Sad to see you go, Carl.
Good luck!
Eugene.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> Neutron (and Openstack),
>
> It is with regret that I report that my work situation has changed such
> that I'm not able to keep up with my duties as a Neutron core reviewer,
Doge coin http://dogecoin.com/
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Timur Sufiev wrote:
> Let's take it before anybody else did :)!
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM Richard Jones
> wrote:
>
>> +2 very appropriate
>>
>> On 17 July 2016 at 11:01,
That's interesting.
In our deployments we do something like br-ex (linux bridge, mtu 9000) -
OVSIntPort (mtu 65000) - br-floating (ovs bridge, mtu 1500) - br-int (ovs
bridge, mtu 1500).
qgs then are getting created in br-int, traffic goes all the way and that
altogether allows jumbo frames over
May be you just don't have enough pain, Sean :)
I'd agree that these should be coalesced, with a deprecation period then...
E.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> Inessa Vasilevskaya wrote:
> > different configurations of of_interface and
I'm sorry to say that, but the new front page design is horrible and
totally confusing.
I hope it'll change soon in the new release.
E.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:53 AM, AFEK, Ifat (Ifat) <
ifat.a...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reminder: Gerrit upgrade is scheduled for tomorrow at
It is as 'single' as active L3 router that is handling traffic at current
point of time.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/12/15, 10:44 PM, "Assaf Muller" wrote:
>
> >The neutron metadata agent is stateless. It takes
l start
soon.
My initial point was (to state it clearly), that I will be -2 on any new
additions of openstack services to pacemaker kingdom.
Thanks,
Eugene.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikano...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> 2) I thi
k this kind of attribute, although being analyzed by pacemaker/ocf,
doesn't need any new OS service to be put under pacemaker control.
Thanks,
Eugene.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikano...@mirantis.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
gt; think we might be relying on the expectation that the local rabbitmq
>> is always available but I need to look into that. Either way, I
>> believe we still should continue to discuss this issue as we are
>> managing services in multiple ways on a single host. Additiona
No pacemaker for os services, please.
We'll be moving out neutron agents from pacemaker control in 8.0, other os
services don't need it too.
E.
5 окт. 2015 г. 12:01 пользователь "Sergii Golovatiuk" <
sgolovat...@mirantis.com> написал:
> Good morning gentlemen!
>
> Alex raised very good question.
)
But even there, examples when we are better off without pacemaker are all
around.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Sergey Vasilenko <svasile...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikano...@mirantis.com
> > wrote:
&g
Hi neutrons,
I'd like to draw your attention to an issue discovered by rally gate job:
http://logs.openstack.org/96/190796/4/check/gate-rally-dsvm-neutron-rally/7a18e43/logs/screen-q-svc.txt.gz?level=TRACE
I don't have bandwidth to take a deep look at it, but first impression is
that it is some
Huge +1 both for the suggestion and for reasoning.
It's better to avoid substituting language features by a library.
Eugene.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
wrote:
I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports.
I'd like to call attention to one
process calls, etc. That's why I assumed that
there must be something actually stopping it from sending the message.
Do you have a way to reproduce the issue with the DHCP agent?
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
No, I think greenthread itself don't
Salvatore,
By 'fairness' I meant chances for state report greenthread to get the
control. In DHCP case, each network processed by a separate greenthread, so
the more greenthreads agent has, the less chances that report state
greenthread will be able to report in time.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Sun,
understand now. So the issue is that the report_state greenthread is
just blocking and yielding whenever it tries to actually send a message?
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Salvatore,
By 'fairness' I meant chances for state report greenthread to get
I doubt it's a server side issue.
Usually there are plenty of rpc workers to drain much higher amount of rpc
messages going from agents.
So the issue could be in 'fairness' on L3 agent side. But from my
observations it was more an issue of DHCP agent than L3 agent due to
difference in resource
All production Openstack applications today are fully serialized to only
be able to emit a single query to the database at a time;
True. That's why any deployment configures tons (tens) of workers of any
significant service.
When I talk about moving to threads, this is not a won't help or hurt
Hi folks,
who is responsible for A10 CI?
It keeps spamming with CI results on many patches that are not being
updated.
Also it spins sometimes, producing tens and hundreds of emails for
particular patch.
Please repair!
Thanks,
Eugene.
Hi Matthew,
I'll add just 2c:
We've tried to move from repeatable-read to read committed in Neutron
project.
This change actually has caused multiple deadlocks during regular tempest
test run.
That is a known problem (the issue with eventlet and currect mysql client
library),
but anyway, at
Thanks for putting this all together, Salvatore.
I just want to comment on this suggestion:
1) Move the allocation logic out of the driver, thus making IPAM an
independent service. The API workers will then communicate with the IPAM
service through a message bus, where IP allocation requests
discourage people from looking into
the bug.
Thanks everyone for helping with this!
Eugene.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi neutron folks!
Today we've decided to conduct bug triaging day.
We have more than one thousand bugs needing
Hi neutron folks!
Today we've decided to conduct bug triaging day.
We have more than one thousand bugs needing their state to be checked.
So everyone is welcome to participate!
The goals of bug triaging day are:
1) Decrease the number of New bugs.
Possible 'resolution' would be:
- confirm bug.
Comments inline:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
So while the SELECTs may return different data on successive calls when
you use the READ COMMITTED isolation level, the UPDATE statements will
continue to return 0 rows affected **if they attempt to change
*You are 100% correct that setting the transaction isolation level to READ
COMMITTED works in the retry loop*.
I stand corrected, and humbled :) Please accept my apologies.
Thanks for letting me know :)
One thing I did note, though, is that changing the isolation level of an
Wow, lots of feedback in a matter of hours.
First of all, reading postgres docs I see that READ COMMITTED is the same
as for mysql, so it should address the issue we're discussing:
*Read Committed* is the default isolation level in PostgreSQL. When a
transaction uses this isolation level, a
But the isolation mode change won’t really help here as pointed out by
Jay; discrete transactions have to be used instead.
I still think it will, per postgres documentation (which might look
confusing, but still...)
It actually helps for mysql, that was confirmed. For postgres it appears to
be
Hi neutron folks,
There is an ongoing effort to refactor some neutron DB logic to be
compatible with galera/mysql which doesn't support locking
(with_lockmode('update')).
Some code paths that used locking in the past were rewritten to retry the
operation if they detect that an object was
Hi folks,
I have been supervising bug list for neutron during the last release cycle,
trying
to do some housekeeping, prioritizing issues and fixing some of them.
As you might see, amount of bugs (even staying in New state) doesn't go
down.
Bugs appear at quite fast pace, and some of them hang
Hi folks,
I'd like to raise a discussion kept in irc and in gerrit recently:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/131944/
The intention of the patch is to clean up particular scheduling
method/interface:
schedule_network.
Let me clarify why I think it needs to be done (beside code api consistency
My comments inline:
I would argue that it isn't, actually.
You may need to know the state of the network to make that placement
decision.
Yes, I could agree with that - and that's just a particular scheduling
implementation, not a requirement for the interface.
Just passing the id may
don’t expect this issue to cause many practical problems
in this particular case.
This is also an issue for the incubator, whenever it rolls around.
Thanks,
doug
On September 23, 2014 at 6:59:44 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
(enikano...@mirantis.com) wrote:
Hi neutron
Hi neutron and lbaas folks.
Recently I briefly looked at one of lbaas proposed into feature branch.
I see migration IDs there are lined into a general migration sequence.
I think something is definitely wrong with this approach as feature-branch
components are optional, and also master branch
If we're talking about default haproxy driver for lbaas, then I'd say that
the diagram is not quite correct because one could assume that LB_A and
LB_B are kind of routing devices which have networks behind.
Since haproxy is layer 4 loadbalancer, so packet received by RHB1 will have
source of
Hi neutrons,
We've been discussing various ways of doing cloud upgrades.
One of the safe and viable solutions seems to be moving existing resources
to a new cloud deployed with new version of openstack.
By saying 'moving' I mean replication of all resources and wiring
everything together in a
Hi folks,
That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is
trying to do (and for dispatching it's doing the same as providers). REST
call dispatching should really go via the root object.
I don't quite get the issue with health monitors. If HM is incorrectly
configured prior
. The driver errors out not on the LoadBalancer
create, but on the health monitor create.
I think that's the issue.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 00:17 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
Hi folks,
That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is
trying to do
Hi neutron folks,
Today should have been 'Bug squashing day' where we go over existing bugs
filed for the project and triage/prioritize/comment on them.
I've created an etherpad with (hopefully) full list of neutron bugs:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-bug-squashing-day-2014-08-07
I
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
wrote:
On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
smartest
reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
And yet, the specification clearly talks
In fact there are more applications for distributed locking than just
accessing data in database.
One of such use cases is serializing access to devices.
This is what is not yet hardly needed, but will be as we get more service
drivers working with appliances.
It would be great if some existing
Hi folks,
I'd like to request an exception for the Flavor Framework spec:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102723/
It already have more or less complete server-side implementation:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105982/
CLI will be posted on review soon.
Thanks,
Eugene.
is for.
Totally agree on this point.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
enikano...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
So, as was discussed, existing proposal has some aspects which better
to be postponed, like extension list on the flavor (instead of tags).
Agreed-- I
Hi Stephen,
So, as was discussed, existing proposal has some aspects which better to be
postponed, like extension list on the flavor (instead of tags).
Particularly that idea has several drawbacks:
- it makes public API inflexible
- turning features on/off is not what flavors should be doing,
.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Mark McClain mmccl...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Jul 4, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
German,
First of all extension list looks lbaas-centric right now.
Actually far from it. SSL VPN should be service
Hi,
Mark and me has spent some time today discussing existing proposals and I
think we got to a consensus.
Initially I had two concerns about Mark's proposal which are
- extension list attribute on the flavor
- driver entry point on the service profile
The first idea (ext list) need to be
I also don't think it is fair for certain drivers to hold other drivers
hostage
For some time there was a policy (openstack-wide) that public API should
have a free open source implementation.
In this sense open source driver may hold other drivers as hostages.
Eugene.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at
-dev] [neutron] Flavor framework: Conclusion
Awesome, thanks for working on this Eugene and Mark! I'll still leave an
item on Monday's meeting agenda to discuss this, hopefully it can be brief.
Thanks,
Kyle
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi
Hi lbaas folks,
IMO a status is really an important part of the API.
In some old email threads Sam has proposed the solution for lbaas objects:
we need to have several attributes that independently represent different
types of statuses:
- admin_state_up
- operational status
- provisioning state
. If you think
that the benefit doesn't worth complexity - please let me know.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Mike Bayer mba...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a small discussion about
the abstraction of an ipam interface merged.
That
will take some more discussion and work on its own.
Carl
On May 30, 2014 4:37 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
I was thinking it would be a separate process that would
communicate over
the RPC channel or something
If a user makes a change to a secret
Can we just disable that by making LBaaS a separate user so it would store
secrets under LBaaS 'fake' tenant id?
Eugene.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jain, Vivek vivekj...@ebay.com wrote:
+1 for #2.
In addition, I think it would be nice if barbican
Unit tests use sqlite db backend, so it might be much faster than
production environment where DB is on different server.
Eugene.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Wang, Yalei yalei.w...@intel.com wrote:
Hi, Xurong,
How do you test it in postgresql? Do you use tox to do a unittest and get
Hi Sam,
Eugene, please comment on the migration process bellow.
I think that closing down the status handling should be done in phase 1.
I don't mind. If you're talking about provisioning status then such status
(if we're still going to maintain it per each kind of object) goes to
various
Hi,
I might be posting a question to a wrong thread, but what would be the
option to push a patch that I would like to share only with certain group
of people. In other words, is there still an option to push non-public
patches?
I wouldn't like such patches to affect gerrit stream or trigger CIs,
Hi Carl,
The idea of in-memory storage was discussed for similar problem, but might
not work for multiple server deployment.
Some hybrid approach though may be used, I think.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
This is very similar to
implementation is slow. At least going over RPC is greenthread
friendly where going to the database doesn't seem to be.
Carl
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
enikano...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi Carl,
The idea of in-memory storage was discussed for similar problem, but
might
Hi,
I have two questions that previously were briefly discussed. Both of them
still cause discussions within advanced services community, so I'd like to
make final clarification in this email thread.
1. Usage of Service Type Framework
I think right now there is a consensus that letting user to
Hi folks,
Let's keep our regular meetings on Thursday, 14-00 UTC
The agenda for the meeting:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/LBaaS#Agenda
Sorry for the short notice, I'm still catching up with everything.
Thanks,
Eugene.
___
OpenStack-dev
In fact, nova should be careful about changing number of retries for
neutron client.
It's known that under significant load (people test serial VM creation)
neutron client may timeout on POST operation which does port creation;
retrying this again leads to multiple fixed IPs assigned to a VM
Hi folks,
From lbaas design session I have an impression that we need to have a kind
of merge of existing API and new proposed API.
E.g. the blueprint implementation should not be brand new API and DB
backend.
So I'd say from implementation perspective we may want to minimize amount
of changes
brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
Yeah that’s a good point. Thanks!
From: Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
Reply-To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Hi Craig,
Implementation-specific options are not exposed through the API, or
otherwise it would be inconsistent, given that we are moving to a
flavor-based approach of specifying service requirements where
implementation is completely hidden from the user.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Thu, May 15, 2014
Hi Vijay,
When you say API is not available, it means this should not be considered
like a resource/entity. Correct?
But then, there would be API like a bind API, that accepts loadbalancer_id
listener_id, which creates this object.
And also, there would be an API that will be used
,
Eugene.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:45 PM, IWAMOTO Toshihiro iwam...@valinux.co.jpwrote:
It is pity to see enoumous LBaaS efforts have been largely spinning
(in a sense of spinlocks) for a while.
At Thu, 15 May 2014 14:31:54 +0400,
Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
[1 multipart/alternative (7bit
a minor
correction is required to indicate the many to many relationship via
PoolMonitorAssociation.
Thanks,
Vijay V.
*From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:36 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions
pool. Is
this always going to be the same type of health monitor? There’s also
ambiguity in the case where one health monitor fails and another doesn’t.
Is it an AND or OR that determines whether the member is down or not?
Thanks,
Brandon Logan
From: Eugene Nikanorov enikano
Hi,
Let's skip the meeting this week for obvious reasons :)
Also, Oleg and me will not be able to attend the meeting next week (if it
will be conducted), because we will be on vocation.
Thanks,
Eugene.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
Hi,
what time are you suggesting?
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
I'm going to attend the next nw session @b103, we can meet in between. Im
in b103 too.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Hi Stephen,
While in second approach VIP remains a keeper of L2/L3 information, while
listeners keep L4+ information.
That seems to be more clear.
There's a complication though: Pools may also need some L2/L3 information
(per the discussion of adding subnet_id as an attribute of the
Hi Carlos,
On May 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Also we've heard objection to this approach several times from other core
team members (this discussion has been going for more than half a year
now), so I would suggest to move forward with single L2
Hi Stephen,
Some comments on comments on comments:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Stephen Balukoff sbaluk...@bluebox.netwrote:
Hi Eugene,
This assumes that 'VIP' is an entity that can contain both an IPv4 address
and an IPv6 address. This is how it is in the API proposal and
Hi Brandon,
I, too, have not heard clear and concise reasons why the core team
members would not like a logical load balancer object, or a load
balancer object that maps to many vips, which in turn maps to many
listeners. I've been to every LBaaS meeting for months now I think, and
I just
Hi Stephen,
Well, sure, except the user is going to want to know what the IP
address(es) are for obvious reasons, and expect them to be taken from
subnet(s) the user specifies. Asking the user to provide a Neutron
network_id (ie. where we'll attach the L2 interface) isn't definitive here
:45 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Are you saying that we should only have a loadbalancer resource
only in the case where we want it to span multiple L2 networks as if it
were a router? I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. Can you
explain
Hi Brandon
Let me know if I am misunderstanding this,and please explain it
further.
A single neutron port can have many fixed ips on many subnets. Since
this is the case you're saying that there is no need for the API to
define multiple VIPs since a single neutron port can represent all the
Hi folks,
I'm pulling this question out of another discussion:
Is there a need to have multiple VIPs (e.g. multiple L2 ports/IP addresses)
per logical loadbalancer?
If so, we need the description of such cases to evaluate them.
Thanks,
Eugene.
___
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Brandon Logan
brandon.lo...@rackspace.comwrote:
Yes, Rackspace has users that have multiple IPv4 and IPv6 VIPs on a
single load balancer.
For sure that can be supported by particular physical appliance, but I
doubt we need to translate it to logical
Hi Stephen,
A couple of inline comments:
-
BBG proposal just has attributes for both and IPv4 address and an
IPv6 address in its VIP object. (Meaning it's slightly different than
a
VIP as people are likely to assume what that term means.)
This is a correct approach.
Hi Adam,
My comments inline:
1. We shouldn't be looking at the current model and deciding which object
is the root object, or what object to rename as a loadbalancer... That's
totally backwards! *We don't define which object is named the
loadbalancer by looking for the root object -- we
Hi Carlos,
Are you saying that we should only have a loadbalancer resource only in
the case where we want it to span multiple L2 networks as if it were a
router? I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. Can you explain
further.
No, I mean that loadbalancer instance is needed if we
Hi folks,
I think it's ok to include content modification in a general API proposal
as long as it would then receive separate spec document in neutron-specs.
When it comes to particular feature design and implementation it's better
to be more granular.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at
Hi folks,
This will be the last meeting before the summit, so I suggest we will focus
on the agenda for two
design track slots we have.
Per my experience design tracks are not very good for in-depth discussion,
so it only make sense to present a road map and some other items that might
need core
Agree with Sam here,
Moreover, i think it makes sense to leave subnet an attribute of the pool.
Which would mean that members reside in that subnet or are available
(routable) from this subnet, and LB should have a port on this subnet.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Samuel
Hi Adam,
My comments inline:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Adam Harwell adam.harw...@rackspace.comwrote:
I am sending this now to gauge interest and get feedback on what I see
as an impending necessity — updating the existing haproxy driver,
replacing it, or both.
I agree with Stephen's
Hi,
My opinion is that keeping neutron API style is very important but it
doesn't prevent single call API from being implemented.
Flat fine-grained API is obviously the most flexible, but that doesn't mean
we can't support single call API as well.
By the way, looking at the implementation I see
Hi Jorge,
A couple of inline comments:
Now that we have a set of requirements the next question to ask is, How
doe we prioritize requirements so that we can start designing and
implementing them?
Prioritization basically means that we want to support everything and only
choose what is
more
Sorry, missed the phrase ending:
It's not because developers of lbaas have not thought about it, it's
because we were limited in dev and core reviewing
resources, so implement
so implementing some of the operators requirements was always in our plans.
Eugene.
Hi,
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Jorge Miramontes
jorge.miramon...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hey Eugene,
I think there is a misunderstanding on what iterative development means
to you and me and I want to make sure we are on the same page. First of
all, I'll try not to use the term
We wanted a discussion to happen on whether the existing object model
would work with both API proposals. That blueprint being pushed to
gerrit the same time as Stephen mailing out his proposal made it seem
like this was not going to happen.
I'm sorry about that. In fact I was just
I think it's better to test with some tcp connection (ssh session?) rather
then with ping.
Eugene.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.comwrote:
So by running ping while instance interface update we can see ~10-20 sec of
connectivity downtime. Here is a tcp
Hi,
The agenda for the next meeting (Thursday, 1st of May, 14-00 UTC) is the
following:
1) Stephen's API proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129Da7zEk5p437_88_IKiQnNuWXzWaS_CpQVm4JBeQnc/edit#heading=h.hgpfh6kl7j7a
The document proposes the API that covers pretty much of the features
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the great document. As I promised, I'll try to make a few
action items out if it.
First of all, I'd like to say that the API you have proposed is very
close to what is proposed
Hi,
You knew from the action items that came out of the IRC meeting of April
17 that my team would be working on an API revision proposal. You also knew
that this proposal was to be accompanied by an object model diagram and
glossary, in order to clear up confusion. You were in that meeting,
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the great document. As I promised, I'll try to make a few action
items out if it.
First of all, I'd like to say that the API you have proposed is very close
to what is proposed in the blueprint
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/with several differences I'd
like to
/multi_backend.html
Thanks,
Akihiro
(2014/04/24 0:05), Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
Hi neutrons,
A quick question of the ^^^
I heard from many of you that a term 'flavor' is undesirable, but so far
there were no suggestions for the notion that we are going to introduce.
So please, suggest you name
-cloud/content/multi_backend.html
Thanks,
Akihiro
(2014/04/24 0:05), Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
Hi neutrons,
A quick question of the ^^^
I heard from many of you that a term 'flavor' is undesirable, but
so
far there were no suggestions for the notion that we
Marrios, I'm working on that right now.
Expect the BP to be on gerrit later today.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:40 PM, mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.comwrote:
On 24/04/14 13:54, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
Marios,
here's the link with proposal description:
https
Hi neutrons,
A quick question of the ^^^
I heard from many of you that a term 'flavor' is undesirable, but so far
there were no suggestions for the notion that we are going to introduce.
So please, suggest you name for the resource.
Names that I've been thinking of:
- Capability group
- Service
Thanks, that can be an option.
Just wondering, can we find a single name?
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 19:05 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
Hi neutrons,
A quick question of the ^^^
I heard from many
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo