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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
versionless discoverability of Keystone as an API model.
++ ... I'll follow up on Monday with an email
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo