Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] TC Candidates: what does an OpenStack user look like?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 12:51 -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > So my question to the TC candidates (and incumbent TC members, or > anyone else, if they want to answer) is: what does the hypothetical > OpenStack user that is top-of-mind in your head look like? Who are > _you_ building OpenStack for?

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 03:08 +, joehuang wrote: > Hello, Jay, > > Sorry, I don't know why my mail-agent(Microsoft Outlook Web App) did > not carry the thread message-id information in the reply. I'll check > and avoid to create a new thread for reply in existing thread. It's a common

Re: [openstack-dev] Project mascots update

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 17:09 +1000, Mike Carden wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Antoni Segura Puimedon < > toni+openstac...@midokura.com> wrote: > > > > > It would be really awesome if, in true OSt and OSS spirit this work > > happened in an OpenStack repository with an open, text based

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Devdatta Kulkarni wrote: > > As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single > > -vendor tag, I have following thoughts/questions on this issue. > > In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the > table

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 13:43 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would > > just like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very > > little diversity is

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +: > > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects > > from our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively > > developed under the principles of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Big tent? (Related to Plugins for all)

ns in this model are driven locally not globally. James > Thanks, > Kevin > > From: James Bottomley [james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:42 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions);

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Big tent? (Related to Plugins for all)

ome equivalence to openstack projects/PTLs) doing this on a case by case basis. James > Thanks, > Kevin > > From: James Bottomley [james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:57 AM > To: OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Big tent? (Related to Plugins for all)

On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 21:24 +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 20 July 2016 at 19:57, James Bottomley < > james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > > OK, I accept your analogy, even though I would view currency as the > > will to create and push

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Big tent? (Related to Plugins for all)

On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 16:08 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > +1 to the finding of a middle ground. Thanks ... I have actually been an enterprise architect (I just keep very quiet about it when talking Open Source). > The problem I've seen with your suggested OpenSource solution is the > current

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Big tent? (Related to Plugins for all)

On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 11:58 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19 2016, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Perhaps if we form and start working together as a group, we can > > disect why nothing happened, build consensus on the most important > > thing to do next, and actually fix some

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][nova-docker] Retiring nova-docker project

On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 21:28 -0500, Edward Leafe wrote: > On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Joshua Harlow > wrote: > > > > That's sad, how can we fix the fact that users/deployments have > > gone off into their own silos and may be running their own forks; > > what went wrong

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 17:48 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 02/29/2016 05:34 PM, James Bottomley wrote: [...] > > While I accept there is potentially a gaming problem in all forms > > of Open Source (we see this in the kernel with the attempt to boost > > patch counts with

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 15:57 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 02/29/2016 03:10 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > Current thinking would be to give preferential rates to access > > > > the main summit to people who are present to other events (like > > > > this new separated contributors-oriented

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 17:24 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:55:52AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:03 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:03 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > On 02/22/2016 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona. > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 12:40 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Qiming Teng wrote: > > [...] > > Week 1: > >Wednesday-Friday: 3 days Summit. > > * Primarily an event for marketing, sales, CTOs, architects, > >operators, journalists, ... > > * Contributors can decide whether they

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] solving API case sensitivity issues

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 11:40 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/24/2016 11:28 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:48 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > > > We have a specific bug around aggregrate metadata setting in Nova > > > which > > > exposes

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] solving API case sensitivity issues

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:48 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > We have a specific bug around aggregrate metadata setting in Nova > which > exposes a larger issue with our mysql schema. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1538011 > > On mysql the following will explode with a 500: > > > nova

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] unconstrained growth, why?

On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 13:25 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/17/2016 09:28 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Are people confused about what OpenStack is because they're looking > > for a single turn-key system from a vendor? Because they don't know > > what features they want/need? Or are we just doing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Proposal: Separate design summits from OpenStack conferences

On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 04:36 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > Honestly I don't know of any communication between two cores at a > > > +2 party that couldn't have just as easily happened surrounded by > > > other contributors. Nor, I hope, does anyone put in the > > > substantial reviewing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Proposal: Separate design summits from OpenStack conferences

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 07:45 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > [...] > > > * much of the problem with the lavish parties is IMO related to > > > the > > > *exclusivity* of certain shindigs, as opposed to devs > > > socializing at > > > summit being inappropriate per se. In that vein, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Proposal: Separate design summits from OpenStack conferences

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 13:26 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > * much of the problem with the lavish parties is IMO > > > > > related to > > > > > the > > > > > *exclusivity* of certain shindigs, as opposed to devs > > > > > socializing at > > > > > summit being

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Proposal: Separate design summits from OpenStack conferences

On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 09:43 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/08/2016 09:03 AM, Fausto Marzi wrote: > > The OpenStack Summit is a great thing as it is now. It creates big > > momentum, it's a strong motivator for the engineers (as enjoy our > > time > > there) > > I disagree with you on this. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Proposal: Separate design summits from OpenStack conferences

On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 15:07 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > Hello all, > > tl;dr > = > > I have long thought that the OpenStack Summits have become too > commercial and provide little value to the software engineers > contributing to OpenStack. > > I propose the following: > > 1) Separate the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] sponsor some LVM development

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 21:49 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote: > On 22 Jan 2016 17:43, "James Bottomley" < > james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > The 3x difference in the benchmarks would seem to indicate a local > > tuning or configuration problem,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:54 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Zane Bitter wrote: > > [...] Honestly, it > > sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given > > up. > > I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should > naturally > come up with bursts of feature addition

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] sponsor some LVM development

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:58 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote: > Hi Matt, James, > > any thoughts on the below notes? To be honest, not really. You've repeated stage two of the Oracle argument: wheel out benchmarks and attack alleged "complexity". I don't really have a great interest in repeating a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] sponsor some LVM development

On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 13:40 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote: > Hi Matt, > > thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we > start some activity in this area. You still haven't answered Anita's question: when you say "sponsor" do you mean provide resources to existing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 20:48 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, > I'll be heard. > > Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When > they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file > copyright

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:38 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, > > I'll > > be heard. > > > > Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. >

Re: [openstack-dev] "Open Containers" group on LinkedIn

On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 18:11 +0530, Nitin Agarwal wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > A very Happy New Year 2016 !! > > I have started a new group "Open Containers" on LinkedIn to provide a > common platform to all the Containers and Docker enthusiasts and > passionate > people. In this group, we will

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI spec

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 16:55 -0800, Yuhong Bao wrote: > > > I read the patent and it looks like UEFI or for that matter any > > > non > > > -Windows implementation of FAT would probably not infringe on the > > > patent. > > > > Well, I'm not going to give you a legal opinion. However, most > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI spec

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 18:03 +, Yuhong Bao wrote: > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...> writes: > > As you can see, they're mostly expired (in the US) but the last one > > will expire in 2020 (if I calculate the date correctly). > If you are referring to US6286

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI spec

On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 08:46 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > > > That seems weird enough that I'd rather push back on our Platinum > > > Board > > > member to fix the licensing before we

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][magnum] Quota for Magnum Resources

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 22:48 +, Adrian Otto wrote: > On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:25 PM, James Bottomley < > james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 20:35 +, Adrian Otto wrote: > Clint, > > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][magnum] Quota for Magnum Resources

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 20:35 +, Adrian Otto wrote: > Clint, > > > On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com] > > > Sent: 15 December 2015 22:40 > > > To: openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Keystone] The unbearable lightness of specs

On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 17:25 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:52:37AM -0400, Adam Young wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:28 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote: Gerrit and our spec template are a horrible tool for discussing design. This is the heart of the problem. I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request

On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 13:05 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:33:56AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 02:43 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:09PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: What about code history and respect

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request

On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 02:43 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:09PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: What about code history and respect of commit ownership? I'm personally wondering if it's fair to copy/paste several thousands of lines of code from another

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][infra][tc][ptl] Scaling up code review process (subdir cores)

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 09:29 +0300, Boris Pavlovic wrote: *- Why not just trust people* People get tired and make mistakes (very often). That's why we have blocking CI system that checks patches, That's why we have rule 2 cores / review (sometimes even 3,4,5...)... In ideal work

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][infra][tc][ptl] Scaling up code review process (subdir cores)

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 17:45 +0300, Boris Pavlovic wrote: James B. One more time. Everybody makes mistakes and it's perfectly OK. I don't want to punish anybody and my goal is to make system that catch most of them (human mistakes) no matter how it is complicated. I'm not saying never do

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova-docker] Status update

On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 16:55 +, Adrian Otto wrote: I will also mention that it’s natural to be allergic to the idea of nested virtualization. We all know that creating multiple levels of hardware virtualization leads to bad performance outcomes. However, nested containers do not carry that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] cross project communication: periodic developer newsletter?

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:54 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hugh Blemings wrote: +2 I think asking LWN if they have the bandwidth and interest to do this would be ideal - they've credibility in the Free/Open Source space and a proven track record. Nice people too. On the bandwidth

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] cross project communication: periodic developer newsletter?

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:45 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Joe Gordon wrote: [...] To tackle this I would like to propose the idea of a periodic developer oriented newsletter, and if we agree to go forward with this, hopefully the foundation can help us find someone to write newsletter.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] cross project communication: periodic developer newsletter?

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:39 -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote: James Bottomley mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com May 5, 2015 at 9:53 AM On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 10:45 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Joe Gordon wrote: [...] To tackle this I would like to propose the idea of a periodic

[openstack-dev] Fixing the Nova Core Reviewer Frustration [was Re: [Nova] PTL Candidacy]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote: Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover the review load. It doesn't have to be a core that notices a problem with a patch -- anyone can do that. There are many people who do help out with non-core reviews, and

Re: [openstack-dev] Fixing the Nova Core Reviewer Frustration

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 13:35 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: On 04/07/2015 01:02 PM, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote: Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover the review load. It doesn't have to be a core that notices

Re: [openstack-dev] Fixing the Nova Core Reviewer Frustration [was Re: [Nova] PTL Candidacy]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 18:12 +, Tim Bell wrote: -Original Message- From: James Bottomley [mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com] Sent: 07 April 2015 19:03 To: Michael Still Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Fixing the Nova Core Reviewer Frustration [was Re: [Nova] PTL Candidacy]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 14:24 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: On 04/07/2015 01:35 PM, James Bottomley wrote: If I look at the history, I also see some reviewers dropping out once their concerns and review comments have been addressed (after giving a +1), so the other thing I'd suggest

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] bug expiration

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 07:03 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 04/02/2015 06:54 AM, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 06:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 04/02/2015 06:33 AM, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: I just spent

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] bug expiration

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: I just spent a chunk of the morning purging out some really old Incomplete bugs because about 9 months ago we disabled the auto expiration bit in launchpad - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+configure-bugtracker

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] bug expiration

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 06:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 04/02/2015 06:33 AM, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:32 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: I just spent a chunk of the morning purging out some really old Incomplete bugs because about 9 months ago we

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Neutron] Status of the nova-network to Neutron migration work

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 17:01 +, Tim Bell wrote: From the stats (http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-user-survey-insights-november-2014), -43% of production clouds use OVS (the default for Neutron) -30% of production clouds are Nova network based -

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 11:19 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects). Yes, but I thought I covered

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Daniel P. Berrange wrote: [...] The key observations The first key observation from the schedule is that although we have a 6 month release cycle, we in fact make 4 releases in that six months because

Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum

On Sat, 2015-02-07 at 00:44 +, Adrian Otto wrote: Magnum Team, In our initial spec, we addressed the subject of resource scheduling. Our plan was to begin with a naive scheduler that places resources on a specified Node and can sequentially fill Nodes if one is not specified. Magnum

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] on Dockerfile patterns

On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:52 -0400, David Vossel wrote: - Original Message - Ok, why are you so down on running systemd in a container? It goes against the grain. From a distributed systems view, we gain quite a bit of control by maintaining one service per container. Containers

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] on Dockerfile patterns

On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 11:24 -0400, David Vossel wrote: - Original Message - On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:52 -0400, David Vossel wrote: - Original Message - Ok, why are you so down on running systemd in a container? It goes against the grain. From a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][cinder] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 07:36 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: b) The conflict Dan is speaking of is around the current situation where we have a limited core review team bandwidth and we have to pick and choose which virt driver-specific features we will review. This leads to bad feelings and

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][cinder] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:20 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 11 September 2014 15:35, James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote: OK, so look at a concrete example: in 2002, the Linux kernel went with bitkeeper precisely because we'd reached the scaling limit of a single

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][cinder] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 17:20 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote: On 09/05/2014 07:07 PM, James Bottomley wrote: Actually, I don't think this analysis is accurate. Some people are simply interested in small aspects of a project. It's the scratch your own itch part of open source. The thing

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:02 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 09/05/2014 07:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12:37AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 09/05/2014 06:40 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote: A handy example of this I can think of is the currently granted FFE for serial

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:14 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Daniel P. Berrange wrote: For a long time I've use the LKML 'subsystem maintainers' model as the reference point for ideas. In a more LKML like model, each virt team (or other subsystem team) would have their own separate GIT repo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Containers][Nova] Containers Team Mid-Cycle Meetup to join Nova Meetup

On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 22:31 +, Adrian Otto wrote: CORRECTION: This event happens July 28-31. Sorry for any confusion! Corrected Announcement: I'm afraid all the Parallels guys (including me) will be in Moscow on these dates for an already booked company meet up. James

Re: [openstack-dev] [Containers] Nova virt driver requirements

On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 05:36:59PM +0400, Dmitry Guryanov wrote: I have a question about mounts - in OpenVZ project each container has its own filesystem in an image file. So to start a container we mount this filesystem

Re: [openstack-dev] [containers][nova][cinder] Cinder support in containers and unprivileged container-in-container

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 09:09 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:57:41PM +, Adrian Otto wrote: Containers Team, The nova-docker developers are currently discussing options for implementation for supporting mounting of Cinder volumes in containers, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [containers][nova][cinder] Cinder support in containers and unprivileged container-in-container

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 17:55 -0400, Eric Windisch wrote: Why would you mount it from within the container? CAP_SYS_ADMIN is a per process property, so you use nsenter to execute the mount in the required mount namespace with CAP_SYS_ADMIN from outside of the container (i.e. the host).

Re: [openstack-dev] [containers][nova][cinder] Cinder support in containers and unprivileged container-in-container

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 21:57 +, Adrian Otto wrote: Containers Team, The nova-docker developers are currently discussing options for implementation for supporting mounting of Cinder volumes in containers, and creation of unprivileged containers-in-containters. Both of these currently

Re: [openstack-dev] Generic question: Any tips for 'keeping up' with the mailing lists?

On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 16:23 +, Justin Hammond wrote: I am a developer who is currently having troubles keeping up with the mailing list due to volume, and my inability to organize it in my client. I am nearly forced to use Outlook 2011 for Mac and I have read and attempted to implement

Re: [openstack-dev] Introducing the new OpenStack service for Containers

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:28 -0800, Stuart Fox wrote: Hey all Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, after all, just another

Re: [openstack-dev] Introducing the new OpenStack service for Containers

On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 13:46 -0500, Eric Windisch wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:28 -0800, Stuart Fox wrote: Hey all Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody give

Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns

On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 00:21 +, Day, Phil wrote: Leaving a mark. === You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since you did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find *something* wrong. So you find some nitpick and -1 the