[openstack-dev] [cyborg]Dublin Rocky PTG Summary

Hi Team, Thanks to our topic leads' efforts, below is the aggregated summary from our dublin ptg session discussion. Please check it out and feel free to feedback any concerns you might have. Queens Cycle Review Etherpad:https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-queens-retrospective 1. Adopt MS

[openstack-dev] [Keystone] Weirdness around domain/project scope in role assignments

Sooo to follow up from the discussion last night partly with Lance and Adam, I'm still not exactly sure what difference, if any, there is between a domain scoped role assignment, and a project scoped role assignment. And... It appears stuff breaks when you used both, or either actually (more on

Re: [openstack-dev] [murano][Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/murano failed

Hi, Tony I will fix this in stable pike, thanks for the reminder. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 06:16:27AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack > Stable Branch test reports. wrote: >> Build failed. >> >> -

Re: [openstack-dev] [murano][Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/murano failed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 06:16:27AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack Stable Branch test reports. wrote: > Build failed. > > - build-openstack-sphinx-docs > http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/git.openstack.org/openstack/murano/stable/pike/build-openstack-sphinx-docs/8b023b7/html/ >

[openstack-dev] [horizon] [heat-dashboard] Horizon plugin settings for new xstatic modules

Hello Horizon Team, I would like to hear about your opinions about how to add new xstatic modules to horizon settings. As for Heat-dashboard project embedded 3rd-party files issue, thanks for your advices in Dublin PTG, we are now removing them and referencing as new xstatic-* libs. So we

Re: [openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-03-08 15:51:05 -0500: > On 08/03/18 12:57, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project > > team? > > A few reasons I think it makes sense in this instance: > > * Not every set of trademark tests will

Re: [openstack-dev] [cyborg]No Meeting This Week

Hi Ed, it should be categoried under openstack-cyborg :) Our weekly meeting is Wed UTC1500 on #openstack-cyborg channel. Meeting minutes could be found: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cyborg/MeetingLogs On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:36 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:51

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

To simply answer the question: Yes I have experience about this specific matter of things as I’m now working with the exact setup for more than 5 years. I’m even exclusively working remotely with some studios of my employer. It’s not that expensive as long as you get correct rules, hardware and

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Oslo PTG Summary

On 03/08/2018 02:53 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Can we get some of those doc links opened. 'You need permission to access this published document.' I am getting for a few of them :( Shoot, I thought we fixed that but I guess we just projected them in the room from a laptop that had access.

[openstack-dev] [ironic] PTG Summary

The Ironic PTG Summary - The blur(b) from the East In an effort to provide visibility and awareness of all the things related to Ironic, I've typed up a summary below. I've tried to keep this fairly generalized with enough context and convey action items or the instances of consensus where

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Oslo PTG Summary

Can we get some of those doc links opened. 'You need permission to access this published document.' I am getting for a few of them :( Ben Nemec wrote: Hi, Here's my summary of the discussions we had in the Oslo room at the PTG. Please feel free to reply with any additions if I missed

Re: [openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

On 08/03/18 12:57, Doug Hellmann wrote: Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project team? A few reasons I think it makes sense in this instance: * Not every set of trademark tests will necessarily belong to a single project. Tempest itself is an example of this -

Re: [openstack-dev] [cyborg]No Meeting This Week

On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:51 PM, Zhipeng Huang wrote: > As most of us are rekubrating from PTG and snowenpstack last week, let's > cancel the team meeting this week. At the mean time I have solicitate the > meeting summary from topic leads, and will send out a summary of the

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Queens retrospective (PTG session)

We kicked-off the PTG by a 45 minutes retrospective about our work during Queens cycle. Here is a short summary of what has been said: - Keep doing: weekly updates and encourage squads to update their etherpads; squads (and adjust our squads every cycle when needed); use #tripleo for IRC

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI][QA][HA][Eris][LCOO] Validating HA on upstream

Raoul Scarazzini wrote: On 08/03/2018 17:03, Adam Spiers wrote: [...] Yes agreed again, this is a strong case for collaboration between the self-healing and QA SIGs.  In Dublin we also discussed the idea of the self-healing and API SIGs collaborating on the related topic of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation with multiple (many) projects

> 2. Dan Smith mentioned another idea such that we could index the > aggregate metadata keys like filter_tenant_id0, filter_tenant_id1, > ... filter_tenant_idN and then combine those so you have one host > aggregate filter_tenant_id* key per tenant. Yep, and that's what I've done in my

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation with multiple (many) projects

On 2/5/2018 11:44 PM, Massimo Sgaravatto wrote: But if I try to specify the long list of projects, I get:a "Value ... is too long" error message [*]. I can see two workarounds for this problem: 1) Create an host aggregate per project: HA1 including CA1, C2, ... Cx and with

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 2018-03-08 02:18 PM, Tim Bell wrote: Fully agree with Doug. At CERN, we use video conferencing for 100s, sometimes >1000 participants for the LHC experiments, the trick we've found is to fully embrace the chat channels (so remote non-native English speakers can provide input) and

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 2018-03-08 01:24 PM, Jay S Bryant wrote: On 3/8/2018 12:22 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2018-03-08 09:03 AM, Jens Harbott wrote: With the current PTG just finished and seeing discussions happen about the format of the next[0], it seems that the advantages of these seem to be pretty clear to

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] PTG Summary and Rocky Priorities

On 3/8/2018 6:51 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: -  VGPU_DISPLAY_HEAD resource class should be removed and replaced with a set of os-traits traits that indicate the maximum supported number of display heads for the vGPU type How does a trait express a quantifiable limit? Would we end up have several

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptg] Release cycles vs. downstream consuming models discussion summary

On 3/7/2018 8:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: mriedem volunteered to work on a TC resolution to define what we exactly meant by that (the proposal is now being discussed at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/548916/). A new revision is now up for this after much discussion in the review itself and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

> > Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project > team? > For normal tempest tests, which owned and maintained by original projects. I think there were discussions in that PTG QA session about interop tests should be maintained by QA team. > In the new resolution, we

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

Fully agree with Doug. At CERN, we use video conferencing for 100s, sometimes >1000 participants for the LHC experiments, the trick we've found is to fully embrace the chat channels (so remote non-native English speakers can provide input) and chairs/vectors who can summarise the remote

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-03-08 18:34:51 +: > On 2018-03-08 12:16:18 -0600 (-0600), Jay S Bryant wrote: > [...] > > Cinder has been doing this for many years and it has worked > > relatively well. It requires a good remote speaker and it also > > requires the people in the

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 8 March 2018 at 18:16, Jay S Bryant wrote: > Cinder has been doing this for many years and it has worked relatively well. > It requires a good remote speaker and it also requires the people in the > room to be sensitive to the needs of those who are remote. I.E. planning

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

Jens Harbott wrote: > With the current PTG just finished and seeing discussions happen about > the format of the next[0], it seems that the advantages of these seem > to be pretty clear to most, so let me use the occasion to remind > everyone of the disadvantages. <…> > So when you are

Re: [openstack-dev] [First Contact][SIG] [PTG] Summary of Discussions

Good overview.  Thank you! One additional goal I want to mention on the list, for awareness, is the fact that we would like to eventually get some consistency to the pages that the 'Contributor Guide' lands on for each of the projects.  Needs to be a page that is friendly to new contributors,

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 2018-03-08 12:16:18 -0600 (-0600), Jay S Bryant wrote: [...] > Cinder has been doing this for many years and it has worked > relatively well. It requires a good remote speaker and it also > requires the people in the room to be sensitive to the needs of > those who are remote. I.E. planning

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 3/8/2018 12:22 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2018-03-08 09:03 AM, Jens Harbott wrote: With the current PTG just finished and seeing discussions happen about the format of the next[0], it seems that the advantages of these seem to be pretty clear to most, so let me use the occasion to remind

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 2018-03-08 09:03 AM, Jens Harbott wrote: With the current PTG just finished and seeing discussions happen about the format of the next[0], it seems that the advantages of these seem to be pretty clear to most, so let me use the occasion to remind everyone of the disadvantages. Every meeting

[openstack-dev] [manila] write integrity with NFS-Ganesha over CephFS

Hi Jeff, Currently, there is no open source backend in manila that provides scalable and highly-available NFS servers for dynamic cloud workloads. Manila's CephFS driver could integrate with your on-going work on active-active NFS over CephFS (with Kubernetes managing the lifecycle of

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 3/8/2018 12:06 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2018-03-08 17:49:35 + (+), Flint WALRUS wrote: Pretty easy, put the PTG online with a livestream on YouTube/Hangout/whatever platform that will then be saved and could even be watched later on! It’s just a matter of some hardware and a

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 08/03/18 18:06, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2018-03-08 17:49:35 + (+), Flint WALRUS wrote: >> Pretty easy, put the PTG online with a livestream on >> YouTube/Hangout/whatever platform that will then be saved and could even be >> watched later on! >> >> It’s just a matter of some hardware

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On 2018-03-08 17:49:35 + (+), Flint WALRUS wrote: > Pretty easy, put the PTG online with a livestream on > YouTube/Hangout/whatever platform that will then be saved and could even be > watched later on! > > It’s just a matter of some hardware and a decent internet bandwidth that’s >

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

Yes! In the past I have helped a few different projects set up a way to do a hangout that live streams to youtube so people can join the conversation actively or passively depending on their involvement. I actually helped write a blog post about it as well[1]. Cinder has been doing it for a few

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Flint WALRUS wrote: > Pretty easy, put the PTG online with a livestream on > YouTube/Hangout/whatever platform that will then be saved and could even be > watched later on! +1 I think that we can work out a solution so that every room at

Re: [openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-03-08 12:45:11 -0500: > On 07/03/18 08:44, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > > I mean i am all ok with separate plugin which is more easy for QA team > > but ownership to QA is kind of going to same direction(QA team > > maintaining interop ads-on tests) in more

[openstack-dev] [cinder][summit] Forum topic proposal etherpad created ...

All, I just wanted to share the fact that I have created the etherpad for proposing topics for the Vancouver Forum.  [1] Please take a few moments to add topics there.  I will need to propose the topics we have in the next two weeks so this will need attention before that point in time.

Re: [openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

Pretty easy, put the PTG online with a livestream on YouTube/Hangout/whatever platform that will then be saved and could even be watched later on! It’s just a matter of some hardware and a decent internet bandwidth that’s already available to almost every places where a PTG took place. Problem

[openstack-dev] [oslo] Oslo PTG Summary

Hi, Here's my summary of the discussions we had in the Oslo room at the PTG. Please feel free to reply with any additions if I missed something or correct anything I've misrepresented. oslo.config drivers for secret management - The oslo.config

Re: [openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

On 07/03/18 08:44, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: I mean i am all ok with separate plugin which is more easy for QA team but ownership to QA is kind of going to same direction(QA team maintaining interop ads-on tests) in more difficult way. After reading this and the logs from the QA meeting,[1] I

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI][QA][HA][Eris][LCOO] Validating HA on upstream

On 08/03/2018 17:03, Adam Spiers wrote: [...] > Yes agreed again, this is a strong case for collaboration between the > self-healing and QA SIGs.  In Dublin we also discussed the idea of the > self-healing and API SIGs collaborating on the related topic of health > check APIs. Guys, thanks a ton

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-10

Thierry Carrez wrote: Joshua Harlow wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: The PTG has always been about taking the team discussions that happened at the Ops Summit / Design Summit to have them in a more productive environment. I am just going to say it but can we *please* stop distinguishing between

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-10

Joshua Harlow wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> The PTG has always been about taking the team discussions that happened >> at the Ops Summit / Design Summit to have them in a more productive >> environment. > > I am just going to say it but can we *please* stop distinguishing > between ops and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-10

Thierry Carrez wrote: Matt Riedemann wrote: I don't get the inward/outward thing. First two days of the old design summit (ops summit?) format was all cross-project stuff (docs, upgrades, testing, ops feedback, etc). That's the same as what happens at the PTG now too. The last three days of the

[openstack-dev] [all][api] POST /api-sig/news

Greetings OpenStack community, Well, after a wonderful week in Dublin, it's back to work for the API-SIG. We had a productive session at the PTG, and came away from it with several action items for each of us. Due to travel and digging out from a week away, none of us had started them. Oh,

[openstack-dev] [glance] bi-weekly bug team meeting

To anyone interested in attending the bug team meetings: I'm proposing a 45 minute meeting every other week beginning the week of March 19. Time is 10:00 UTC (unless that turns out to be unworkable for everybody). Please indicate your preference for day of the week on this Doodle poll:

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI][QA][HA][Eris][LCOO] Validating HA on upstream

Georg Kunz wrote: Hi Adam, Raoul Scarazzini wrote: In the meantime, I'll check yardstick to see which kind of bridge we can build to avoid reinventing the wheel. Great, thanks! I wish I could immediately help with this, but I haven't had the

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] batch processing with unified limits

On 03/07/2018 06:10 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote: The keystone team is parsing the unified limits discussions from last week. One of the things we went over as a group was the usability of the current API [0]. Currently, the create and update APIs support batch processing. So specifying a list of

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] PTG Summary

Paul Bourke wrote: Hi all, Here's my summary of the various topics we discussed during the PTG. There were one or two I had to step out for but hopefully this serves as an overall recap. Please refer to the main etherpad[0] for more details and links to the session

[openstack-dev] [kolla] PTG Summary

Hi all, Here's my summary of the various topics we discussed during the PTG. There were one or two I had to step out for but hopefully this serves as an overall recap. Please refer to the main etherpad[0] for more details and links to the session specific pads. build.py script refactor

[openstack-dev] Pros and Cons of face-to-face meetings

With the current PTG just finished and seeing discussions happen about the format of the next[0], it seems that the advantages of these seem to be pretty clear to most, so let me use the occasion to remind everyone of the disadvantages. Every meeting that is happening is excluding those

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

@jay I'm also against a weigher in nova/placement. This should be an optional step depends on vendor implementation, not a default one. @Alex I think we should explore the idea of preferred trait. @Mathew: Like Sean said, Cyborg wants to support both reprogrammable FPGA and pre-programed ones.

[openstack-dev] [nova][placement] PTG Summary and Rocky Priorities

We had a productive PTG and were able to discuss a great many scheduler-related topics. I've put together an etherpad [0] with a summary, reproduced below. Expect follow-up emails about each priority item in the scheduler track from those contributors working on that area. Best, -jay

[openstack-dev] [manila] no weekly meeting March 8

Let's skip the manila weekly meeting March 8 since people are still catching up after travel delays or still travelling (/me confesses) and the weekly agenda shows no new non-recurring additions. We'll plan on meeting as normal at 1500 UTC March 15 in #openstack-meeting-alt. Add agenda items

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-10

Matt Riedemann wrote: > I don't get the inward/outward thing. First two days of the old design > summit (ops summit?) format was all cross-project stuff (docs, upgrades, > testing, ops feedback, etc). That's the same as what happens at the PTG > now too. The last three days of the old design

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Cinder volume revert to snapshot with Ceph

On 06/03, 李杰 wrote: > Hi,all > > > This is the patch [0] about volume revert to snapshot with Ceph.Is > anyone working on this patchset or maybe new patchset was proposed to > implement RBD specific functionality?Can you tell me more about this ?Thank > you very much. > The link is