Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] nominating Amit Oren for manila core

On 10/02/2018 01:58 PM, Tom Barron wrote: Amit Oren has contributed high quality reviews in the last couple of cycles so I would like to nominated him for manila core. Please respond with your +1 or -1 votes.  We'll hold voting open for 7 days. +1 Thanks, -- Tom Barron (tbarron)

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpicking)

On 05/29/2018 03:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Agree with Ian here. Also another problem that comes up is: "Why are you touching *MY* review?" (probably coming from the view where stats - and stackalytics leaderboard position is important). So i guess we ask permission before editing (or) file

[openstack-dev] [manila][ptl] Stepping down as Manila PTL

like it doesn't need me to spend all my time pushing it forward, and I can change my role to contributor and let someone else lead. I'm thankful for all the support the project has received from contributors and from the larger OpenStack community. -Ben Swartzlander

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

some of our more horrifying problems, such as users who persist in running ancient versions, and users who want to upgrade over 2+ years worth of releases in a single shot. But I don't see how this makes those problems any worse either. -Ben Swartzlander

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] Nominating Zhong Jun (zhongjun) for Manila core

project. Please respond with a +1/-1. We will not be having an IRC meeting this Thursday (23^rd November 2017), so if we have sufficient quorum, PTL extraordinaire, Ben Swartzlander will confirm her nomination here. Welcome Jun to the manila core reviewer team! Your hard work and dedication

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] Nominating Zhong Jun (zhongjun) for Manila core

project. Please respond with a +1/-1. +1 from me. -Ben We will not be having an IRC meeting this Thursday (23^rd November 2017), so if we have sufficient quorum, PTL extraordinaire, Ben Swartzlander will confirm her nomination here. [1] http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=jun-zhongjun=all

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Access rule types for protocols

r and what is the use case for it. My current assumption is that these are effectively broken and removing them will hurt nobody. If legitimate cases can be found, then we need to find a way to support them in a more standardized, discoverable fashion. -Ben Sw

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Bug Squash Day - Wednesday Aug 2

on IRC with Webex for audio. There is an etherpad [1] with the event details which we will use the track the bugs, prioritize them, and assign people. -Ben Swartzlander [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pike-manila-bug-squash

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Feature proposal freeze exception request for change

On 07/18/2017 04:33 PM, Ravi, Goutham wrote: Hello Manila reviewers, It has been a few days past the feature proposal freeze, but I would like to request an extension for an enhancement to the NetApp driver in Manila. [1] implements a low-impact blueprint [2] that was approved for the Pike

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Stable-maint team members

to exercise restraint when approving backports, and perhaps go over the checklist one more time before pressing the +2 button :-) Thanks for keeping stable branches stable! -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Weekly meeting canceled

I'm not able to chair the meeting tomorrow and nobody has offered to chair the meeting in my stead so the meeting is canceled. We will meet as normal week. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List

[openstack-dev] [manila] PTG involvement

to be an outlier and most summits will be relatively cheap/easy to travel to. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][cinder][mistral][manila] A path forward to shiny consistent service types

On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: Hey everybody! Yay! (I'm sure you're all saying this, given the topic. I'll let you collect yourself from your exuberant celebration) == Background == As I'm sure you all know, we've been trying to make some hearway for a while on getting

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Unlimited shares and share usage tracking

make it hard to get both done during Pike but the current plan is to aim to complete both efforts. -Ben Swartzlander [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/452097/ [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/manila-specs/specs/pike/support-quotas-per-share-type.html [3] https://review.openstac

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] share server frameworks for DHSS=False case

On 04/03/2017 03:58 PM, Valeriy Ponomaryov wrote: On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org <mailto:b...@swartzlander.org>> wrote: ... and we later gave up on supporting remote ZFS using SSH altogether. -Ben No, we didn't. It works. Just

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] share server frameworks for DHSS=False case

On 04/03/2017 02:24 PM, Tom Barron wrote: We're building an NFS frontend onto the CephFS driver and are considering the relative merits, for the DHSS=False case, of following (1) the lvm driver model, and (2) the generic driver model. With #1 export locations use a configured address in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

On 03/09/2017 12:10 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: Hi Ben, On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org> wrote: I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

Forum format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For Manila I'm proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips conferences or meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm not going to ask everyone to travel 4 times a year. -Ben Swartzlander Manila PTL

[openstack-dev] [Manila] PTG summary

sing timeouts in our test jobs. The plan is to parallelize these. -Ben Swartzlander [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-pike-ptg-topics __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: o

[openstack-dev] [manila] Deadlines and no meeting next week

For those who missed the weekly meeting tonight there were 2 important things you should know: The meeting next week is canceled. The low-priority spec merge deadline was extended to tomorrow midnight (18 Nov 23:59 UTC) because we wanted to accept more specs for Ocata, and there are several

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila][cinder] [api] API and entity naming consistency

On 11/16/2016 11:28 AM, Ravi, Goutham wrote: + [api] in the subject to attract API-WG attention. We already have a guideline in the API-WG around resource names for “_” vs “-“ - https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/naming.html#rest-api-resource-names . With some exceptions

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila][cinder] API and entity naming consistency

On 11/16/2016 10:22 AM, Valeriy Ponomaryov wrote: For the moment Manila project, as well as Cinder, does have inconsistency between entity and API naming, such as: - "share type" ("volume type" in Cinder) entity has "/types/{id}" URL - "share snapshot" ("volume snapshot" in Cinder) entity has

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] spec detail of IPv6's export locations

before the spec[1] can get ready to the next review. The issue was initial raise by Ben Swartzlander on the manila IPv6 spec[1] (please check PS9 line 56), and this draft only state the export_location part which is currently fully focused in the spec. *proposed changes**(Based on Bens

[openstack-dev] [manila] Migration options

cal future migration options and how they would affect the API. I'm confident that this is as "safe" as the API and CLIs can be, and the only downside I can see to this approach is that it's more verbose than alternatives that include implicit defaults.

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] Barcelona Design Summit summary

On 11/04/2016 02:00 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Ben Swartzlander wrote: Thanks to gouthamr for doing these writeups and for recording! We had a great turn out at the manila Fishbowl and working sessions. Important notes and Action Items are below: === Fishbowl 1: Race

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] spec review focus

The following specs were designated as review focus specs for Ocata: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-ocata-spec-review-focus -Ben On 11/03/2016 12:27 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: As agreed to in the manila spec process spec, the whole core team is expected to review certain specs

[openstack-dev] [manila] spec review focus

As agreed to in the manila spec process spec, the whole core team is expected to review certain specs and vote before they merge. The following specs were designed as review focus specs for Ocata: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-ocata-spec-review-focus -Ben Swartzlander

[openstack-dev] [manila] Barcelona Design Summit summary

Thanks to gouthamr for doing these writeups and for recording! We had a great turn out at the manila Fishbowl and working sessions. Important notes and Action Items are below: === Fishbowl 1: Race Conditions === Thursday 27th Oct / 11:00 - 11:40

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] Relation of share types and share protocols

On 11/02/2016 06:23 AM, Arne Wiebalck wrote: Hi Valeriy, I wasn’t aware, thanks! So, if each driver exposes the storage_protocols it supports, would it be sensible to have manila-ui check the extra_specs for this key and limit the protocol choice for a given share type to the supported

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] propose adding gouthamr to manila core

+1 -Ben On 11/02/2016 08:09 AM, Tom Barron wrote: I hereby propose that we add Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr on IRC) to the manila core team. This is a clear case where he's already been doing the review work, excelling both qualitatively and quantitatively, as well as being a valuable

Re: [openstack-dev] [All] Cross project prorietary driver code recap

On 11/01/2016 12:03 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-11-01 00:26:11 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] As usual I'd like to point to the Linux project as a good example for how to handle such things. Linux is older than us and has been dealing with drivers and proprietary code

Re: [openstack-dev] [All] Cross project prorietary driver code recap

On 10/31/2016 02:23 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: Last Tuesday we had a cross-project session around the use of proprietary code/libs/binaries in OpenStack drivers. The challenge we are running into is where to draw the line with these drivers. What is the appropriate policy to have in place to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Proposed logo

On 10/26/2016 03:53 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: Hey team, Attached is the proposed new logo for the Cinder project. I think some have already seen this, so making sure everyone gets a chance to see it before it's finalized. Sean (smcginnis) FTFY -Ben

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][octavia][tacker][designate][manila][sahara][magnum][infra] servicevm working group meetup

Missed it On October 24, 2016 8:24:11 PM Doug Wiegley wrote: As part of a requirements mailing list thread [1], the idea of a servicevm working group, or a common framework for reference openstack service VMs, came up. It's too late to get onto the official

[openstack-dev] [elections] TC candidacy

I'd like to throw my hat in the ring for the TC election. My name is Ben Swartzlander (bswartz on IRC) and I've been PTL for the Manila project for the entire life of the project. I'm also relatively active within the Cinder project, and I've been part of the OpenStack community since Essex

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/09/2016 11:12 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 17:22, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org <mailto:b...@swartzlander.org>> wrote: On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] [all] Regarding string freeze and back ports involving translatable strings

l release, or is the theory that hard string freeze is always subject to exceptions for "critical" bug fixes? -Ben Swartzlander [1] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#appropriate-fixes [2] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-g

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

proxy runs on the box itself? What if it's a separate software package you have to install? I don't think we can write a set of rules that won't accidentally exclude things we don't want to exclude. -Ben Swartzlander -- Duncan Thomas ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Refactor the driver to not import the proprietary library -Ben Swartzlander Regards, Alon __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Choose a new logo

On 09/07/2016 01:20 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: For reasons discussed in last week's IRC meeting, we have vacated the previous logo choice and are redoing the vote. http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6f0d111cec78c5ef; akey=d34a751f2d084d79 http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Choose a new logo

For reasons discussed in last week's IRC meeting, we have vacated the previous logo choice and are redoing the vote. http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6f0d111cec78c5ef; akey=d34a751f2d084d79 This time I'm using the CIVS system because it will allow us to determine a #2 and #3

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

a bad job of writing and maintaining drivers and the community probably doesn't need to expend as much effort as it does policing driver quality. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] [security] [tc] Add the vulnerability:managed tag to Manila

on the responsibilities I'll reapply for the tag. -Ben Swartzlander On 08/30/2016 01:07 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Ben has proposed[1] adding manila, manila-ui and python-manilaclient to the list of deliverables whose vulnerability reports and advisories are overseen by the OpenStack Vulnerability Management Team

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] FFE request for Manila integration

these anyways. Also these are small and hopefully not-hard-to-review patches. If there's anything procedural I need to do to make these patches more acceptable please let me know, and I'll be watching them over the next few days and responding to review feedback. thanks, -Ben Swartzlander Manila PTL

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] FFE for "HPE 3PAR Pool feature"

On 08/26/2016 02:38 PM, Mehta, jay wrote: Hello all , I am requesting you all to grant me an exception for Pools feature for HPE 3PAR driver. The patch that implements this feature is: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329552/implementing blueprint blueprint hpe3par-pool-support

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] Plans re newton-3 release and feature freeze exceptions

an FFE for them. AFAIK there's no problems with these. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][cinder] Clone feature toggle not in clone tests

Originally the NFS driver did support snapshots, but it was implemented by just 'cp'ing the file containing the raw bits. This works fine (if inefficiently) for unattached volumes, but if you do this on an attached volume the snapshot won't be crash consistent at all. It was decided that we

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Feature proposal freeze is here

the backlog of features we have. thanks, -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] nfs-ganesha export modification issue

On 08/16/2016 08:42 AM, Ramana Raja wrote: On Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:07 PM, Alexey Ovchinnikov wrote: Hello everyone, here I will briefly summarize an export update problem one will encounter when using nfs-ganesha. While working on a driver that relies on

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 01:57 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org> wrote: A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. We use the master

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 11:33 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Luigi Toscano <ltosc...@redhat.com> wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

of tempest to test stable branches of other projects, and tempest regularly adds new features. This guarantees instability if you rely on tempest anywhere in your gate (and cinder does). -Ben Swartzlander (I'm aware there are community standards for stable currently, but a lot of this thread

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

iver-fixes/newton and driver-fixes/ocata, etc, to avoid confusion with the stable branches. -Ben Swartzlander If you want to change that, work with the stable team on the various options provided. This tangent of people whining on the mailing list and in #openstack-cinder is not going to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

eaving that mechanism unspecified for the time being), that you would still want the drivers out of the tree. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-de

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

hese repos fairly painless. -Ben Swartzlander Ihar __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

ave to recognize that the patch affects a particular vendor and know which CI system to look at before putting his +2 on. This is an unfortunate effect of not having 3rd party CI vote. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Developm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

he beginning. Add a requirement for 3rd party CI from the affected vendor to pass and I think it works and benefits everyone. -Ben Swartzlander 3. We go with the Neutron model and take drivers out of tree. This is not something the cinder core team are in favour of - we see significant value

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/06/2016 06:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs WILL eventually break as infra stops maintaining support for very old releases) then we simply remove those jobs

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/06/2016 11:31 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: This may mostly be a Cinder concern, but putting it out there to get wider input. For some time now there has been some debate about moving third party drivers in Cinder to be out of tree. I won't go into that too much, other than to point out one of

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

with the governance model for Ceph though. -Ben Swartzlander Thanks, Kevin From: Ben Swartzlander [b...@swartzlander.org] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:21 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc

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

ge running against the latest stable release of Ceph). It's reasonable to request that we increase our test coverage with Ceph if it's not good enough and if we are the ones causing the breakages. But their outside status isn't the problem. -Ben Swartzlander I do think this should be fixed

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Nominate Tom Barron for core reviewer team

Tom (tbarron on IRC) has been working on OpenStack (both cinder and manila) for more than 2 years and has spent a great deal of time on Manila reviews in the last release. Tom brings another package/distro point of view to the community as well as former storage vendor experience. -Ben

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Migration APIs 2-phase vs. 1-phase

on the meeting agenda for Thursday to discuss this in more detail, but if anyone has other feelings please chime in here. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev

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

r any downsides associated with following established processes. I strongly doubt any organization would choose to remove a project from OpenStack for the reasons you mention. If the community doesn't want these kinds of projects in the big tent then the community probably needs to push them out.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Service VMs, CI, etc

On 07/29/2016 09:25 AM, John Spray wrote: Hi folks, We're starting to look at providing NFS on top of CephFS, using NFS daemons running in Nova instances. Looking ahead, we can see that this is likely to run into similar issues in the openstack CI that the generic driver did. I got the

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Logo Poll

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/T9DW7G8 -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila][stable] liberty periodic bitrot jobs have been failing more than a week

On 07/03/2016 09:19 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 7/1/2016 8:18 PM, Ravi, Goutham wrote: Thanks Matt. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334220 adds the upper constraints. -- Goutham On 7/1/16, 5:08 PM, "Matt Riedemann" wrote: The manila periodic stable/liberty

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila]: questions on update-access() changes

Ramana, I think your questions got answered in a channel discussion last week, but I just wanted to double check that you weren't still expecting any answers here. If you were, please reply and we'll keep this thread going. On June 2, 2016 9:30:39 AM Ramana Raja wrote:

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Midcycle call for topics

Our midcycle meetup is 2 weeks away! Please propose topics on the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-manila-midcycle Depending on how much material we need to cover I'll decide if we need the third day or not. -Ben

[openstack-dev] [Manila] v1 API and nova-net support removal in newton

using one of the few drivers that support shares servers (not including the Generic driver) AND they're still using nova-net instead of neutron. The recommended workaround for those users is to switch to neutron. -Ben Swartzlander

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Newton deadlines (reminder)

eatures in the libraries after the core manila patches land, they need to go in together. -Ben Swartzlander [1] http://releases.openstack.org/newton/schedule.html [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Midcycle meetup

also need to know so I can get a space reserved. Given the geographic spread of the team I'm prioritizing remote participation though. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][manila] Moving forward with landing manila in tripleo

I think it makes sense to merge the triplo heat templates without m-dat support, as including m-dat will require a bunch of dependent patches and slow everything down. The lack of the m-dat service won't cause any issues other than that the experimental share-migration APIs won't work. We

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

rs, but let's make it clear that they're not the same. -Ben Swartzlander [1] For all X, Y in (0, 1): X * Y < X 3. Are there performance problems where python really can't get there? This seems like a pretty clear "yes". It shouldn't be surprising. Python has no jit (yes there is pypy,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/09/2016 07:43 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org <mailto:b...@swartzlander.org>> wrote: >> >> Perhaps for mature languages. But go is still finding its way, and that >> usually involves rapid chang

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

ltiple plugable implementations. -Ben Swartzlander Also worth noting, is that go is not a "language runtime" but a compiler (that happens to statically link in a runtime to the binaries it produces...). The point here though, is that the versions of Python that OpenStack has traditionally support

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo

, May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org> wrote: On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 license

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo

On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons licensed docs. [...] Recollection is that the prose

[openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo

-created manila-specs repo, and I'm happy with whatever the TC is currently recommending. -Ben Swartzlander [1] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter [2] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter/commit/8738f58981da3ad9c0f27fb545d61747213482a4#diff

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Design summit etherpads

Here at the design summit I've been asked a few times where the etherpads are. Here is a link to the top level page for design summit etherpads: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Design_Summit/Newton/Etherpads#Manila -Ben

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Dev][Manila] BP https://blueprints.launchpad.net/manila/+spec/access-groups

) *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 3:22 PM *To:* 'OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)' <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> *Cc:* 'bswa...@netapp.com' <bswa...@netapp.com>; 'Ben Swartzlander' <b...@swartzlander.org> *Subject:* [OpenStack-Dev

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Newton design summit topics

I've started an etherpad to collect ideas for summit topics: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-newton-summit-topics Please add your suggestions to the top section and we'll get them categorized and scheduled in the bottom section in time for Austin. -Ben Swartzlander

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] FFE for update_access implementation for Ganesha lib and GlusterFS

e fallback path even if we did merge these changes. Csaba, thank you for getting these changes done and we will merge them early in Newton. We need to decide as a community how to get the remaining drivers updated in Newton so we can remove the fallback path. -Ben Swartzlan

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Removal of LXD driver

to be more careful about selecting a more stable and widely-supported container platform. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] FFE for Removing the File Tree on Delete When Using Nested Shares on 3PAR

On 03/11/2016 02:42 PM, O'Rourke, Alex Liam wrote: Hi, I would like to request a Feature Freeze Exception for Removing the File Tree on Delete When Using Nested Shares with 3PAR: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290209/ Originally, this was filed as a blueprint and marked as a new feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [manila] FFE for Removing the File Tree on Delete When Using Nested Shares on 3PAR

On 03/11/2016 02:42 PM, O'Rourke, Alex Liam wrote: Hi, I would like to request a Feature Freeze Exception for Removing the File Tree on Delete When Using Nested Shares with 3PAR: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290209/ Originally, this was filed as a blueprint and marked as a new feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Concurrent execution of drivers

On 03/04/2016 08:15 AM, John Spray wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Shinobu Kinjo wrote: What are you facing? In this particular instance, I'm dealing with a case where we may add some metadata in ceph that will get updated by the driver, and I need to know how

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] nfs-over-vsock (was: Concurrent execution of drivers)

On 03/05/2016 05:34 AM, Shinobu Kinjo wrote: Are we still going to think of nfs-over-vsock? Never mind. It's just coming from my curiosity. A lot of work outside Manila has to happen before we can actually deliver that feature in OpenStack. If you google about nfs over vsock you can learn

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ml2][Manila] API to query segments used during port binding

. It makes sense as a short term hack but given that we have time to design this correctly I'd prefer to get this information in a more straighforward way. -Ben Swartzlander On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com <mailto:ihrac...@redhat.com>> wrote

[openstack-dev] [Manila] NFS and root squash

onally in the future. If any drivers are currently turning root squash on, I would consider that a bug -- and it will prevent migration for working on your backend. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] adding a new /v3 endpoint for api-microversions

On 02/19/2016 11:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/19/2016 11:15 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 02/19/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote: Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up at our mid-cycle that we should add

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] adding a new /v3 endpoint for api-microversions

ems or both. -Ben Swartzlander 5) that client issues a request against a resource on /v2 with parameters that would create a radically different situation that would be hard to figure out later. And, only if all these things happen is there a concern. So let's look at each one. 1) clients alre

[openstack-dev] [Manila] HDFS CI broken

to be distracted by fixing this kind of thing. If this driver is something people actively use and find valuable, then it should not be hard to find a volunteer to fix it. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Nominate Rodrigo Barbieri for core reviewer team

On 02/02/2016 12:30 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: Rodrigo (ganso on IRC) joined the Manila project back in the Kilo release and has been working on share migration (an important core feature) for the last 2 releases. Since Tokyo he has dedicated himself to reviews and community participation. I

[openstack-dev] [Manila] Nominate Rodrigo Barbieri for core reviewer team

core reviewer team. -Ben Swartzlander Manila PTL __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-dev][Manila] status=NONE when share is created

On 01/06/2016 02:53 AM, nidhi.h...@wipro.com wrote: Hi All, https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1526284 (snip) Where we are intentionally giving *create_share_instance=False that means in db function * I think I agree it would make more sense to create the first instance at the same

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-Dev][Manila] - Need design decision help - - https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1503390

On 12/22/2015 12:26 AM, nidhi.h...@wipro.com wrote: Hi all. I am working on bug 1503390. (status=None while delete is in progress ) I was doing analysis of problem and found that yes its there. I reproduced it. Now the two solutions proposed.. 1)Either say the status as deleting for such

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Midcycle meetup

On 12/04/2015 04:42 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 11/19/2015 01:00 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: If you planning to attend the midcycle in any capacity, please vote your preferences here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BXPLDXT The results of the survey were clear. Most people prefer the week

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Tempest scenario tests vs. gate condition

On 12/03/2015 06:38 AM, John Spray wrote: Hi, We're working towards getting the devstack/CI parts ready to test the forthcoming ceph native driver, and have a question: will a driver be accepted into the tree if it has CI for running the api/ tempest tests, but not the scenario/ tempest tests?

Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Midcycle meetup

On 11/19/2015 01:00 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: If you planning to attend the midcycle in any capacity, please vote your preferences here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BXPLDXT The results of the survey were clear. Most people prefer the week of Jan 12-14. There was an offer to host

  1   2   >