n sent the wrong version.
How about reviewing other pending changes for weeks like stunnel?
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On
> 13.09.05 (Thu 10:01) Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> > On 5 September 2
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.05
(Thu 10:01) Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 5 September 2013 05:39, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> > The meta-virt recipe had the same _1.0.bb extension, and it's SRCREV lines
> > up
> > with the
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.05
(Thu 00:39) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > Actually, after all of that, I do have a couple of additional requests
> > (beyond just the tweak to
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 5 September 2013 05:39, Bruce Ashfield
> wrote:
> > The meta-virt recipe had the same _1.0.bb extension, and it's SRCREV
> lines up
> > with the openflow-1.0.0 tag in the repository:
> >
> >
> >
> > commit 5ccca75a69f99791659bcfb
On 5 September 2013 05:39, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> The meta-virt recipe had the same _1.0.bb extension, and it's SRCREV lines up
> with the openflow-1.0.0 tag in the repository:
>
>
>
> commit 5ccca75a69f99791659bcfbcf35353ab1921320a
> Author: Glen Gibb
> Date: Thu Dec 31 16:00:53 2009
riber-only.
>
> [[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.02
> (Mon 09:20) Laszlo Papp wrote:
>
> > 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from
> 2009,
> > and a lot of things has changed since then.
> >
&g
en bounced from it in the past as I'm not a
>subscriber and it's subscriber-only.
:) I can't blame you for that, I share the pain (after bouncing off of oe-devel
just a few days ago myself). Thanks for the cc.
>
> [[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.04
> (Wed 08:22) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Bru
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.04
(Wed 08:22) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Ashfield
> > wrote:
> >>
...
> >> - We run some
bscriber-only.
[[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.02 (Mon
09:20) Laszlo Papp wrote:
> 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from 2009,
> and a lot of things has changed since then.
>
> 2) More importantly, this soft
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.03
(Tue 17:18) Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.03
> (Tue 14:47) Laszlo Papp wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Bruce Ashf
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.04
(Wed 09:13) Philip Balister wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 11:27 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Ashfield
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
>
> > The same applies to anyone else working on a layer with clearly
> > networking components that may be reluctant to incorporate it into
> > meta-net. I'm welcoming submissions of useful components and I'd be
> > really disappointed if
that I was less connected than I expected to be over my
>>> vacation and there's been considerable catching up to do.
>>>
>>> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On
>>> 13.09.03 (Tue 09:38) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
&g
x27;ll just say that I was less connected than I expected to be over my
>> > vacation and there's been considerable catching up to do.
>> >
>> > [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On
>> > 13.09.03 (Tue 09:38) Bruce Ashfield wrote
gt; vacation and there's been considerable catching up to do.
> >
> > [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On
> > 13.09.03 (Tue 09:38) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> > IMO
] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.03
> (Tue 09:38) Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> > IMO, most of this email is red herring, and the main topic is a networking
>> > specification should
Little late coming to this party, I guess. Sorry all. In my defense
I'll just say that I was less connected than I expected to be over my
vacation and there's been considerable catching up to do.
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.03
(Tue 09
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git] On 13.09.03
(Tue 14:47) Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Bruce Ashfield
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > IMO, most of this email is red herring,
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > IMO, most of this email is red herring, and the main topic is a
> networking
> > specification should be in meta-networking. Why would I (or anyone for
> that
> > matter) need *any* virt
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> IMO, most of this email is red herring, and the main topic is a networking
> specification should be in meta-networking. Why would I (or anyone for that
> matter) need *any* virtualization layer when I am working on a network
> device?
Ah, so I
IMO, most of this email is red herring, and the main topic is a networking
specification should be in meta-networking. Why would I (or anyone for that
matter) need *any* virtualization layer when I am working on a network
device?
I am sorry for your historical misplacement, but it is not an excuse
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Bruce Ashfield
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> > 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from
>> 2009,
>> > and a lot of things has changed since
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from
> 2009,
> > and a lot of things has changed since then.
>
> And that was on purpose, there are some tight binding
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from 2009,
> and a lot of things has changed since then.
And that was on purpose, there are some tight bindings to SDN and hence why
it is in meta-virtualization, and not a val
1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from 2009,
and a lot of things has changed since then.
2) More importantly, this software is more like for networking rather than
virtualization, so I think it was misplaced.
---
.../recipes-support/openflow/openflow_1.0.bb
26 matches
Mail list logo
