla core is free to vote +1, abstain, or vote –1. A –1 vote is a veto for the candidate, so if you are on the fence, best to abstain :) We require 3 core reviewer votes to approve a candidate. I will leave the voting open until July 20th UTC. If the vote is unanimous prior to that time or a veto vote is received, I’ll close voting and make appropriate adjustments to the gerrit groups. +1! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [CI] How to set a proxy for zuul.
Basically it is not required, and if you see /etc/jenkins_jobs/config folder you will find one dsvm-cinder-tempest.yaml which is to be used basically not examples.yaml. So its not an issue. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: On 07/14/2015 01:46 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Instead of it use reusable_node option. Thanks. Problem resolved. :) BTW, single_use_node is written in layout.yaml by default. If it doesn't exist anymore, do we need a patch to fix it ? For someone who uses CI for the first time, it is really a problem.. And also, if I want to post patch for zuul, where should I post the patch ? Thanks. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, All, I found the problem. My /etc/zuul/layout/layout.yaml has the following config: jobs: - name: ^dsvm-tempest.*$ parameter-function: single_use_node But in _parseConfig() in zuul/scheduler.py, it failed to find single_use_node(). fname = config_job.get('parameter-function', None) if fname: func = config_env.get(fname, None) if not func: raise Exception(Unable to find function %s % fname) So projects section was not parsed. Does anyone know why ? Thanks. On 07/14/2015 10:54 AM, Tang Chen wrote: Hi Abhishek, I printed the self.layout.projects in zuul/scheduler.py, it is empty. So the project was not found. But I did do the jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/ And I did configure openstack-dev/sandbox in layout.yaml. Do you have any idea what's wrong here ? Thanks. On 07/13/2015 05:58 PM, Tang Chen wrote: On 07/13/2015 04:35 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Updating jobs using sudo jenkins-jobs --flush-cache update /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/. Also update the myvendor in examples.yaml Sorry, I updated the jobs, restart the whole machine. But it still doesn't work. By the way, there is no vendor in examples.yaml. It is still this error: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found Anything else should I pay attention to? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: On 07/13/2015 03:50 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Use tester or something, also are you updating the jobs or not? I used tester as my vendor. It doesn't work. And what do you mean by updating the jobs ? I built the noop-check-cimmunitication job once in Jenkins UI. Does it matter ? All the others are not touched. And referring to the error, Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found, it seems like somewhere the project name was wrong. right ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Abhishek, Thanks for the quick reply. On 07/13/2015 03:16 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava wrote: Also check that Gearman is connecting or not through Jenkins UI. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Abhishek Shrivastava abhis...@cloudbyte.com wrote: First of all, change the vendor to your vendor name in /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/projects.yaml file. Also, restart the zuul and zuul merger. I did the check. Gearman plugin works find. In Jenkins UI, I tested the connection, and it succeeded. And also, I restarted zuul and zuul merger every time I modified the yaml files. But it doesn't work. And the vendor, does that matter ? And what vendor name should I provide ? I cannot find any vendor info in my Gerrit service account profile. For example, is XXX OK ? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi all, I have constructed my CI system. When I tested it with sandbox project, I posted a patch to Gerrit. https://review.openstack.org/201002 But I got this error in zuul scheduler: 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Run handler awake 2015-07-14 14:07:24,921 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Fetching trigger event 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Processing trigger event TriggerEvent comment-added openstack-dev/sandbox master 201002,1 Verified:1 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Project openstack-dev/sandbox not found 2015-07-14 14:07:24,922 DEBUG zuul.Scheduler: Run handler sleeping My /etc/zuul/layout/layout.yaml looks like this: projects: - name: openstack-dev/sandbox check: - noop-check-communication My /etc/jenkins_jobs/config/projects.yaml looks like this: - project: name: sandbox github-org: openstack-dev node: master vendor: myvendor jobs: - noop-check-communication - dsvm-tempest-full: node: 'devstack_slave || devstack-precise-check || d-p-c' And Jenkins master works fine. Does anyone know what is going on here ? Thanks. __ OpenStack Development Mailing
[openstack-dev] Hyper-V Meeting
Hi All, We still have a lack of quorum today do to summer holidays, so we're postponing until everyone is back. p Peter J. Pouliot CISSP Microsoft Enterprise Cloud Solutions C:\OpenStack New England Research Development Center 1 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142 P: 1.(857).4536436 E: ppoul...@microsoft.commailto:ppoul...@microsoft.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2
I’d be good submitting it to the neutron-lbaas repo, under a horizon/ directory. We can iterate there, and talk with the Horizon team about how best to integrate. Would that work? Thanks, doug On Jul 13, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.com wrote: Hi German, We integrated UI with LBaaS v2 GET APIs. We have created all panels for CREATE and UPDATE as well. Plan is to share our code with community on stackforge for more collaboration from the community. So far Ganesh from cisco has shown interest in helping with some work. It will be great if we can get more hands. Q: what is the process for hosting in-progress project on stackforge? Can someone help me here? Thanks, Vivek On 7/10/15, 11:40 AM, Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.com wrote: Hi Vivek, Hope things are well. With the Midccyle next week I am wondering if you made any progress and/or how we can best help with the panels. Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com, Tonse, Milan mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Thanks German for the etherpad link. If you have any documentation for flows, please share those too. I will work with my team at ebay to publish wireframes for design we are working on. It will be mostly along the lines I demo’ed in Paris. Thanks, Vivek From: Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi, We briefly talked about it a few Neutron meetings back (LBaaS is now on demand) and created an etherpad to track things: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LBaaS_Horizon_Use_Cases Susanne and I met with HP’s UX designer to work on the design for some flows for the Horizon panel (cc’d) but I am glad that Vivek is taking the lead. Please check that etherpad for more information and feel free to update as things happen… Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek [mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi Evgeny, We have just started working on Horizon lbaasv2 support. I have to sync up with my team on the time-line but it is not targeted for Kilo release. Since it is a major effort, we will need more hands. Let me know if anyone is interested to contribute. On a related note, Do we have a sample code which uses neutronclient lbaas v2 methods? That will greatly speedup our horizon integration. Thanks, Vivek From: Phillip Toohill phillip.tooh...@rackspace.commailto:phillip.tooh...@rackspace.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 7:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hey Evgeny, I believe Vivek is working on Horizon lbaasv2 support. We werent given a timeline or anything but sounds like its being actively worked on. I would reach out to him to get better timelines if concerned. Phillip V. Toohill III Software Developer [http://600a2794aa4ab5bae6bd-8d3014ab8e4d12d3346853d589a26319.r53.cf1.rack cdn.com/signatures/images/rackspace_logo.png] phone: 210-312-4366 mobile: 210-440-8374 From: Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.commailto:evge...@radware.com Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 5:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi guys, LBaaS v2 has no horizon support as for now and I want to know if this work is planned to be done and , if yes, in what time frame. Is there a plan to develop it for Kilo or for L release?
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging][zeromq] Next step
inline... On 7/8/15, 8:23 AM, Bogdan Dobrelya bdobre...@mirantis.com wrote: On 6/12/15, 3:55 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: I think you missed it is not tested in the gate as a root cause for some of the ambiguity. Anecdotes and bug reports are super important for knowing where to invest next, but a test suite would at least establish a base line and prevent the sort of thrashing and confusion that comes from such a diverse community of users feeding bug reports into the system. I agree with you that zmq needs to pass whatever oslo messaging test is currently available however this won't remove all the semantical/behavioral ambiguities. This kind of ambiguities could be fixed by enhancing the API documentation - always good to do even if a bit late - and by developing the associated test cases (although they tend to be harder to write). Another (ugly) strategy could be to simply say that the intended behavior is the one exposed by the rabbitMQ based implementation (by means of seniority and/or actual deployment mileage). For example, what happens if a recipient of a CALL or CAST message dies before the message is sent. Is the API supposed to return an error and if yes how quickly? RabbitMQ based implementation will likely return a success (since the message will sit in a queue in the broker until the consumer reconnects - which could be a long time) while ZMQ based will depend on the type of pattern used. Which is the behavior desired by apps and which is the behavior advertised by the oslo messaging API? Another example relates to flow control conditions (sender sends lots of CAST, receiver very slow to consume). Should the sender - always receive success and all messages will be queued without limit, - always receive success and all messages will be queued up to a certain point and new messages will be dropped silently - or receive an EAGAIN error (socket behavior)? In these unclear conditions, switching to a different transport driver is going to be tricky because apps may have been written/patched to assume a certain behavior and might no longer behave properly if the expected behavior changes (even if it is for the better) and may require adjusting existing apps (to support a different behavior of the API). Note that switching to a different transport is not just about testing it in devstack but also about deploying it at scale on real production environment and testing at scale. Alec, you bring up fantastic and importan points above. However, lets stay on track. We're not even testing to see if nova-api can talk to nova-conductor via the current zmq driver. It's entirely possible it simply does not work for any number of reasons. A devstack-gate job is the _minimum_ needed. I believe the next steps can be summarized as the following: 1) Make existing zeromq driver tested in the gate in order to save it from deprecation and removal. I believe Oleksii is already working on it. 2) Think of the new driver architecture decisions more precisely, like: - synchronous blocking REQ/REP or async DEALER/ROUTER for CALLs - at-least-once delivery (confirms after processing) or at-most-once (confirms before processing) - do we want fault tolerant CALL and/or CAST, NOTIFY (AFAIK, zeromq supports HA only for REQ/REP, ROUTER/DEALER) - idempotent/commutative operations or ordered and non-idempotent On all above I believe it is best to keep oslo messaging simple and predictable, then have apps deal with any retry logic as it is really app specific. Auto retries in oslo messaging can cause confusion with possible duplicates which could be really bad if the messages are not idempotent. I think trying to make oslo messaging a complex communication API is not realistic with the few resources available. It is much better to have something simple that works well (even that is not easy as we can see) than something complex that has lots of issues. - event based notifications on changes in the numbers of clients and servers (affects the discovery service very much) - routing proxies and discovery service backends Yes I'd like to help on that part. 3) Address all of the ambiguities of the API documentation in order to keep messaging library developers and apps developers at the same page. This is a vital step as the new driver -as well as the existing ones- have to rely on well known and clearly described expectations and behave appropriately. I'm glad to see more people converging on this shortcoming and the need to do something. As I said above, I would keep the oslo messaging API straight and simple and predictable. The issue with that is it may make the AMQP driver non compliant as it may be doing too much already but we can try to work it out. We should avoid having app code having to behave differently (with if/else based on the driver or driver specific plugins) but maybe that will not be entirely unavoidable. I'll give a short
[openstack-dev] [Senlin] TOSCA Reference Material
Hi All, I just wanted to share where all of the TOSCA reference material is accessible. It is maintained through an OASIS TC here - https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tosca The latest relevant spec is available here - https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/56070/TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML-v1.0-wd06-rev05.docx Of immediate synergy with Senlin is probably the discussion around policies starting on page #240 of the spec. Much of this is still in the definition stage, so there is opportunity to have Senlin influence the spec as well as to allow Senlin to adopt some of the definitions within the spec. Regards, - Julio__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Meeting Thursday July 16th at 17:00UTC
Hello! Our next OpenStack App Catalog meeting will take place this Thursday July 16th at 17:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting-3 The agenda can be found here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/app-catalog Please add agenda items if there's anything specific you would like to discuss. For this weeks meeting my primary intention is to discuss the roadmap, everything we'd like to accomplish before the next summit, and determine who all will be helping get it done. Please join us if you can! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum Midcycle Event Scheduling Doodle Poll closes July 7th
Team, Thanks everyone for your feedback. The Magnum Midcycle for the Liberty release will be held on 2015-08-05 and 2015-08-06. I look forward to seeing you all there. Regards, Adrian Otto On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: Apologies for double post – left off [magnum] prior by error. Ton Ngo of IBM Silicon Valley Research has graciously offered to host the 2 day Magnum midcycle event at IBM’s facilities. The sessions will run from 9AM – 5PM and catered lunch and refreshments (soda/water) will be provided. The mid-cycle will be a standard mid-cycle with a 1 hour introduction followed by two days of design sessions. Please cast your votes on any days you can make. http://doodle.com/pinkuc5hw688zhxw There are ~25 seats available. Preference will be given to in-person core reviewers, followed by any folks that have made commits to the repository. After dates are settled, a separate eventbrite event will be setup to sort out the specifics such as dietary needs, etc and confirm in-person seating if we are past capacity limits. We will make remote participation available, but the experience will likely be less then optimal for remote participants. Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2
Can we setup a short IRC meeting to sync up on details? 1600utc on thursday, maybe? Other? Thanks, doug On Jul 13, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Praveen Yalagandula yprav...@avinetworks.com wrote: Hi Vivek, I can help on this effort. Thanks for leading this! We had done some work to add Certificates support to the current loadbalancer panel, which we put out for public access at https://github.com/avinetworks/avi-horizon-dashboard https://github.com/avinetworks/avi-horizon-dashboard. Essentially, this adds a Certificates tab to manage SSL certificates (though currently the code communicates with our controller, but could be changed to invoke Barbican APIs), and also adds Associate Cert and Disassociate Cert to the current pool drop down links (see the images below). Note that we did this way as v1.0 APIs did not have support for certificates, and we implement associate/disassociate by having Horizon talk directly to the our controller. Cheers, Praveen image.png image.png On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.com mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com wrote: Hi German, We integrated UI with LBaaS v2 GET APIs. We have created all panels for CREATE and UPDATE as well. Plan is to share our code with community on stackforge for more collaboration from the community. So far Ganesh from cisco has shown interest in helping with some work. It will be great if we can get more hands. Q: what is the process for hosting in-progress project on stackforge? Can someone help me here? Thanks, Vivek On 7/10/15, 11:40 AM, Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.com mailto:german.eichber...@hp.com wrote: Hi Vivek, Hope things are well. With the Midccyle next week I am wondering if you made any progress and/or how we can best help with the panels. Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.com mailto:vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.com mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.com mailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com mailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com, Tonse, Milan mto...@ebay.com mailto:mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.com mailto:mto...@ebay.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Thanks German for the etherpad link. If you have any documentation for flows, please share those too. I will work with my team at ebay to publish wireframes for design we are working on. It will be mostly along the lines I demo’ed in Paris. Thanks, Vivek From: Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.com mailto:german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.com mailto:german.eichber...@hp.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.com mailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com mailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi, We briefly talked about it a few Neutron meetings back (LBaaS is now on demand) and created an etherpad to track things: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LBaaS_Horizon_Use_Cases https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LBaaS_Horizon_Use_Cases Susanne and I met with HP’s UX designer to work on the design for some flows for the Horizon panel (cc’d) but I am glad that Vivek is taking the lead. Please check that etherpad for more information and feel free to update as things happen… Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek [mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi Evgeny, We have just started working on Horizon lbaasv2 support. I have to sync up with my team on the time-line but it is not targeted for Kilo release. Since it is a major effort, we will need more hands. Let me know if anyone is interested to contribute. On a
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2
Another option is to create a project under openstack. designate-dashboard project takes this approach, and the core team of the project is both horizon-core and designate-core. We can do the similar approach. Thought? I have one question. Do we have a separate place forever or do we want to merge horizon repo once the implementation are available. If we have a separate repo for LBaaS v2 panel, we need to release it separately. I am not sure I am available at LBaaS meeting, but I would like to help this efforts as a core from horizon and neutron. Akihiro 2015-07-15 1:52 GMT+09:00 Doug Wiegley doug...@parksidesoftware.com: I’d be good submitting it to the neutron-lbaas repo, under a horizon/ directory. We can iterate there, and talk with the Horizon team about how best to integrate. Would that work? Thanks, doug On Jul 13, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.com wrote: Hi German, We integrated UI with LBaaS v2 GET APIs. We have created all panels for CREATE and UPDATE as well. Plan is to share our code with community on stackforge for more collaboration from the community. So far Ganesh from cisco has shown interest in helping with some work. It will be great if we can get more hands. Q: what is the process for hosting in-progress project on stackforge? Can someone help me here? Thanks, Vivek On 7/10/15, 11:40 AM, Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.com wrote: Hi Vivek, Hope things are well. With the Midccyle next week I am wondering if you made any progress and/or how we can best help with the panels. Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com, Tonse, Milan mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Thanks German for the etherpad link. If you have any documentation for flows, please share those too. I will work with my team at ebay to publish wireframes for design we are working on. It will be mostly along the lines I demo’ed in Paris. Thanks, Vivek From: Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi, We briefly talked about it a few Neutron meetings back (LBaaS is now on demand) and created an etherpad to track things: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LBaaS_Horizon_Use_Cases Susanne and I met with HP’s UX designer to work on the design for some flows for the Horizon panel (cc’d) but I am glad that Vivek is taking the lead. Please check that etherpad for more information and feel free to update as things happen… Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek [mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi Evgeny, We have just started working on Horizon lbaasv2 support. I have to sync up with my team on the time-line but it is not targeted for Kilo release. Since it is a major effort, we will need more hands. Let me know if anyone is interested to contribute. On a related note, Do we have a sample code which uses neutronclient lbaas v2 methods? That will greatly speedup our horizon integration. Thanks, Vivek From: Phillip Toohill phillip.tooh...@rackspace.commailto:phillip.tooh...@rackspace.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 7:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hey Evgeny, I believe Vivek is working on Horizon lbaasv2 support. We werent given a timeline or anything but sounds like its being actively worked on. I would reach out to him to get
[openstack-dev] [app-catalog] IRC Meeting Thursday July 16th at 17:00UTC
(Apologies for the re-send, missed the appropriate tag on the subject line!) Hello! Our next OpenStack App Catalog meeting will take place this Thursday July 16th at 17:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting-3 The agenda can be found here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/app-catalog Please add agenda items if there's anything specific you would like to discuss. For this weeks meeting my primary intention is to discuss the roadmap, everything we'd like to accomplish before the next summit, and determine who all will be helping get it done. Please join us if you can! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2
1600utc on Thursday (9am PDT Thursday) works for me. Can we use #openstack-lbaas channel ? I have committed under development lbaas v2 horizon code to my public github and will move it to neutron-lbaas: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-lbaas Thanks, Vivek From: Doug Wiegley doug...@parksidesoftware.commailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:53 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com, Tonse, Milan mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Can we setup a short IRC meeting to sync up on details? 1600utc on thursday, maybe? Other? Thanks, doug On Jul 13, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Praveen Yalagandula yprav...@avinetworks.commailto:yprav...@avinetworks.com wrote: Hi Vivek, I can help on this effort. Thanks for leading this! We had done some work to add Certificates support to the current loadbalancer panel, which we put out for public access at https://github.com/avinetworks/avi-horizon-dashboard. Essentially, this adds a Certificates tab to manage SSL certificates (though currently the code communicates with our controller, but could be changed to invoke Barbican APIs), and also adds Associate Cert and Disassociate Cert to the current pool drop down links (see the images below). Note that we did this way as v1.0 APIs did not have support for certificates, and we implement associate/disassociate by having Horizon talk directly to the our controller. Cheers, Praveen image.png image.png On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.com wrote: Hi German, We integrated UI with LBaaS v2 GET APIs. We have created all panels for CREATE and UPDATE as well. Plan is to share our code with community on stackforge for more collaboration from the community. So far Ganesh from cisco has shown interest in helping with some work. It will be great if we can get more hands. Q: what is the process for hosting in-progress project on stackforge? Can someone help me here? Thanks, Vivek On 7/10/15, 11:40 AM, Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.com wrote: Hi Vivek, Hope things are well. With the Midccyle next week I am wondering if you made any progress and/or how we can best help with the panels. Thanks, German From: Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.commailto:vivekj...@ebay.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.ormailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.ormailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com, Tonse, Milan mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.commailto:mto...@ebay.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Thanks German for the etherpad link. If you have any documentation for flows, please share those too. I will work with my team at ebay to publish wireframes for design we are working on. It will be mostly along the lines I demo’ed in Paris. Thanks, Vivek From: Eichberger, German german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.commailto:german.eichber...@hp.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.ormailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.ormailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.or g Cc: Balle, Susanne susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.commailto:susanne.ba...@hp.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support for neutron-lbaas v2 Hi, We briefly talked about it a few Neutron meetings back (LBaaS is now on demand) and created an etherpad to track things: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LBaaS_Horizon_Use_Cases Susanne and I met with HP’s UX designer to work on the design for some flows for the Horizon panel (cc’d) but I am glad that Vivek is taking the lead. Please
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Time to remove Python2.6 jobs from master
Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/14/2015 01:46 AM, Perry, Sean wrote: -Original Message- From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:d...@doughellmann.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:41 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Time to remove Python2.6 jobs from master Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2015-07-14 09:05:43 +1200: On 14 July 2015 at 02:10, Jeremy Stanleyfu...@yuggoth.org wrote: On 2015-07-13 09:39:36 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] On the other hand, how much longer will we be supporting Juno? A matter of months, right? The reason it's being brought up again at this point is to ask whether it's more important that we keep master clients/libs working with 2.6 for several more months, or be able to push forward with our constraints overhaul between now and then. I'll be hard to have the necessary tooling in place before the liberty release if we can't actually use it before then (since that's roughly when juno EOL is scheduled). Additional detail: - generating 2.6 pins for global requirements requires access to 2.6 where the periodic job runs *and where devs are generating updates*. - so that means docker or lxc or something in both the CI system and widely available for devs. So its a non-trivial impact; we can do it to move things forward, but it would be a lot cheaper not to. I don't *want* to keep 2.6 support around, and I do understand that the requirements work will be made easier. I'm just trying to understand what other impact dropping it will have. It will break RHEL 5 (maybe early 6 too) and older RH systems. Ubuntu older than 9 I think (which is beyond unsupported). Not sure about other Linux dists. Basically if RHEL 5 is no longer a valid target and we are sure all of the 6s have updated then let's nuke it from orbit. I don't believe there was any release of RHEL-OSP that targeted RHEL 5. As for RHEL 6, the last version that got support for it was OSP5 which is based on Icehouse. Speaking of RDO, there were attempts to get nova pieces of Juno backported to RHEL 6 (mostly for CERN). Other than that, I don't think anyone considers to run anything Kilo+ on RHEL 6, and it will probably fail to work properly since a lot of underlying platform components in RHEL 6 would be not ready for new features. (RHEL-OSP could potentially get all the needed pieces in place, but there was a decision not to go this route and instead require RHEL 7 for anything Juno+). Just a side-note, people have gotten kilo+ to run on RHEL6.x using virtualenvs and SCL python2.7 using http://anvil.readthedocs.org/ so it's not out of the realm of possible ;) Not everyone can upgrade to RHEL7.x 'in a jiffy' when u have a large cloud with a ton of RHEL6.x hypervisors that people rely on, eventually it will happen, but not always so quickly ;) Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpMlOAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57aqMH/jUqVjZeYTFGIG5ncxU62IuU Jenu/c5GaGiwMdU4dDG4x25hH6NRN3vNmbXE6oF5HrkbCq7oqih7IjoTI/3Wfo6U Pwk951VU986duN8syxH+dINWZiOrZ8UNDgO2VI3Tn15TUG/S3eZtMTuM9BHoLn2K cQYlqZrKQnKVK+zNHdZI7X58P728BNeWONUl5ry7mwOZcWDs7PzvsGJ1t8zrDsE4 sGT3QT3x9VCi+tVD17DW7ZuBA+W1oVtNp3RdDkIN5fsaSE0WDZPr9PPW6jIxHNKo BP+GS7GPvqZEOK2A4I1foZg6tpkDYlxQo1D5Pz7Ep/9LIDahvE5EUQHRQoUPVH8= =CuFo -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] The way magnum-conductor communicates with k8s master
On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: From: OTSUKA, Motohiro yuany...@oeilvert.orgmailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:11 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] The way magnum-conductor communicates with k8s master Hi, Wanghua Currently magnum-conductor can communicates with k8s master which has a floating ip in all-in-one deployment. But if magnum-conductor is not deployed on the neutron network node which has the br-ex, how can magnum-conductor communicate with k8s master. The magnum-conductor node then has no access to the k8s master. Currently this is a limitation of our architecture. The floating IP is a public routed network, so it should be able to communicate in a properly setup cloud. Another question: Magnum-conductor only communicate with k8s master, why k8s minion has a floating ip too? What is the floating ip of k8s minion used for? I think, there is no reason. Historically, Our heat template come from larsks/heat-kubernetes [1] template. larsks/heat-kubernetes provides floating ip to minion nodes, this is just a reason. The minion floating ips are needed to access the micro-service front ends from the internet. To be clear, the actual requirement is that the minion nodes must be able to make TCP connections to the master node. Depending on the routing setup on your nodes, and the arrangement of your network, that could be possible without a floating ip on the minion nodes. With that in mind, having a publicly routable address (floating ip) on your minion node is one way to produce such connectivity. I’m sure we would be open to a proposal that eliminates our requirement for the floating ip on the minion nodes that would work properly in various network environments. Adrian Regards -steve [1]: https://github.com/larsks/heat-kubernetes Thanks -Yuanying __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Congress] New IRC meeting time
To better accommodate the active contributors, we're moving our IRC meeting to 2300 UTC = 4p Pacific = 7p Eastern #openstack-meeting-3 Hope to see you there! Tim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][bp] Power Magnum to run on metal withHyper
Peng, On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Peng Zhao p...@hyper.shmailto:p...@hyper.sh wrote: Thanks Adrian! Hi, all, Let me recap what is hyper and the idea of hyperstack. Hyper is a single-host runtime engine. Technically, Docker = LXC + AUFS Hyper = Hypervisor + AUFS where AUFS is the Docker image. I do not understand the last line above. My understanding is that AUFS == UnionFS, which is used to implement a storage driver for Docker. Others exist for btrfs, and devicemapper. You select which one you want by setting an option like this: DOCKEROPTS=-s devicemapper” Are you trying to say that with Hyper, AUFS is used to provide layered Docker image capability that are shared by multiple hypervisor guests? My guess is that you are trying to articulate that a host running Hyper is a 1:1 substitute for a host running Docker, and will respond using the Docker remote API. This would result in containers running on the same host that have a superior security isolation than they would if LXC was used as the backend to Docker. Is this correct? Due to the shared-kernel nature of LXC, Docker lacks of the necessary isolation in a multi-tenant CaaS platform, and this is what Hyper/hypervisor is good at. And because of this, most CaaS today run on top of IaaS: https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/55545e127c7cbe0ec5b82f2b/388x275/e286dea1266b46c1999d566b0f9e326b/iaas.png Hyper enables the native, secure, bare-metal CaaS https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/55545e127c7cbe0ec5b82f2b/395x244/828ad577dafb3f357e95899e962651b2/caas.png From the tech stack perspective, Hyperstack turns Magnum o run in parallel with Nova, not running on atop. For this to work, we’d expect to get a compute host from Heat, so if the bay type were set to “hyper”, we’d need to use a template that can produce a compute host running Hyper. How would that host be produced, if we do not get it from nova? Might it make more sense to make a dirt driver for nova that could produce a Hyper guest on a host already running the nova-compute agent? That way Magnum would not need to re-create any of Nova’s functionality in order to produce nova instances of type “hyper”. Is Hyper compatible with libvirt? Can Hyper support nested Docker containers within the Hyper guest? Thanks, Adrian Otto Best, Peng -- Original -- From: Adrian Ottoadrian.o...@rackspace.commailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com; Date: Tue, Jul 14, 2015 07:18 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][bp] Power Magnum to run on metal withHyper Team, I woud like to ask for your input about adding support for Hyper in Magnum: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/hyperstack We touched on this in our last team meeting, and it was apparent that achieving a higher level of understanding of the technology before weighing in about the directional approval of this blueprint. Peng Zhao and Xu Wang have graciously agreed to respond to this thread to address questions about how the technology works, and how it could be integrated with Magnum. Please take a moment to review the blueprint, and ask your questions here on this thread. Thanks, Adrian Otto On Jul 2, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Peng Zhao p...@hyper.shmailto:p...@hyper.sh wrote: Here is the bp of Magnum+Hyper+Metal integration: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/hyperstack Wanted to hear more thoughts and kickstart some brainstorming. Thanks, Peng - Hyper - Make VM run like Container __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-announce] End of life for managed stable/icehouse branches
On 07/14/2015 03:55 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-07-14 00:33:52 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] I believe I asked you about 10 times to keep these branches alive, so that distributions could work together on a longer support, even without a CI behind it. And the project consensus has seemed to disagree with this after careful discussion, each time it's brought up. Distributions collaborating upstream on stable branch support would entail helping keep those branches tested upstream. As a project we've consistently stated that publishing updates to stable branches without sufficient testing is an affront to our quality assurance stance. The final state of the upstream stable/icehouse branch, as with each previous stable branch all the way back to stable/diablo, is tagged in the repository so that you can construct your own continuation of stable/icehouse from the same point as needed. I have also asked for a private gerrit for maintaining the Icehouse patches after EOL. [...] I do apologize for not setting up a separate private Gerrit instance for embargoed security fix code reviewing. It would be a help to me and the rest of the VMT to have it, I simply haven't had the available time I'd hoped to be able to work out remaining implementation details for deploying and maintaining it. That said, its priority has decreased as the VMT is trying to get a little more cautious about only embargoing vulnerability reports that actually benefit enough from a brief advance notice to downstream stakeholders to offset the significant cost in efficiency of the embargo process (only a small amount of which is due to the tools we end up using for private code review). However, as I explained to you at the Liberty Design Summit after discussion with members of the infrastructure team, we're also not comfortable maintaining stable branches of projects in a private Gerrit instance any longer than we do in the normal public one, and would want to remove inactive branches from it at the same time their public counterparts reach end of life. Since I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself at this point, I'll leave it to others to continue the thread this time. If you're interested in overhauling the stable branch EOL process (I didn't design and plan it, I merely pull the levers and push the buttons), that discussion should involve the stable branch release managers and the rest of the release team along with the quality assurance team. Jeremy, I'm very disappointed, because this isn't at all what I've been told during each and every summit since the release of Icehouse. The conversations we had during all summits were all about you (and others) saying that it was really ok to not destroy the branches. Never you raised your concern about any issue, and I was counting on this to organize security support for Icehouse for embargoed issues. While I do understand that you didn't have time for this private gerrit, I don't get why it's not ok to just leave the branch open, without the CI (you could rename the branch if you didn't want to show any blessing from the project). Now, since the upstream OpenStack doesn't offer any help for Icehouse which absolutely *all* downstream distributions offer LTS support, we're back to what I feared from the start: chaos and no serious coordination possible between distros, unless we do absolutely everything by ourselves (including the infrastructure to host a gerrit and share patches). I will *not* have the time to do this. I just hope individual project members will help doing some of the backport work. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-announce] End of life for managed stable/icehouse branches
On 07/14/2015 10:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: On 07/14/2015 12:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: I missed this announce... On 07/02/2015 05:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Per the Icehouse EOL discussion[1] last month, now that the final 2014.1.5 release[2] is behind us I have followed our usual end of life steps for stable/icehouse branches on repos under the control of the OpenStack Release Cycle Management project-team. Specifically, for any repos with the release:managed[3] tag, icehouse-specific test jobs were removed from our CI system and all open change reviews were abandoned for stable/icehouse. Then the final states of the branches were tagged as icehouse-eol and the branches subsequently deleted. I believe I asked you about 10 times to keep these branches alive, so that distributions could work together on a longer support, even without a CI behind it. I have also asked for a private gerrit for maintaining the Icehouse patches after EOL. While I understand the later means some significant work, I don't understand why you have deleted the Icehouse branches. Effectively, under these conditions, I am giving up doing any kind of coordination between distros for security patches of Icehouse. :( As far as I know, there was no real coordination on those patches before, neither I saw any real steps from any side to get it up. Well... as far as I know, you were not there during the conversations we had at the summits about this. Neither you are on my list of Icehouse security persons. So I fail to see how you could be in the loop for this indeed. That said, anyone can come up with an initiative to maintain those branches under some 3party roof (just push -eol tag into github and advertise), and if there is real (and not just anticipated) collaboration going on around it, then the project may reconsider getting it back in the big stadium. I have a list of contacts for each and every downstream distributions. All of them agreed to work under this coordinated Git repo, so that we share the same patch. The only issue is that during embargo period, we can't discuss this type of patches in public. Which is why a private gerrit was the way to go. Though for not-embargoed stuff, we could well have used the already existing Gerrit infrastructure, without a CI (as all distro are running their own tests anyway). I am tired to say that again and again, but there should be some resource investment from interested parties, upfront, before infra takes part of the burden on their shoulders. Asking won't help. How do you expect to see anything happening before Icehouse effectively gets EOL? By the way, I haven't asked anything but *not* doing something. I don't see how much burden I'm putting on infra here. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tests] Fix it friday! [mock failure in CI]
On 13 July 2015 at 13:04, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) dmcco...@cisco.com wrote: Has anyone else seen this error with the new mock? 'self' parameter lacking default value My function under test runs correctly, but then Mock throws this TypeError when comparing the parameters in assert_calls_with(). I'm seeing this in Barbican. More info below [1][2]. --Dave [1] Complete backtrace == FAIL: barbican.tests.plugin.test_kmip.WhenTestingKMIPSecretStore.test_store_passp hrase_secret_assert_called -- _StringException: Traceback (most recent call last): File /Users/dmccowan/barbican/barbican/tests/plugin/test_kmip.py, line 432, in test_store_passphrase_secret_assert_called credential=self.credential) File /Users/dmccowan/.pyenv/versions/barb278/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/m ock.py, line 941, in assert_called_once_with return self.assert_called_with(*args, **kwargs) File /Users/dmccowan/.pyenv/versions/barb278/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/m ock.py, line 930, in assert_called_with six.raise_from(AssertionError(_error_message(cause)), cause) File /Users/dmccowan/.pyenv/versions/barb278/lib/python2.7/site-packages/six.py , line 692, in raise_from raise value AssertionError: Expected call: mock(credential=Struct(), object_type=ObjectType.SECRET_DATA: 7, secret=ANY, template_attribute=ANY) Actual call: mock(credential=Struct(), object_type=ObjectType.SECRET_DATA: 7, secret=Struct(), template_attribute=Struct()) 'self' parameter lacking default value Please see if this is a problem in python 3.5's unittest.mock. If it is: file it in the Python bug tracker (and +nosy me there [rbcollins]). If its not a problem in python 3.5's unittest.mock, then file it in the mock bug tracker, and I'll figure out why its behaving differently. Cheers, Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Rescinding the M name decision
Thanks Lauren. Mi taco es su taco. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Lauren Sell lau...@openstack.org wrote: Good news. After finalizing the trademark checks and giving the community time to weigh in, Mitaka will be the name of the M release. Thanks again for the great discussion around this topic, and for the willingness to be responsive to the concerns of fellow community members. On Jul 9, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: Feel free to give input on the Mitaka proposal. Tim -Original Message- From: Jonathan Bryce [mailto:jbr...@jbryce.com] Sent: 09 July 2015 20:52 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Rescinding the M name decision On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Neil Jerram wrote: In the hope of forestalling an unnecessary sub-thread... Mita was #1 in the vote, so has presumably already been ruled out by OpenStack's legal review. That is correct. Hi everyone, I’ve really loved seeing everyone’s understanding and engagement on this thread as we worked through the release cycle naming for ‘M’. This was the first attempt to follow a new process, so not surprisingly, we found some improvements in the algorithm for the future. Still it’s awesome to see how constructive and positive the whole conversation has been. I wanted to provide a quick update on the status of the Foundation’s reviews of the names. First, as Russell mentioned above, after the voting was completed, we asked our trademark counsel to do checks on the top 3 names. The first two both had significant trademark issues with existing trademark holders in the same space that would have prevented us from using the names in most jurisdictions where we have our largest communities (US, Europe and Asia). The 3rd choice was relatively low risk and so we passed word back to Monty who announced it. Once we realized there were other issues with Meiji, we asked for an expedited check of the next 3 names: Mitaka, Musashi, and Meguro. The preliminary check shows that Mitaka and Meguro both present an acceptable level of risk, while Musashi is higher on the risk scale and would probably create problems for usage. At this time, we’re going to do a deeper check on Mitaka, which was the #4 candidate in voting and would be next in line after Meiji. I know Itoh-san mentioned the Mitaka locale has the potential to be associated with certain corporations in Japan, but my personal feeling is that may not be significant enough to override it’s position in the voting and it’s availability for use. I’d encourage anyone with other concerns about Mitaka to post those within the next 24 hours so we can appropriately consider and discuss them. We should have results on the deeper trademark check by next week as well and can hopefully settle on a final name. Thanks again for all the discussion and participation and especially to Monty who’s been on the front lines of helping us navigate this. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions, Jonathan 210-317-2438 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev- requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] python-cinderclient functional tests
I've added this topic to the meeting agenda [1] [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CinderMeetings#Next_meeting Regards, Ivan Kolodyazhny On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Treinish mtrein...@kortar.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:04:05PM -0700, Mike Perez wrote: On 16:28 Jul 10, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: Hi Mike, Unfortunately, we don't get a lot of stats [1] because we don't run it often. I've added 'check experimental' comment to latest python-cinderclient review request to get more stats. Review request to make this voting: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200522/ [1] http://graphite.openstack.org/render/?width=877height=548_salt=1436533755.887from=00%3A00_20150524until=23%3A59_20150710target=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.job.check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional.FAILUREtarget=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.job.check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional.SUCCESStarget=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.openstack.python-cinderclient.total_changestitle=check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional Add an agenda item to the next Cinder meeting. Sure there should be no objections. Just an FYI that these tests used to always be voting until they were removed from tempest. [1][2] Almost every other project that did the same client test migration from tempest just made the new client specific jobs voting from the start so there was no loss in coverage. I'm not entirely sure why cinderclient got stuck as experimental jobs, but it doesn't seem overly contentious to me to just flip the switch. -Matt Treinish [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/178757/ [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/063018.html __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Openstack][nova]
Hi, I created a patch to fail on the proxy call to Neutron for used limits, found here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199604/ This patch was done because of this: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#no-more-api-proxies http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#no-more-api-proxies, where it’s stated that Nova shouldn’t be proxying API calls. That said, Matt Riedemann brings up the point that this breaks the case where Neutron is installed and we want to be more graceful, rather than just raising an exception. Here are some options: 1. fail - (the code in the patch above) 2. proxy to neutron for floating ips and security groups - that's what the original change was doing back in havana 3. return -1 or something for floatingips/security groups to indicate that we don't know, you have to get those from neutron Does anybody have an opinion on which option we should do regarding API proxies in this case? Thanks, Cale Rath__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
On 14/07/15 14:34, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) I worry that this could result in leakage of potentially-sensitive information. e.g. once we have this feature implemented, an operator could deploy a plugin that is only for the use of one particular user, who has a custom role. I don't think it would be expected that other users (without that role) in other tenants could find out about that, even if all they can find out is the name of the resource type. I definitely think that admins should have a way of getting a list of _all_ resource types (preferably annotated with the roles required to use them). Just not ordinary users. resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? This is totally unnecessary IMHO for the reasons Clint mentioned. Again, I could imagine an exception for admins though, since I suspect that this API is the only way we can annotate resource types with the roles required without performing major surgery on resource-type-list. template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? You call template-validate when you're about to launch the template and you want to know what parameters and stuff are required. If YOU cannot launch THIS template on THIS cloud right NOW it should fail, period. cheers, Zane. The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
We're kind of debating the same thing for the app catalog. Do we show templates that don't work on a given cloud since they wont work, potentially making useful tools hard to discover, or do we view it as an opportunity for users to complain to their admins that they need X feature in order to do what they need to do. Last time we talked about it, we were leaning towards the latter. Maybe a happy middle ground is to have enough smarts in the system to show the templates, identify what parts won't work, gray out the template but provide a ui to notifify the admin of desire for X to work. That way users can easily feed back their desires. Thanks, Kevin From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tests] Fix it friday! [mock failure in CI]
On 14 July 2015 at 22:41, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, no I didn't. By the time I got around to it I saw 264 and figured that would cover the issue. Ok - could you check? 1.1.3 has issue 264 fixed, and I'd like to fix this one too, if its still an issue. Bonus points for checking against 3.5's unittest,mock too. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [qa] identity v3 issue causing non-admin job to fail
Now that the tempest periodic jobs are back (thanks infra!), I was looking into the real failures. It seems the main one is caused by the fact that the v3 check for primary creds fails if 'admin_domain_name' in the identity section is None, which it is when devstack configures tempest for non-admin. The problem is with this code and there is even a comment related to this issue. There are various ways to fix this but I'm not sure what the value should be for the non-admin case. Andrea, any ideas? -David def get_credentials(fill_in=True, identity_version=None, **kwargs): params = dict(DEFAULT_PARAMS, **kwargs) identity_version = identity_version or CONF.identity.auth_version # In case of v3 add the domain from config if not specified if identity_version == 'v3': domain_fields = set(x for x in auth.KeystoneV3Credentials.ATTRIBUTES if 'domain' in x) if not domain_fields.intersection(kwargs.keys()): # TODO(andreaf) It might be better here to use a dedicated config # option such as CONF.auth.tenant_isolation_domain_name params['user_domain_name'] = CONF.identity.admin_domain_name auth_url = CONF.identity.uri_v3 else: auth_url = CONF.identity.uri return auth.get_credentials(auth_url, fill_in=fill_in, identity_version=identity_version, **params) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack][nova] proxy quota/limits info from neutron
On 7/14/2015 3:43 PM, Cale Rath wrote: Hi, I created a patch to fail on the proxy call to Neutron for used limits, found here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199604/ This patch was done because of this: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#no-more-api-proxies, where it’s stated that Nova shouldn’t be proxying API calls. That said, Matt Riedemann brings up the point that this breaks the case where Neutron is installed and we want to be more graceful, rather than just raising an exception. Here are some options: 1. fail - (the code in the patch above) 2. proxy to neutron for floating ips and security groups - that's what the original change was doing back in havana 3. return -1 or something for floatingips/security groups to indicate that we don't know, you have to get those from neutron Does anybody have an opinion on which option we should do regarding API proxies in this case? Thanks, Cale Rath __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I prefer the proxy option, despite that we don't want to do more proxies to other services, it's the least of all evils here in my opinion. I don't think we can do #1, that breaks anyone using those APIs and is using Neutron, so it's a non-starter. #3 is an API change in semantics which would at least be a microversion and is kind of clunky. For #2 we at least have the nova.network.base_api which we didn't have in Havana when I was originally working on this, that would abstract the neutron-specific cruft out of the nova-api code. The calls to neutron were pretty simple from what I remember - we could just resurrect the old patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43822/ Another option is #4, we mark the bug as won't fix and we log a warning if neutron is configured saying some of the resources aren't going to be correct, use the neutron API to get information for quotas on security groups, floating IPs, etc. That's also kind of gross IMO, but it's an option. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Tom Cammann for core
Tom, It is my pleasure to welcome you to the magnum-core group. We are happy to have you on the team. Regards, Adrian On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:20 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote: Team, Tom Cammann (tcammann) has become a valued Magnum contributor, and consistent reviewer helping us to shape the direction and quality of our new contributions. I nominate Tom to join the magnum-core team as our newest core reviewer. Please respond with a +1 vote if you agree. Alternatively, vote -1 to disagree, and include your rationale for consideration. Thanks, Adrian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Making users complain to admins that may have little to no control over what is and isn't available isn't a healthy strategy for user experience. Purposefully engineering hardship to try and influence operators to do the right thing in someone else's opinion sounds pretty counter productive to adoption as well. FWIW, as a user, I don't want to see things I can't use because it just wastes my time. I agree that the docs are a good place to see all the things while querying the service should tell me what's available to me at the time. On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: We're kind of debating the same thing for the app catalog. Do we show templates that don't work on a given cloud since they wont work, potentially making useful tools hard to discover, or do we view it as an opportunity for users to complain to their admins that they need X feature in order to do what they need to do. Last time we talked about it, we were leaning towards the latter. Maybe a happy middle ground is to have enough smarts in the system to show the templates, identify what parts won't work, gray out the template but provide a ui to notifify the admin of desire for X to work. That way users can easily feed back their desires. Thanks, Kevin From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] FFE Request: Re-add Quobyte Cinder Driver
On 17:44 Jul 14, Silvan Kaiser wrote: Hello Cinder Community! I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for change [1], re-adding the Quobyte driver to Cinder. The driver was removed in change [2] due to missing CI activity [3], it was originally added in the kilo release [4]. We've been able to remove the CI's issues and it has been reporting for a week now [5], stably testing and consistently showing two bugs (one in Nova and one in our driver/Cinder), referenced on the CIs status page [6]. We're monitoring the CI results continuously and the detected bugs are beeing addressed. The complete logs can be reviewed at [7]. CI status changes are published on the Quobyte CI Status page in the wiki [6], where there’s also our contact information. Thanks a lot for considering and best regards Silvan Kaiser (kaisers/casusbelli in IRC) [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201507/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191192/ [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/068609.html [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94186/ [5] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069183.html [6] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/Quobyte_CI [7] http://176.9.127.22:8081/?C=M;O=D The last 120 jobs have failed. Here's a paste of the 60 of them: http://paste.openstack.org/show/375484/ -- Mike Perez __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] Symbol not found: _BIO_new_CMS
Just for the sake of future googlers. I’ve encountered the same problem (with horizon actually) and managed to solve it. 1) install and link latest openssl from homebrew: brew update brew install openssl brew link --force openssl 2) run tox, it fails. 3) manually activate the environment you want: . .tox/venv/bin/activate 4) build cryptography package with brew ssl: LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/opt/openssl/lib CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/local/opt/openssl/include pip install --force-reinstall --upgrade --no-binary cryptography cryptography 5) deactivate that’s it — that should do the trick. Someone might be able to suggest a better way to do this, but this variant works for me. (As long as I do not rebuild venv too often =)) -- Kirill Zaitsev Murano team Software Engineer Mirantis, Inc__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] Symbol not found: _BIO_new_CMS
Also for the sake of future googlers: we gave up on supporting keystone development in OS X a release or two ago due to the increasing number of workarounds like this that we had to track (a few of which impacted the code base itself, and were thus dropped). On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Kirill Zaitsev kzait...@mirantis.com wrote: Just for the sake of future googlers. I’ve encountered the same problem (with horizon actually) and managed to solve it. 1) install and link latest openssl from homebrew: brew update brew install openssl brew link --force openssl 2) run tox, it fails. 3) manually activate the environment you want: . .tox/venv/bin/activate 4) build cryptography package with brew ssl: LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/opt/openssl/lib CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/local/opt/openssl/include pip install --force-reinstall --upgrade --no-binary cryptography cryptography 5) deactivate that’s it — that should do the trick. Someone might be able to suggest a better way to do this, but this variant works for me. (As long as I do not rebuild venv too often =)) -- Kirill Zaitsev Murano team Software Engineer Mirantis, Inc __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Juno Compute RPC v3.33 Endpoint Error when the Controller is running rabbitMQ v3.4.2
3rd posting Hi Experts, I have a three node Juno system running on Ubuntu 14.04. On the compute node I keep getting the following Endpoint does not support RPC version 3.33 to caller error when I launch a Nova instance. The Controller is running rabbitMQ v3.4.2. So I do not understand why the compute node thinks the endpoint does not support v3.33. I tried both rabbitMQ v3.3.3 and v3.5 on the compute node with the same result. Data below. Any suggestions? https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/69203/juno-controller-rabbitmq-v342-but-compute-node-v333-rpc-error/ Regards, Gregg Marxer | Field Systems Engineer O 949.631.6733 M 732.713.1361 f5.comhttps://www.f5.com/ | synthesis.f5.comhttps://synthesis.f5.com/ __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder: July 16 is non-priority feature proposal freeze
On 14 July 2015 at 18:40, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/14/2015 05:52 AM, John Garbutt wrote: Please note, the non-priority feature freeze is on: July 30 So technically both are correct, neither are complete, oops: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule July 16: non-priority feature proposal freeze July 30: liberty-2 -- non-priority feature freeze Thanks, John __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] Liberty Mid Cycle Meetup
Hello everybody, Just a reminder about the mid-cycle next week. If you haven’t already, please add your name to the list[0] of people coming so we have a final head count on ordering morning / afternoon snacks. If your name is on the list and you aren’t coming, please remove it or indicate that you’d try to attend remotely. We’ll try to have webex or something via a laptop, which hopefully will be better than nothing. The mid-cycle is intended to be a lot of pairing up sessions on priorities established at the summit [2]. However, if you have specific topics to discuss, just add them somewhere on the agenda list[0] so they are tracked and we can cover them. The times for sessions on the agenda likely won’t be followed too closely as small group break outs happen. For Tuesday evening, if anybody is interested we might do a short hike in the nearby foothills before dinner. If so, bring some comfortable walking shoes. And a reminder that location info is at link [2] below. [0] Agenda / Attendance List: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w0eI6SPCA2IrOyHiEYC2uDO3fbYGzahZRUQSva0UD3Y/edit#gid=1788841692 [1] Liberty Priorities: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-horizon-liberty-priorities [2] Info on location is here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-liberty-midcycle Thanks, Travis On 6/19/15, 10:14 AM, Tripp, Travis S travis.tr...@hp.com wrote: Hi everybody, I got confirmation for hosting the mid cycle meetup at the HP Office in Fort Collins on July 21st - 23rd. I’ve put details on the location with a couple nearby hotels on the following ether pad. The room we have reserved can hold about 40 people, but I’ve requested for it to be setup so that we can have a couple different work areas in the room. There will be a u-shape configuration at the front of the room for 20 and another u-shape at the back of the room for 10 to be used for breakout discussions. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-liberty-midcycle A question I have is whether we’ll want to have lunch catered or if we’ll want to let everybody out for an hour to get lunch from one of the nearby restaurants. There is a cafeteria on site as well. If we decide to have it catered, I’ll have to know of any special dietary requests. Thanks, Travis __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [neutron] Service Chain project IRC meeting agenda
Hi everyone, Below are some items we plan to discuss in the next IRC meeting. Please add more topics you would like to discuss if any. Thanks, Cathy * Spec update for addressing new comments, and review * SFC CLI client and Horizon Client dependency on base Neutron CLI and Horizon code * OVS Driver and OVS support for classifier and SFF. If we decide to go for no SFC header with chain ID, then the OVS has to build a forwarding table based on 5-tuple or n-tuple for flow identification. * ? __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] New Criteria for UX bugs
Sounds good to start, we can always adjust later if needed. I actually changed one doc bug priority already using this criteria. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:42 AM Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/09/2015 06:14 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote: We often have bugs which create really poor User eXperience (UX) but our current bug priority criteria prevent nearly all of them from being higher than medium (as they nearly always have workarounds). We need to identify what should qualify as a critical, or high UX defect so that they can receive appropriate attention. We discussed what this may look like on the IRC meeting, the general idea here is that the complexity of effort to work around the UX issue should be related to the priority. Critical: requires massive effort to work around, including [un|under] documented commands and edits to config files High: requires modification of config files, interfaces that users aren't expected to use (ie the API when it's _intended_ to work in the CLI / UI (exclusive of interfaces that are intended to only be available via API) or requires custom node yaml (again except when it should exclusively be available) Medium: Straight forward commands in the CLI Above criteria look excellent to me, thanks Andrew! -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Yeah. Sounds reasonable. I just wanted to raise the discussion since one might affect the implementation of the other. In fact, thinking through it more, having the validate template api be restricted to just what the specific instance of heat can do actually might help play a part in the solution to the other issue. If you go look at the template in the app catalog ui in horizon, it could call out to heat template validate at that point and let you know if its supported or not by your specific cloud. If it validated for all clouds, that wouldn't be an option. Though there is another issue the catalog will eventually hit where we would like to have a repo of contributed templates that we can do some automated tests to ensure they either work or at least validate. The --all flag would probably help with that case. In the test environment, we might not be able to test against some advanced services but could at least tell if it was a valid template. Thanks, Kevin From: Randall Burt [randall.b...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 3:58 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - secondthoughts A feedback mechanism for users is obviously a good thing, but IMO, not germane to the threads original purpose of how and when to expose supported resources in Heat. I cannot imagine us implementing such a feature directly. This may be a good discussion to have in the context of app catalog exclusively and not in the context of Heat since we seem to be discussing a generally available catalog vs Heat running in a specific environment. These two issues are quite different in terms of what's supported. In the Heat case, the documentation in OpenStack is good enough IMO for what are all the things Heat can possibly let me do while the chosen endpoint is the place to answer what are the things *this* installation of Heat will let me do. If the answer to the latter is unsatisfactory, then the user should already have mechanisms to encourage the operator to provide what's missing. On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: Without a feedback loop of some kind, how does one solve issues like the following: * Operator decides users don't need neutron NaaS because its too complicated and users don't need it (Seen on the mailing list multiple times) * Software developer writes cloud templates that deploys software that needs private networks to work (For example, ElasticSearch) * User wants to deploy said software but can't discover a working version. User is sad because they can't find a working template to do what they want. They either reinvent the wheel, or give up and don't use the cloud for that task. Being able to close the loop and let the operator easily know the users actually need something they aren't providing gives them the opportunity to fix the issue, benefiting all 3 parties. Thanks, Kevin From: Randall Burt [randall.b...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - secondthoughts Making users complain to admins that may have little to no control over what is and isn't available isn't a healthy strategy for user experience. Purposefully engineering hardship to try and influence operators to do the right thing in someone else's opinion sounds pretty counter productive to adoption as well. FWIW, as a user, I don't want to see things I can't use because it just wastes my time. I agree that the docs are a good place to see all the things while querying the service should tell me what's available to me at the time. On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: We're kind of debating the same thing for the app catalog. Do we show templates that don't work on a given cloud since they wont work, potentially making useful tools hard to discover, or do we view it as an opportunity for users to complain to their admins that they need X feature in order to do what they need to do. Last time we talked about it, we were leaning towards the latter. Maybe a happy middle ground is to have enough smarts in the system to show the templates, identify what parts won't work, gray out the template but provide a ui to notifify the admin of desire for X to work. That way users can easily feed back their desires. Thanks, Kevin From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user
Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] New IRC meeting time
Glad to see this change. Thanks for the supporting for developers in Asia☺ BR Zhou Zhenzan From: Tim Hinrichs [mailto:t...@styra.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 02:14 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Congress] New IRC meeting time To better accommodate the active contributors, we're moving our IRC meeting to 2300 UTC = 4p Pacific = 7p Eastern #openstack-meeting-3 Hope to see you there! Tim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Nova] Virtual device role tagging
Hello, I'd like to get the conversation started around a spec that my colleague Dan Berrange has proposed to the backlog. The spec [1] solves the problem of passing information about virtual devices into an instance. For example, in an instance with multiple network interfaces, each connected to profoundly different networks, software running inside the instance needs to know each NIC's role. Similarly, in an instance with multiple disks, each intended for different a usage, software inside the instance needs to know each disk's role. I feel like a lot of discussion will happen around this spec before it can be merged - hopefully in the M cycle - so I'm requesting comments and suggestions very early ;) Thanks all! [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195662/1 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] 答复: [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
-邮件原件- 发件人: Zane Bitter [mailto:zbit...@redhat.com] 发送时间: 2015年7月15日 3:35 收件人: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts On 14/07/15 14:34, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) I'd agree with Zane. Only allow admins to getting all resource types not ordinary users. resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? I'd prefer to allow admins to show all resource type. The behavior should be consistent, ordinary users can only show the resource type which they can list. template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? I'd agree with Zane. And I think if we can give the detail reasons(service unavailable or resources type is not supported) why the validation is failed will be good to users. cheers, Zane. The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditio nal-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditio nal-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [cinder] Vedams' DotHill, Lenovo and HP MSA CIs are Unstable
These three CIs are unstable and the drivers are in danger of being removed from the Liberty release since the maintainer has not communicated any maintenance happening. http://paste.openstack.org/show/375584/ http://paste.openstack.org/show/375585/ http://paste.openstack.org/show/375586/ I will be requesting the HP MSA CI to be disabled in the third party list, since it has failed the last 60 runs in the last 5 days. This is unacceptable and we need Vedams to be more on top of this. -- Mike Perez __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
Hi Magnum Guys, I want to raise this question through ML. In this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/ For some old history reason, we use platform to indicate 'vm' or 'baremetal'. This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, and someone prefer other names, let me summarize as below: 1. nova_instance_type 2 votes 2. instance_type 2 votes 3. others (1 vote, but not proposed any name) Let's try to reach the agreement ASAP. I think count the final votes winner as the proper name is the best solution(considering community diversity). BTW, If you not proposed any better name, just vote to disagree all, I think that vote is not valid and not helpful to solve the issue. Please help to vote for that name. Thanks Best Wishes, Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing E-mail: wk...@cn.ibm.com Tel: 86-10-82451647 Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193 Follow your heart. You are miracle!__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [testing] moving testrepository *outside* the tox venv
On 13 July 2015 at 06:19, Mike Bayer mba...@redhat.com wrote: On 7/11/15 6:04 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Wearing my upstream hat, testr is *still* intended to be used differently than OpenStack is doing. Running all the tests for all python versions at once in parallel is the sort of thing testr is aimed at, and thats fairly fundamentally incompatible with running from inside a venv. As is distributed testing across multiple machines. I haven't had time to help OpenStack mature its use of testr until recently, and fixing these issues that are and will have seems pretty important to me. this is totally a peanut gallery comment, as I haven't carefully read this whole thread, but doesn't this mean that the use of testr *and* tox at the same time is fundamentally wrong? Because tox's main purpose is to facilitate running tests in multiple environments (though not simultaneously / distributed). If testr already does that, why are we using tox? (other than the IMO fairly obvious, it's used ubiquitously, is popular, and everyone knows how to use it argument). It's a totally reasonable question and the answer is that they are complementary. tox is Python specific. testr is not. testr doesn't want to learn about making sdists, for instance :). So use tox to setup a given virtualenv, and testr to run the tests within that. I think that testr wants to orchestrate that, eventually. For now, all we need to do (AFAICT) is: a - get testr installed on the infra images b - update the developer docs to also instruct folk to install testr c - stop using the (ugh, it was a mistake) setup.py glue that runs testr d - remove testrepository from everyone's test-requirements.txt step c) is likely to uncover one or more missing integration points in testr, which we'll fix promptly. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Tom Cammann for core
Thanks team, happy to be here :) Tom On 14 Jul 2015, at 23:02, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote: Tom, It is my pleasure to welcome you to the magnum-core group. We are happy to have you on the team. Regards, Adrian On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:20 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote: Team, Tom Cammann (tcammann) has become a valued Magnum contributor, and consistent reviewer helping us to shape the direction and quality of our new contributions. I nominate Tom to join the magnum-core team as our newest core reviewer. Please respond with a +1 vote if you agree. Alternatively, vote -1 to disagree, and include your rationale for consideration. Thanks, Adrian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Separate repo for Fuel Agent
Thanks Vladimir. Let's ensure to get it done sooner than later (this might require to be tested in custom ISO..) - we are approaching FF, and I expect growing queues of patches to land... On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:03 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Dear colleagues, New repository [1] has been created. So, please port all your review requests to stackforge/fuel-web related to Fuel Agent to this new repository. Currently, I am testing these two patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200595 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200025. If they work, we need to merge them and that is it. Review is welcome. [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-agent.git Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Ok, guys. Looks like there are no any objections. At the moment I need to create actual version of upstream repository which is going to be sucked in by OpenStack Infra. Please, be informed that all patches changing fuel-web/fuel_agent that will be merged after this moment will need to be ported into the new fuel-agent repository. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Guys, we are next to moving fuel_agent directory into a separate repository. Action flow is going to be as follows: 1) Create verify jobs on our CI https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/9186 (DONE) 2) Freeze fuel_agent directory in https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web (will announce in a separate mail thread). That means we stop merging patches into master which change fuel_agent directory. Unfortunately, all review requests need to be re-sent, but it is not going to be very difficult. 3) Create temporary upstream repository with fuel_agent/* as a content. I'm not planning to move 5.x and 6.x branches. Only master. So, all fixes for 5.x and 6.x will be living in fuel-web. 4) This upstream repository is going to be sucked in by openstack-infra. Patch is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/ (review is welcome) I don't know how long it is going to take. Will try to poke infra people to do this today. 5) Then we need to accept two patches into new fuel-agent repository: - rpm spec (extraction from fuel-web/specs/nailgun.spec) (ready, but there is no review request) - run_tests.sh (to run tests) (ready, but there is no review request) !!! By this moment there won't be any impact on ISO build process !!! 6) Then we need to change two things at the same time (review is welcome) - fuel-web/specs/nailgun.spec in order to prevent fuel-agent package building https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200595 - fuel-main so as to introduce new fuel-agent repository into the build process https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200025 And good luck to me -) Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: There were some questions from Alexandra Fedorova about independent release cycle. according to the configuration [1] Infra team won't be able to do branching or any kind of release management for new repository. Could you please clarify, do we plan to version new repository the same way as we do for main fuel repositories or there going to be separate releases as in python-fuelclient [2]? Who should drive the release process for this repo and how this change will affect Fuel ISO release? [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/1/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel-agent.config,cm [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/068837.html IMO all Fuel components should be as much independent as possible with highly defined APIs used for their interaction, with their own teams, with their own independent release cycles. But we cannot switch to this model immediately. For the start, we can just move those components into separate repositories, leaving the same access rights and core team as we have for fuel-web. When Fuel Agent is a separate repository we discuss team. It looks like a team leader is the best person to manage releases for a particular component. This thread is totally about separation stuff and how to do this not breaking anything. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote: Dear colleagues, I am going to move Fuel Agent into a separate git repository. The thing is that we have quite a few review requests to fuel-web with changes for Fuel Agent. The new repository is going to look like this https://github.com/kozhukalov/fuel-agent i.e. there is no additional sub-directory fuel_agent. In fact, I don't think it is a big deal to update all fuel agent related review requests. Work items: 0) request to openstack-infra https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199178/1 0.1) upstream for this request with commit history https://github.com/kozhukalov/fuel-agent 1)
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Without a feedback loop of some kind, how does one solve issues like the following: * Operator decides users don't need neutron NaaS because its too complicated and users don't need it (Seen on the mailing list multiple times) * Software developer writes cloud templates that deploys software that needs private networks to work (For example, ElasticSearch) * User wants to deploy said software but can't discover a working version. User is sad because they can't find a working template to do what they want. They either reinvent the wheel, or give up and don't use the cloud for that task. Being able to close the loop and let the operator easily know the users actually need something they aren't providing gives them the opportunity to fix the issue, benefiting all 3 parties. Thanks, Kevin From: Randall Burt [randall.b...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - secondthoughts Making users complain to admins that may have little to no control over what is and isn't available isn't a healthy strategy for user experience. Purposefully engineering hardship to try and influence operators to do the right thing in someone else's opinion sounds pretty counter productive to adoption as well. FWIW, as a user, I don't want to see things I can't use because it just wastes my time. I agree that the docs are a good place to see all the things while querying the service should tell me what's available to me at the time. On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: We're kind of debating the same thing for the app catalog. Do we show templates that don't work on a given cloud since they wont work, potentially making useful tools hard to discover, or do we view it as an opportunity for users to complain to their admins that they need X feature in order to do what they need to do. Last time we talked about it, we were leaning towards the latter. Maybe a happy middle ground is to have enough smarts in the system to show the templates, identify what parts won't work, gray out the template but provide a ui to notifify the admin of desire for X to work. That way users can easily feed back their desires. Thanks, Kevin From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-services.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditional-resource-exposure-roles.html Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
A feedback mechanism for users is obviously a good thing, but IMO, not germane to the threads original purpose of how and when to expose supported resources in Heat. I cannot imagine us implementing such a feature directly. This may be a good discussion to have in the context of app catalog exclusively and not in the context of Heat since we seem to be discussing a generally available catalog vs Heat running in a specific environment. These two issues are quite different in terms of what's supported. In the Heat case, the documentation in OpenStack is good enough IMO for what are all the things Heat can possibly let me do while the chosen endpoint is the place to answer what are the things *this* installation of Heat will let me do. If the answer to the latter is unsatisfactory, then the user should already have mechanisms to encourage the operator to provide what's missing. On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: Without a feedback loop of some kind, how does one solve issues like the following: * Operator decides users don't need neutron NaaS because its too complicated and users don't need it (Seen on the mailing list multiple times) * Software developer writes cloud templates that deploys software that needs private networks to work (For example, ElasticSearch) * User wants to deploy said software but can't discover a working version. User is sad because they can't find a working template to do what they want. They either reinvent the wheel, or give up and don't use the cloud for that task. Being able to close the loop and let the operator easily know the users actually need something they aren't providing gives them the opportunity to fix the issue, benefiting all 3 parties. Thanks, Kevin From: Randall Burt [randall.b...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:40 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] [app-catalog] conditional resource exposure - secondthoughts Making users complain to admins that may have little to no control over what is and isn't available isn't a healthy strategy for user experience. Purposefully engineering hardship to try and influence operators to do the right thing in someone else's opinion sounds pretty counter productive to adoption as well. FWIW, as a user, I don't want to see things I can't use because it just wastes my time. I agree that the docs are a good place to see all the things while querying the service should tell me what's available to me at the time. On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: We're kind of debating the same thing for the app catalog. Do we show templates that don't work on a given cloud since they wont work, potentially making useful tools hard to discover, or do we view it as an opportunity for users to complain to their admins that they need X feature in order to do what they need to do. Last time we talked about it, we were leaning towards the latter. Maybe a happy middle ground is to have enough smarts in the system to show the templates, identify what parts won't work, gray out the template but provide a ui to notifify the admin of desire for X to work. That way users can easily feed back their desires. Thanks, Kevin From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Being spammed by bugs when assigned to whole fuel team
Thank you. I think I resolved this with new filter matching exact You received this bug notification because you are a member of. If I'm subscribed directly to the bug, there is another message is used by LP like You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug report. *https://bugs https://bugs.*launchpad*.net/bugs/1474120* On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM Aleksandra Fedorova afedor...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, Mike, let me post a quote from #launchpad IRC chat: bookwar: hi all, is there any permission setting which forbids subscribing someone to the bug? As i see it, one can easily spam a group by subscribing it to a certain bug. How we can prevent this? mgz: ban the person doing the spamming? mgz: launchpad assumes its users are generally sane, but has recourse if that turns out to not be the case This quote is about 1.5 year old, but i guess the idea is still the same. As a possible workaround it should be possible to set main filters to filter out less common mail headers, for example: X-Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Assignee @fuel-dev See [1] for details. [1] https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/Subscriptions On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, DevOps guys - when someone assigns bug to Fuel for OpenStack, message is being sent to 120 people. Is there a way to restrict such assignment in Launchpad? I want to only allow fuel-python, and other subteams available. Or do something with LP groups. The problem is that I'm getting tired of many (not relevant to me) bugs flowing in my inbox, and stop paying attention. I'll have to create filter. And if someone needs my attention in particular bug, subscribes me to it - I'll miss it, as it will be filtered by the same way. Thank you, -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Aleksandra Fedorova Fuel Devops Engineer bookwar __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] New IRC meeting time
I'm happy to see that. btw, is the day on Tuesday? best regard, masa On 2015/07/15 9:52, Zhou, Zhenzan wrote: Glad to see this change. Thanks for the supporting for developers in Asia☺ BR Zhou Zhenzan From: Tim Hinrichs [mailto:t...@styra.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 02:14 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Congress] New IRC meeting time To better accommodate the active contributors, we're moving our IRC meeting to 2300 UTC = 4p Pacific = 7p Eastern #openstack-meeting-3 Hope to see you there! Tim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- 室井 雅仁(Masahito MUROI) Software Innovation Center, NTT Tel: +81-422-59-4539,FAX: +81-422-59-2699 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
I am going to propose a third option: 3. virt_type I have concerns about option 1 and 2, because “instance_type” and flavor was used interchangeably before [1]. If we use “instance_type” to indicate “vm” or “baremetal”, it may cause confusions. [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/flavor-instance-type-dedup Best regards, Hongbin From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com] Sent: July-14-15 9:35 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type? Hi Magnum Guys, I want to raise this question through ML. In this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/ For some old history reason, we use platform to indicate 'vm' or 'baremetal'. This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, and someone prefer other names, let me summarize as below: 1. nova_instance_type 2 votes 2. instance_type 2 votes 3. others (1 vote, but not proposed any name) Let's try to reach the agreement ASAP. I think count the final votes winner as the proper name is the best solution(considering community diversity). BTW, If you not proposed any better name, just vote to disagree all, I think that vote is not valid and not helpful to solve the issue. Please help to vote for that name. Thanks Best Wishes, Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing E-mail: wk...@cn.ibm.commailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com Tel: 86-10-82451647 Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193 Follow your heart. You are miracle! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
One drawback to virt_type if not seen in the context of the acceptable values, is that it should be set to values like libvirt, xen, ironic, etc. That might actually be good. Instead of using the values 'vm' or 'baremetal', we use the name of the nova virt driver, and interpret those to be vm or baremetal types. So if I set the value to 'xen', I know the nova instance type is a vm, and 'ironic' means a baremetal nova instance. Adrian Original message From: Hongbin Lu hongbin...@huawei.com Date: 07/14/2015 7:20 PM (GMT-08:00) To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type? I am going to propose a third option: 3. virt_type I have concerns about option 1 and 2, because “instance_type” and flavor was used interchangeably before [1]. If we use “instance_type” to indicate “vm” or “baremetal”, it may cause confusions. [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/flavor-instance-type-dedup Best regards, Hongbin From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com] Sent: July-14-15 9:35 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type? Hi Magnum Guys, I want to raise this question through ML. In this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/ For some old history reason, we use platform to indicate 'vm' or 'baremetal'. This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, and someone prefer other names, let me summarize as below: 1. nova_instance_type 2 votes 2. instance_type 2 votes 3. others (1 vote, but not proposed any name) Let's try to reach the agreement ASAP. I think count the final votes winner as the proper name is the best solution(considering community diversity). BTW, If you not proposed any better name, just vote to disagree all, I think that vote is not valid and not helpful to solve the issue. Please help to vote for that name. Thanks Best Wishes, Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing E-mail: wk...@cn.ibm.commailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com Tel: 86-10-82451647 Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193 Follow your heart. You are miracle! __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Like to share my opinions as below: Resource-type-list/resource-type-show: Once the role based resource exposure is enabled, based on the user's role, I believe, (s)he would expect to see those deployed resource-types, which are authorized. And wanted to know if that resource-type is available currently on that cloud. So by default, it will essentially filter out those un-authorized resource-types from the users, but it will provide the additional information, whether resource-type is currently available or not. (admin has access to all resource-types). And resource-type-list could be enhanced further with additional filtering flag like : '---show-authorized': default behavior '--show-unavailable': list those authorized un-available resource-types '--show-available': list those authorized available resource-types '--show-unauthorized': This may be wrong one, I too believe. But like to get others opinion on it. It list all the deployed resource-types, which are un-authorized. It becomes like live resource-type documents from running heat service. (other place user may want to know the same details from the public resource-type document available in the internet) . But here, operators may want to disable to report the un-authorized resource-types to those user, who does not have right roles. So we could provide config parameter for the same. I'm not sure on it though ! Template-validate: As it really helps user to validate the template, before starting the stack creation, it would be better to validate complete template and report all the errors in the template, which includes the unavailability of the service in the service catalog, authorization check as well. Currently, template-validate exit on the occurrence of first error in the template. (I'm working on it) Regards Kanagaraj M -Original Message- From: Zane Bitter [mailto:zbit...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:05 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts On 14/07/15 14:34, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) I worry that this could result in leakage of potentially-sensitive information. e.g. once we have this feature implemented, an operator could deploy a plugin that is only for the use of one particular user, who has a custom role. I don't think it would be expected that other users (without that role) in other tenants could find out about that, even if all they can find out is the name of the resource type. I definitely think that admins should have a way of getting a list of _all_ resource types (preferably annotated with the roles required to use them). Just not ordinary users. resource-type-show Right now the plan is to disable showing unavailable to the user resources. But may be we should leave this as it is, for the same purpose as above (or again add a --all flag or such)? This is totally unnecessary IMHO for the reasons Clint mentioned. Again, I could imagine an exception for admins though, since I suspect that this API is the only way we can annotate resource types with the roles required without performing major surgery on resource-type-list. template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? You call template-validate when you're about to launch the template and you want to know what parameters and stuff are required. If YOU cannot launch THIS template on THIS cloud right NOW it should fail, period. cheers, Zane. The bottom line is we are good in making Heat service to be as much self-documented via its own API as possible - let's keep doing that and make any Heat deployment to be the Heat primer :) Eager to hear your opinions. [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/liberty/conditio nal-resource-exposure-services.html [2]
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] The way magnum-conductor communicates with k8s master
From: Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.commailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:11 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] The way magnum-conductor communicates with k8s master On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: From: OTSUKA, Motohiro yuany...@oeilvert.orgmailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:11 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] The way magnum-conductor communicates with k8s master Hi, Wanghua Currently magnum-conductor can communicates with k8s master which has a floating ip in all-in-one deployment. But if magnum-conductor is not deployed on the neutron network node which has the br-ex, how can magnum-conductor communicate with k8s master. The magnum-conductor node then has no access to the k8s master. Currently this is a limitation of our architecture. The floating IP is a public routed network, so it should be able to communicate in a properly setup cloud. Another question: Magnum-conductor only communicate with k8s master, why k8s minion has a floating ip too? What is the floating ip of k8s minion used for? I think, there is no reason. Historically, Our heat template come from larsks/heat-kubernetes [1] template. larsks/heat-kubernetes provides floating ip to minion nodes, this is just a reason. The minion floating ips are needed to access the micro-service front ends from the internet. To be clear, the actual requirement is that the minion nodes must be able to make TCP connections to the master node. Depending on the routing setup on your nodes, and the arrangement of your network, that could be possible without a floating ip on the minion nodes. With that in mind, having a publicly routable address (floating ip) on your minion node is one way to produce such connectivity. I’m sure we would be open to a proposal that eliminates our requirement for the floating ip on the minion nodes that would work properly in various network environments. The minions need to be publically routed, but the master does not. The reason minions need to be publically routed is because front end applications (such as chrome) access the microservices running in the k8s cluster via their publically routed ip address. Regards -steve Adrian Regards -steve [1]: https://github.com/larsks/heat-kubernetes Thanks -Yuanying __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] conditional resource exposure - second thoughts
Excerpts from Pavlo Shchelokovskyy's message of 2015-07-14 11:34:37 -0700: Hi Heaters, currently we already expose to the user only resources for services deployed in the cloud [1], and soon we will do the same based on whether actual user roles allow creating specific resources [2]. Here I would like to get your opinion on some of my thoughts regarding behavior of resource-type-list, resource-type-show and template-validate with this new features. resource-type-list We already (or soon will) hide unavailable in the cloud / for the user resources from the listing. But what if we add an API flag e.g. --all to show all registered in the engine resources? That would give any user a glimpse of what their Orchestration service can manage in principle, so they can nag the cloud operator to install additional OpenStack components or give them required roles :) There are more variables that lead to a resource being hidden than the catalog. The version of Heat, whether the plugin is available, libraries installed on the server, etc. The canonical place for all things possible, and the place that users should be encouraged to use, is the documentation of Heat. These API's should only be for inspection of what is available on the Heat service one is talking to. template-validate Right now Heat is failing validation for templates containing resource types not registered in the engine (e.g. typo). Should we also make this call available services- and roles-sensitive? Or should we leave a way for a user to check validity of any template with any in principle supported resources? I believe the current behavior is correct. The idea is to be able to edit a template, and then validate it on all the clouds you want to push it to. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] OpenStack Mitaka (三鷹) - Our next release name has been selected
Hi everybody! Ok. There is nothing more actually useful I can say that isn't in the subject line. As I mentioned previously, the preliminary results from our name election are here: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_4983776e190c8dbc As you are all probably aware by now, as a follow on step, the OpenStack Foundation staff assessed the names chosen for legal risk in the order we ranked them. The first two had significant identified problems so we skipped them. The third had no legal problems, but after announcing it as the choice, it came to light that there were significant social issues surrounding the name. The fourth on the list, Mitaka (三鷹) is clear. So please join me in welcoming the latest name to our family ... and if you, like me, are not a native Japanese speaker, in learning two (more) new characters. I'd also like to thank everyone in our community for understanding. As we try our best to be an inclusive worldwide community, the opportunities for unwitting missteps are vast and ultimately probably unavoidable. Being able to recognize and deal with them and learn from them as they occur makes me proud of who we are and what we've become. Thanks! Monty __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack Mitaka (三鷹) - Our next release name has been selected
On 7/14/15, 13:47, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote: Hi everybody! Ok. There is nothing more actually useful I can say that isn't in the subject line. As I mentioned previously, the preliminary results from our name election are here: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_4983776e190c8dbc As you are all probably aware by now, as a follow on step, the OpenStack Foundation staff assessed the names chosen for legal risk in the order we ranked them. The first two had significant identified problems so we skipped them. The third had no legal problems, but after announcing it as the choice, it came to light that there were significant social issues surrounding the name. The fourth on the list, Mitaka (三鷹) is clear. So please join me in welcoming the latest name to our family ... and if you, like me, are not a native Japanese speaker, in learning two (more) new characters. I'd also like to thank everyone in our community for understanding. As we try our best to be an inclusive worldwide community, the opportunities for unwitting missteps are vast and ultimately probably unavoidable. Being able to recognize and deal with them and learn from them as they occur makes me proud of who we are and what we've become. I agree. It's really encouraging to see a community as large as OpenStack embrace inclusivity and empathy around social issues. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev