Re: JUJU Charm Certification

2016-09-14 Thread Chris MacNaughton
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 23:02, SivaRamaPrasad Ravipati wrote: > > Hi Chris , > > Thank you very much. I got a very good information. > > Sorry. I didn't understand one thing Clearly. > > For the Question, > > At a time, can I deploy two storages arrays to same cinder

Re: LXD instances fail to start

2016-09-14 Thread Ryan Beisner
In one case yesterday, with a full openstack-on-lxd deployed and in use, I quickly hit the too-many-open-files issue. I raised fs.inotify.max_user_instances on the host to 50 which unblocked me for a while. I ended up raising both to 99 and have had smooth sailing since. Currently, the

Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Nate Finch
In case you missed it, Github rolled out a new review process. It basically works just like reviewboard does, where you start a review, batch up comments, then post the review as a whole, so you don't just write a bunch of disconnected comments (and get one email per review, not per comment).

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Rick Harding
/me is always +1 on reducing the number of things we have to maintain and keeping things simpler. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM Nate Finch wrote: > In case you missed it, Github rolled out a new review process. It > basically works just like reviewboard does, where

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Horacio Duran
Also +1 for that source not being review board On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Reed O'Brien wrote: > Also +1 for a single source of truth. > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Rick Harding > wrote: > >> /me is always +1 on reducing the

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Dimiter Naydenov
As long as we can have draft reviews like on RB and not email-spam-per-comment, totally +1 On 09/14/2016 01:25 PM, Horacio Duran wrote: > Also +1 for that source not being review board > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Reed O'Brien

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Casey Marshall
I'm halfway through my first Github review (different project though) on the new system, and so far I'm loving it. Also consider the issues we've had with rbt being unable to handle diffs with files added/removed/relocated. +1 from me! -Casey On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Reed O'Brien

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Tim Penhey
I'm +1 if we can remove the extra tools and we don't get email per comment. On 15/09/16 08:03, Nate Finch wrote: In case you missed it, Github rolled out a new review process. It basically works just like reviewboard does, where you start a review, batch up comments, then post the review as a

Upcoming Azure auth changes

2016-09-14 Thread Andrew Wilkins
Hi folks, Just a heads up, where will be some changes to authentication in the Azure provider. When https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6247 lands (if you're working off master), or otherwise when rc1 is out, you will need to remove "tenant-id" from your credentials.yaml. There is more work

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Ian Booth
One thing review board does better is use gutter indicators so as not to interrupt the flow of reading the code with huge comment blocks. It also seems much better at allowing previous commits with comments to be viewed in their entirety. And it allows the reviewer to differentiate between issues

LXD instances fail to start

2016-09-14 Thread James Beedy
For those who have been following the lxd issue that we've been digressing on at the charmer summit, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1602192 7/22-now no activity It looks like the bug already has eyes on it, but has been idle for a while now. It would be nice to get this thing

Re: Upcoming Azure auth changes

2016-09-14 Thread Andrew Wilkins
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM Andrew Wilkins wrote: > Hi folks, > > Just a heads up, where will be some changes to authentication in the Azure > provider. When https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6247 lands (if you're > working off master), or otherwise when rc1 is

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Rick Harding
I think that the issue is that someone has to maintain the RB and the cost/time spent on that does not seem commensurate with the bonus features in my experience. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:13 PM Ian Booth wrote: > One thing review board does better is use gutter

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Andrew Wilkins
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:22 AM Rick Harding wrote: > I think that the issue is that someone has to maintain the RB and the > cost/time spent on that does not seem commensurate with the bonus features > in my experience. > Agreed and +1. I propose we all try it for a

Re: Reviews on Github

2016-09-14 Thread Anastasia Macmood
+1 on moving away from RB \o/ Currently contributors need to allow RB to run against their github fork, if they don't then we do not see their contributions on RB and PRs go un-reviewed and seem ignored. Communication between github and RB is not optimal: we had plenty of instances where RB