Re: [openstack-dev] [poll][kolla] Name of baremetal role/group

On 9/9/2016 2:08 PM, Mooney, Sean K wrote: -Original Message- From: Mark Casey [mailto:markca...@pointofrental.com] Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:29:23PM -0400, Pradeep Kilambi wrote: > Hi, > > This is FFE request to get ceilometerclient 2.6.1 into upper constraints. > There is already a patch for this blocked by freeze[1]. > > ceilometerclient 2.6.1 was cut 3 days after the freeze looks like and it > includes

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] pymod2pkg 0.5.4

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:26:29PM +0200, Dirk Müller wrote: > Hi, > > OpenStack RPM Packaging would like to update to pymod2pkg 0.5.4: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367388/ > > this package is only used by packaging (renderspec and rpm-packaging > git repos) that are on a

Re: [Openstack-operators] Openstack team size vs's deployment size

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote: > > I was hoping to poll other operators to see what their average team size > vs’s deployment size is, as I am trying to use this in an internal company > discussion. It is difficult to come up with numbers without

Re: [openstack-dev] [vote][kolla] Core Nomination for Christian Berendt (berendt on irc)

+1. Great work Christian! Regards, Vikram Hosakote IRC: vhosakot From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 廿十六年九月九日 暮 02:01, Shamail wrote: Hi Tom, I'll help with that. :) Thanks Shamail - standby - I will write up instructions and send them through. Thanks, Shamail On Sep 9, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Tom Fifield wrote: On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 11:45, Hayes, Graham wrote: On

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

On 09/09/2016 04:24 PM, gordon chung wrote: > > > On 09/09/16 03:45 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: >> Does this mean that the minimum (GR needs raising as well)? > > iiuc, just the max or upper-constraints. > > cheers, > k, I already +2'd it as I think this is fine, waiting on glorious leader

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

On 09/09/16 03:45 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > Does this mean that the minimum (GR needs raising as well)? iiuc, just the max or upper-constraints. cheers, -- gord __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 09/09/16 03:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > Do we really expect the next cycle PTL to be planning for the next cycle > midway through the current cycle? That seems pretty extreme to me, when > we're still crunching to the 3rd milestone and trying to wrap things up > for feature freeze, which

Re: [openstack-dev] [javascript] [fuel-ui] Is ReactJS OSI Compliant?

On 09/07/2016 07:06 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > Preface: IANAL (I-am-not-a-lawyer). > > ReactJS claims to be BSD licensed. However, it has a non-BSD patent > rider with a very aggressive "Strong Retaliation Clause", meaning that > if there's ever a patent dispute between [React Project] and

[openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler] Next Scheduler subteam meeting Monday 1400 UTC

The next meeting of the Nova Scheduler subteam will be Monday, September 12, at 1400 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20160912T14 The main topic for discussion will be the status of the patches for the placement API:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 09/09/2016 04:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Tomato, tomato. We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from different perspectives. You say "a toolkit". I say "a project". Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases is "a" -- as in singular.

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] What would you like to ask users in order to plan Ocata development?

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Matt Riedemann wrote: I have some questions, but wanted to send this out for broader input from the team since I'm sure there are things I'm not thinking of on a Friday afternoon. If we're just brainstorming here's some from off the top of my head. Some of these have

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400: > On 09/09/2016 02:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400: > >> My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on > >> the review, I believe OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 2016-09-09 19:58:23 + (+), John Davidge wrote: [...] > I don't think the problem was the path, but the goal. The > expectation was that Stackforge projects would eventually graduate > into OpenStack projects, but with the definition/requirements of > OpenStack at the time that didn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016, at 12:58 PM, John Davidge wrote: > Yes, that's a part of what I'm saying. After writing my first reply I > decided there wasn't much point talking about the problem without > proposing a solution, so I wrote one[2]. Essentially it boils down to: > > * Abolish The Big Tent > *

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Problem regarding named volume data location

I believe what Pual was indicating was On 9/2/16, 12:59 PM, "Christian Berendt" wrote: > On 02 Sep 2016, at 19:04, Jeffrey Zhang wrote: > > I think the right solution should warn the end-user: you need configure a large

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

Jay Pipes wrote: >[…] >The TC doesn't comply with anything at all. It's the body that is >elected to make overarching governance decisions for the OpenStack >community. Sure, that's an important distinction. My point is that when governance decisions are made that seem to contradict each

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 9/9/2016 6:49 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Rob Cresswell wrote: I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't really need to change. Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

On 09/09/2016 02:29 PM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote: > Hi, > > This is FFE request to get ceilometerclient 2.6.1 into upper > constraints. There is already a patch for this blocked by freeze[1]. > > ceilometerclient 2.6.1 was cut 3 days after the freeze looks like and it > includes various critical

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 9/9/2016 3:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: That doesn't prevent you from doing it Nova-style and use the PTL as the release steward. It just lets you use someone else if you want to. A bit like keeping a headphone jack. Options. What's preventing any projects from delegating release duties

[openstack-dev] [nova] What would you like to ask users in order to plan Ocata development?

I've got to fill out some questions for the Newton wrap up and some questions about looking forward for Ocata and Pike, and one of the open-ended questions, I think used for the user survey, is: "What are the questions you would like to ask users for additional insights to help guide the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

+1, this release fix a bug to better understand the errors in logs for Aodh and Ceilometer. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote: > Hi, > > This is FFE request to get ceilometerclient 2.6.1 into upper constraints. > There is already a patch for this blocked by

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] FFE request for RBD replication

Hi, As some of you may know, Jon Bernard (jbernard on IRC) has been working on the RBD v2.1 replication implementation [1] for a while, and we would like to request a Feature Freeze Exception for that work, as we believe it is a good candidate being a low risk change for the integrity of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 9/9/16 4:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > John Griffith wrote: >> ​I think Sean Dague made some really good points and I'd tend to lean >> that way. Honestly charters, bylaws, governance etc shift or are >> rewritten fairly often. Why not just change when we do elections to >> correspond with

[openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] Request to allow ceilometerclient 2.6.1 in upper-constraints for newton

Hi, This is FFE request to get ceilometerclient 2.6.1 into upper constraints. There is already a patch for this blocked by freeze[1]. ceilometerclient 2.6.1 was cut 3 days after the freeze looks like and it includes various critical fixes such as[2]. Without this aodh logs fill up with following

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] [all] Regarding string freeze and back ports involving translatable strings

I have had some questions offline so, I think documenting the theory, interpretations and POC will be helpful in our release schedule pages to get this practice consistent across projects. If not required (or if the process is subjective) we do not necessarily have to enforce strict process, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 2016-09-09 06:35:10 -0600 (-0600), John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: [...] > > That doesn't prevent you from doing it Nova-style and use the PTL as the > > release steward. It just lets you use someone else if you want to. A

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 2016-09-09 14:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Flavio Percoco wrote: [...] > As one of the folks that have always brought up "assuming good > faith" whenever possible, I admit that I mistakenly (?) assumed > that it was shared practice [...] You're certainly not alone. I for one don't wish to welcome

Re: [openstack-dev] [poll][kolla] Name of baremetal role/group

> -Original Message- > From: Mark Casey [mailto:markca...@pointofrental.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:38 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [poll][kolla] Name of baremetal

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] [all] Regarding string freeze and back ports involving translatable strings

On 9/9/2016 1:58 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 09/08/2016 08:37 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/8/2016 7:05 PM, Ravi, Goutham wrote: Hi, I was looking for some clarity around backports of bug fixes that qualify the stable branch policy [1].

Re: [openstack-dev] [interop][defcore][ptl] Intro to creating next Interop (DefCore) guideline

Hello Everyone, Thanks everyone for tuning into presentation by Chris Hoge on how the next interop guideline is created. If you missed the session, here is the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDn4jj0iSK8=youtu.be=260 Slides

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

Hi Tom, I'll help with that. :) Thanks, Shamail > On Sep 9, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Tom Fifield wrote: > >> On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 11:45, Hayes, Graham wrote: >>> On 09/09/2016 08:44, Tom Fifield wrote: >>> >>> On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-09-09

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] [all] Regarding string freeze and back ports involving translatable strings

On 09/08/2016 08:37 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/8/2016 7:05 PM, Ravi, Goutham wrote: Hi, I was looking for some clarity around backports of bug fixes that qualify the stable branch policy [1]. What is

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 11:45, Hayes, Graham wrote: On 09/09/2016 08:44, Tom Fifield wrote: On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-09-09 01:10:15 + (+), Bhandaru, Malini K wrote: Is it just me who likes to hit the save button often? It gets tedious proving often that you are not a

Re: [openstack-dev] [poll][kolla] Name of baremetal role/group

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [mailto:std...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:59 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [poll][kolla] Name of baremetal role/group Sean, I’d recommend

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 09/09/2016 02:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400: My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of well-scoped and limited services in the

[openstack-dev] [release][ptl] ocata schedule approved

Lacking any significant negative comments, the Ocata schedule proposed in [1] has been approved. See [2] for a more nicely rendered version. Projects with team-specific deadlines should go ahead and propose patches to add that information, as time permits. Doug [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 09 2016, Emilien Macchi wrote: > However, I think it's time to pass the PTL torch for Ocata cycle. > Don't worry, I'll still be around and bother you when CI is broken ;-) > > Again, a big thank you for those who work with me, Congratulations for your great work during that time, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400: > On 09/09/2016 06:22 AM, John Davidge wrote: > > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > >> [...] > >> In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random > >> contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] what's up in upgrades?

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:29:46AM +0200, mathieu bultel wrote: > On 09/09/2016 12:42 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, David Moreau Simard wrote: > >> How long does the upgrade job take ? > > undercloud upgrade is a matter of 10 min max. > > overcloud

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On September 9, 2016 at 10:15:09 AM, Emilien Macchi (emil...@redhat.com) wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Cody Herriges wrote:  > On September 9, 2016 at 9:08:56 AM, Emilien Macchi (emil...@redhat.com)  > wrote:  >  > Hi,  >  > I wrote a little blog post about the last

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > >> On 2016-09-09 11:06:21 -0500 (-0500), Tom Fifield wrote: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/368114/ > [...] > > Thanks! I had already written almost the exact same change, applied > it in production and tested it

[openstack-dev] [nova] Seeking info on PCI Passthrough scheduling

Hi I'm investigating a issue raised by our QA team and trying to locate the documentation or specifications that describe how instances that use PCI-PT devices get scheduled. I'm trying to understand what the expected behavior is when scheduling an instance that used a port associated with

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Cody Herriges wrote: > On September 9, 2016 at 9:08:56 AM, Emilien Macchi (emil...@redhat.com) > wrote: > > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On September 9, 2016 at 9:08:56 AM, Emilien Macchi (emil...@redhat.com) wrote: Hi, I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-achievements-during-newton-cycle/ I can't describe how much I liked to be PTL during the last 18

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 09/09/2016 06:22 AM, John Davidge wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really decide once

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Emilien, you've done an awesome job, thanks a lot! Javier - Original Message - > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: > http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-achievements-during-newton-cycle/ > > I can't describe how much I liked to be PTL during

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 09/09/2016 08:44, Tom Fifield wrote: > > > On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2016-09-09 01:10:15 + (+), Bhandaru, Malini K wrote: >>> Is it just me who likes to hit the save button often? >>> It gets tedious proving often that you are not a robot. Wiki >>> reCAPTCHA likes

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Thanks for your hard and passionate work. Keep on rocking. David Moreau Simard Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Emilien, Thank you so much for your incredible work on this project. The deployment tools and OpenStack itself is in a better state because of your work. I'm glad to work with you and call you a friend. Colleen On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, >

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: > http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-achievements-during-newton-cycle/ > > I can't describe how much I liked to be PTL during the last 18

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Thanks for your leadership, dedication and hard work over the last 18 months. I've always enjoyed working with you to resolve the gate failures (despite being a cause of said failures :] ) On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] what's up in upgrades?

On 09/08/2016 01:27 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: What's up in upgrades? 1) Undercloud: Mitaka to Newton We just approved a patch in openstack-infra/tripleo-ci that test undercloud upgrades. I don't think we should make it vote as for now it's quite experimental. Though I'm wondering if we

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Emilien, Thanks for all your hard work in this area. You may not know how many happy consumers of the OpenStack Puppet project there are because we’re quiet until you decide to step down. Tim On 09/09/16 18:05, "Emilien Macchi" wrote: Hi, I wrote a little

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 2016-09-09 11:06:21 -0500 (-0500), Tom Fifield wrote: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/368114/ [...] Thanks! I had already written almost the exact same change, applied it in production and tested it with a non-admin account to make sure that when the account didn't have verified user

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Thank you very much for your work in the last 3 cycles! You rock :D 2016-09-09 13:29 GMT-03:00 Emilien Macchi : > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, gordon chung wrote: > > mec, great work trying to make the stuff we build work and telling us to > > make it less

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Thanks for all your hard work and contributions, making the Puppet-OpenStack project mature and interesting. I look forward to continue contributing to it with you! Ben On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, gordon chung wrote: > mec, great work trying to make the stuff we build work and telling us to > make it less broken. > > so we play ping pong now? not really: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367386/ > On 09/09/16 12:05 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > However, I think it's time to pass the PTL torch for Ocata cycle. > Don't worry, I'll still be around and bother you when CI is broken ;-) > > Again, a big thank you for those who work with me, I think it’s impossible

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Denis Egorenko wrote: > Hey Emilien, > > It was a big pleasure to work with you! > > Thank you for all your help! :) And good luck on your next project and > activities! I don't have any next project :-) I just think we should have a new

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:05:36PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: > http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-achievements-during-newton-cycle/ > > I can't describe how much I liked to be PTL during the last 18 months > and I

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Hey Emilien, It was a big pleasure to work with you! Thank you for all your help! :) And good luck on your next project and activities! 2016-09-09 19:05 GMT+03:00 Emilien Macchi : > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

mec, great work trying to make the stuff we build work and telling us to make it less broken. so we play ping pong now? On 09/09/16 12:05 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] pymod2pkg 0.5.4

On 09/09/2016 05:26 AM, Dirk Müller wrote: > Hi, > > OpenStack RPM Packaging would like to update to pymod2pkg 0.5.4: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367388/ > > this package is only used by packaging (renderspec and rpm-packaging > git repos) that are on a release-independent schedule

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Sep 9, 2016 08:26, "Ben Swartzlander" wrote: > > On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> >> On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/368114/ On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 10:51, Morgan Fainberg wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Tom Fifield > wrote: On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 10:41, Tom Fifield wrote: On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

[openstack-dev] [puppet] Puppet OpenStack PTL non-candidacy

Hi, I wrote a little blog post about the last cycle in PuppetOpenStack: http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-achievements-during-newton-cycle/ I can't describe how much I liked to be PTL during the last 18 months and I wouldn't imagine we would be where we are today when I started to contribute

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Is this a bug in metadata proxy...

Yeah, the setting for user was neutron. The setting for group was different than the process that started up the proxy (which had user neutron and group neutron). The review 161494, was it applied to Liberty? I think in our case, DHCP agent only had dhcp ini file and not metadata ini file, so it

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Tom Fifield wrote: > > > On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 10:41, Tom Fifield wrote: > >> >> >> On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> >>> On 2016-09-09 01:10:15 + (+), Bhandaru, Malini K wrote: >>> Is it just me who likes to hit the save

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [devstack] [ocata] Consistent Endpoint Discovery

Hey there, Goutham, thanks for replying! I don't dispute that the services are properly returning a list of supported versions, if you request the root resource. So far, that works wonderfully. I'm speaking of the resource endpoint that an API client is given when it queries the keystone service

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 9/9/16 11:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> [...] >> One interesting side-effect is that since the timing of the election >> period (for PTL and TC positions) is defined in the TC charter[3] >> relative to the *Summit*, it means that (unless we change this) we'll >> now

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 廿十六年九月九日 朝 10:41, Tom Fifield wrote: On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-09-09 01:10:15 + (+), Bhandaru, Malini K wrote: Is it just me who likes to hit the save button often? It gets tedious proving often that you are not a robot. Wiki reCAPTCHA likes proof even

Re: [openstack-dev] venting -- OpenStack wiki reCAPTCHA

On 廿十六年九月八日 暮 08:36, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-09-09 01:10:15 + (+), Bhandaru, Malini K wrote: Is it just me who likes to hit the save button often? It gets tedious proving often that you are not a robot. Wiki reCAPTCHA likes proof even if saves are spaced less than a minute

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] tripleo-test-cloud-rh1 and bastion host

Greetings, I would like to start the discussions around the removal of the bastion host that sits in front of tripleo-test-cloud-rh1. It is my understanding, all traffic from tripleo-test-cloud-rh1 flows through this linux box. Obviously this is problematic for a public cloud. I currently do

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Thierry Carrez wrote: > [...] > One interesting side-effect is that since the timing of the election > period (for PTL and TC positions) is defined in the TC charter[3] > relative to the *Summit*, it means that (unless we change this) we'll > now run elections to renew PTL and TC positions in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Network Template Generator

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 08/10/2016 11:05 AM, Liz Blanchard wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Ben Nemec > > wrote: > > > > On 08/08/2016 09:22 PM, Dan Prince

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 9 September 2016 at 17:22, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in >> the IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very >> well. I'm not

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Tempest] Problem with paramiko on grenade

On 09/09/2016 02:08 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 09/08/2016 11:24 AM, Anton Arefiev wrote: Hi folks! We've ran into the problem with paramiko, similar to[1] in Inspector. Our grenade job fails on

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith > wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley > wrote: they

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

> -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: September-09-16 8:19 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & > "Release stewards" > > On 08/09/16 18:41

Re: [Openstack-operators] Openstack team size vs's deployment size

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:52:42PM +, Kris G. Lindgren wrote: > I completely agree about the general rule of thumb. I am only looking at the > team that specifically supports openstack. For us frontend support for > public clouds is handled by another team/org all together. in my previous

[openstack-dev] [neutron][stadium][release] Doing new stadium releases through openstack/releases only

Hi all, Cathy noticed lately that networking-sfc 2.0.0 release did not trigger an announcement email. This was because the tag pushed did not contain some metadata required by the post-merge job:

[openstack-dev] [new][oslo] oslo.db 4.13.3 release (newton)

We are ecstatic to announce the release of: oslo.db 4.13.3: Oslo Database library This release is part of the newton stable release series. With source available at: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.db With package available at: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/oslo.db

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Thierry Carrez wrote: Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: [...] I slightly disagree with enforcing another formal role to all teams. I feel that we have enough of them (release liaison for one) to cover for release cross-project work, and projects are free to set their teams with

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] today was a bad day for CI

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 at 01:17 Emilien Macchi wrote: [...] > 3) Disable Ironic testing on Ubuntu. Packages are broken in recent > Newton upgrade. They are working on it. > Ironic packaging issue fixed and released to newton-updates; that will teach me to spend a morning tidying

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

Re: "One OpenStack" product Is vim, less, awk, sed, and emacs one product? Are the bolt and nut of same size (and produced by same manufacturer) sitting in a hardware store a single product? A vote or edict does not automatically make things one product - it only conveys a desire. I would argue

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 08/09/16 23:41 -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote: Chris Dent wrote: There's a governance proposal in progress at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > [...] > I slightly disagree with enforcing another formal role to all teams. I > feel that we have enough of them (release liaison for one) to cover for > release cross-project work, and projects are free to set their teams > with more roles if needed. You should probably

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

On 09/09/16 10:22 +, John Davidge wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really decide once

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > John Griffith wrote: > > ​I think Sean Dague made some really good points and I'd tend to lean > > that way. Honestly charters, bylaws, governance etc shift or are > > rewritten fairly often. Why not just change

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 08/09/16 16:48 -0600, Doug Wiegley wrote: On Sep 8, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Thierry Carrez wrote: Rob Cresswell wrote: I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't really need to change. Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On 08/09/16 18:41 +, Hongbin Lu wrote: -Original Message- From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] Sent: September-08-16 5:00 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards" Sean Dague

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

This makes sense to me. I think I'm having a slow day and wasn't connecting the dots. Having the next PTL come in and immediately hear feedback and begin planning how to address it, rather than coming in shortly before the planning event without a feedback loop, sounds like a good move. +1

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Tempest] Problem with paramiko on grenade

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > On 09/08/2016 11:24 AM, Anton Arefiev wrote: >> >> Hi folks! >> >> We've ran into the problem with paramiko, similar to[1] in Inspector. >> Our grenade job fails on TestNetworkBasicOps.test_network_basic_ops with >> [2]

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zun-ui] init zun-ui-core group

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:12:31AM +, Shuu Mutou wrote: > Hi peers, > > I created Zun-UI project[1] with help of infra-team. > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366489/ > > Since no one join in gerrit group zun-ui-core yet, could someone add me to > zun-ui-core? > > My gerrit profile

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Rob Cresswell wrote: > I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this > all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't > really need to change. Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but I see what you mean. > I've read the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Release countdown for week R-3, 12 - 16 Sept -- Release Candidate Deadline

Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > Could you please link to email you're talking about? I can't find > anything like that neither in my inbox nor on > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/author.html. It was sent directly to PTLs and release liaisons in an effort to reach them more

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Tempest] Problem with paramiko on grenade

On 09/08/2016 11:24 AM, Anton Arefiev wrote: Hi folks! We've ran into the problem with paramiko, similar to[1] in Inspector. Our grenade job fails on TestNetworkBasicOps.test_network_basic_ops with [2] or [3] in 90% cases. Folks, we're close to the release, and this becomes critical. We don't

  1   2   >