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

2017-05-04 Thread Monty Taylor
On 05/04/2017 06:58 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 05/03/2017 11:56 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 05/03/2017 03:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Monty Taylor wrote: On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: [...] Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed? I

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

2017-05-04 Thread Sean Dague
On 05/03/2017 11:56 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 05/03/2017 03:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Monty Taylor wrote: >>> On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > [...] > Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed? I don't have any

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

2017-05-04 Thread Thierry Carrez
Monty Taylor wrote: > On 05/03/2017 03:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Monty Taylor wrote: >>> On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > [...] > Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed? I don't have any problems with this idea.

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

2017-05-03 Thread Monty Taylor
On 05/03/2017 03:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Monty Taylor wrote: On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: [...] Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed? I don't have any problems with this idea. My main concern would be for

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

2017-05-03 Thread Thierry Carrez
Monty Taylor wrote: > On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: >> On 04/28/2017 06:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: >>> [...] >>> Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed? >> >> I don't have any problems with this idea. My main concern would be for >> backwards-compatibility and it sounds like that's

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

2017-05-02 Thread Monty Taylor
On 05/01/2017 10:44 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: 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

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

2017-05-01 Thread Ben Swartzlander
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

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

2017-05-01 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 29/04/17 22:40 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 05:26:16PM -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: Hey everybody! ... == Proposed Solution == ... Clean things up ... Make things simple ... Don't break everybody +1 from me. I think this is a good direction to go. /me likes! /me

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

2017-04-30 Thread Davanum Srinivas
+1 from me as well Monty On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 05:26:16PM -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: >> Hey everybody! >> >> ... >> >> == Proposed Solution == >> >> ... Clean things up >> ... Make things simple >> ... Don't break

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

2017-04-29 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 05:26:16PM -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: > Hey everybody! > > ... > > == Proposed Solution == > > ... Clean things up > ... Make things simple > ... Don't break everybody > +1 from me. I think this is a good direction to go. Sean

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

2017-04-28 Thread Renat Akhmerov
This looks like a simple and elegant way to solve the issue. 100% supported by me (and hopefully others). Thanks for addressing it. Renat On 29 Apr 2017, 06:19 +0700, Monty Taylor , wrote: > On 04/28/2017 06:07 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote: > > > > This sounds like a

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

2017-04-28 Thread Monty Taylor
On 04/28/2017 06:07 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote: This sounds like a fantastic​ path forward as the version in the service ​ type is a source​ of frustration in some ways. I personally love the version​less discoverability of Keystone as an API model. ++ ... I'll follow up on Monday with an email

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

2017-04-28 Thread Eric Fried
I love this. Will it be done by July 20th [1] so I can use it in Pike for [2]? [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Pike_Release_Schedule [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458257/4/nova/utils.py@1508 On 04/28/2017 05:26 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > Hey everybody! > > Yay! (I'm sure you're

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

2017-04-28 Thread Monty Taylor
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 service-types that are registered in the keystone