Hi David,
You mean creating some kind of delimiter attribute in the domain entity?
That seems like a good idea, although it does not solve the problem
Morgan's mentioned that is the global hierarchy delimiter.
Henrique
Em qua, 3 de jun de 2015 às 04:21, David Chadwick d.w.chadw...@kent.ac.uk
On Wed, Jun 03 2015, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
And I don't understand what so serious problem we have.
We were not able to do reverts so we build CI that doesn't allow us to
break master
so we don't need to do reverts. I really don't see here any big problems.
Doing revert does not mean
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
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,
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:24:40 +0100:
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning,
On 06/03/2015 04:15 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
o Tools to build packages in CI jobs should provide a consistent
interface regardless of packaging being built
Sure, we can have *some* of the tooling converging. But I don't see
Debian/Ubuntu using anything else than git-buildpackage and sbuild (as
Hi all!
I'd like to discuss first implementation thoughts about this [1] blueprint,
that we want to implement in Liberty.
This feature is supposed to increase the speed of application development.
Now engine interacts with API to get input task and packages.
Items, planned to implement first
Hello TC members and fellow stackers!
We have just submitted a review for project Searchlight to the OpenStack
governance projects list [1]. Searchlight is a new project being split out
of Glance based on the Glance Catalog Index Service, which was developed
and released in Kilo [2]. We received
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The discussion here has been great; we need to answer a few
On 06/03/2015 06:47 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/02/2015 10:40 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a
Le 03/06/2015 15:15, Nikola Đipanov a écrit :
On 06/02/2015 03:14 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi,
Currently working on implementing the RequestSpec object BP [1], I had
some cool comments on my change here :
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145528/12/nova/objects/request_spec.py,cm
Since we
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.
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:33 PM, James Bottomley
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide
an update from the discussion.
Thankyou - much appreciated.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging
Hi Steve,
yes, it makes sense, thanks for clarification.
Flag --or-update for image create cmd looks as a good solution.
Marek
On 2.6.2015 23:34 Steve Martinelli wrote:
I'm thinking that the current approach is probably how we want to keep
things. I can't imagine many other projects being
On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
These numbers don't match the meaning of semver, though. Semver
describes clearly why you increment each part of the version number
[1]. We can't call it semver and then make up our own completely
different rules.
Heh, I
Jeremy,
Except that reorganizing files in a repo so that you can have sane
pattern matches across them for different review subteams is
_exactly_ this. The question is really one of do you have a
separate .git in each of the directory trees for your subteams or
only one .git in the parent
Le 03/06/2015 16:02, Nikola Đipanov a écrit :
On 06/03/2015 02:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 13:53, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Alexis Lee alex...@hp.com wrote:
If you allocate all the memory of a box to high-mem instances, you may
not be
Evgeny Antyshev eantys...@odin.com writes:
Some CIs like to narrow their scope to a certain set of files.
For that, they specify file mask on per-job basis. So there appear
annoying comments with only Build succeeded.
(an example complaint:
On 2015-06-03 17:15:43 +0300 (+0300), Boris Pavlovic wrote:
I can't talk for other projects, so let's talk about Rally specific.
We have single .git in root for whole project.
We have 4 subdir that can have own maintainers:
- rally/deploy
- rally/verify
- rally/benchmark
- rally/plugins
Hi Serge,
... tox -e cover is not really efficient for functional tests ...
You can start with dhcp, as there is already a base (abandoned change[1]
from Marios).
Regards,
Cedric/ZZelle
[1] https://review.openstack.org/136834
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Andreas Jaeger a...@suse.com
On 2015-06-03 09:29:38 +0300 (+0300), Boris Pavlovic wrote:
I will try to summarize all questions and reply on them:
*- Why not splitting repo/plugins?*
I don't want to make architectural decisions based on social or
not enough good tool for review issues.
[...]
Except that
On 06/03/2015 02:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 13:53, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Alexis Lee alex...@hp.com wrote:
If you allocate all the memory of a box to high-mem instances, you may
not be billing for all the CPU and disk which are now
I gave a presentation on Dynamic Policy for Access Control at the Summit.
https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/dynamic-policy-for-access-control
My slides are here:
http://adam.younglogic.com/presentations/dynamic_policy.pp.pdf
My original blog post
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:01:06 +0100:
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-06-03 15:09:28 +0200:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first
Following on the thread about no longer doing stable point releases [1]
at the summit we talked about doing icehouse-eol pretty soon [2].
I scrubbed the open stable/icehouse patches last week and we're down to
at least one screen of changes now [3].
My thinking was once we've processed that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James B.,
Thanks for this reply.
As you asked for ACK from all parts, my words will be very much like the
ones of James P. (I've just read his message, and I'm jealous of his
nice native-English wording...:)).
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E.
2015-06-03 12:59 GMT+02:00 Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com:
Many thanks, Haïkel, that looks like the information that my team needed.
Neil
Feel free to ask or join us on our downstream irc channel (#rdo @ freenode) if
you have further questions.
We also hold weekly public irc
On Wed, Jun 03 2015, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Reverting patches is unacceptable for Rally project.
Then you have a more serious problem than the rest of OpenStack.
This means that we merged bug and this is epic fail of PTL of project.
Your code is already full of bugs and misfeatures, like the
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/03/2015 01:56 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Ihar,
Reverting patches is unacceptable for Rally project. This means
that we merged bug and this is epic fail of PTL of project.
That's a bar set too high. Though I don't believe Rally team does
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to date
* you can consume any commit
** ... but there is no formal tracking
So yeah, that's precisely what we discussed at the cross-project
workshop about In-team scaling in Vancouver (led by Kyle and myself).
For those not present, I invite you to read the notes:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-cross-project-in-team-scaling
The conclusion was to explore
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:01:06PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to date
On 06/03/2015 08:25 AM, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
Hi All,
As I understand, Neutron by far has the clearest big tent mode via its
in-tree/out-of-tree decomposition, thanks to Kyle and other Neutron team
members effort.
So my question is, is it the same for the other projects? For example,
does Nova
On Jun 2, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Alexis Lee alex...@hp.com wrote:
If you allocate all the memory of a box to high-mem instances, you may
not be billing for all the CPU and disk which are now unusable. That's
why flavors were introduced, afaik, and it's still a valid need.
So we had a very good
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:49 PM, David Stanek dsta...@dstanek.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:04 AM liusheng liusheng1...@126.com wrote:
Thanks for this topic, also, I think it is similar situation when talking
about keystone users, not only the instances's password.
In the past we've
Hi All,
I want to write the functional tests for Neutron. But the first I want to
know the current coverage. How to measure test coverage of code? Where to
look and what to start?
--
Best Regards,
Sergey Belous
__
OpenStack
Hello guys,
I would like to bring everyone up to speed on this topic, since we have a
weekly meeting tomorrow and I would like to further discuss this, either
here or tomorrow at the meeting, since this is something that is a
pre-requisite for future features planned for liberty.
We had a
Hi All,
As I understand, Neutron by far has the clearest big tent mode via its
in-tree/out-of-tree decomposition, thanks to Kyle and other Neutron team
members effort.
So my question is, is it the same for the other projects? For example, does
Nova also have the project-level Big Tent Mode
On 06/02/2015 07:05 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
On 2015-06-02 12:41 PM, Yanis Guenane wrote:
The openstacklib::db::sync[2] is currently only a wrapper around an exec
that does the actual db sync, this allow to make any modification to the
exec into a single place. The main advantage IMO is that a
Some CIs like to narrow their scope to a certain set of files.
For that, they specify file mask on per-job basis. So there appear
annoying comments with only Build succeeded.
(an example complaint:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/065367.html)
Moreover, most of CIs
Julien,
If I were on you shoes I would pick words more carefully.
When you are saying:
Reverting patches is unacceptable for Rally project.
Then you have a more serious problem than the rest of OpenStack.
you means Rally community which is quite large.
On 06/02/2015 03:14 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi,
Currently working on implementing the RequestSpec object BP [1], I had
some cool comments on my change here :
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145528/12/nova/objects/request_spec.py,cm
Since we didn't discussed on how to persist that
On 06/03/2015 03:13 PM, Sergey Belous wrote:
Hi All,
I want to write the functional tests for Neutron. But the first I want
to know the current coverage. How to measure test coverage of code?
Where to look and what to start?
tox -e cover should run the coverage tests of neutron,
Andreas
--
On 3 June 2015 at 12:52, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2015 02:34 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 06/03/2015 12:16 AM, Jens Rosenboom wrote:
I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be
changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently
THX Jay :)
On Jun 3, 2015 8:41 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2015 08:25 AM, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
Hi All,
As I understand, Neutron by far has the clearest big tent mode via its
in-tree/out-of-tree decomposition, thanks to Kyle and other Neutron team
members effort.
So
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit after 12.0.1 and does not get a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1234 would be the
On 3 June 2015 at 13:53, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Alexis Lee alex...@hp.com wrote:
If you allocate all the memory of a box to high-mem instances, you may
not be billing for all the CPU and disk which are now unusable. That's
why flavors were introduced,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit
For anyone working on 3rd party CI FC drivers:
Patrick East and I have been working on making “FC pass-through” scripts.
The main use case of these scripts is to present the FC HBAs directly inside a
VM in order to test your FC cinder driver.
Now available in stackforge [1]
Link available in
On 3 June 2015 at 15:22, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:24:40 +0100:
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning,
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super clear.
We, ie: Debian Ubuntu folks, are very much clear on
Ramy and Patrick - thank you for your work on this. This piece is
definitely a challenge for any FC vendors setting up third party CI.
On 06/03/2015 09:59 AM, Asselin, Ramy wrote:
For anyone working on 3^rd party CI FC drivers:
Patrick East and I have been working on making “FC pass-through”
I definitely buy the idea of layering policies on top of each other. But
I'd worry about the long-term feasibility of putting default policies into
code mainly because it ensures we'll never be able to provide any tools
that help users (or other services like Horizon) know what the effective
On 06/03/2015 02:43 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
I don't believe even my self, because I am human and I make mistakes.
My goal on the PTL position is to make such process that stops human
mistakes before they land in master. In other words everything should be
automated and pre not post
On 3 June 2015 at 15:37, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
On 06/03/2015 07:22 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, talking with James Page (from Canonical, head of their server
team which does the OpenStack packaging), we believe it's best if we had
2 different distinct teams: one for Fedora/SuSe/everything-rpm, and one
for Debian based distribution.
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
2015-06-03 17:23 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org:
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super
Hi guys,
I have installed Kilo and try to use identity v3. I am using v3 policy
file. I changed the domain_id for cloud admin as default. As cloud admin,
I tried openstack domain list and got the error message saying that I was
not authorized.
The part I changed in policy.json:
cloud_admin:
On 06/03/2015 11:23 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super clear.
We, ie:
On 06/03/2015 10:29 AM, Amy Zhang wrote:
Hi guys,
I have installed Kilo and try to use identity v3. I am using v3 policy
file. I changed the domain_id for cloud admin as default. As cloud
admin, I tried openstack domain list and got the error message
saying that I was not authorized.
The
On 3 June 2015 at 17:35, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
I support moving nova to intermediate release, but not this cycle.
+1
My main motivation here is actually making it clear how useful a
milestone release can be to get access to a feature you really,
On 06/03/2015 06:47 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
Where I get fuzzy on what I've read / discussed on Dynamic Policy right
now is the fact that every API call is going to need another round trip
to Keystone for a policy check (which would be db calls in keystone?)
Which, maybe is fine, but it seems like
John Garbutt wrote:
I support moving nova to intermediate release, but not this cycle.
+1
My main motivation here is actually making it clear how useful a
milestone release can be to get access to a feature you really, really
need much more quickly.
Its a shame its called a beta,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Valeriy Ponomaryov vponomar...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Deepak,
transfer-* is not suitable in this particular case. Usage of share
networks causes creation of resources, when transfer does not. Also in
this topic we have creation of new share based on some
+1 to ttx and Jame's points on trust and relationships, indeed
referencing the summit session that ttx mentioned:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-cross-project-in-team-scaling
On 3 June 2015 at 16:01, Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/03/2015 02:43 PM, Boris Pavlovic
On 06/03/2015 11:44 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
Ramy and Patrick - thank you for your work on this. This piece is
definitely a challenge for any FC vendors setting up third party CI.
On 06/03/2015 09:59 AM, Asselin, Ramy wrote:
For anyone working on 3^rd party CI FC drivers:
Patrick East and
As mentioned in the Cinder meeting [1] today, I will be moving
non-driver related blueprints to L-2 if there is no code posted and
passing Jenkins/third party CI's by June 10th.
This is not be confused with the deadline for drivers that have
blueprints [2][3].
[1] -
On 06/03/2015 05:57 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
+1 to ttx and Jame's points on trust and relationships, indeed
referencing the summit session that ttx mentioned:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-cross-project-in-team-scaling
On 3 June 2015 at 16:01, Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com
Hi All,
I am hitting a strange issue when running Cinder unit tests against my
patch @
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172808/5
I have spent 1 day and haven't been successfull at figuring how/why my
patch is causing it!
All tests failing are part of VolumeTestCase suite and from the error
Hi all,
We do not have any burning items (or any what so ever that I'm aware of) on the
agenda today, Rocky is away and I have myself conflicting schedules. Lets
gather together again next week.
Meeting cancelled today Wed 3rd of June!
Best,
Erno
+1
On May 31, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi core team,
Kennan (Kai Qiang Wu’s nickname) has really done a nice job in Magnum
contributions. I would like to propose Kennan for the core reviewer team. I
don’t think we necessarily
Hi Steve,
Yes, we are planning to create CLI for cloudpulse.
I will discuss with the team on creating CLI based on python-openstackclient.
Thanks
Vinod.
From: Steve Martinelli steve...@ca.ibm.commailto:steve...@ca.ibm.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Will dozens to a hundred groups or so on one user cause issues? :)
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Morgan Fainberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:23:22 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican]
Hi All,
I have reported bugs in launchpad about those bugs:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1461431https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1461433
Please have a look if you are interested.
I also agree that Keystone should at least provide the option of basic password
checks, and if the users
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 09:06:29AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Following on the thread about no longer doing stable point releases [1] at
the summit we talked about doing icehouse-eol pretty soon [2].
I scrubbed the open stable/icehouse patches last week and we're down to at
least one
On 06/03/2015 08:46 PM, Hu, David J (Converged Cloud) wrote:
I am not a big fan of putting admins through a multi-step process. It looks
like admins will need to learn unified policy file first, then 1 or 2 or more
releases later, learn about policy in the db. I understand we are doing
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM, John Wood john.w...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hello folks,
There has been discussion about adding user group support to the
per-secret access control list (ACL) feature in Barbican. Hence secrets
could be marked as accessible by a group on the ACL rather than an
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:43 AM Brant Knudson b...@acm.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Chenhong Liu liuchenh...@unitedstack.com
wrote:
There is keystone/exception.py which contains Exceptions defined and used
inside keystone provide 4xx and 5xx status code. And we can use it
Hello,
In our envirment, we find, the oslo_messaging can cause message to send
twice in chance.
i find when we send a message that needs reply. oslo_messaging will get a
reply queue first.
def _get_reply_q(self):
with self._reply_q_lock:
if self._reply_q is not
Hey Vinod,
Just a heads up that if you plan on created an CLI for cloudpulse, I'd
like to advocate to create it based on python-openstackclient[0]. Some of
the newer projects[1] no longer ship their shell.py/cli.py, but rather
create plugins[2] for OSC (openstackclient).
[0]
I feel if we allowed group ids to be an attribute of the Fernet's core
payload, we continue to open up the possibility for tokens to be greater
than the initial acceptable size limit for a Fernet token (which I
believe was 255 bytes?). With this, I think we need to provide guidance on
the number
+1 for the point that the live mirgration should be transparent to *end
users*
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM Rui Chen chenrui.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all:
We have the instance action and action event for most of the instance
operations,
exclude: live-migration. In the current master
There are some discussions on the spec review and Kyle suggested the discussion
should be on openstack-dev. And also we want to get more attention on this
topic to ensure that ML3 is the right approach.
Problem description:
At this point, only a single L3 router plugin can be exclusively
Jay,
On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Jay Lau
jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Adrian, some questions and comments in-line.
2015-06-03 10:29 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto
adrian.o...@rackspace.commailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com:
I have reflected on this further and offer
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/06/15 13:30 +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
On 1 June 2015 at 13:10, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/06/15 11:57 +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
On 26/05/15 13:54 -0400, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
On 5/26/15
With Hierarchical Multitenantcy, we have the issue that a project is
currentl restricted in its naming further than it should be. The domain
entity enforces that all project namess under the domain domain be
unique, but really what we should say is that all projects under a
single parent
There is error while validating the barabican containers associated with
listener (tls and sni container) at plugin layer.
In validate_tls_container() ,*contain_id* is passed where as it is
expecting *container_ref_url*.
def _validate_tls(self, listener, curr_listener=None):
def
On 4 June 2015 at 02:51, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-06-03 17:15:43 +0300 (+0300), Boris Pavlovic wrote:
I can't talk for other projects, so let's talk about Rally specific.
We have single .git in root for whole project.
We have 4 subdir that can have own maintainers:
-
On 06/03/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James B.,
Thanks for this reply.
As you asked for ACK from all parts, my words will be very much like the
ones of James P. (I've just read his message, and I'm jealous of his
nice native-English
Hi Sumit,
Specifically I wanted to understand:
1. Whether FWaaS API supports IPv6
2. Whether reference plugin and vendor plugins support IPv6
I have clarity w.r.t 1 above - As I mentioned in my email below (resource
model) and as pointed out by you, IPv6 is supported by the API.
The reference
I think having the rebranded drivers is fine (yay for effective code
re-use, right?), but they shouldn't have any special treatment. I don't
like the idea of having different categories of volume drivers where some
require CI and some don't.
As far as I know, in this specific case, they already
Hi Gosha,
Thanks again for your time.
I seem to be observing a different behavior in my environment. Here is the
experiment I ran:
1. Created environment env. No stack yet.
2. Added a component to env. No stack yet.
3. Deployed env. Two stacks are created:
template for
In general I am of the opinion with the move to Fernet there is no good reason
we should avoid adding the group information into the token.
--Morgan
Sent via mobile
On Jun 3, 2015, at 18:44, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM, John Wood
Dozens to hundreds of roles or endpoints could cause an issue now :)
But yeah, groups are much more likely to number in the dozens than roles
or endpoints. But I think the Fernet token size is so small that it could
probably handle this (since it does so now for the federated workflow).
On 06/03/2015 12:10 PM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
I definitely buy the idea of layering policies on top of each other.
But I'd worry about the long-term feasibility of putting default
policies into code mainly because it ensures we'll never be able to
provide any tools that help users (or other
101 - 200 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
