On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 12:35 -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 2/10/2017 11:18 AM, Thomas Bechtold wrote:
> >
> > For SUSE the wiki is updated and 1.2.9 should be fine.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> Thanks Tom.
>
> Would 1.3.1 as the next minimum in Queens be acceptable for SUSE?
On 2/10/2017 11:18 AM, Thomas Bechtold wrote:
For SUSE the wiki is updated and 1.2.9 should be fine.
Cheers,
Tom
Thanks Tom.
Would 1.3.1 as the next minimum in Queens be acceptable for SUSE?
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
Hi,
On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 17:29 -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but
> we
> should talk about bumping the minimum required libvirt version in
> nova.
>
> Currently it's 1.2.1 and the next was set to 1.2.9.
>
> On master we're
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:29:22PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but we
> should talk about bumping the minimum required libvirt version in nova.
>
> Currently it's 1.2.1 and the next was set to 1.2.9.
>
> On master we're gating
; openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org
>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:29:22 PM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next minimum libvirt version
>>
>> Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but we
>> should talk about bumping the minimum r
ry 9, 2017 6:29:22 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next minimum libvirt version
>
> Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but we
> should talk about bumping the minimum required libvirt version in nova.
>
> Currently it's 1.2.1 and the next was se
Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but we
should talk about bumping the minimum required libvirt version in nova.
Currently it's 1.2.1 and the next was set to 1.2.9.
On master we're gating on ubuntu 14.04 which has libvirt 1.3.1 (14.04
had 1.2.2).
If we move
