Hi all,
as I can see in the hypervisor's support matrix page (
http://wiki.openstack.org/HypervisorSupportMatrix ) there are a few
differences between the XenSever/XCP's feature list and the KVM's
one.
Brian Lamar has been so kind to explain me what the missing resize
feature means (
Taking a bit of a step back, it seems to me that the biggest thing
that prevents us from using a pure github workflow is the absolute
requirement of a gated trunk. Perhaps a better question to ask
weather or not this should be an absolute requirement. For me, it is
a nice to have, but shouldn't
I actually didn't plan on responding all that much on this
conversation. We had months of discussion and debate about this, weeks
upon weeks of discussion in the PPB about project autonomy and
tooling, and the decision has been made.
I find it a bit unfortunate that all the people saying Gerrit
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Chuck Thier cth...@gmail.com wrote:
Taking a bit of a step back, it seems to me that the biggest thing
that prevents us from using a pure github workflow is the absolute
requirement of a gated trunk.
I think the big step backwards would be not having a gated
The coarse status granularity of GitHub's pull request is a
non-starter for automated patch queue management and a gated trunk.
Period. Solutions such as roundabout and hubcap must use hacks such as
looking in review comments for one or more lgtms to determine if a
commit is approved to be
Still getting up to speed on the finer points of keystone, but makes sense to
me.
Is X-Auth-Token keystone-specific? If so, calling it something like
Keystone-Token would be better (X- is falling out of favour; see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash-03). That'd also avoid
Love it.
Link:
https://keystone.server/tokens/fa8426a0-8eaf-4d22-8e13-7c1b16a9370c;
rel=keystone-token
Fixed: s/tenants/tokens/ (my bad).
On 9/4/11 7:40 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
Still getting up to speed on the finer points of keystone, but makes
sense to me.
Is
Hmmm, I'm thinking more about this. Would using the Link: header break the
ability to use the Vary header? I can't Vary on a Link header based on
it's rel attribute.
So maybe Keystone-Token is the way to go. I could see intermediaries doing
the token resolution and adding headers like
Good point; Link makes more sense on a response.
Cheers,
On 05/09/2011, at 12:49 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote:
Hmmm, I'm thinking more about this. Would using the Link: header break the
ability to use the Vary header? I can't Vary on a Link header based on
it's rel attribute.
So maybe
Jay,
On Sep 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I actually didn't plan on responding all that much on this
conversation. We had months of discussion and debate about this, weeks
upon weeks of discussion in the PPB about project autonomy and
tooling, and the decision has been made.
I
10 matches
Mail list logo
