Re: [openstack-dev] Swift global cluster replication latency...

Hi Clay, Thanks for the reply. I'm just experimenting with this feature in between two server machines at different locations. I'm not looking for synchronous replication in between the sites. Asynchronous replication is fine. It would be nice if the asynchronous replication were to happen at pred

[openstack-dev] [neutron] Ipnetns+rootwrap, two different issues

Hi Eugene, I'd like to ask you to reconsider the -1 on this review: a) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114928/ I'm tackling a different issue than Kevin here: b) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109736/ I'm trying to allow general use of the IpNetns wrapper when namespace=N

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Time to break backwards compatibility for *cloud-password file location?

After some more discussion and several attempts at different ways to solve this problem, here's the message I've just added to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97657/ I spoke to xu haiwei about this change a few days ago and agreed to have a stab at switching from using environment variables to c

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concerns around the Extensible Resource Tracker design - revert maybe?

Le 15/08/2014 15:35, Andrew Laski a écrit : On 08/14/2014 03:21 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote: On 08/13/2014 06:05 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 13/08/2014 12:21, Sylvain Bauza a écrit : Le 12/08/2014 22:06, Sylvain Bauza a écrit : Le 12/08/2014 18:54, Nikola Đipanov a écrit : On 08/12/2014 04:49

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] 9 days until feature proposal freeze

Just a reminder that this deadline approaches rapidly. Feature proposal freeze is midnight on Thursday this week, UTC. If your code isn't proposed by then, you will require a freeze exception to get it reviewed / merged for Juno, and that is something I'd like to avoid as much as possible. Thanks

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers

From: Joe Gordon mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: OpenStack List mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 9:31 PM To: OpenStack List mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers

Re: [openstack-dev] [All] LOG.warning/LOG.warn

On 08/18/2014 06:06 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:27:39AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >> On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 07:57:28AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: My recollection is that this was a request fro

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][db] Nominating Mike Bayer for the oslo.db core reviewers team

On 08/15/2014 10:26 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: > >> On 08/15/2014 08:20 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> On 08/15/2014 09:13 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/15/2014 04:21 AM, Roman Podoliaka wrote: > Hi Oslo team, > > I propose that we ad

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Gerrit downtime on August 16 for project renames

On 08/13/2014 11:25 PM, Sergey Lukjanov wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday, August 16 at 16:00 UTC Gerrit will be unavailable for > about 20 minutes while we rename some projects. Existing reviews, > project watches, etc, should all be carried over. > > The current list of projects that we will rename

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] 3rd Party CI vs. Gerrit

On 08/14/2014 12:35 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote: >>> cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes: >>> Sean Dague writes: > This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrot

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concerns around the Extensible Resource Tracker design - revert maybe?

Since after a week of discussing it I see no compelling argument against reverting it - here's the proposal: https://review.openstack.org/115218 Thanks, N. On 08/12/2014 12:21 PM, Nikola Đipanov wrote: > Hey Nova-istas, > > While I was hacking on [1] I was considering how to approach the fac

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Dev][Cinder] Cinder Core nomination

+1 On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Boring, Walter wrote: > Hey guys, >I wanted to pose a nomination for Cinder core. > > Xing Yang. > She has been active in the cinder community for many releases and has > worked on several drivers as well as other features for cinder itself. > She has be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 08/14/2014 01:08 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:36 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor > wrote: >

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:46:34 so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to review it over-and-above the core revie

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 08/14/2014 03:38 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 08/14/2014 09:21 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: >> >> On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" > > wrote: >>> >>> >> Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience >> back into the community

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 08/13/2014 08:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > > > While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities > back > > in

[openstack-dev] [Swift] Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline?

Hi, Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline? This does not mean that i want to use Swift without gatekeeper because it can be security risk, but i just want to make it clear whether it is configurable or not. Thanks, -- Daisuke Morita NTT Software Innovation Center, NTT Corporatio

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers

I think to make the Summit sessions more effective: 1. The presenter to put in more effort beforehand - implement a rough POC, write up a detailed etherpad, etc. where everything is ready say 2-3 weeks before the Summit. Maybe even require a reviewed spec for sessions which introduce new features?

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Using any username/password to create tempest clients

Hi Andrea, I tried adding the tenant to the credentials I supply - and it didn't change the results I am getting. I opened a bug on this issue: https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1356759 Can you devote some time to this bug, or let me know how to fix it and I will do it myself? Thanks a

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

Hi All, I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a spreadsheet[1]. Before we go about making these changes I'd like to go through a

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Hi Edgar, NetScaler CI is not listed in the report. NetScaler CI up and running and it is voting for patchsets which contains LBaaS changes, that's why you did not see it voting for the test change ref. Also, you can add me as a contact person and alias networking-cloudinteg...@c

[openstack-dev] [Nova][VMware] Minesweeper status

Hi, Minesweeper is back up and running - this is now called "Vmware NSX CI". A patch for the deprecation of the ESX driver resulted in endless Minesweeper failures (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108854/). These were resolved by a number of patches, the last being https://review.openstack.org/#

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

On 08/19/2014 12:41 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a spreadsheet[1]. Before we go abo

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: > > 19:46:34 so I propose that +2 on

[openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource Tracking

Hi, As it was also stated in http://www.stillhq.com/openstack/juno/12.html, we expect to finish the prerequisites for Scheduler split by Juno. That requires to merge two blueprints, one with the spec validated but patches still under review [1] and one with the spec still subject to debat

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Live update of openstack

Added tag Heat Regards, Sergey. On 1 August 2014 09:52, Manickam, Kanagaraj wrote: > Hi, > > > > This mail is generic to all openstack service and explained the problem > with respect to heat here. > > > > I have come across the situation where, updates are involved in the heat > db model and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 8/18/2014 9:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Clint Byrum wrote: >> Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: >> >> Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. >> Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. >> Cinder is a set of tools to abstract block-de

Re: [openstack-dev] [Swift] Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline?

If you do not have the gatekeeper explicitly referenced in your proxy pipeline, Swift will automatically add it. --John On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Daisuke Morita wrote: > > Hi, > > Can gatekeeper middleware be removed from pipeline? > This does not mean that i want to use Swift without

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: > > 19:46:34 so I propose

[openstack-dev] [all][oslo] official recommendations to handle oslo-incubator sync requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, I've found out there are no clear public instructions on how to handle oslo-incubator synchronizations in master and stable branches neither at [1] nor at [2]. Though my observations show that there is some oral tradition around community on

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

Caution: words below may cause discomfort. I ask that folks read *all* of my message before reacting to any piece of it. Thanks! On 08/19/2014 02:41 AM, Robert Collins wrote: On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum wrote: I can see your perspective but I don't think its internally consistent...

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack][Docker] Run OpenStack Service in Docker Container

In particular, I tried to run DevStack inside an LXC a few months ago. I discovered that DevStack (presumably for the sake of cinder-volume) pre-reqs a system package named tgt, and tgt does not succeed to install inside an LXC (the install script launches the daemon, but the daemon launch fai

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack][Docker] Run OpenStack Service in Docker Container

Jay Lau wrote on 08/14/2014 08:54:56 AM: > I see a few mentions of OpenStack services themselves being > containerized in Docker. Is this a serious trend in the community? > > http://allthingsopen.com/2014/02/12/why-containers-for-openstack-services/ > It looks to me like the problem addresse

[openstack-dev] [NFV] New meeting time for this week - Thursday 1600 UTC in #openstack-meeting

Hi all, In response to the recent survey and resulting discussion about the meeting time I would like to trial the alternative time discussed. In the short term this means alternating between: - Wednesdays at 1400 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt (Current time) - Thursdays at 1600 UTC in #openstac

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals

On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: > > 19:46:34 so I propose that +2 on a spec

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals

On 08/19/2014 11:23 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:4

[openstack-dev] Does the havana or the icehouce supports for python 2.7.5?

Hi,all I can't found the clear python version‍ in the document of the openstack.org‍. Colud someone can tell me whether the havana or the icehouce supports the python 2.7.5?Does it shoud modify the code‍‍ to support? Best regards‍.___ OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting

Hi, Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects to Neutron. What bothers me is the timing. Without warning we were put in an incubator in the span of like 8 days. This makes it difficult to plan and ad

Re: [openstack-dev] [congress] Jenkins failure

Some docs got merged last night. I think that if you fetch the latest and rebase that you’ll end up with conflicts that you need to resolve manually. The Readme file has changed a lot, so I’m sure git doesn’t know how to merge your changes in. Tim On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Rajdeep Dua m

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: > > 19:46:34 so I propose

Re: [openstack-dev] [congress] Jenkins failure

You need to rebase again. The readme file changed before Jenkins got a chance to test your patch. On Monday, August 18, 2014, Rajdeep Dua wrote: > my branch already has the latest changes. > it is not able to merge two rst files hence it failed > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Akash Gangi

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Parikshit, I will add your information right now. Thanks, Edgar On 8/19/14, 4:11 AM, "Parikshit Manur" wrote: >Hi Edgar, > NetScaler CI is not listed in the report. NetScaler CI up and running >and it is voting for patchsets which contains LBaaS changes, that's why >you did not see it v

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Hemanth, What is your system reference name? Please, provide me a link to the latest tempest logs. Thanks, Edgar From: Hemanth Ravi mailto:hemanthrav...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Monday,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

I just added it to the wiki page. Thanks, Edgar On 8/17/14, 8:49 PM, "balaj...@freescale.com" wrote: >Hi Edgar, > >Freescale CI is not listed in the below report: > >https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers#Existing_Pl > >We are following all the requirements of CI setup and

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Dane, Are you sure about it? I just went to this commit and I could not find the APIC tests. Thanks, Edgar On 8/17/14, 8:47 PM, "Dane Leblanc (leblancd)" wrote: >Edgar: > >The Cisco APIC should be reporting results for both APIC-related and >non-APIC related changes now. >(See http://cisco-ne

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

I just updated the wiki, I will run a verification by end of the day. Thanks, Edgar On 8/16/14, 11:34 PM, "trinath.soman...@freescale.com" wrote: >Hi Edgar, > >Freescale CI is reporting the results for ML2 Mechanism driver (J-1) and >FWaaS Plugin (to be approved for J-3). >I'm the owner for th

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Thanks a lot, Brocade CI is looking good. Cheers, Edgar On 8/15/14, 6:22 PM, "Karthik Natarajan" wrote: >Hi Edgar, > >Brocade Vyatta CI is reporting the results and providing log links. >For Brocade Vyatta Plugin, I have updated my name as the owner. >For Brocade VDX Plugin, Shiv Haris is the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Great! I will run another test later today. Thanks, Edgar From: Ichihara Hirofumi mailto:ichihara.hirof...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 at 5:33 PM To: "OpenStack De

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Dane, It is not my intention to damage anyone's image or work. I ran a test and I noticed that APIC CI was giving a PASSED result when it was not even running anything, for me that means "fake". I just responded to your other email, I adopt see APIC CI running and I can't change the wiki until I v

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

Kevin, I just verified, Thanks a lot. Edgar From: Kevin Benton mailto:blak...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 at 4:56 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource Tracking

Le 19/08/2014 14:51, Sylvain Bauza a écrit : Hi, As it was also stated in http://www.stillhq.com/openstack/juno/12.html, we expect to finish the prerequisites for Scheduler split by Juno. That requires to merge two blueprints, one with the spec validated but patches still under review [

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

>From which commit is it missing? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114629/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114393/ -Original Message- From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:28 PM To: Dane Leblanc (leblancd); OpenStack Development Mailing Li

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource Tracking

On 08/19/2014 06:39 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > On the other hand, ERT discussion is decoupled from the scheduler split > discussion and will be delayed until Extensible Resource Tracker owner > (Paul Murray) is back from vacation. > In the mean time, we're considering new patches using ERT as > non

Re: [openstack-dev] Status of Neutron IPv6 dual stack

Thiago, My old setup was dual-stacked, simply using a flat linuxbridge. It's just that I now realy would like to separate multiple tenants using L3 routers, which should be easy (dual stacked) to achieve once Dane's work is completed. Did you find the time to commit those required changes for tha

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting

Thanks for the summary Trevor. On 08/18/2014 01:25 PM, Trevor Vardeman wrote: > 1) Discuss future of Octavia in light of Neutron-incubator project proposal. > a) There are many problems with Neutron-Incubator as currently described Let's be specific, enumerate the problems and address them, p

Re: [openstack-dev] Does the havana or the icehouce supports for python 2.7.5?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 19/08/14 17:33, wrote: > Hi,all I can't found the clear python version? in the document of > the openstack.org?. Colud someone can tell me whether the havana or > the icehouce supports the python 2.7.5?Does it shoudmodify the > code?? to supp

Re: [openstack-dev] Status of Neutron IPv6 dual stack

Hi Harm: Unfortunately I haven’t had time to complete the changes yet. Even if/when these changes are completed, it’s unlikely that this blueprint will get approved for Juno, but I’ll see what I can do. Thanks, Dane From: Harm Weites [mailto:h...@weites.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

I was looking to one of the most recent Neutron commits: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115175/ I could not find the APIC report. Edgar On 8/19/14, 9:48 AM, "Dane Leblanc (leblancd)" wrote: >From which commit is it missing? >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114629/ >https://review.openstack

[openstack-dev] Network/Incubator proposal (was Re: [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting)

On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote: > Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if > some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects > to Neutron. What bothers me is the timing. Without warning we were > put in an incubator in the span of l

[openstack-dev] qemu guest agent support

Currently qemu guest agent is supported in libvirt driver via image metadata [1]. Is there a reason why it is not exposed via nova config variable as well ? It would be good to create virtio socket by default controlled via nova config param rather than ops folks having to set metadata explicitl

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][VMware] Minesweeper status

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > Minesweeper is back up and running – this is now called “Vmware NSX CI”. > A patch for the deprecation of the ESX driver resulted in endless > Minesweeper failures (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108854/). These > were resolved by a n

Re: [openstack-dev] Network/Incubator proposal (was Re: [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting)

+1 for "neutron-labs"! ;-) On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote: >> Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if >> some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects >> to Neutron. W

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource Tracking

> -Original Message- > From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com] > Sent: 19 August 2014 17:50 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource > Tracking > > On 08/19/2014 06:39 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > > On the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][VMware] Minesweeper status

Hi Joe, manual rechecks are possible for mine sweeper. The new syntax is vmware-recheck-patch. I found out vmware-recheck still triggered upstream zuul. I think it should be possible to submit a batch job with all the patches that need to be rechecked without having to trigger the recheck from ge

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: > > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > > > I'd like to propose t

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with t

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:31:48PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: >> Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews >> seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. >> >> I'd like to propose that

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

Hi, The QoS API extension has lived in Gerrit/been in review for about a year. It's gone through revisions, summit design sessions, and for a little while, a subteam. I would like to request incubation in the upcoming incubator, so that the code will have a more permanent "home" where we can coll

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

+1. This work in particular brings up a question about the incubator. One of the rules was that the neutron core code can't import code from the incubated projects. The QoS requires a mixin to annotate the port and network objects with QoS settings. How exactly would we actually use the QoS code f

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Specs and approvals

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > While I cannot speak for the dynamics of the tripleo team, if this were to > be adopted in nova I would not +2 any blueprints as I don't think I can > commit to *guaranteeing* I will have even more review bandwidth, I can make > best efforts b

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

The APIC CI did run tests against that commit (after some queue latency): http://128.107.233.28:8080/job/apic/1860/ http://cisco-neutron-ci.cisco.com/logs/apic/1860/ But the review comments never showed up on Gerrit. This seems to be an intermittent quirk of Jenkins/Gerrit: We have 3 CIs trigger

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 08/19/2014 07:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > All of these projects should be able to live in the Program, in the > openstack/ code namespace, for as long as the project is actively > developed, and let the contributor communities in these competing > projects *naturally* work to do any of the followi

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2014-08-19 10:41:11 +: > Hi All, > >I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the > tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an > etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a >

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2014-08-19 12:07:53 +: > One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is > the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at > some point we actually kill one of the controllers and spawn a second > user ima

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] What tests are required to be run

I also added a two more nodes to our cluster to reduce the delay. Can we establish a maximum time to vote on the wiki? On Aug 19, 2014 9:39 AM, "Edgar Magana" wrote: > Kevin, > > I just verified, Thanks a lot. > > Edgar > > From: Kevin Benton > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

Actually, whether the incubator is involved for not, this might be a great candidate for implementation using an ML2 extension driver. See https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89211/ for the code under review for Juno, and also https://docs.google.com/a/noironetworks.com/document/d/14T-defRnFl6M2xR

Re: [openstack-dev] Network/Incubator proposal (was Re: [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting)

+1 too, I do think the incubator is a good initiative and a compromise, I just hope it will not be a dumping ground for items that some don't feel are sufficient or don't have a high enough priority for some! /Alan -Original Message- From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com

[openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Meeting Canceled

The meeting for this Wednesday (8/20) is canceled. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

+1, I am hoping this is just a short term holding point and this will eventually be merged into main branch as this is a feature a lot of companies, us included would definitely benefit from having supported and many thanks to Sean for sticking with this and continue to push this. /Alan -Or

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Agenda for 2014-08-20 meeting

I've put the agenda for tomorrow's Octavia meeting on the wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Weekly_Meeting_Agenda#Agenda Please feel free to edit it there and/or respond to this e-mail with additional items if you would rather not edit the wiki. Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen Balukoff B

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

In the current approach QoS support is being "hardwired" into ML2. Maybe this is not the best way of doing that, as perhaps it will end up requiring every mech driver which enforces VIF configuration should support it. I see two routes. One is a mechanism driver similar to l2-pop, and then you mig

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

+1 to service plugin It's better to strip service related extensions from ML2 core plugin as possible as we can, and put them in separate service plugin. Not only QOS, but also SG or possible other extensions. For the "binding" issue, vif-detail dict might be used for foreign key association.

[openstack-dev] [pbr] help needed fixing bad version= lines in setup.cfg in many projects

Hi, in working on pbr I have run into some bad data in our setup.cfg's. Details are here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bad-setup-cfg-versions Short version: we need to do a missed step in the release project for a bunch of stable branches, and in some cases master, for a bunch of projects. I'

Re: [openstack-dev] [pbr] help needed fixing bad version= lines in setup.cfg in many projects

Don't you hate it when just after you hit send... On 20 August 2014 13:12, Robert Collins wrote: > Hi, in working on pbr I have run into some bad data in our > setup.cfg's. Details are here: > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bad-setup-cfg-versions > > Short version: we need to do a missed step i

Re: [openstack-dev] [pbr] help needed fixing bad version= lines in setup.cfg in many projects

On 20 August 2014 13:26, Robert Collins wrote: > Don't you hate it when just after you hit send... > This one is actually fine, as is all the ones where the tag is a beta > of the same version. I'm fixing this and another bug and will follow > up shortly with a correct list. 0.0.1 too low vs tag

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Agenda for 2014-08-20 meeting

After thinking about what can be done to start, because I hate being stagnant, I decided to create an etherpad of things that I think need more discussion or can start working on now. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Octavia_Action_Items Add on to this list if you know of others, as I am sure the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes wrote: ... >> I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I >> still believe our basic principle of using OpenStack technologies that >> already exist in preference to third party ones is still sound, and >> offers substantial dogfood an

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On 20 August 2014 15:28, Robert Collins wrote: > I think you mean it 'can be argued'... ;). And I'd be happy if folk in > those communities want to join in the deployment program and have code > repositories in openstack/. To date, none have asked. Sorry, that was incomplete. I should add that p

[openstack-dev] Separating the issues around smarter/solver/joint/holistic placement

There has been a lot of discussion around these issues, let me see if I can break it down into pieces, hopefully in a way that allows some progress on one of them first. I continue to focus on the timeless version of the problem, in which the placement question is simply where can we put some g

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Separating the issues around smarter/solver/joint/holistic placement

This is primarily an issue for Nova. Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 08/20/2014 01:21:24 AM: > From: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" , > Date: 08/20/2014 01:24 AM > Subject: [openstack-dev] Separating the issues around smarter/ > solver/joint/

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Live update of openstack

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Sergey Kraynev wrote: > Added tag Heat > > Regards, > Sergey. > > > On 1 August 2014 09:52, Manickam, Kanagaraj > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> This mail is generic to all openstack service and explained the problem >> with respect to heat here. >> >> >> >> I hav

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator

>Vendors can even implement their own private extension without any change to ML2 by defining their customized vif-detail fields. I'm not sure this is a good thing. What happens when 3 different vendors all implement the same attribute with the same name with different behavior? Since the API is n

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource Tracking

On Aug 19, 2014 10:45 AM, "Day, Phil" wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com] > > Sent: 19 August 2014 17:50 > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible Resource > > Tracking

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Issues with POSIX semaphores and other locks in lockutils

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:05:28 PM Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 08/18/2014 03:38 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14 2014, Yuriy Taraday wrote: > > > > Hi Yuriy, > > > > […] > > > >> Looking forward to your opinions. > > > > This looks like a good summary of the situation. > > > > I've added