On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
I can see your perspective but I don't think its internally consistent...
Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer:
Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations.
With a big chunk of local things - local image
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:54:37PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/12/2014 03:40 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
[. . .]
(Sorry for the late response, was off for a week.)
So, effectively, you're trying to add a minimal Fedora image w/
virt-preview repo (as part of some post-install
Hi Clay,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm just experimenting with this feature in between two server machines at
different locations.
I'm not looking for synchronous replication in between the sites.
Asynchronous replication is fine.
It would be nice if the asynchronous replication were to happen at
Hi Eugene,
I'd like to ask you to reconsider the -1 on this review:
a) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114928/
I'm tackling a different issue than Kevin here:
b) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109736/
I'm trying to allow general use of the IpNetns wrapper when
After some more discussion and several attempts at different ways to solve
this problem, here's the message I've just added to
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97657/
I spoke to xu haiwei about this change a few days ago and agreed to have a
stab at switching from using environment variables to
Le 15/08/2014 15:35, Andrew Laski a écrit :
On 08/14/2014 03:21 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:05 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 13/08/2014 12:21, Sylvain Bauza a écrit :
Le 12/08/2014 22:06, Sylvain Bauza a écrit :
Le 12/08/2014 18:54, Nikola Đipanov a écrit :
On 08/12/2014
Just a reminder that this deadline approaches rapidly.
Feature proposal freeze is midnight on Thursday this week, UTC. If
your code isn't proposed by then, you will require a freeze exception
to get it reviewed / merged for Juno, and that is something I'd like
to avoid as much as possible.
From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 9:31 PM
To: OpenStack List
On 08/18/2014 06:06 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:27:39AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 07:57:28AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
My recollection is that this was a
On 08/15/2014 10:26 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Aug 15, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Ben Nemec openst...@nemebean.com wrote:
On 08/15/2014 08:20 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/15/2014 09:13 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/15/2014 04:21 AM, Roman Podoliaka wrote:
Hi Oslo team,
I propose that we add
On 08/13/2014 11:25 PM, Sergey Lukjanov wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday, August 16 at 16:00 UTC Gerrit will be unavailable for
about 20 minutes while we rename some projects. Existing reviews,
project watches, etc, should all be carried over.
The current list of projects that we will rename is:
On 08/14/2014 12:35 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a
Since after a week of discussing it I see no compelling argument against
reverting it - here's the proposal:
https://review.openstack.org/115218
Thanks,
N.
On 08/12/2014 12:21 PM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
Hey Nova-istas,
While I was hacking on [1] I was considering how to approach the fact
+1
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Boring, Walter walter.bor...@hp.com
wrote:
Hey guys,
I wanted to pose a nomination for Cinder core.
Xing Yang.
She has been active in the cinder community for many releases and has
worked on several drivers as well as other features for cinder
On 08/14/2014 01:08 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com
mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:36 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to
review it over-and-above the
On 08/14/2014 03:38 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/14/2014 09:21 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com
mailto:egl...@redhat.com wrote:
Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience
back into the community is a slow
On 08/13/2014 08:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com
mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities
back
Hi,
Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline?
This does not mean that i want to use Swift without gatekeeper because
it can be security risk, but i just want to make it clear whether it is
configurable or not.
Thanks,
--
Daisuke Morita morita.dais...@lab.ntt.co.jp
NTT Software
I think to make the Summit sessions more effective:
1. The presenter to put in more effort beforehand - implement a rough POC,
write up a detailed etherpad, etc. where everything is ready say 2-3 weeks
before the Summit. Maybe even require a reviewed spec for sessions which
introduce new
Hi Andrea,
I tried adding the tenant to the credentials I supply - and it didn't change
the results I am getting. I opened a bug on this issue:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1356759
Can you devote some time to this bug, or let me know how to fix it and I will
do it myself?
Thanks a
Hi All,
I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the
tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an
etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a
spreadsheet[1]. Before we go about making these changes I'd like to go
through
Hi Edgar,
NetScaler CI is not listed in the report. NetScaler CI up and running
and it is voting for patchsets which contains LBaaS changes, that's why you did
not see it voting for the test change ref.
Also, you can add me as a contact person and alias
Hi,
Minesweeper is back up and running - this is now called Vmware NSX CI.
A patch for the deprecation of the ESX driver resulted in endless Minesweeper
failures (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108854/). These were resolved by a
number of patches, the last being
On 08/19/2014 12:41 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the
tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an
etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a
spreadsheet[1]. Before we go
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
19:46:34
Hi,
As it was also stated in
http://www.stillhq.com/openstack/juno/12.html, we expect to finish
the prerequisites for Scheduler split by Juno. That requires to merge
two blueprints, one with the spec validated but patches still under
review [1] and one with the spec still subject to
Added tag Heat
Regards,
Sergey.
On 1 August 2014 09:52, Manickam, Kanagaraj kanagaraj.manic...@hp.com
wrote:
Hi,
This mail is generic to all openstack service and explained the problem
with respect to heat here.
I have come across the situation where, updates are involved in the
On 8/18/2014 9:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Clint Byrum wrote:
Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer:
Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations.
Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations.
Cinder is a set of tools to abstract block-device
If you do not have the gatekeeper explicitly referenced in your proxy pipeline,
Swift will automatically add it.
--John
On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Daisuke Morita morita.dais...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Hi,
Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline?
This does not mean that i
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
19:46:34 lifeless so I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all,
I've found out there are no clear public instructions on how to handle
oslo-incubator synchronizations in master and stable branches neither
at [1] nor at [2]. Though my observations show that there is some oral
tradition around community
Caution: words below may cause discomfort. I ask that folks read *all*
of my message before reacting to any piece of it. Thanks!
On 08/19/2014 02:41 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
I can see your perspective but I don't think its
In particular, I tried to run DevStack inside an LXC a few months ago. I
discovered that DevStack (presumably for the sake of cinder-volume)
pre-reqs a system package named tgt, and tgt does not succeed to install
inside an LXC (the install script launches the daemon, but the daemon
launch
Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com wrote on 08/14/2014 08:54:56 AM:
I see a few mentions of OpenStack services themselves being
containerized in Docker. Is this a serious trend in the community?
http://allthingsopen.com/2014/02/12/why-containers-for-openstack-services/
It looks to me like the
Hi all,
In response to the recent survey and resulting discussion about the meeting
time I would like to trial the alternative time discussed. In the short term
this means alternating between:
- Wednesdays at 1400 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt (Current time)
- Thursdays at 1600 UTC in
On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a
On 08/19/2014 11:23 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
Hi,all
I can't found the clear python version in the document of the
openstack.org.
Colud someone can tell me whether the havana or the icehouce supports the
python 2.7.5?Does it shoud modify the code to support?
Best regards.___
Hi,
Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if some things
are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects to Neutron. What
bothers me is the timing. Without warning we were put in an incubator in the
span of like 8 days. This makes it difficult to plan and
Some docs got merged last night. I think that if you fetch the latest and
rebase that you’ll end up with conflicts that you need to resolve manually.
The Readme file has changed a lot, so I’m sure git doesn’t know how to merge
your changes in.
Tim
On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Rajdeep Dua
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
19:46:34 lifeless so I
You need to rebase again. The readme file changed before Jenkins got a
chance to test your patch.
On Monday, August 18, 2014, Rajdeep Dua rajdeep@gmail.com wrote:
my branch already has the latest changes.
it is not able to merge two rst files hence it failed
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at
Parikshit,
I will add your information right now.
Thanks,
Edgar
On 8/19/14, 4:11 AM, Parikshit Manur parikshit.ma...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi Edgar,
NetScaler CI is not listed in the report. NetScaler CI up and running
and it is voting for patchsets which contains LBaaS changes, that's why
Hemanth,
What is your system reference name?
Please, provide me a link to the latest tempest logs.
Thanks,
Edgar
From: Hemanth Ravi hemanthrav...@gmail.commailto:hemanthrav...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
I just added it to the wiki page.
Thanks,
Edgar
On 8/17/14, 8:49 PM, balaj...@freescale.com balaj...@freescale.com
wrote:
Hi Edgar,
Freescale CI is not listed in the below report:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers#Existing_Pl
We are following all the requirements
Dane,
Are you sure about it?
I just went to this commit and I could not find the APIC tests.
Thanks,
Edgar
On 8/17/14, 8:47 PM, Dane Leblanc (leblancd) lebla...@cisco.com wrote:
Edgar:
The Cisco APIC should be reporting results for both APIC-related and
non-APIC related changes now.
(See
I just updated the wiki, I will run a verification by end of the day.
Thanks,
Edgar
On 8/16/14, 11:34 PM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com
trinath.soman...@freescale.com wrote:
Hi Edgar,
Freescale CI is reporting the results for ML2 Mechanism driver (J-1) and
FWaaS Plugin (to be approved for
Thanks a lot, Brocade CI is looking good.
Cheers,
Edgar
On 8/15/14, 6:22 PM, Karthik Natarajan natar...@brocade.com wrote:
Hi Edgar,
Brocade Vyatta CI is reporting the results and providing log links.
For Brocade Vyatta Plugin, I have updated my name as the owner.
For Brocade VDX Plugin, Shiv
Great!
I will run another test later today.
Thanks,
Edgar
From: Ichihara Hirofumi
ichihara.hirof...@gmail.commailto:ichihara.hirof...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Kevin,
I just verified, Thanks a lot.
Edgar
From: Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.commailto:blak...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 at 4:56 PM
To:
Le 19/08/2014 14:51, Sylvain Bauza a écrit :
Hi,
As it was also stated in
http://www.stillhq.com/openstack/juno/12.html, we expect to finish
the prerequisites for Scheduler split by Juno. That requires to merge
two blueprints, one with the spec validated but patches still under
review
From which commit is it missing?
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114629/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114393/
-Original Message-
From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:28 PM
To: Dane Leblanc (leblancd); OpenStack Development Mailing
On 08/19/2014 06:39 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
On the other hand, ERT discussion is decoupled from the scheduler split
discussion and will be delayed until Extensible Resource Tracker owner
(Paul Murray) is back from vacation.
In the mean time, we're considering new patches using ERT as
Thiago,
My old setup was dual-stacked, simply using a flat linuxbridge. It's
just that I now realy would like to separate multiple tenants using L3
routers, which should be easy (dual stacked) to achieve once Dane's work
is completed.
Did you find the time to commit those required changes for
Thanks for the summary Trevor.
On 08/18/2014 01:25 PM, Trevor Vardeman wrote:
1) Discuss future of Octavia in light of Neutron-incubator project proposal.
a) There are many problems with Neutron-Incubator as currently described
Let's be specific, enumerate the problems and address them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 19/08/14 17:33, wrote:
Hi,all I can't found the clear python version? in the document of
the openstack.org?. Colud someone can tell me whether the havana or
the icehouce supports the python 2.7.5?Does it shoudmodify the
code?? to
Hi Harm:
Unfortunately I haven’t had time to complete the changes yet. Even if/when
these changes are completed, it’s unlikely that this blueprint will get
approved for Juno, but I’ll see what I can do.
Thanks,
Dane
From: Harm Weites [mailto:h...@weites.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014
I was looking to one of the most recent Neutron commits:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115175/
I could not find the APIC report.
Edgar
On 8/19/14, 9:48 AM, Dane Leblanc (leblancd) lebla...@cisco.com wrote:
From which commit is it missing?
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114629/
On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote:
Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if
some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects
to Neutron. What bothers me is the timing. Without warning we were
put in an incubator in the span of like
Currently qemu guest agent is supported in libvirt driver via image metadata
[1].
Is there a reason why it is not exposed via nova config variable as well ?
It would be good to create virtio socket by default controlled via nova config
param
rather than ops folks having to set metadata
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote:
Hi,
Minesweeper is back up and running – this is now called “Vmware NSX CI”.
A patch for the deprecation of the ESX driver resulted in endless
Minesweeper failures (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108854/). These
were
+1 for neutron-labs! ;-)
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Stefano Maffulli
stef...@openstack.org wrote:
On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote:
Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if
some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects
-Original Message-
From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com]
Sent: 19 August 2014 17:50
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource
Tracking
On 08/19/2014 06:39 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
On the other
Hi Joe,
manual rechecks are possible for mine sweeper. The new syntax is
vmware-recheck-patch. I found out vmware-recheck still triggered upstream
zuul.
I think it should be possible to submit a batch job with all the patches
that need to be rechecked without having to trigger the recheck from
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to propose that we adopt
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
I'd like to
Hi,
The QoS API extension has lived in Gerrit/been in review for about a
year. It's gone through revisions, summit design sessions, and for a
little while, a subteam.
I would like to request incubation in the upcoming incubator, so that
the code will have a more permanent home where we can
+1.
This work in particular brings up a question about the incubator. One of
the rules was that the neutron core code can't import code from the
incubated projects. The QoS requires a mixin to annotate the port and
network objects with QoS settings. How exactly would we actually use the
QoS code
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
While I cannot speak for the dynamics of the tripleo team, if this were to
be adopted in nova I would not +2 any blueprints as I don't think I can
commit to *guaranteeing* I will have even more review bandwidth, I can
On 08/19/2014 07:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
All of these projects should be able to live in the Program, in the
openstack/ code namespace, for as long as the project is actively
developed, and let the contributor communities in these competing
projects *naturally* work to do any of the following:
Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2014-08-19 10:41:11 +:
Hi All,
I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the
tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an
etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a
Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2014-08-19 12:07:53 +:
One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is
the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at
some point we actually kill one of the controllers and spawn a second
user image?
The meeting for this Wednesday (8/20) is canceled.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
+1, I am hoping this is just a short term holding point and this will
eventually be merged into main branch as this is a feature a lot of companies,
us included would definitely benefit from having supported and many thanks to
Sean for sticking with this and continue to push this.
/Alan
I've put the agenda for tomorrow's Octavia meeting on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Weekly_Meeting_Agenda#Agenda
Please feel free to edit it there and/or respond to this e-mail with
additional items if you would rather not edit the wiki.
Thanks,
Stephen
--
Stephen Balukoff
In the current approach QoS support is being hardwired into ML2.
Maybe this is not the best way of doing that, as perhaps it will end up
requiring every mech driver which enforces VIF configuration should support
it.
I see two routes. One is a mechanism driver similar to l2-pop, and then you
+1 to service plugin
It's better to strip service related extensions from ML2 core plugin as
possible as we can, and put them in separate service plugin. Not only QOS, but
also SG or possible other extensions. For the binding issue, vif-detail dict
might be used for foreign key association.
Hi, in working on pbr I have run into some bad data in our
setup.cfg's. Details are here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bad-setup-cfg-versions
Short version: we need to do a missed step in the release project for
a bunch of stable branches, and in some cases master, for a bunch of
projects.
Don't you hate it when just after you hit send...
On 20 August 2014 13:12, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Hi, in working on pbr I have run into some bad data in our
setup.cfg's. Details are here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bad-setup-cfg-versions
Short version: we need
On 20 August 2014 13:26, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
Don't you hate it when just after you hit send...
This one is actually fine, as is all the ones where the tag is a beta
of the same version. I'm fixing this and another bug and will follow
up shortly with a correct list.
After thinking about what can be done to start, because I hate being
stagnant, I decided to create an etherpad of things that I think need
more discussion or can start working on now.
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Octavia_Action_Items
Add on to this list if you know of others, as I am sure
On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I
still believe our basic principle of using OpenStack technologies that
already exist in preference to third party ones is still sound, and
offers substantial
On 20 August 2014 15:28, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
I think you mean it 'can be argued'... ;). And I'd be happy if folk in
those communities want to join in the deployment program and have code
repositories in openstack/. To date, none have asked.
Sorry, that was
There has been a lot of discussion around these issues, let me see if I
can break it down into pieces, hopefully in a way that allows some
progress on one of them first.
I continue to focus on the timeless version of the problem, in which the
placement question is simply where can we put some
This is primarily an issue for Nova.
Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 08/20/2014 01:21:24 AM:
From: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 08/20/2014 01:24 AM
Subject: [openstack-dev] Separating the issues
87 matches
Mail list logo
