/2014 06:23 PM, Neal, Phil wrote:
From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsm...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:37 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer
No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsm...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:29 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer
Hi Neal, thanks for response.
So I
From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsm...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:37 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer
No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer
optional.
Sorry
No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer
optional.
OK, so what about having variable in devtest_variables: USE_TRIPLEO_UI.
It would add Undercloud Ceilometer, Tuskar-UI and Horizon. And Overcloud
SNMPd.
Defaulted to USE_TRIPLEO_UI=1 so we have UI stuff in CI.
How
Hello,
I am planning to add Ceilometer to Undercloud as default. Since
Tuskar-UI uses
it as primary source of metering samples and Tuskar should be in Undercloud
as default, it made sense to me.
So is my assumption correct or there are some reasons not to do this?
Here are the reviews, that
