Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 21/08/14 18:05, Matthew Booth wrote: [snip] > This seems to mean different things to different people. There's a list > here which contains some criteria for new commits: [snip] > Any more of these? There is also https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines -- Radomir Dopieralski

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][Heat] Murano split dsicussion

Excerpts from Angus Salkeld's message of 2014-08-21 20:14:12 -0700: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Excerpts from Georgy Okrokvertskhov's message of 2014-08-20 13:14:28 -0700: > > > During last Atlanta summit there were couple discussions about > > Application > > > C

[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Ironic] Unique way to get a registered machine?

Hi, TripleO has a bridging script we use to register nodes with a baremetal service (eg: Ironic or Nova-bm), called "register-nodes", which given a list of node descriptions (in JSON), will register them with the appropriate baremetal service. At the moment, if you run register-nodes a sec

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > >> 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 technolo

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] repackage ceilometer and ceilometerclient

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14 PM, gordon chung wrote: > this idea sounds so familiar. i feel like i may have tried to move this in > the past but gave up. i actually prefer having the middleware reside in > ceilometerclient... it really doesn't make sense for the entire ceilometer > package to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] repackage ceilometer and ceilometerclient

On Friday, August 22, 2014 1:14 PM, Gordon chung wrote: > could you create a spec[1] and we can maybe hash out idea there. > > [1]https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer-specs Thank you for your response. I will create a spec for this. Thank you very much! Hisashi Osanai _

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 22/08/14 00:40, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: >>> "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." >>> >>> i.e. The project is better off without it. >> A bit off topic, but I've never liked thi

[openstack-dev] [Rating] Meeting time proposal

Greetings, After comprehensiveconsideration, the meeting will be scheduled on 8:00 - 9:00 PM Tue, Aug 26. We can rotate the time to facilitate the other timezones for next meeting. Everyone is invited to join the discussion. IRC channel is #openstack-rating on freenode. A draft agenda has been p

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][DOUBT]Please clarify

Thanks a lot for your support Anne :) Cheers Sharath On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Sharath V wrote: > >> Dear Friends, Have an doubt, please clarify me .!! When i start >> understanding openstack , There are three nodes a) cont

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] repackage ceilometer and ceilometerclient

> I would like to realize moving swift_middleware.py from the ceilometer > package to > the ceilometerclient package. For me it is very difficult to convince users > of > installing the ceilometer package on Proxy Nodes for just using the swift > middleware > because of maintenance costs. Ope

[openstack-dev] [mistral] Mistral API v2 - discussion

Hi Stackers, we are discussing the API, v2. The core team captured the initial thoughts here (most recent): https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mistral-API-v2-discussion and here: https://docs.google.com/a/stackstorm.com/document/d/12j66DZiyJahdnV8zXM_fCRJb0qxpsVS_eyhZvdHlIVU/edit Have a loo

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][DOUBT]Please clarify

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Sharath V wrote: > Dear Friends, Have an doubt, please clarify me .!! When i start > understanding openstack , There are three nodes a) controller node > b)Compute node c) Network node > i) as my understanding controller node contains all the components like > n

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][DOUBT]Please clarify

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Sharath V wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Have an doubt, please clarify me .!! > > When i start understanding openstack , There are three nodes a) controller > node b)Compute node c) Network node > > i) as my understanding controller node contains all the components li

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] repackage ceilometer and ceilometerclient

Hi, The main purpose of the BP is move swift_middleware.py in the ceilometer package to the ceilometerclinet package. In order to achieve this moving, we need to solve dependencies which the swift_middleware.py has. We have the following two ideas to remove the dependencies: (1) rewrite swi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][Heat] Murano split dsicussion

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Georgy Okrokvertskhov's message of 2014-08-20 13:14:28 -0700: > > During last Atlanta summit there were couple discussions about > Application > > Catalog and Application space projects in OpenStack. These cross-project > > disc

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][Heat] Murano split dsicussion

Excerpts from Georgy Okrokvertskhov's message of 2014-08-20 13:14:28 -0700: > During last Atlanta summit there were couple discussions about Application > Catalog and Application space projects in OpenStack. These cross-project > discussions occurred as a result of Murano incubation request [1] dur

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][Heat] Murano split dsicussion

> > > *Murano UI to Dashboard Program* > > Application Catalog requires a UI focused on user experience. Currently > there is a Horizon plugin for Murano App Catalog which adds Application > catalog page to browse, search and filter applications. It also adds a > dynamic UI functionality to render

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][Heat] Murano split dsicussion

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov < gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com> wrote: > During last Atlanta summit there were couple discussions about Application > Catalog and Application space projects in OpenStack. These cross-project > discussions occurred as a result of Murano incubat

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

I think we can't throw Ceilometer and Triple-O in the same discussion: they're two separate issues IMHO, with different root causes and therefore different solutions. On 08/21/2014 06:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > The point I've been making is > that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer p

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Minutes from 8/20/2013 meeting

Hi Trevor! Thanks for this, I've also transcribed these onto the wiki here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Meeting_Minutes#2014-08-20_Weekly_meeting : Obviously, y'all should feel free to fix any error you find appropriately! Stephen On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Trevor Vardeman <

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Proposal to support multiple listeners on one HAProxy instance

Hi Dustin, Responses in-line: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Dustin Lundquist wrote: > I'm on the fence here, I see a number of advantages to each: > > Single HAProxy process per listener: > >- Failure isolation >- TLS Performance -- for non TLS services HAProxy is IO bound, and >

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

On Aug 20, 2014 10:56 AM, "John Garbutt" wrote: > > On 18 August 2014 11:18, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > >>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much > >>> to ask given the rate at which

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Upcoming alpha release

Just go through the tutorial, it is very clear, thanks Tim and the Congress team. In the README.rst, the link http://docs.openstack.org/developer/congress cannot be opened. One minor comments, I noticed that you are using Neutron for the example, can you please add another case without neutron? N

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

Hi Everyone, I have seen a ton of notes on this topic. Many of us have a lot invested in Ceilometer and want it to succeed. I don't want to focus on whether Ceilometer should be in the integrated release or not. To me the bigger issue is that if Ceilometer views itself as wanting to be a mo

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Review priorities

On 08/21/2014 11:59 PM, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > Greetings, > > The Juno-3 feature freeze is not far away (September 4th). See [1] for > more information. > We have a bunch of outstanding patches that need to get reviewed. We are > trying to come with a list of the most important features/bugs [2]

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy Enforcement logic

The tutorial is now merged. https://github.com/stackforge/congress/blob/master/doc/source/tutorial-tenant-sharing.rst Tim On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jay Lau mailto:jay.lau@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Tim, That's great! Does the tutorial is uploaded to Gerrit for review? Thanks. 2014-08-2

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy Enforcement logic

Hi Tim, That's great! Does the tutorial is uploaded to Gerrit for review? Thanks. 2014-08-21 23:56 GMT+08:00 Tim Hinrichs : > Hi Jay, > > We have a tutorial in review right now. It should be merged in a couple > of days. Thanks for the suggestion! > > Tim > > > On Aug 21, 2014, at 7:54 A

[openstack-dev] [glance] Review priorities

Greetings, The Juno-3 feature freeze is not far away (September 4th). See [1] for more information. We have a bunch of outstanding patches that need to get reviewed. We are trying to come with a list of the most important features/bugs [2]. So far, we have the following: Features https://revie

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:34:48AM -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange < > berra...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > > >

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Minutes from 8/20/2013 meeting

Agenda items are numbered, and topics, as discussed, are described beneath in list format. 1) Revisit some basic features of loadbalancing as a service's object model and api. a) Brandon advocated Loadbalancer as only root object + The reason for root objects was for sharing. b) Wil

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

Edgar: I'm still seeing the comment "Results are not accurate. Needs clarification..." Dane -Original Message- From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:58 PM To: Dane Leblanc (leblancd); OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage que

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Proposal to support multiple listeners on one HAProxy instance

I'm on the fence here, I see a number of advantages to each: Single HAProxy process per listener: - Failure isolation - TLS Performance -- for non TLS services HAProxy is IO bound, and there is no reason to run it across multiple CPU cores, but with HAProxy terminating TLS there is an

Re: [openstack-dev] [Infra] Meeting Tuesday August 19th at 19:00 UTC

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Elizabeth K. Joseph wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The OpenStack Infrastructure (Infra) team is hosting our weekly > meeting on Tuesday August 19th, at 19:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting Almost forgot! Meeting minutes and logs from our meeting earlier this week available

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Use public IP address as instance fixed IP

Have you tried making the external network shared as well? Instances that need a private IP with NAT attach to an internal network and go through the router like normal. Instances that need a public IP without NAT would just attach directly to the external network. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:06 AM

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

On 08/21/2014 04:12 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from David Kranz's message of 2014-08-21 12:45:05 -0700: On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Openvswitch agent support for non promic mode adapters

I think this sounds reasonable. Do you have code for this already, or are you looking for a developer to help implement it? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Andreas Scheuring < scheu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi, > last week I started discussing an extension to the existing neutron > openv

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

Edgar, CI name: One Convergence CI The logs issue has been fixed and earlier tests were failing due to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114146 For reference: 1. Please take a look at the vote on patchset 7 in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114968/ 2. Logs at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/czydzz5

[openstack-dev] [Congress] Upcoming alpha release

Hi all, We're aiming for an alpha release of Congress tomorrow (Friday). If you have a spare server and a little time, it’d be great if you could try it out: install it, write some policies, run tests, etc. If you could send some feedback along the following lines, that would be helpful. 1.

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

Excerpts from David Kranz's message of 2014-08-21 12:45:05 -0700: > On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: > > > The point I've been making is > > > that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the > > > OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by

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

On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: > The point I've been making is > that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the > OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by > picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled. can we avoid

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

Our system would get backed up with patches and sometimes take up to 10 hours to respond with results for a change. We should establish some maximum acceptable time to get the results for a patch. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Edgar Magana wrote: > Maximum time to vote, can you clarify? >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Enable SSL between client and API exposed via public URL with HAProxy

Hi Adam, Just to clarify the subtlety of this change - you can still install a single controller, but that controller will be ³HA-ready² by deploying all the projects needed for HA onto that controller. In other words, Fuel will still be able to support smaller deployments along side larger ones

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Enable SSL between client and API exposed via public URL with HAProxy

IMHO, removing non-HA mode in Fuel would be a mistake as Fuel is also used for smaller deployments. HA is required for Production sure but removing support for smaller deployments would drive consumers of smaller clouds elsewhere for orchestration. Maintaining support for smaller clouds probably is

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

Maximum time to vote, can you clarify? 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: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 1:11 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not fo

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

Dane, Wiki has been updated. Thanks, Edgar On 8/21/14, 7:57 AM, "Dane Leblanc (leblancd)" wrote: >Edgar: > >The status on the wiki page says "Results are not accurate. Needs >clarification from Cisco". >Can you please tell me what we are missing? > >-Dane > >-Original Message- >From:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer][WSME] Sphinx failing sporadically because of wsme autodoc extension

is it possible that it's not on all the nodes? seems like it passed here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109207/ but another patch at roughly the same time failed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113549/ cheers, gord _

Re: [openstack-dev] oslo.db 0.4.0 released

On Aug 21, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 08/20/2014 02:38 PM, Victor Sergeyev wrote: >> Hello Folks! >> >> Oslo team is pleased to announce the new Oslo database handling library >> release - oslo.db 0.4.0 >> Thanks all for contributions to this release. > > > Unfortunately th

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] IRC meetings

Hi folks! Responses in-line: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On 08/21/2014 10:14 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > We made the voice/IRC decision in the very format that favors voice. So > > in the interest of putting the discussion to bed, voice your opinions > here > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer][WSME] Sphinx failing sporadically because of wsme autodoc extension

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Nejc Saje wrote: > > > Yesterday, doc builds started failing sporadically in Ceilometer gate. > > > > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkVSUk9SOiBJbnZvY2F0aW9uRXJyb3I6ICcvaG9tZS9qZW5raW5zL3dvc

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

> The point I've been making is > that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the > OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by > picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled. can we avoid using the word 'blessed' -- it's extremel

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer][WSME] Sphinx failing sporadically because of wsme autodoc extension

On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Nejc Saje wrote: > Yesterday, doc builds started failing sporadically in Ceilometer gate. > > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkVSUk9SOiBJbnZvY2F0aW9uRXJyb3I6ICcvaG9tZS9qZW5raW5zL3dvcmtzcGFjZS9nYXRlLWNlaWxvbWV0ZXItZG9jcy8udG94L3ZlbnYvYmluL3B5dGhvbiBzZ

Re: [openstack-dev] New feature on Nova

On 08/21/2014 08:00 AM, thomas.pessi...@orange.com wrote: > Sorry if I am not on the right mailing list. I would like to get some > information. No problem, this is the correct mailing list as this message is about discussing the "future" of an openstack component. > I would like to know if I am

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding GateFailureFix tag to commit messages

> > A concern with this approach is it's pretty arbitrary, and not always > clear which bugs are being addressed and how severe they are. > Well, establishing whether LP reports are actual bugs and assigning the severity isn't what triaging is for? > > An idea that came up in the Infra/QA meetup

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On 8/21/2014 12:26 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/21/2014 11:37 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 09:25 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/21/2014 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 8/21/2014 11:37 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 09:25 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 8/21/2014 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Solly

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] IRC meetings

On 08/21/2014 10:14 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > We made the voice/IRC decision in the very format that favors voice. So > in the interest of putting the discussion to bed, voice your opinions here > in a non-voice way: I was about to voice (ha!) my opinion there but I stopped because I don't think

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 01:12:16PM -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 21/08/14 12:21, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > >>>"I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > >>> > >>>i.e. The project is better off without it. > >A bit off topic, b

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 08/21/2014 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:34:48AM -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." i.e. The p

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On 8/21/2014 11:37 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 09:25 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/21/2014 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Solly Ross wrote: (reply inline) - Original Message - From: "Daniel P. Berrange" To: "

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

On 20/08/14 15:37, Jay Pipes wrote: For example, everyone agrees that Ceilometer has room for improvement, but any implication that the Ceilometer is not interested in or driving towards those improvements (because of NIH or whatever) is, as has been pointed out, grossly unfair to the Ceilometer

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

Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-08-21 09:21:06 -0700: > On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > Specifically for Triple-O, by making the Deployment program == Triple-O, the > > TC has picked the disk-image-based deployment of an undercloud design as The > > OpenStack Way of

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 21/08/14 12:21, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: >"I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > >i.e. The project is better off without it. A bit off topic, but I've never liked this message that gets added as it think it sounds overly

Re: [openstack-dev] oslo.db 0.4.0 released

On 08/20/2014 02:38 PM, Victor Sergeyev wrote: > Hello Folks! > > Oslo team is pleased to announce the new Oslo database handling library > release - oslo.db 0.4.0 > Thanks all for contributions to this release. Unfortunately this breaks manila. If I downgrade to oslo.db 0.3.0, it works. https:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] IRC meetings

Hi all, We made the voice/IRC decision in the very format that favors voice. So in the interest of putting the discussion to bed, voice your opinions here in a non-voice way: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116042/ Thanks, Doug On 8/18/14, 3:06 PM, "Salvatore Orlando" wrote: >This is on

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:40:59PM -0400, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > >>"I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > >> > >>i.e. The project is better off without it. > >A bit off topic,

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

Comments inline below. Best Regards, Lance On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: >> >>> "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." >>> >>> i.e. The project i

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:34 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange >> wrote: > > > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > >> "I would p

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

On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: 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 sou

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Aug 21, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:34 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange >> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: >> > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." >> > >> > i.e.

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding GateFailureFix tag to commit messages

On 08/21/2014 11:02 AM, Armando M. wrote: > Hi folks, > > According to [1], we have ways to introduce external references to > commit messages. > > These are useful to mark certain patches and their relevance in the > context of documentation, upgrades, etc. > > I was wondering if it would be us

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:34:48AM -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange > wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > > > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > > > > > > i.e. The project is better off without

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 21/08/14 18:34, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange > mailto:berra...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: >> "I would prefer that you didn't merge this

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Use lrzip for upgrade tarball - reject?

Hi, I think 15 minutes is not too bad. Additionally, it will reduce download time and price for bandwidth. It's worth to leave lrzip for customers, as upgrade is one time operation so user can wait for a while. For development it would be nice to have the fastest solution to boost development time

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 08/21/2014 12:34 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange mailto:berra...@redhat.com>> wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > > i.e. The project is better of

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On 08/21/2014 12:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." i.e. The project is better off without it. A bit off topic, but I've never liked this message that gets added as it think it sounds over

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 09:25 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 8/21/2014 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Solly Ross wrote: > >> (reply inline) > >> > >> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Daniel P. Berrange" > >>> To: "OpenStack Devel

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > > > > i.e. The project is better off without it. > > A bit off topic, but I've never liked this message that gets added >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On 8/21/2014 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Solly Ross wrote: (reply inline) - Original Message - From: "Daniel P. Berrange" To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:05:18 A

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

On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote: > Specifically for Triple-O, by making the Deployment program == Triple-O, the > TC has picked the disk-image-based deployment of an undercloud design as The > OpenStack Way of Deployment. And as I've said previously in this thread, I > believe that the d

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > > i.e. The project is better off without it. A bit off topic, but I've never liked this message that gets added as it think it sounds overly negative. It would better written as "Thi

[openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

"I would prefer that you didn't merge this." i.e. The project is better off without it. This seems to mean different things to different people. There's a list here which contains some criteria for new commits: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReviewChecklist. There's also a treatise on git comm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Ramp-up strategy

Hi Madhu, We have an end-user tutorial in review right now. That should help you get started understanding the end-to-end flow a bit better. Look for it to be merged today or tomorrow. Tim On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Madhu Mohan mailto:mmo...@mvista.com>> wrote: Hi, Since a few weeks I

[openstack-dev] Adding GateFailureFix tag to commit messages

Hi folks, According to [1], we have ways to introduce external references to commit messages. These are useful to mark certain patches and their relevance in the context of documentation, upgrades, etc. I was wondering if it would be useful considering the addition of another tag: GateFailureFi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy Enforcement logic

Hi Jay, We have a tutorial in review right now. It should be merged in a couple of days. Thanks for the suggestion! Tim On Aug 21, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Jay Lau mailto:jay.lau@gmail.com>> wrote: I know that Congress is still under development, but it is better that it can provide some inf

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy Enforcement logic

Hi Madhu, For the alpha release (due soon), we’re focusing on just monitoring policy violations—we’ve disabled all the enforcement code in master. (Though we never actually hooked up the enforcement policy to the real world, so all Congress has ever done is compute what actions to take to enfo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-stable-maint] [all][oslo] official recommendations to handle oslo-incubator sync requests

> 2. For stable branches, the process is a bit different. For those > branches, we don't generally want to introduce changes that are not > related to specific issues in a project. So in case of backports, we > tend to do per-patch consideration when synchronizing from incubator. I'd call this che

[openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] Some third party results are not showing up in the CI summary on Gerrit

If you look at review page for any of our Neutron commits, e.g.: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115025/ You'll see that there is a handy summary of CI results (with links to logs) in the upper right. However, there are some CIs which are missing from this summary, although we know that they

[openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Openvswitch agent support for non promic mode adapters

Hi, last week I started discussing an extension to the existing neutron openvswitch agent to support network adapters that are not in promiscuous mode. Now I would like to enhance the round to get feedback from a broader audience via the mailing list. The Problem When driving vlan or flat networ

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Solly Ross wrote: > (reply inline) > > - Original Message - > > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:05:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] New feature on Nova

There is already a blueprint tracing "KVM host maintain": https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/host-maintenance , but I think that nova will not handle the case of auto live migration for maintenance host, this should be a use case of Congress: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Congress 2014

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

(reply inline) - Original Message - > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:05:18 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to > libvirt in unit tests > > O

Re: [openstack-dev] New feature on Nova

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:00:59PM +0200, thomas.pessi...@orange.com wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry if I am not on the right mailing list. I would like to get some > information. > > I would like to know if I am a company who wants to add a feature on > an openstack module. How do we have to proceed ?

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:52:42AM -0400, Solly Ross wrote: > FYI, the context of this is that I would like to be able to test some > of the libvirt storage pool code against a live file system, as we > currently test the storage pool code. To do this, we need at least to > be able to get a prope

[openstack-dev] New feature on Nova

Hello, Sorry if I am not on the right mailing list. I would like to get some information. I would like to know if I am a company who wants to add a feature on an openstack module. How do we have to proceed ? And so, what is the way this new feature be adopted by the community. The featu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy Enforcement logic

I know that Congress is still under development, but it is better that it can provide some info for "How to use it" just like docker https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Docker , this might attract more people contributing to it. 2014-08-21 22:07 GMT+08:00 Madhu Mohan : > Hi, > > I am quite new to th

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

Edgar: The status on the wiki page says "Results are not accurate. Needs clarification from Cisco". Can you please tell me what we are missing? -Dane -Original Message- From: Dane Leblanc (leblancd) Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 3:05 PM To: 'Edgar Magana'; OpenStack Development Mailin

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Change of meeting time

On 08/20/2014 11:15 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: I'll try to make the meeting regardless if its moved or not but an hour later would certainly make it a little more palatable. +1 -- Giulio Fidente GPG KEY: 08D733BA ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenSta

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Non-readonly connection to libvirt in unit tests

FYI, the context of this is that I would like to be able to test some of the libvirt storage pool code against a live file system, as we currently test the storage pool code. To do this, we need at least to be able to get a proper connection to a session daemon. IMHO, since these calls aren't

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Prioritizing review of potentially "approvable" patches

Hear, hear! Dan On 08/21/2014 07:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Tagged with '[nova]' but this might be relevant data / idea for other teams too. With my code contributor hat on, one of the things that I find most the frustrating about Nova code review process is that a patch can get a +2 vot

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Zane Bitter wrote: >> On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> This all has created a world where you need to be*in* OpenStack to >>> matter, or to justify the investment. This has created a world where >>> everything and everyone wants

  1   2   >