Re: [openstack-dev] [olso][neutron] proxying oslo.messaging from management network into tenant network/VMs

Hi, On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 17:33 +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > Hello developers. > > > As discussed many times so far[1], there are many projects that needs > to propagate RPC messages into VMs running on OpenStack. Neutron in my case. > > My idea is to relay RPC messages from management networ

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] use of the "oslo" namespace package

On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 15:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > We can avoid adding to the problem by putting each new library in its > own package. We still want the Oslo name attached for libraries that > are really only meant to be used by OpenStack projects, and so we need > a naming convention. I'm

[openstack-dev] oslo.messaging 1.3.0 released

Hi oslo.messaging 1.3.0 is now available on pypi and should be available in our mirror shortly. Full release notes are available here: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/ The master branch will soon be open for Juno targeted development and we'll publish 1.4.0aN beta releases

Re: [openstack-dev] [depfreeze] [horizon] Exception request: python-keystoneclient>=0.7.0

On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 13:53 +, Julie Pichon wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to request a depfreeze exception to bump up the keystone > client requirement [1], in order to reenable the ability for users to > update their own password with Keystone v3 in Horizon in time for > Icehouse [2]. This ca

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack vs. SQLA 0.9

FYI, allowing 0.9 recently merged into openstack/requirements: https://review.openstack.org/79817 This is a good example of how we should be linking gerrit and mailing list discussions together more. I don't think the gerrit review was linked in this thread nor was the mailing list discussion l

Re: [openstack-dev] Multiple patches in one review

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 10:49 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > Gerrit support for a patch series could certainly be better. There has long been talking about gerrit getting "topic review" functionality, whereby you could e.g. approve a whole series of patches from a "topic view". See: https://code

Re: [openstack-dev] [legal-discuss] [Marconi] Why is marconi a queue implementation vs a provisioning API?

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 12:07 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 03/20/2014 01:30 AM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote: > >> The problem with AGPL is that the scope is very uncertain and the > >> determination of the consequences are very fact intensive. I was the > >> chair of the User

Re: [openstack-dev] [Marconi] Why is marconi a queue implementation vs a provisioning API?

On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 12:37 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > Let me start by saying that I want there to be a constructive discussion > around all this. I've done my best to keep my tone as non-snarky as I could > while still clearly stating my concerns. I've also spent a few hours > reviewin

Re: [openstack-dev] [Marconi] Why is marconi a queue implementation vs a provisioning API?

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 01:28 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Proxying from yahoo's open source director (since he wasn't initially > subscribed to this list, afaik he now is) on his behalf. > > From Gil Yehuda (Yahoo’s Open Source director). > > I would urge you to avoid creating a dependency betwee

Re: [openstack-dev] [Marconi] Why is marconi a queue implementation vs a provisioning API?

On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 10:17 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > So this came up briefly at the tripleo sprint, and since I can't seem > to find a /why/ document > (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Marconi/Incubation#Raised_Questions_.2B_Answers > and https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Marconi#Design don't s

Re: [openstack-dev] supported dependency versioning and testing

On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:31 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > Hi All, > > I discussion recently came up inside of nova about what it means > supported version for a dependency means. in libvirt we gate on the > minimal version that we support but for all python dependencies we > gate on the highest vers

Re: [openstack-dev] why do we put a license in every file?

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:29 +, Greg Hill wrote: > I'm new, so I'm sure there's some history I'm missing, but I find it > bizarre that we have to put the same license into every single file of > source code in our projects. In my past experience, a single LICENSE > file at the root-level of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [PTL] Designating "required use" upstream code

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > (This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one > integrated project) > > The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the > Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each > int

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Steve Gordon wrote: > >> From: "Anne Gentle" > >> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the > >> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service names > >> at > >> https://wiki.openstack.

Re: [openstack-dev] pep8 gating fails due to tools/config/check_uptodate.sh

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:19 +0900, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/05/2014 12:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug &

Re: [openstack-dev] pep8 gating fails due to tools/config/check_uptodate.sh

On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote: > Hello all, > > It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug reported, > we probably need to mark this as Critical. > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1268614 > > Ivan Melnikov has pushed a patchset waiti

Re: [openstack-dev] Less option (was: [oslo.config] Centralized config management)

On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:34 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 09 2014, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > > > > > Hope you don't mind, I'll jump in here :) > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2014-01

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 13:44 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > How about if we had an "emerging projects" page where the TC feedback on > > each project would be listed? > > > > That would give visibility to our feedback, without making

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 11:25 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > I'm not totally convinced we need such formality around the TC > > expressing its support for an early-stage program/project/effort/team. > > This is a difficult balance. > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][glance] Oslo.cfg resets not really resetting the CONF

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:14 +0530, Amala Basha Alungal wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I stumbled into a situation tod

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][glance] Oslo.cfg resets not really resetting the CONF

Hi On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:14 +0530, Amala Basha Alungal wrote: > Hi, > > > > I stumbled into a situation today where in I had to write few tests that > modifies the oslo.config.cfg and in turn resets the values back in a tear > down. Acc to the docs, oslo.cfg reset() "*Clears the object state

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

Hi Thierry, On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > TL;DR: > Incubation is getting harder, why not ask efforts to apply for a new > program first to get the visibility they need to grow. > > Long version: > > Last cycle we introduced the concept of "Programs"

Re: [openstack-dev] Re-initializing or dynamically configuring cinder driver

Hi, On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 10:23 +0530, iKhan wrote: > Hi All, > > At present cinder driver can be only configured with adding entries in conf > file. Once these driver related entries are modified or added in conf file, > we need to restart cinder-volume service to validate the conf entries and >

Re: [openstack-dev] Announcing Fuel

Hi Mike, On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 18:31 +0400, Mike Scherbakov wrote: > Folks, > > Most of you by now have heard of Fuel, which we’ve been working on as a > related OpenStack project for a period of time - > see https://launchpad.net/fuel and > https://wiki.o

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Tuskar CLI after architecture changes

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 13:33 +0100, Jiří Stránský wrote: > Hi all, > > TL;DR: I believe that "As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants a > CLI for managing the deployment providing the same fundamental features > as UI." With the planned architecture changes (making tuskar-api thinner > an

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more > focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO > that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a > responsibility, and that has

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] First steps towards amqp 1.0

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for > AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers > for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal would be > to add an a

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Core criteria, review stats vs reality

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:00 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 12/09/2013 07:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Steven Hardy wrote: > >> [...] > >> The issues I have are: > >> - Russell's stats (while very useful) are being used by some projects as > >> the principal metric related to -core membersh

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][TripleO] Nested resources

On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 09:40 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 6 December 2013 14:11, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > > I think the security issue can be handled by not actually giving the > > underlying resource to the user in the first place. > > > > So, for example, if I wanted a bare metal node's worth

Re: [openstack-dev] Retiring "reverify no bug"

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:49 -0800, James E. Blair wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday December 11, 2013 we will remove the ability to use > "reverify no bug" to re-trigger gate runs for changes that have failed > tests. > > This was previously discussed[1] on this list. There are a few key > things to

Re: [openstack-dev] [olso] [cinder] upgrade issues in lock_path in cinder after oslo utils sync

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 11:11 -0600, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-09 10:55, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 12/09/2013 11:38 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2013-12-09 08:17:45 -0800: > >>> On 12/06/2013 05:40 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-06 16:30, Clint Byrum wr

Re: [openstack-dev] TransportURL and virtualhost/exchnage (was Re: [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config)

Hi Gordon, On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 18:36 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 11/18/2013 04:44 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> IIRC, one of the concerns when oslo.messaging was split out was > >> maintaining support fo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:55 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > I really have to agree with this. It's especially important if > oslo.messaging is also used in libraries like taskflow. If > oslo.messaging imposes that users of it must use oslo.config then by > using it in taskflow, taskflow then imposes

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:41 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > If the goal is "allow applications to use oslo.messaging without using > > oslo.config", then what's driving this? I'm guessing s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

Hi Julien, On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:45 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/messaging-decouple-cfg > > So I've gone through the code and started to write a plan on how I'd do > things: > > https://wiki.open

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: > > > >I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so > >much that the project did something different, but rather that choice > >was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine > >for them to i

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 16:43 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > > The API and developer documentation is at > >http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/ > > This is great, thanks for the link. Would there be any objections to > adding this to the github repo and the openstack wiki pages? I spent

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 17:33 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 05:09 PM, Jarret Raim wrote: ... > >> I'd like to address the use of Celery. > >> > >> WTF > >> > >> Barbican has been around for 9 months, which means that it does not > >> predate the work that has become oslo.messaging. It

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 22:09 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > It looks like the project was moved to its own repo in April. However, I > can¹t seem to find the docs anywhere? The only thing I see is a design doc > here [1]. Are there plans for it to be packaged and put into Pypi? > ... > > [1] https:/

Re: [openstack-dev] [UX] Topics Summary

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 09:36 +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote: > Hey OpenStackers, > > based on the latest discussions, it was asked if we can try to post > regular updates of what is happening in our community (mostly on Askbot > forum: http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com). > > In this e-mail, I'd li

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][TripleO] Nested resources

Hi Kevin, On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 12:39 -0800, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Hi all, > > I just want to run a crazy idea up the flag pole. TripleO has the > concept of an under and over cloud. In starting to experiment with > Docker, I see a pattern start to emerge. > > * As a User, I may want to allocat

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] maintenance policy for code graduating from the incubator

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:00 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > I have updated the Oslo wiki page with these details and would appreciate > feedback on the wording used there. > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#Graduation Thanks Doug, that sounds perfect to me. Mark. _

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] [barbican] Curious about oslo.messaging (from Incubation Request for Barbican)

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 05:01 +, John Wood wrote: > Hello folks, > > I was curious if there is an OpenStack project that would be a good > example to follow as we convert Barbican over to oslo messaging. > > I've been examining existing OpenStack projects such as Ceilometer and > Keystone to s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Olso][DB] Remove eventlet from oslo.db

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:02 +0200, Victor Sergeyev wrote: > Hi folks! > > At the moment I and Roman Podoliaka are working on splitting of > openstack.common.db code into a separate library. And it would be nice to > drop dependency on eventlet before oslo.db is released. > > Currently, there is o

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

t a thought. > > -Josh > > On 12/3/13 2:39 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > >> Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these > >> types of discussions wouldn't o

Re: [openstack-dev] creating a default for oslo config variables within a project?

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 16:23 -0600, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-03 15:56, Sean Dague wrote: > > This cinder patch - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48935/ > > > > Is blocked on failing upgrade because the updated oslo lockutils won't > > function until there is a specific configuration variable

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

stability. Mark. > On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > > >> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. > > > >It's been reiterated many times, but ag

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:42 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57022/7//COMMIT_MSG - I > strongly suggested here that reusing the Nova object code is the first > step towards an objects library, and that we should be putting it in > olso; there are some reasonable

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make a commitment to API stability. It's often

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution Server, Trusted Messaging

Hey Anyone got an update on this? The keystone blueprint for KDS was marked approved on Tuesday: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server and a new keystone review was added on Sunday, but it must be a draft since I can't access it: https://review.openstack.

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup

Hi Jarda, On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:39 +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote: > I think here is the main point where I disagree and which leads to > different approaches. I don't think, that user of TripleO cares *only* > about deploying infrastructure without any knowledge where the things > go. This is

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] rpc concurrency control rfc

Hi, On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:45 +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: > Moving this to the ml as requested, would appreciate > comments/thoughts/feedback. Thanks, I too would appreciate input from others. > So, I recently proposed a small patch to the oslo rpc code (initially in > oslo-incubator then

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 11:50 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 26/11/13 22:54 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >> >1) Store the commit sha from wh

Re: [openstack-dev] How to best make User Experience a priority in every project

On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:06 -0600, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > However, as was apparent in the Technical Committee meeting discussion > > > about it yesterday, most of us are not convinced that establishing and > > blessing a separate team is t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 22 November 2013 14:59, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > One other thought I had was to add the ability to split one Oslo sync up > > into multiple commits, either one per module, or even one per Oslo commit > > for some really large module chang

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > Based on the recent discussion that came out about not having enough > > information in the commit message when syncing oslo-incubator modules, > > I was think

Re: [openstack-dev] [all project] Treating recently seen recheck bugs as critical across the board

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > On Nov 26, 2013 8:48 AM, "Dolph Mathews" wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > >> > >> Dolph Mathews wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Collins > >> > mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [QA] Triaging Bugs during Review

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 13:06 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I tend to follow merges and look for valuable havana backports. A few bug > fixes have merged recently where the associated bug is untriaged (i.e. the > severity is listed as 'Unknown'). I assume that reviewers of a bu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Proposal to re-add Dan Prince to nova-core

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 14:32 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to propose that we re-add Dan Prince to the nova-core > review team. > > Dan Prince has been involved with Nova since early in OpenStack's > history (Bexar timeframe). He was a member of the nova-core review t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Proposal to add Matt Riedemann to nova-core

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 15:53 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to propose adding Matt Riedemann to the nova-core review team. > > Matt has been involved with nova for a long time, taking on a wide range > of tasks. He writes good code. He's very engaged with the developm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution Server, Trusted Messaging

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Russell Bryant wrote: > > [...] > > I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for > > multiple reasons. > > > > - Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having to > > wait for a new project

Re: [openstack-dev] Propose "project story wiki" idea

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 10:43 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > On 11/19/2013 09:33 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: > >> The idea of this proposal is that every OpenStack project should have > >> "story" wiki page. It means to publish every week one short message that > >> contains

Re: [openstack-dev] Incubation request for Manila

Hi, On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:00 +, Swartzlander, Ben wrote: > Please consider our formal request for incubation status of the Manila > project: > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila_Overview Note that the Manila application was discussed at last week's TC meeting. I tried to take some no

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder][Glance] OSLO update

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc > are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is > extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and asking for more info, but > they keep popping up. I'm really not

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:22 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > I see it as important (and not theoretical). > > I'd like to use oslo.messaging (and oslo.messaging.rpc) in taskflow (to > prototype how a distributed engine would work using it) and bringing in a > library which requires global configurati

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][db] Changing migrations

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:46 +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote: > Dear OpenStack devs, > > A recent review [1] dragged into spotlight how damaging improper use of > external code inside migrations can be. > > Basically in my mind the incident raises 2 issues that I think we should > look into: > > 1) H

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

Hey Doug, On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > Hi Oslo developers, > > > > It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to > > discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:37 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > I'm struggling to care about this until I have some insight into why > > it's important. And it's a bit frustrating to have to guess the > > rati

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

Hi Julien, On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:05 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > Hi Oslo developers, > > It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to > discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient. Scared, heh :) > I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:47 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 11/15/2013 12:34 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 11/15/2013 12:16 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote: > >> On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Dan Smith wrote: > Thanks for weighing in, I do hope to keep the conversation going. > >>> Add my

Re: [openstack-dev] [RFC] Straw man to start the incubation / graduation requirements discussion

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 06:57 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > (Apologies, this started on the TC list, and really should have started > on -dev, correctly posting here now for open discussion) > > There were a few chats at summit about this, mostly on the infra / > devstack / qa side of the house. Consid

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] New API requirements, review of GCE

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:19 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 11/15/2013 12:01 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 11:28 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> > >> We've talked a lot about requirements for new compute dr

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] New API requirements, review of GCE

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 11:28 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Greetings, > > We've talked a lot about requirements for new compute drivers [1]. I > think the same sort of standards shold be applied for a new third-party > API, such as the GCE API [2]. > > Before we can consider taking on a new API,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock, stub, mox when writing unit test?

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote: > > Hi > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 13:11 -0800, Shawn Hartsock wrote: > > Maybe we should have some 60% rule... that is: If you

Re: [openstack-dev] Motion - Amend TC charter language to reflect Gender Parity

Hi Anita, On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 15:50 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: > Currently some of the language found in the TC charter does not yet > reflect gender parity[0]. > > I encountered this myself while officiating the TC election, > particularly the section on Candidates for PTL seats[1]. > > I mov

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock, stub, mox when writing unit test?

e mock more? But do we like it enough to have a mixture of mock and mox across the codebase? Mark. > - Original Message - > > From: "John Garbutt" > > To: "Mark McLoughlin" , "OpenStack Development Mailing > > List (not for usage qu

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock, stub, mox when writing unit test?

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:07 +, John Garbutt wrote: > On 11 November 2013 10:27, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services) > wrote: > > Hi > > > >>Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support. > > > > That is my understanding too > > +1 > > But I don't think we should waste

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Configuration validation

Hi Nikola, On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:44 +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote: > Hey all, > > During the summit session on the the VMWare driver roadmap, a topic of > validating the passed configuration prior to starting services came up > (see [1] for more detail on how it's connected to that specific topi

Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns

; > Is there a way for Gerrit to only send email when action is required, > rather than on any change to any review you've touched? If Gerrit sent > less mail, it would be easier to treat its mails as a critical call to > action to re-review. (There's probably a way t

Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns

On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 09:32 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 7 November 2013 13:15, Day, Phil wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> Core reviewers look for the /comments/ from people, not just the votes. A > >> +1 from someone that isn't core is meaningless unless they are known to be > >> a thoughtful cod

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Proposal to recognize indirect contributions to our code base

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 11:41 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 11/11/2013 10:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:20 +0100, Nicolas Barcet wrote: > >> Dear TC members, > >> > >> Our companies are actively

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Proposal to recognize indirect contributions to our code base

place for purely technical details. However, I do think we'll be able to figure out some way of making it easier for tools to track more complex affiliations. Our affiliation databases are all keyed off email addresses right now, so how about if we allowed for encoding affiliation/sponsorship in

Re: [openstack-dev] welcoming new committers (was Re: When is it okay for submitters to say 'I don't want to add tests' ?)

On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 11:49 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > Another idea that Tom suggested is to use gerrit automation to send back > to first time committers something in addition to the normal 'your patch > is waiting for review' message. The message could be something like: > > > thank you f

Re: [openstack-dev] When is it okay for submitters to say 'I don't want to add tests' ?

On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 15:37 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > This is a bit of a social norms thread > > I've been consistently asking for tests in reviews for a while now, > and I get the occasional push-back. I think this falls into a few > broad camps: > > A - there is no test suite at all, a

Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Filtering boring commit subjects from ChangeLog

On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 21:50 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote: > Hey all! > > We're adding a little bit of code to pbr to make the auto-generated > ChangeLog files a bit more useful. Currently, they are just the git > changelog, which is kinda useless. So we wrote this: > > https://review.openstack.org/#

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:19 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/22/2013 04:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>> In other words, what exactly is a list

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/22/2013 04:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Talk to the Trove developers and politely ask them whether the copyright > > notices in their code reflects what they see as the reality. > > > > I'

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:09 +0100, Monty Taylor wrote: > The last thing we need to do is validate in any manner that somehow the > CLA makes our Apache Licensed Free Software more Free or more Valid than > if we did not have our useless CLA. Agree with this. My simplified way of thinking about th

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote: > > [...] > >> OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first > >> patch to a repository is probably a sustainable

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for? > > At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW queue... I'm sorry, that

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700: > > On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > > > However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would > > > like to know more about the FTP m

Re: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 08:24 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 10/19/2013 05:49 AM, Michael Still wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > >> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files. > >> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly au

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Change ListOpt and DictOpt default values

Hi Flavio, On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 14:40 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > I'd like to propose to change both ListOpt and DictOpt default values > to [] and {} respectively. These values are, IMHO, saner defaults than > None for this 2 options and behavior won't be altered - unles `is n

[openstack-dev] TC candidacy

Hi I'd like to offer my self as a candidate for the Technical Committee election. About me I've been working on OpenStack for over two years now and have particularly focused my contributions on Nova and Oslo, but have also contributed in smaller ways to most other OpenStack projects. For the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] PTL Candidacy

On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 09:16 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > I am running for PTL for the OpenStack Common Libraries (Oslo) project. Excellent! Doug has been a superb contributor to Oslo and I've particularly appreciated his keen eye for Python API design. I've no doubt that Doug would make a wonder

[openstack-dev] Oslo PTL election

Hey I meant to send this as soon as nominations opened - I figure that incumbent PTLs should make it clear if they don't intend to nominate themselves for re-election. To that end - I'm not going to put myself forward for election as Oslo PTL this time around. This is purely based on a gut instin

Re: [openstack-dev] Client and Policy

On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 15:22 -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Adam Young wrote: > I can submit a summit proposal. I was thinking of making it > more general than just the Policy piece. Here is my proposed > session. Let me know if it rings

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging

On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > > to oslo.messaging: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging

On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 11:00 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 09/05/2013 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging

. I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. Cheers, Mark. > > thanks, > dims > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I'

<    1   2   3   >