subject:"\[openstack\-dev\] \[fuel\] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature"

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Evgeniy L

Hi Alexander, I don't agree with your statements

[1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values.

It's what templating is about, you have some text preprocessor to
substitute values.

That is not ERB style template language.

ERB uses the same syntax, hence it Is ERB style.

[2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not html
template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution.

We *are using* jinja templating (I don't understand why you mention here
html),
with all it's features and here is the proof [1].

And in current code we have a problem with content at first parsed from
yaml and that parser treats { and [ as a start if a dict or an array.

key: {{blha}}

[3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe
some familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.

That is not correct, every template has it's own syntax, so people have to
care about
specific implementation i.e. Jinja or ERB, and there will be confusion when
somebody will
try to use ERB specific features, and she/he will fail because you hide
Jinja under ERB
syntax.

[1]
https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/objects/node.py#L854-L855

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Kostrikov
akostri...@mirantis.com wrote:

Completely agree with Sergey.

Currently network template uses ERB [1] style template language,
but in fact it's Jinja [2], it was agreed to change it [3], no to confuse
the user

[1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values. That is not ERB style
template language.
[2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not html
template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution. And in current code
we have a problem with content at first parsed from yaml and that parser
treats { and [ as a start if a dict or an array.
[3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe some
familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Sergey Vasilenko
svasile...@mirantis.com wrote:

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

Currently network template uses ERB [1] style template language,
but in fact it's Jinja [2], it was agreed to change it [3], no to confuse
the user, with ERB which is in fact jinja and doesn't have any ERB
features.

we have not so much syntax choices for convenient templating. Network
temptales will be used by system administrators.
The '% %' pair is a de-facto standart in this area. In the puppet
world. Not every system administrator will meaning ERB when seeing '% %'
pair.
Another pairs (i.e. '$ $' , ' ', etc) looks more
non-standart. Plenty of syntax features are annoy and make usability of
product less convenient.
I propose do not make extra essences on the clean area...

We never say in the docs about ERB. IMHO it's enough for leave '% %'
as is.

/sv

__
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

Kind Regards,

Alexandr Kostrikov,

Mirantis, Inc.

35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St., 109147, Moscow, Russia

Tel.: +7 (495) 640-49-04
Tel.: +7 (925) 716-64-52 %2B7%20%28906%29%20740-64-79

Skype: akostrikov_mirantis

E-mail: akostri...@mirantis.com elogut...@mirantis.com

*www.mirantis.com http://www.mirantis.ru/*
*www.mirantis.ru http://www.mirantis.ru/*

__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Sergey Vasilenko

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Currently network template uses ERB [1] style template language,
 but in fact it's Jinja [2], it was agreed to change it [3], no to confuse
 the user, with ERB which is in fact jinja and doesn't have any ERB
 features.


we have not so much syntax choices for  convenient templating. Network
temptales will be used by system administrators.
The '%  %' pair is a de-facto standart in this area. In the puppet world.
Not every system administrator will meaning ERB when seeing '% %' pair.
Another pairs (i.e. '$ $' , ' ', etc) looks more non-standart. Plenty
of syntax features are annoy and make usability of product less convenient.
I propose do not make extra essences on the clean area...

We never say in the docs about ERB. IMHO it's enough for leave '%  %' as
is.


/sv
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Sergey Vasilenko

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Hi Alexander, I don't agree with your statements

  [1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values.

 It's what templating is about, you have some text preprocessor to
 substitute values.


Network templates feature don't mean any  text preprocessor actions. Only
value substitutions


  That is not ERB style template language.

 ERB uses the same syntax, hence it Is ERB style.


... hence it looks like ERB. not more.
Not only ruby used for programming. Non only EBD -- is template language. ;)


  [2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not html
 template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution.

 We *are using* jinja templating (I don't understand why you mention here
 html),
 with all it's features and here is the proof [1].


We don't promise use Junja (or whatever) template language for this feature.
If some jinja features allowed for parsing Network template -- it's a bug.
We should check it and fix it.
Only value substitutions should allow in the network templates.


  [3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe
 some familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.

 That is not correct, every template has it's own syntax, so people have to
 care about
 specific implementation i.e. Jinja or ERB, and there will be confusion
 when somebody will
 try to use ERB specific features, and she/he will fail because you hide
 Jinja under ERB
 syntax.


I, partially, agree with you. But please honored to following facts:
* In the deployers world used Jinja and ERB syntax.
* ERB used more often, because Ansible (I don't know another popular
deployers tools with Jinja templating) is to young.
* Plenty of syntax features is a really hell.

In the Network templates we don't suppose anything other than a simple
substitution variable values.
All logic of template processing implementing on Nailgun side. Now on the
template parsing, later -- on the network manipulation class.
Allowance of mix template language and Nailgun logic may lead to heavy
diagnostic issues.
Meantime I don't see any cases, where required something more, than
substitution.



/sv
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Evgeniy L

Hi Sergey,

Thanks, now I see why we had misunderstanding. The problem is currently
all set of features which Jinja2 provides is available for the user. As far
as
I know there is no way in Jinja to disable all of the functionality except
just
substitution.

If we need only substitution, probably it's better to use standard
templating
in python [1], there is a way to redefine tokens, so you will be able to use
% % syntax if you want to.

[1] https://docs.python.org/2.6/library/string.html#template-strings
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/string.html#template-strings
[2] http://pymotw.com/2/string/#advanced-templates

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
wrote:


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Hi Alexander, I don't agree with your statements

  [1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values.

 It's what templating is about, you have some text preprocessor to
 substitute values.


 Network templates feature don't mean any  text preprocessor actions.
 Only value substitutions


  That is not ERB style template language.

 ERB uses the same syntax, hence it Is ERB style.


 ... hence it looks like ERB. not more.
 Not only ruby used for programming. Non only EBD -- is template language.
 ;)


  [2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not
 html template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution.

 We *are using* jinja templating (I don't understand why you mention here
 html),
 with all it's features and here is the proof [1].


 We don't promise use Junja (or whatever) template language for this
 feature.
 If some jinja features allowed for parsing Network template -- it's a bug.
 We should check it and fix it.
 Only value substitutions should allow in the network templates.


  [3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe
 some familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.

 That is not correct, every template has it's own syntax, so people have
 to care about
 specific implementation i.e. Jinja or ERB, and there will be confusion
 when somebody will
 try to use ERB specific features, and she/he will fail because you hide
 Jinja under ERB
 syntax.


 I, partially, agree with you. But please honored to following facts:
 * In the deployers world used Jinja and ERB syntax.
 * ERB used more often, because Ansible (I don't know another popular
 deployers tools with Jinja templating) is to young.
 * Plenty of syntax features is a really hell.

 In the Network templates we don't suppose anything other than a simple
 substitution variable values.
 All logic of template processing implementing on Nailgun side. Now on the
 template parsing, later -- on the network manipulation class.
 Allowance of mix template language and Nailgun logic may lead to heavy
 diagnostic issues.
 Meantime I don't see any cases, where required something more, than
 substitution.



 /sv

 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin


 We don't promise use Junja (or whatever) template language for this
 feature.
 If some jinja features allowed for parsing Network template -- it's a bug.
 We should check it and fix it.
 Only value substitutions should allow in the network templates.


Yes, we just use jinja for values substitution. We could replace it with
anything else suitable here.
I don't see any reason to stick to jinja anyhow.

That is not correct, every template has it's own syntax, so people have to
 care about
 specific implementation i.e. Jinja or ERB, and there will be confusion
 when somebody will
 try to use ERB specific features, and she/he will fail because you hide
 Jinja under ERB
 syntax.


Format of template should be defined in docs finally. It is defined in spec
and there is explanation in slides for Demo.
It is not about jinja or ERB. It is just a token for substitution of
values. There is no jinja nor ERB features granted within template language.



Aleksey Kasatkin


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
wrote:


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Hi Alexander, I don't agree with your statements

  [1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values.

 It's what templating is about, you have some text preprocessor to
 substitute values.


 Network templates feature don't mean any  text preprocessor actions.
 Only value substitutions


  That is not ERB style template language.

 ERB uses the same syntax, hence it Is ERB style.


 ... hence it looks like ERB. not more.
 Not only ruby used for programming. Non only EBD -- is template language.
 ;)


  [2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not
 html template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution.

 We *are using* jinja templating (I don't understand why you mention here
 html),
 with all it's features and here is the proof [1].


 We don't promise use Junja (or whatever) template language for this
 feature.
 If some jinja features allowed for parsing Network template -- it's a bug.
 We should check it and fix it.
 Only value substitutions should allow in the network templates.


  [3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe
 some familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.

 That is not correct, every template has it's own syntax, so people have
 to care about
 specific implementation i.e. Jinja or ERB, and there will be confusion
 when somebody will
 try to use ERB specific features, and she/he will fail because you hide
 Jinja under ERB
 syntax.


 I, partially, agree with you. But please honored to following facts:
 * In the deployers world used Jinja and ERB syntax.
 * ERB used more often, because Ansible (I don't know another popular
 deployers tools with Jinja templating) is to young.
 * Plenty of syntax features is a really hell.

 In the Network templates we don't suppose anything other than a simple
 substitution variable values.
 All logic of template processing implementing on Nailgun side. Now on the
 template parsing, later -- on the network manipulation class.
 Allowance of mix template language and Nailgun logic may lead to heavy
 diagnostic issues.
 Meantime I don't see any cases, where required something more, than
 substitution.



 /sv

 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Alexander Kostrikov

Completely agree with Sergey.

Currently network template uses ERB [1] style template language,
but in fact it's Jinja [2], it was agreed to change it [3], no to confuse
the user

[1] - I just uses % and % to substitute values. That is not ERB style
template language.
[2] - We are not using Jinja templating (it is just yaml file, not html
template), we are using Jinja placeholder substitution. And in current code
we have a problem with content at first parsed from yaml and that parser
treats { and [ as a start if a dict or an array.
[3] - Templates are for people who do not care about Jinja/ERB (maybe some
familiar with Puppet/Chef), so no confusion.




On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
wrote:


 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Currently network template uses ERB [1] style template language,
 but in fact it's Jinja [2], it was agreed to change it [3], no to confuse
 the user, with ERB which is in fact jinja and doesn't have any ERB
 features.


 we have not so much syntax choices for  convenient templating. Network
 temptales will be used by system administrators.
 The '%  %' pair is a de-facto standart in this area. In the puppet
 world. Not every system administrator will meaning ERB when seeing '% %'
 pair.
 Another pairs (i.e. '$ $' , ' ', etc) looks more
 non-standart. Plenty of syntax features are annoy and make usability of
 product less convenient.
 I propose do not make extra essences on the clean area...

 We never say in the docs about ERB. IMHO it's enough for leave '%  %' as
 is.


 /sv

 __
 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




-- 

Kind Regards,

Alexandr Kostrikov,

Mirantis, Inc.

35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St., 109147, Moscow, Russia


Tel.: +7 (495) 640-49-04
Tel.: +7 (925) 716-64-52 %2B7%20%28906%29%20740-64-79

Skype: akostrikov_mirantis

E-mail: akostri...@mirantis.com elogut...@mirantis.com

*www.mirantis.com http://www.mirantis.ru/*
*www.mirantis.ru http://www.mirantis.ru/*
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Sergey Vasilenko


 If we need only substitution, probably it's better to use standard
 templating
 in python [1], there is a way to redefine tokens, so you will be able to
 use
 % % syntax if you want to.

 [1] https://docs.python.org/2.6/library/string.html#template-strings
 https://docs.python.org/dev/library/string.html#template-strings
 [2] http://pymotw.com/2/string/#advanced-templates


I think it's a better solution for this issue.

/sv
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

AFAIU, string.Template doesn't help.

This seems to be helpful:

import re
def interp(string, params):
  for item in re.findall(r'#\{([^}]*)\}', string):
string = string.replace('#{%s}' % item, str(eval(item, {}, params)))
  return string


Evgeniy, do you know some better options for this?



Aleksey Kasatkin


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 If we need only substitution, probably it's better to use standard
 templating
 in python [1], there is a way to redefine tokens, so you will be able to
 use
 % % syntax if you want to.

 [1] https://docs.python.org/2.6/library/string.html#template-strings
 https://docs.python.org/dev/library/string.html#template-strings
 [2] http://pymotw.com/2/string/#advanced-templates


 I think it's a better solution for this issue.

 /sv

 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 AFAIU, string.Template doesn't help.

 This seems to be helpful:

 import re
 def interp(string, params):
   for item in re.findall(r'#\{([^}]*)\}', string):
 string = string.replace('#{%s}' % item, str(eval(item, {}, params)))
   return string


 Evgeniy, do you know some better options for this?



 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
  wrote:

 If we need only substitution, probably it's better to use standard
 templating
 in python [1], there is a way to redefine tokens, so you will be able to
 use
 % % syntax if you want to.

 [1] https://docs.python.org/2.6/library/string.html#template-strings
 https://docs.python.org/dev/library/string.html#template-strings
 [2] http://pymotw.com/2/string/#advanced-templates


 I think it's a better solution for this issue.

 /sv

 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Evgeniy L

Aleksey, here is working version [1].

 Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?

With this issue feature can leave, and it won't have huge user impact.
At the same time by design we didn't want to have anything except
substitution, hence it's probably as Sergey mentioned is a bug.
So looks like it can be fixed after 30th of July, and should not be
considered as a blocker. Validation is much more important, so lets
fix it first.

[1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/406104/


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
wrote:


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?


 I think -- not.
 It just a bug, not a key-point of feature.


 /sv

 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Okey, will do fix for validation first.


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey, here is working version [1].

  Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?

 With this issue feature can leave, and it won't have huge user impact.
 At the same time by design we didn't want to have anything except
 substitution, hence it's probably as Sergey mentioned is a bug.
 So looks like it can be fixed after 30th of July, and should not be
 considered as a blocker. Validation is much more important, so lets
 fix it first.

 [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/406104/


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com
  wrote:


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:

 Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?


 I think -- not.
 It just a bug, not a key-point of feature.


 /sv

 __
 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] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Evgeniy, thank you for solution proposal.


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Okey, will do fix for validation first.


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey, here is working version [1].

  Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?

 With this issue feature can leave, and it won't have huge user impact.
 At the same time by design we didn't want to have anything except
 substitution, hence it's probably as Sergey mentioned is a bug.
 So looks like it can be fixed after 30th of July, and should not be
 considered as a blocker. Validation is much more important, so lets
 fix it first.

 [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/406104/


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Sergey Vasilenko 
 svasile...@mirantis.com wrote:


 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?


 I think -- not.
 It just a bug, not a key-point of feature.


 /sv


 __
 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] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-28 Thread Sergey Vasilenko

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Evgeniy, do we need to remove jinja before July 30th ?


I think -- not.
It just a bug, not a key-point of feature.


/sv
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

It's not clear though.
The date for landing of all the patches was set 28th (tomorrow) but it took
into account only patch to CLI actually  as other 2 from the initial letter
were merged on 23th.
These two more things (validation + tokens) could barely be completed
tomorrow.
AFAIC, at least validation cannot be completed tomorrow. We can test tokens
today.
For some basic validation - the is a chance, but no certaincy.


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Evgeniy,

  3. Change tokens in template language

 I'm not sure what do you mean here. Could you please clarify? Perhaps
 I missed something.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
  for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:
 
  1. Fuel client changes [1]
  2. Validation [2]
  3. Change tokens in template language
 
  Sebastian, Igor, correct?
 
  [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Igor,
 
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the
 FFE
  if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
  frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
 feedback
  from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could argue
  that its a critical UX defect.
 
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  Aleksey,
 
  Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of
 FFE.
  Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you
 will
  not
  be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to
 support
  both
  format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see
 it
  fixed
  in 7.0.
 
  Thanks,
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin
  akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template
 when
  it is being loaded.
  Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
  And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
  style template) but we have some more important issues.
  Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?
 
 
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
  skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we
 cannot
  leave a new API in such shape.
 
  2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:
 
  Hi Igor,
 
  I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
  any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
  error
  (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error
 that
  there
  is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
  button.
  It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.
 
  Thanks,
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
  ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  Greetings,
 
  The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
  release.
  Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.
 
  Thanks,
  Igor
 
  [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com
 wrote:
   Hi,
  
   Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
   accept it as
   a,
   feature freeze exceptions.
  
   But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which
 was
   created
   in
   order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
   regarding to
   ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's
 not
   only
   about
   fixes in the client.
  
   [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
  
   On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov
   mscherba...@mirantis.com
   wrote:
  
   Looks like the only CLI part left:
   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
 great
   job
   finishing the other two.
  
   Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
   feature.
   It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This
   is the most
   complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
  
   I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs.
   For me,
   it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How
 long
   would it
   take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
   fine. If it is
   going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a
 risk
   for HCF
   deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
   less
   quality or slip of the release.
  
   On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin
   akasat...@mirantis.com
   wrote:
  
   Team,
  
   I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze
 for
   Templates

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Evgeniy L

Aleksey, could you please propose another date which also includes
validation?

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 It's not clear though.
 The date for landing of all the patches was set 28th (tomorrow) but it
 took into account only patch to CLI actually  as other 2 from the initial
 letter were merged on 23th.
 These two more things (validation + tokens) could barely be completed
 tomorrow.
 AFAIC, at least validation cannot be completed tomorrow. We can test
 tokens today.
 For some basic validation - the is a chance, but no certaincy.


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Evgeniy,

  3. Change tokens in template language

 I'm not sure what do you mean here. Could you please clarify? Perhaps
 I missed something.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
  for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:
 
  1. Fuel client changes [1]
  2. Validation [2]
  3. Change tokens in template language
 
  Sebastian, Igor, correct?
 
  [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Igor,
 
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the
 FFE
  if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
  frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
 feedback
  from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could
 argue
  that its a critical UX defect.
 
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  Aleksey,
 
  Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of
 FFE.
  Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you
 will
  not
  be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to
 support
  both
  format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see
 it
  fixed
  in 7.0.
 
  Thanks,
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin
  akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template
 when
  it is being loaded.
  Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
  And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
  style template) but we have some more important issues.
  Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?
 
 
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
  skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we
 cannot
  leave a new API in such shape.
 
  2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:
 
  Hi Igor,
 
  I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
  any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
  error
  (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error
 that
  there
  is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
  button.
  It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.
 
  Thanks,
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
  ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:
 
  Greetings,
 
  The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
  release.
  Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.
 
  Thanks,
  Igor
 
  [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com
 wrote:
   Hi,
  
   Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
   accept it as
   a,
   feature freeze exceptions.
  
   But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which
 was
   created
   in
   order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
   regarding to
   ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's
 not
   only
   about
   fixes in the client.
  
   [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
  
   On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov
   mscherba...@mirantis.com
   wrote:
  
   Looks like the only CLI part left:
   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
 great
   job
   finishing the other two.
  
   Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
   feature.
   It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code.
 This
   is the most
   complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
  
   I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client
 SMEs.
   For me,
   it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How
 long
   would it
   take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
   fine. If it is
   going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a
 risk
   for HCF
   deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs,
 means
   less
   quality or slip of the release.
  
   On

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Evgeniy L

Igor,

[1]
https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/network_template.json#L58
[2]
https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/objects/node.py#L854-L855
[3]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197145/42/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/network_template.json

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
wrote:

Evgeniy,

3. Change tokens in template language

I'm not sure what do you mean here. Could you please clarify? Perhaps
I missed something.

Thanks,
Igor

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:

1. Fuel client changes [1]
2. Validation [2]
3. Change tokens in template language

Sebastian, Igor, correct?

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com
wrote:

Igor,

https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the
FFE
if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
feedback
from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could argue
that its a critical UX defect.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

Aleksey,

Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of
FFE.
Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you
will
not
be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to
support
both
format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see
it
fixed
in 7.0.

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin
akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:

I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template
when
it is being loaded.
Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
style template) but we have some more important issues.
Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?

Aleksey Kasatkin

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we
cannot
leave a new API in such shape.

2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

Hi Igor,

I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
error
(which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error
that
there
is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
button.
It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

Greetings,

The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
release.
Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

Thanks,
Igor

[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,

Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
accept it as
a,
feature freeze exceptions.

But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which
was
created
in
order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
regarding to
ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's
not
only
about
fixes in the client.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov
mscherba...@mirantis.com
wrote:

Looks like the only CLI part left:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
great
job
finishing the other two.

Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
feature.
It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This
is the most
complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores fuel client SMEs.
For me,
it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How
long
would it
take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
fine. If it is
going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a
risk
for HCF
deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
less
quality or slip of the release.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin
akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

Team,

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Evgeniy, I need some response in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
AFAIC, it can be 30th (Thursday) for basic validation of template itself
(regardless of present nodes and their node roles) but including known node
roles/network roles for particular environment.

Aleksey Kasatkin

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

Igor,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
wrote:

Evgeniy,

3. Change tokens in template language

I'm not sure what do you mean here. Could you please clarify? Perhaps
I missed something.

Thanks,
Igor

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:

1. Fuel client changes [1]
2. Validation [2]
3. Change tokens in template language

Sebastian, Igor, correct?

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com
wrote:

Igor,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

Aleksey,

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin
akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:

Aleksey Kasatkin

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we
cannot
leave a new API in such shape.

2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

Hi Igor,

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

Greetings,

The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
release.
Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

Thanks,
Igor

[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,

Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
accept it as
a,
feature freeze exceptions.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov
mscherba...@mirantis.com
wrote:

Looks like the only CLI part left:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
great
job
finishing the other two.

Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
feature.
It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code.
This
is the most
complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores fuel client
SMEs.
For me,
it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How
long
would it

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Evgeniy L

So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:

1. Fuel client changes [1]
2. Validation [2]
3. Change tokens in template language

Sebastian, Igor, correct?

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Igor,

 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the FFE
 if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
 frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
 feedback from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could
 argue that its a critical UX defect.


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey,

 Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of FFE.
 Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you will
 not
 be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to support
 both
 format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see it
 fixed
 in 7.0.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:

 I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when
 it is being loaded.
 Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
 And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
 style template) but we have some more important issues.
 Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski 
 skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
 leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
 button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky 
 ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
 accept it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not
 only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
 great job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This
 is the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs.
 For me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
 fine. If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk
 for HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
 less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3]
 and one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via
 API [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related
 functionality and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to
 this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Sebastian Kalinowski

Yes, exactly like that.

+1

2015-07-27 10:53 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
 for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:

 1. Fuel client changes [1]
 2. Validation [2]
 3. Change tokens in template language

 Sebastian, Igor, correct?

 [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Igor,

 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the FFE
 if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
 frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
 feedback from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could
 argue that its a critical UX defect.


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey,

 Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of FFE.
 Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you
 will not
 be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to support
 both
 format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see it
 fixed
 in 7.0.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when
 it is being loaded.
 Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
 And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
 style template) but we have some more important issues.
 Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski 
 skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we
 cannot leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
 button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky 
 ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
 release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com
 wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
 accept it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which
 was created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not
 only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a
 great job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This
 is the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs.
 For me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How
 long would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
 fine. If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk
 for HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
 less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3]
 and one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via
 API [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related
 functionality and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to
 this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-27 Thread Igor Kalnitsky

Evgeniy,

 3. Change tokens in template language

I'm not sure what do you mean here. Could you please clarify? Perhaps
I missed something.

Thanks,
Igor

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
 So, to summarise, +1 from me, we accept the changes which are required
 for the feature as feature freeze exceptions:

 1. Fuel client changes [1]
 2. Validation [2]
 3. Change tokens in template language

 Sebastian, Igor, correct?

 [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Igor,

 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the FFE
 if you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
 frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable feedback
 from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could argue
 that its a critical UX defect.


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey,

 Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of FFE.
 Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you will
 not
 be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to support
 both
 format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see it
 fixed
 in 7.0.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin
 akasat...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when
 it is being loaded.
 Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
 And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
 style template) but we have some more important issues.
 Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
 skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
 leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy
 button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
 ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next
 release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can
  accept it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
  created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
  regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not
  only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov
  mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great
  job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
  feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This
  is the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs.
  For me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
  would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is
  fine. If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk
  for HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
  less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin
  akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3]
  and one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via
  API [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related
  functionality and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
  merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to
  this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2]

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Yes, it is the only CR left (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/).
It is tested manually, is on review and should be merged today or the next
workday.


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Looks like the only CLI part left:
 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great job
 finishing the other two.

 Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential feature.
 It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is the
 most complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

 I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For me,
 it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long would it
 take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If it
 is going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
 HCF deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
 quality or slip of the release.

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Team,

 I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
 Templates for Networking feature [1].

 Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one
 CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
 These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4]
 and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
 These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
 they do not change existing functionality.
 Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged on
 Thursday.

 Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
 request.

 Thanks in advance.

 [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
 [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/

 --
 Best regards,
 Aleksey Kasatkin
 __
 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


__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Evgeniy L

Hi,

Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept it as
a,
feature freeze exceptions.

But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was created
in
order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns regarding to
ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not only
about
fixes in the client.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Looks like the only CLI part left:
 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great job
 finishing the other two.

 Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential feature.
 It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is the
 most complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

 I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For me,
 it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long would it
 take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If it
 is going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
 HCF deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
 quality or slip of the release.

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Team,

 I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
 Templates for Networking feature [1].

 Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one
 CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
 These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4]
 and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
 These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
 they do not change existing functionality.
 Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged on
 Thursday.

 Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
 request.

 Thanks in advance.

 [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
 [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/

 --
 Best regards,
 Aleksey Kasatkin
 __
 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


__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Igor Kalnitsky

Greetings,

The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

Thanks,
Igor

[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept it as
 a,
 feature freeze exceptions.

 But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was created
 in
 order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns regarding to
 ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not only
 about
 fixes in the client.

 [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Looks like the only CLI part left:
 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great job
 finishing the other two.

 Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential feature.
 It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is the most
 complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

 I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For me,
 it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long would it
 take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If it is
 going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for HCF
 deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
 quality or slip of the release.

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Team,

 I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
 Templates for Networking feature [1].

 Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one
 CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
 These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4]
 and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
 These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
 they do not change existing functionality.
 Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged on
 Thursday.

 Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
 request.

 Thanks in advance.

 [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
 [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/

 --
 Best regards,
 Aleksey Kasatkin

 __
 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



 __
 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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Evgeniy L

Hi Igor,

I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500 error
(which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that there
is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy button.
It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept it
 as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns regarding
 to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is the
 most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If
 it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
 HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged
 on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __
  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
 
 
 
 
 __
  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] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Sebastian Kalinowski

I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
leave a new API in such shape.

2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept it
 as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is
 the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For
 me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If
 it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
 HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and
 one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __
  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
 
 
 
 
 __
  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] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Evgeniy L

Aleksey,

Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of FFE.
Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you will
not
be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to support
both
format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see it
fixed
in 7.0.

Thanks,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when it
 is being loaded.
 Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
 And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB style
 template) but we have some more important issues.
 Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski 
 skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
 leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky 
 ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept
 it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not
 only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great
 job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is
 the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For
 me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine.
 If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk
 for HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and
 one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API
 [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality
 and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to
 this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __
  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
 
 
 
 
 __
  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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Andrew Woodward

Igor,

https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779 must be included in the FFE if
you think it's a feature. Networking is the most complicated and
frustrating thing the user can work with. If we cant provide usable
feedback from bad data in the template then the feature is useless. I could
argue that its a critical UX defect.


On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:16 AM Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Aleksey,

 Yes, my point is those parts should be also included in the scope of FFE.
 Regarding to template format, it's easy to fix and after release you will
 not
 be able to change it, or you can change it, but you will have to support
 both
 format, not to brake backward compatibility. So I would prefer to see it
 fixed
 in 7.0.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
 wrote:

 I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when
 it is being loaded.
 Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
 And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB
 style template) but we have some more important issues.
 Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


 Aleksey Kasatkin


 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski 
 skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
 leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500
 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky 
 ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept
 it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not
 only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great
 job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is
 the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs.
 For me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine.
 If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk
 for HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means
 less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3]
 and one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API
 [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality
 and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to
 this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __
  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:

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-24 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

I agree, guys, we need at least some basic validation for template when it
is being loaded.
Ivan Kliuk started to work on this task.
And we agreed to test other types of delimiters (it is regarding ERB style
template) but we have some more important issues.
Evgeniy, is your meaning to include those to FFE ?


Aleksey Kasatkin


On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski 
skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote:

 I agree here with Evgeniy. Even if it's not a trivial change, we cannot
 leave a new API in such shape.

 2015-07-24 11:41 GMT+02:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com:

 Hi Igor,

 I don't agree with you, some basic validation is essential part of
 any handler and our API, currently it's easy to get meaningless 500 error
 (which is unhandled exception) from the backend or get the error that
 there
 is something wrong with the template only after you press deploy button.
 It's a bad UX and contradicts to our attempts to develop good api.

 Thanks,

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com
  wrote:

 Greetings,

 The issue [1] looks like a feature to me. I'd move it to next release.
 Let's focus on what's important right now - stability.

 Thanks,
 Igor

 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779

 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Since the feature is essential, and changes are small, we can accept
 it as
  a,
  feature freeze exceptions.
 
  But as far as I know there is a very important ticket [1] which was
 created
  in
  order to get patches merged faster, also I still have concerns
 regarding to
  ERB style template % if3 % which is in fact Jinja. So it's not only
  about
  fixes in the client.
 
  [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1476779
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Mike Scherbakov 
 mscherba...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Looks like the only CLI part left:
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/, and you guys did a great
 job
  finishing the other two.
 
  Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential
 feature.
  It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is
 the most
  complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.
 
  I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For
 me,
  it seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long
 would it
  take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine.
 If it is
  going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
 HCF
  deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
  quality or slip of the release.
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin 
 akasat...@mirantis.com
  wrote:
 
  Team,
 
  I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
  Templates for Networking feature [1].
 
  Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and
 one
  CR to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
  These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API
 [4]
  and for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
  These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality
 and
  they do not change existing functionality.
  Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be
 merged on
  Thursday.
 
  Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
  request.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
  [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/
 
  --
  Best regards,
  Aleksey Kasatkin
 
 
 __
  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
 
 
 
 
 __
  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)

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-23 Thread Mike Scherbakov

Looks like the only CLI part left: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/,
and you guys did a great job finishing the other two.

Looks like we'd need to give FF exception, as this is essential feature.
It's glad that we merged all other thousands lines of code. This is the
most complex feature, and seems like the only small thing is left.

I'd like to hear feedback from Nailgun cores  fuel client SMEs. For me, it
seems it is lower risk, and patch is relatively small. How long would it
take to complete it? If it takes a couple of days, then it is fine. If it
is going to take week or two, then we will have to have it as a risk for
HCF deadline. Spending resources on features now, not on bugs, means less
quality or slip of the release.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com
wrote:

 Team,

 I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for
 Templates for Networking feature [1].

 Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one CR
 to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
 These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4] and
 for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
 These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and
 they do not change existing functionality.
 Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged on
 Thursday.

 Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
 request.

 Thanks in advance.

 [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
 [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/

 --
 Best regards,
 Aleksey Kasatkin
 __
 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

[openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

2015-07-22 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin

Team,

I would like to request an exception from the Feature Freeze for Templates
for Networking feature [1].

Exception is required for two CRs to python-fuelclient: [2],[3] and one CR
to fuel-web (Nailgun): [4].
These CRs are for adding ability to create/remove networks via API [4] and
for supporting new API functionality via CLI.
These patchsets are for adding new templates-related functionality and they
do not change existing functionality.
Patchsets [3],[4] are in deep review and they will hopefully be merged on
Thursday.

Please, respond if you have any questions or concerns related to this
request.

Thanks in advance.

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/templates-for-networking
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204321/
[3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203602/
[4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201217/

--
Best regards,
Aleksey Kasatkin
__
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] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

[openstack-dev] [fuel] FF Exception request for Templates for Networking feature

30 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information