Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Evgeniy L wrote: > Ilya, > > >> My opinion that i've seen no example of multiple software of plugins > versions shipped in one package or other form of bundle. Its not a common > practice. > > With plugins we extend Fuel capabilities, which

Re: [openstack-dev] [TaskFlow] TaskFlow persistence

pn kk wrote: Hi Joshua, Yes, sure will do that once I get some window out of my work. One last query(hopefully :) ) , can the factory method be an instance method of a class? Instance methods are particularly hard to use (since they require an instance of an object to be useful); so I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

>>With plugins we extend Fuel capabilities, which supports multiple operating system releases, so it's absolutely natural to extend multiple releases at the same time. It is okay for me when we talk about different operating system release, but initial question was about different Fuel and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] URL of Horizon is hard to find on the dashboard

Vitaly, > Then we'll end up with 2 buttons (for HTTP and HTTPS links) for Horizon and > every plugin link Why? And how do you handle it with link now? On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Vitaly Kramskikh wrote: > Igor, > > Then we'll end up with 2 buttons (for HTTP and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

Stanislaw B., You're somehow contradicting in your statements. However, taking into account your's - > Both of these approaches can be used, so I'm against forcing plugin > developers to use just one approach. I can conclude that you support idea of having multi-release plugins? Because no one

[openstack-dev] How to Use Scrubbing of images in parallel in Liberty release

Hi Team, I did not find the documents for scrubbing of image in liberty release. Please suggest me that how to use it. I am new in openstack. Please find below screenshort [cid:image001.png@01D165A3.152A66B0] Thanks & Regards, Deepak Kumar DISCLAIMER:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] URL of Horizon is hard to find on the dashboard

Igor, Then we'll end up with 2 buttons (for HTTP and HTTPS links) for Horizon and every plugin link, which would look quite ugly. We had all these options in mind when we designed this change and decided to go with the current look. Seriously guys, I don't understand you concerns. After

[openstack-dev] [infra][neutron] publish and update Gerrit dashboard link automatically

Hi all, it's hard sometimes for reviewers to filter reviews that are high priority. In Neutron in this mail thread [1] we had the idea to create a script for that. The script is now available in the Neutron repository [2]. The script queries Launchpad and creates a file that can be used by

[openstack-dev] [heat] Heat Convergence in Mitaka/Newton status and plans

Hi all, I want to share results of the last Heat meeting, where we discussed "convergence" status. "Convergence" feature still has some issues, which prevent enabling "convergence" engine by default. Some of them were found on TripleO during manual deploying. Also there are valuable numbers of

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

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 think the cores party sends the wrong message and has run its

[openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here. OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even sure which one we are supposed to be transitioning from -> to. At a minimum

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [ipam] Migration to pluggable IPAM

Salvatore Orlando wrote: On 11 February 2016 at 20:17, John Belamaric wrote: On Feb 11, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Armando M. wrote: On 11 February 2016 at 07:01, John Belamaric wrote: It is

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] URL of Horizon is hard to find on the dashboard

We use HTTPS url for the title and HTTP url for the small link with (HTTP) text near the title: ​ 2016-02-12 17:09 GMT+07:00 Igor Kalnitsky : > Vitaly, > > > Then we'll end up with 2 buttons (for HTTP and HTTPS links) for Horizon > and every plugin link > > Why? And

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

Hi, In keystone v2, it was called tenants, in v3, it is projects. It is funny to see the components switched to keystonemiddleware to configure [keystone_authtoken] with v3 settings, but other places still use the v2 terminology (and even the v2 client). Br, György > -Original

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

>> We have package format <=4.0 where all files have fixed names and locations. This is the defaults. The thing is for 5.0 there should be no default, those fields from now on should be specified explicitly. >> Igor want to provide multi-package I'm not familiar with this idea, could you please

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] create openstack/service-registry

On 02/12/2016 07:48 AM, Everett Toews wrote: Hi All, I need to air a concern over the create openstack/service-registry [1] patch which aims to create an OpenStack service type registry project to act as a dedicated registry location for service types in OpenStack under the auspices of the API

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

Ilya, What do you mean by "default"? From the data format I see that we don't "override defaults" we specify the data for specific release, the way it was always done for deployment scripts and repositories. I don't see any reasons to complicate format even more and to have some things which are

Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] Plan to add Python 3 support to Swift

Hi, Le 08/02/2016 14:42, Victor Stinner a écrit : > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237019/ Nice, this one was merged! https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237027/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/236998/ These two changes look to be blocked by encodings issues. Tim Burke, Samuel Merritt and

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [ipam] Migration to pluggable IPAM

On 11 February 2016 at 20:17, John Belamaric wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 11 February 2016 at 07:01, John Belamaric > wrote: > >> >> >> >> It is only internal implementation changes.

[openstack-dev] Mitaka bug smash in Nuremberg (Germany)

Hi, We are preparing a bug smash session for Mitaka in Nuremberg (Germany).  This event is planned from March 7 to March 9, and is going to be hosted by SUSE (basically that means tons of cookies). You can subscribe yourself, and find more information here:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

Sean Dague wrote: Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here. OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even sure which one we are supposed to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

Excuse me, i mean multi-release package. We already have release directives in plugin metadata.yaml that defines releases compatible with the plugin. As far as i understand "multi-release package" suppose ability to define custom configuration/code for each of this releases. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016

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

> > [...] > > * 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 think the cores > > party sends the wrong message and has run its

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

> 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 design summits from the conferences > 2) Hold only a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Evgeniy L wrote: > Ilya, > > What do you mean by "default"? From the data format I see that we don't > "override defaults" we specify the data for specific release, the way it > was always done for deployment scripts and repositories. > > We

Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] gate issues

Hey all, We've made some progress with the gates this past week. There are still some issues, but I want to point out that I've also seen a lot of real errors get a recheck comment recently. It slows the gate down and wastes infra quota to recheck things that are going to fail again. Can I

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] create openstack/service-registry

On 02/12/2016 07:48 AM, Everett Toews wrote: > Hi All, > > I need to air a concern over the create openstack/service-registry [1] patch > which aims to create an OpenStack service type registry project to act as a > dedicated registry location for service types in OpenStack under the auspices

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Updating a volume attachment

Hello Shoham, We've tried to write and implement similar spec [1]. And someone have tried to implement it [2]. You can see comments in it. [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/234269/ [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259518/ On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Shoham Peller

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] create openstack/service-registry

On 02/12/2016 07:48 AM, Everett Toews wrote: Hi All, I need to air a concern over the create openstack/service-registry [1] patch which aims to create an OpenStack service type registry project to act as a dedicated registry location for service types in OpenStack under the auspices of the API

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

Le 12/02/2016 13:01, Sean Dague a écrit : OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. Yeah, it's time to find a 3rd term to avoid confusion! ;-) Victor __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On 02/12/2016 07:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here. OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even sure which one we are supposed to

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

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > 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

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

On 12/02/16 07:45 AM, 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 think the cores >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] pid=host

Dnaiel, Unfortunately I am in a remodel process atm and unable to test. It sounds like with qemu without KVM (as in emulated virtualization) the processes get killed. With KVM they don't get killed. I'll add this to the bug tracker, but for our typical use case of "Deploy OpenStack on bare

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

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 think the cores party sends the wrong

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On 02/12/2016 08:30 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Sean Dague > wrote: > > OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As > someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even sure which one >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As > someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even sure which one > we are supposed to be transitioning from -> to. > > At a minimum I'd like to make

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

> > For the cores party, much as I enjoyed the First Nation cuisine in > > Vancouver > > or the performance art in Tokyo, IMO it's probably time to draw a line > > under > > that excess also, as it too projects a notion of exclusivity that runs > > counter > > to building a community. > > ...

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/12/2016 08:30 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Sean Dague > > wrote: > > > > OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. > As

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Multi release packages

Ilya, >> My opinion that i've seen no example of multiple software of plugins versions shipped in one package or other form of bundle. Its not a common practice. With plugins we extend Fuel capabilities, which supports multiple operating system releases, so it's absolutely natural to extend

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/12/2016 07:30 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > IIRC Nova started with project, until the marriage with Rax, when > many things changed, although the project -> tenant change may have > never been completed. Keystone v3 started the movement back to >

[openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova would use a microversion in the nova API for the get-me-a-network feature recently added to neutron [1] and planned to be leveraged in nova (there isn't a spec yet for nova, I'm trying to sort this out for a draft).

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] [swift] Plan to add Python 3 support to Swift

Le 12/02/2016 15:12, Ian Cordasco a écrit : Just to interject here, RFC 2616 is the one you're talking about. That encoding requirement was dropped when HTTP/1.1 was updated in the 7230-7235 RFCs. (...) Where VCHAR is any visible US ASCII character. So while UTF-8 is still a bad idea for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Postgres support in (fwaas) tests

I know historically there were postgres jobs that tested things, but I think the community moved away from having postgres at the gate? -- Sean M. Collins __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][neutron] publish and update Gerrit dashboard link automatically

On 02/12/2016 12:25 PM, Rossella Sblendido wrote: Hi all, it's hard sometimes for reviewers to filter reviews that are high priority. In Neutron in this mail thread [1] we had the idea to create a script for that. The script is now available in the Neutron repository [2]. The script queries

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On 02/12/2016 07:36 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 02/12/2016 07:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here. OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm

[openstack-dev] [Nova] Update on live migration priority

This time with a tag in case anyone is filtering... From: Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) Sent: 12 February 2016 16:16 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] Update on live migration priority The objective for the live migration priority is to improve the stability of migrations

[openstack-dev] [Nova][Glance]Glance v2 api support in Nova

Hello! In late December I wrote several messages about glance v2 support in Nova and Nova's xen plugin. Many things have been done after that and now I'm happy to announce that there we have a set of commits that makes Nova fully v2 compatible (xen plugin works too)! Here's the link to the top

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Glance]Glance v2 api support in Nova

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote: > Hello! > > In late December I wrote several messages about glance v2 support in Nova > and Nova's xen plugin. Many things have been done after that and now I'm > happy to announce that there we have a set of commits

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

I am taking on the task in the Oslo Logging/Context projects to ensure project replaces a deprecated use of tenant. This includes the end user/operator view of logging configuration options [1] replacing tenant with project, and RequestContext used across most projects that has an inconsistent

[openstack-dev] Baremetal Deploy Ramdisk functional testing

Hi All, In bareon [1] we have test framework to test deploy ramdsik with bareon inside (baremetal deployments). This is a functional testing, we do a full partitioning/image_deployment in a VM, then reboot to see if tenant image deployed properly. Blueprint is at [2], test example is at [3].

[openstack-dev] Update on live migration priority

The objective for the live migration priority is to improve the stability of migrations based on operator experience. The high level approach is to do the following: 1. Improve CI 2. Improve documentation 3. Improve manageability of migrations 4. Fix bugs In this

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Postgres support in (fwaas) tests

All, The FWaaS gate hook had implicit support for the postures database which was failing in the gate since postgres wasn’t available. Madhu proposed patch [1] to remove postgres support. This leads to the wider question if we want to support/test postgres with the Neutron gates. I haven’t

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

> > > > [...] > > > > * 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 think the > > > > cores > > > > party

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova >> would use a microversion in the nova API for the get-me-a-network >> feature recently

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

Perhaps another option for '--nic'? nova boot --nic auto-allocate On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova > > would use a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 2/12/2016 12:45 PM, John Garbutt wrote: On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova would use a microversion in the nova API for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 01:45 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova > >> would use a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Matt Riedemann > wrote: > > > > On 2/12/2016 12:45 PM, John Garbutt wrote: >> On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: Forgive

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 12 February 2016 at 09:15, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova > would use a microversion in the nova API for the get-me-a-network feature > recently added to neutron [1] and planned to be leveraged in nova

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Update on scheduler and resource tracker progress

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-02-11 12:24:04 -0800: > Hello all, > > Performance working group, please pay attention to Chapter 2 in the > details section. > > Chapter 2 - Addressing performance and scale > > > One of the significant

[openstack-dev] [swift] What's going on in Swift?

Recently I polled many active members of the Swift dev community. I asked 4 questions: 1. What are you working on in Swift or the Swift ecosystem? 2. Of the things you know about that people are working on, what's the most important? 3. What are you excited about in Swift? 4. What

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 2/12/2016 12:44 PM, Armando M. wrote: On 12 February 2016 at 09:15, Matt Riedemann > wrote: Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova would use a microversion in the nova API for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] Plan to add Python 3 support to Swift

-Original Message- From: Victor Stinner Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Date: February 12, 2016 at 10:43:42 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum]swarm + compose = k8s?

Hongbin, I am not sure that it's good idea, it looks you propose Magnum enter to "schedulers war" (personally I tired from these debates Mesos vs Kub vs Swarm).If your  concern is just utilization you can always run control plane at "agent/slave" nodes, there main reason why operators (at least

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] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 12 February 2016 at 11:08, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 2/12/2016 12:44 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 February 2016 at 09:15, Matt Riedemann > > wrote: >> >> Forgive me for thinking out

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] [puppet] move puppet-pacemaker

On Feb 12, 2016 11:06 PM, "Spencer Krum" wrote: > > The module would also be welcome under the voxpupuli[0] namespace on > github. We currently have a puppet-corosync[1] module, and there is some > overlap there, but a pure pacemaker module would be a welcome addition. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 02/12/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 01:45 PM, John Garbutt wrote: >> On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm

[openstack-dev] [Nova] Should we signal backwards incompatible changes in microversions?

Starting a new thread to continue a thought that came up in http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/086457.html. The Nova API microversion framework allows for backwards compatible and backwards incompatible changes but there is no way to programmatically distinguish the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:03 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: >> Correct me if I’m wrong, but with nova-net, ‘nova boot’ automatically >> gives it one nic with an IP, right? >> >> So how is this changing that behavior?

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any projects using sqlalchemy-utils?

2016-02-12 21:57 GMT+01:00 Corey Bryant : > Are any projects using sqlalchemy-utils? > > taskflow started using it recently, however it's only needed for a single > type in taskflow (JSONType). I'm wondering if it's worth the effort of > maintaining it and it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/12/2016 02:41 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: >> I think if the point of the experience for this API is to be >> working out >>> of the box. So I very much like the idea of a defaults change >>> here to the thing we want to be easy. And an explicit

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:03 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Correct me if I’m wrong, but with nova-net, ‘nova boot’ automatically > gives it one nic with an IP, right? > > So how is this changing that behavior? Making it harder to use, for the > sake of preserving a really unusual corner case (no

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 05:29 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > >> > >>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > >>> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [ipam] Migration to pluggable IPAM

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Armando M. wrote: > I believe we have more recovery options out a potentially fatal situation. > In fact the offline script can provide a dry-run option that can just > validate that the migration will succeed before it is even actually >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

Hi Walt, Thanks for describing the bigger picture. In my opinion when we will have microversion support available in Cinder that will give us a bit of a freedom and also possibility to handle these difficulties. Regarding terminate_connection we will have issues with live_migration as it is

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 03:11 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/12/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 01:45 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > >> On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM,

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

A new contributor's point of view... My first summit was Tokyo, so I have no comparison between how things are and they way they used to be. But by the end of Friday, I and the other people I spoke to - both first-time participants and veterans - had the same sentiment: we wished that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but with nova-net, ‘nova boot’ automatically gives it one nic with an IP, right? So how is this changing that behavior? Making it harder to use, for the sake of preserving a really unusual corner case (no net with neutron), seems a much worse user experience here.

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: >> >>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:03 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] Supporting multiple Openstack versions

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM Aleksandr Didenko wrote: > Hi, > > > > So what is open? The composition layer. > > We can have different composition layers for every release and it's > already implemented in releases - separate puppet modules/manifests dir for > every

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any projects using sqlalchemy-utils?

I'm fine with discarding it (since said support is only for posgres anyway afaik), if it's causing issues for (packaging) folks and nobody else in openstack really uses it either. Let's see what folks think, On another note (if not many projects are using it); I think it would be nice to try

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On 02/12/2016 02:18 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: I thought one of the original notions behind this was to make ‘nova boot’ as simple as in the nova-net case, which would imply not needing to use —nic at all. I personally like the idea of the flag being for the no network case. This would be my

[openstack-dev] [all] Any projects using sqlalchemy-utils?

Are any projects using sqlalchemy-utils? taskflow started using it recently, however it's only needed for a single type in taskflow (JSONType). I'm wondering if it's worth the effort of maintaining it and it's dependencies in Ubuntu main or if perhaps we can just revert this bit to define the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 04:03 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > >> Correct me if I’m wrong, but with nova-net, ‘nova boot’ automatically > >> gives it

[openstack-dev] [docs] [api] Why WADL when you can Swagger

Hi all, I wanted to give an update on the efforts to provide improved application developer information on developer.openstack.org. Wrangling this much valuable information and gathering it in a way that helps people is no simple matter. So. We move forward one step at a time. What's new?

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How would nova microversion get-me-a-network in the API?

>plus I think a VM with a network is kinda nonsensical, On the contrary, that's when I find them the most useful! On Feb 12, 2016 14:33, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > There seems to be a few discussions going on here wrt to detaches. One > is what to do on the Nova side with calling os-brick's disconnect_volume, > and also when to or not to call Cinder's

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Postgres support in (fwaas) tests

On 02/12/2016 11:03 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote: I know historically there were postgres jobs that tested things, but I think the community moved away from having postgres at the gate? Historically postgres jobs have been started by someone who is interested, then that person disappears and

Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] [api] Why WADL when you can Swagger

On 02/12/2016 04:45 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: What's new? This week, with every build of the api-site, we are now running fairy-slipper to migrate from WADL to Swagger for API reference information. Those migrated Swagger files are then copied to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to > get resolution here. > > OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As > someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On 02/12/2016 08:28 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 02/12/2016 06:40 PM, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague > wrote: Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

The problem I've run into though, is project is very well defined in a lot of users minds, and its not defined the same way openstack typically uses it. A lot of sites use project in a way that more closely maps to a keystone domain. Though that gets even muddier with keystone subprojects and

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

On 02/12/2016 06:17 AM, Eoghan Glynn 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 design summits from the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] [puppet] move puppet-pacemaker

The module would also be welcome under the voxpupuli[0] namespace on github. We currently have a puppet-corosync[1] module, and there is some overlap there, but a pure pacemaker module would be a welcome addition. I'm not sure which I would prefer, just that VP is an option. For greater openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] [api] Why WADL when you can Swagger

On 02/12/2016 03:45 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: Hi all, I wanted to give an update on the efforts to provide improved application developer information on developer.openstack.org . Wrangling this much valuable information and gathering it in a way that helps people is

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On 02/12/2016 06:40 PM, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague > wrote: Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to get resolution here. OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of

Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] [api] Why WADL when you can Swagger

Hey Anne, Thanks for all your work. This sounds really exciting. The explanation in this email was largely what I was missing during my earlier reviews of the spec. I'll take another look at the spec shortly but it might be helpful to have some of this rationale added. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Feb

  1   2   >