Hi folks,
Currently the launch instance model file does all the fetching of various
bits of data. Combined with all of the controllers also being loaded at
wizard startup, this results in some very difficult synchronisation issues*.
An issue I've run into is the initialisation of the controller
Hi Choe!
Why do you want to set this option to false?
In that way new instance will not be connected to the environment network.
Do you have any issues with the deployment?
If you still want to try the deployment without handling networks by
default,
you need to set default value of specified
On 09 Mar 2015, at 18:21, Ryan Moe r...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi All,
I've noticed a few times recently where reviews have been abandoned by people
who were not the original authors. These reviews were only days old and there
was no prior notice or discussion. This is both rude and
Hi,
As mentioned a few weeks ago we would like to have alternate meeting times for
the Vmware driver(s) meeting. So for all interested lets meet tomorrow at 10:00
UTC on #openstack-meeting-4.
Thanks
Gary
__
OpenStack
- Original Message -
From: Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 9:22:43 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] blueprint about multiple workers
supported in nova-scheduler
On 03/04/2015 01:51 AM, Attila Fazekas
On 03/09/2015 06:21 PM, Ryan Moe wrote:
Hi All,
I've noticed a few times recently where reviews have been abandoned by
people who were not the original authors. These reviews were only days
old and there was no prior notice or discussion. This is both rude and
discouraging to contributors.
Hi Devs,
As another alternative we can use start/stop API’s instead of shelve/unshelve
the instance.
API’s
cpu/memory released
Disk released
Fast respawning
Notes
start/stop
No
No
Yes
shelve/unshelve
Yes
Yes (Not released if shelved_offload_time = -1)
No
Instance does not respawn
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and
document it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add
new API.
On 03/06/2015 03:19 PM, Attila Fazekas wrote:
Looks like we need some kind of _per compute node_ mutex in the critical
section,
multiple scheduler MAY be able to schedule to two compute node at same time,
but not for scheduling to the same compute node.
If we don't want to introduce
Thanks for bringing up this use case Miguel - these are the use cases we
need to make informed decisions.
Some answers inline.
Salvatore
On 10 March 2015 at 07:53, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks to everybody working on this,
Answers inline:
On Tuesday, 10 de March de
Hi everyone,
I would like to know if the application usage information is tracked by the
murano-agent? If not, how is it done? Is ceilometer used at all, anywhere?
Regards
Darshan
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
Though my vote does not count, definitely a +1
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Ruby Loo rlooya...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for sure!
On 9 March 2015 at 18:03, Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to propose adding Ramakrishnan (rameshg87) to ironic-core.
- Original Message -
From: Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:53:01 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] blueprint about multiple workers
supported in nova-scheduler
On 03/06/2015 03:19 PM, Attila Fazekas
Hi Li Ma,
Thank you very much for your reply
On 06.03.15 05:01, Li Ma wrote:
Hi all, actually I'm writing the same mail topic for zeromq driver,
but I haven't done it yet. Thank you for proposing this topic,
ozamiatin.
1. ZeroMQ functionality
Actually I proposed a session topic in the coming
Hi Cheng-Dae,
We are working on improving supported networking schemes, please take
a look on following commits:
* https://review.openstack.org/152643 - Adds ability to join instances
to existing Neutron networks
* https://review.openstack.org/152747 - Configurable environment's
default network
Hi Sylvain,
The list of filters does not only determine what conditions are checked, it
also specifies the order in which they are checked.
If I read the code right this change creates the worst case efficiency for this
filter. Normally you would filter first on something that removes as many
Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/09/2015 01:26 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
Im about -1000 on disabling foreign key constraints.
So was I. We didn't do it out of performance.
Since I am responsible for tipping over this particular cow, let me explain.
No, is too much. Let me sum up.
Hi Darshan,
Unfortunately application usage is not tracked in Murano in any way.
We only have special logging message [1] that can help to organize
tracking of usage using some sort tools for log analysis (e.g.
Logstash).
[1]
Hi David,
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +, Chen, Wei D wrote:
I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is
merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of
them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory
for getting some effective
Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Please try to refrain from using false equivalence. ACID stands for
Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability. Nowhere in there does it
stand for referential integrity”.
This point is admittedly controversial as I’ve had this debate before, but
it
Hi, Eric
Thanks a lot for your comments.
On 06.03.15 06:21, Eric Windisch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, ozamiatin ozamia...@mirantis.com
mailto:ozamia...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi,
By this e-mail I'd like to start a discussion about current zmq
driver internal design
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Erlon Cruz sombra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne,
How about driver documentation that is in the old format? Will it be
removed in Kilo?
Hi Erlon,
The spec doesn't have a specific person assigned for removal, and the only
drivers the docs team signed up for
Hi Anne,
How about driver documentation that is in the old format? Will it be
removed in Kilo? The wiki says: Bring all driver sections that are
currently just ‘bare bones’ up to the standard mentioned. Will this be
performed by core team?
Thanks,
Erlon
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Anne
On 09/03/15 23:47, Angus Salkeld wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com
mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Magnum Team,
In the following review, we have the start of a discussion about how
to tackle bay status:
- Original Message -
From: Attila Fazekas afaze...@redhat.com
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:48:00 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] blueprint about multiple workers
On 03/09/2015 06:04 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
So possibly another way to think about this is our prior signaling of
what was supported by Nova was signaled by the extension list. Our code
was refactored into a way that supported
Agreed, CI systems are not reliable. Most of failures are related to
mis-configuration or devstack problems, not driver problems itself. What
happen then, is that people just don't care if there's a red FAILURE in the
CIs results. A 4) option would be to rate CIs according to their
trustfulness
I've just filed a bug on the confusing wording of help text for the
secgroup-{add,delete,list}-default-rules? commands:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-novaclient/+bug/1430354
As I note in the bug, though, I'm not sure the best way to fix this. In an
unconstrained world, I'd like to see
On 11 March 2015 at 13:59, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 11 March 2015 at 10:27, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote:
Great to hear that this has been addressed, as this impacted a few tests in
keystone.
(but why was the fix not released as 1.7.1?)
There will be
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:50 PM, melanie witt melwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think your suggestion for the help text is excessively verbose.
There are already longer help texts for some commands than that, and I
think it's important to accurately explain what commands do. You can use a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of
Honestly, I'm a little frustrated that this is coming up now when we
tried very hard to discuss this during the spec review and we thought
we got to a resolution. It seems a little late to go back to the
drawing board.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:26:28PM +, Manickam, Kanagaraj wrote:
Hi,
I observed in one of the patch mentioned below, OS::Heat::ScaledResource
is reported as unknown, could anyone help here to resolve the issue.
Thanks.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Tidwell, Ryan ryan.tidw...@hp.com wrote:
With implicit allocations, the thinking is that this is where a subnet is
created in a backward-compatible way with no subnetpool_id and the subnets
API’s continue to work as they always have.
Correct.
In the case of a
We are proud to announce our second release of Magnum [1]. This release [2]
includes numerous improvements, including significant test code coverage,
multi-tenancy support, scalable bays, and support for CoreOS Nodes, 8 bit
character support, and 52 other enhancements, bug fixes, and technical
The glance_store release management team is pleased to announce:
glance_store version 0.3.0 has been released on Tuesday March 10th around
1755 UTC.
For more information, please find the details at:
https://launchpad.net/glance-store/+milestone/v0.3.0
Please report the issues through
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being part of the
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet, he or she is free to do so. Problems will arise when trying
to connect a router between
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Gabriel Bezerra gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br
wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com wrote:
a) What if the subnet pools go into an external network, so, the gateway is
predefined and external, we may want to be able to specify it, we could
assume the convention that we’re going to expect the gateway to be
Gabriel Bezerra gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br wrote on 03/10/2015 12:34:30 PM:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use
Hi Aaron,
I just want to confirm how CI is running the congress tempest tests in its
environment as I am about to check in a tempest test for testing murano
deployment. If I check in the test script to
congress/contrib/tempest/tempest/scenario/congress_datasources, the CI will
take care of
Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
On 03/09/2015 08:48 PM, Li, Chen wrote:
Hello Manila,
I noticed there were some discussions about api extensions in the past
few weeks.
Looks like nova has similar discussions too.
“Each extension gets a version”, if my understanding about the api
extension discussion purpose is
You mean for tomorrow? No worries, I can kick off the meeting and run through
agenda if we have something to address.
Take best out of the ops meetup!
- Erno
From: Rochelle Grober [mailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:04 PM
To: OpenStack Development
I have started an etherpad to track bugs we consider critical for final
releases of incubator modules and library code for Kilo. I added the 2
items discussed in yesterday's meeting, but please add other items to
the list as needed so we can track them.
Thanks,
Doug
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Jan Provazník jprov...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
it would make sense to have a library for the code shared by Tuskar UI and
CLI (I mean TripleO CLI - whatever it will be, not tuskarclient which is
just a thing wrapper for Tuskar API). There are various actions which
On 10/03/15 12:26, Manickam, Kanagaraj wrote:
Hi,
I observed in one of the patch mentioned below, OS::Heat::ScaledResource
is reported as unknown, could anyone help here to resolve the issue. Thanks.
On 03/10/2015 10:23 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
if*that’s* what you mean, that’s known as a “polymorphic foreign key”, and
it is not actually a foreign key at all, it is a terrible antipattern started by
the PHP/Rails community and carried forth by projects like Django.
A) Heh. it is much, much older
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet, he or she is free to do so. Problems will
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
We now have several new project proposals. However, I propose not
approving any new projects until we have a tagging system that is at
least far enough along to represent the set of criteria that we used to
apply to all OpenStack projects (with exception for ones
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:31 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com writes:
After watching the TC meeting, and double checking with the meeting notes
[0], it looks like the magnum vote was deferred to next week. But what
concerns me is the lack of
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com wrote:
The wheel has been removed from PyPI and anyone installing testtools
1.7.0 now will install from source which works fine.
On stable/icehouse devstack fails[*] with
pkg_resources.VersionConflict: (unittest2 0.5.1
On 11 March 2015 at 10:27, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote:
Great to hear that this has been addressed, as this impacted a few tests in
keystone.
(but why was the fix not released as 1.7.1?)
There will be a new release indeed later today to fix a small UI issue
on pypy3 which
On Mar 10, 2015, at 19:28, Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, look at that! In some other projects, flake8 complains about a docstring
whose first line doesn't end in a period, so I didn't think it'd be possible.
If you don't think that's excessively verbose, there'll be
Mike Bayer mba...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you've said above actually prevents coders
from relying on the constraints. Being careful about deleting all of the
child rows before a parent is good practice. I have seen code like this
in the past though:
try:
Hi Adrian,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Magnum Team,
In the following review, we have the start of a discussion about how to
tackle bay status:
https://review.openstack.org/159546
I think a key issue here is that we are not subscribing to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
RDO project started to look into packaging some of vendor libraries
that were split from neutron tree during Kilo for Delorean, and found
some issues with some of pypi packages that were released in public.
We feel that communicating each
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being part of the
OpenStack community. Another critical part was replacing the
Hi,
I like this idea, we use Rally for OpenStack clouds verification at scale
and it is the real issue - how to run all functional tests from each
project with the one script. If Rally will do this, I will use Rally to run
these tests.
Thank you!
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Chris Dent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
team is going to merge in a patch to migrate to oslo.log [1] in the
very near future. This patch is expected to break all third party CI
for all vendor libraries that were split from the main repo in Kilo
and that rely on
sorry, i apparently don't know how to format emails...
cheers,
gord
From: g...@live.ca
To: openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org; openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:05:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [Ceilometer] Real world
experience with
Hi Anne,
Thanks for the quick answer. One thing that still not clear for me is about
the documentation that is currently there. Will it be removed (converted to
the resumed version) in Kilo? If so what are the milestones for that?
Erlon
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Anne Gentle
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Erlon Cruz sombra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thanks for the quick answer. One thing that still not clear for me is
about the documentation that is currently there. Will it be removed
(converted to the resumed version) in Kilo? If so what are the milestones
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Gabriel Bezerra
gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
I'd vote for allowing against such restriction, but throwing an error in
case of creating a router between the subnets.
I can imagine a tenant running multiple
Dissolving the integrated release without having a solid plan and replacement
is difficult to communicate to people who depend on OpenStack. We’re struggling
on that front.
That said, I’m still optimistic about project structure reform and think it
could be beneficial to the development
Given the votes so far, the proposal is to move the meeting time to 1600
UTC on Tuesday. The channel is openstack-meeting-3 (as the only one
available).
In addition, the meeting will be on-demand, so if you want to have a
meeting, send email to this mailing list, at least 24 hours before the
Maybe the plan for oslo.messaging should be to make it resolve some of
the operators issues first ;-)
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PHL-ops-rabbit-queue
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PHL-ops-large-deployments
I'd rather think we should like ummm, be thinking about fixing issues
instead
There was a broken wheel built when testtools 1.7.0 was released. The
wheel was missing the _compat2x.py file used for 2.x only syntax in
exception handling, for an unknown reason. (We know how to trigger it
- build the wheel with Python 3.4).
The wheel has been removed from PyPI and anyone
On 10 March 2015 at 16:48, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
Honestly, I'm a little frustrated that this is coming up now when we
tried very hard to discuss this during the spec review and we thought
we got to a resolution. It seems a little late to go back to the
drawing board.
I
On 03/10/2015 12:29 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being part of the
OpenStack community.
On 2015-03-10 14:42:18 -0400 (-0400), Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
As to specific tags, I refer back to this:
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.html
We worked pretty hard to come up with useful things for projects
to aim for. In fact, we
Russell Bryant wrote:
One point of clarification:
On 03/10/2015 02:28 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
Even more concerning is the sentiment of projects we want to
consciously drop from Russell's original email.
This was in reference to criteria defined in:
Blocking the acceptance of new projects seems punitive and against the spirit
of the big tent. Classification (tagging) can be done at any point, and is
hardly fixed in stone. You can refine tags as needed.
To put it harshly: it is a failure of both leadership and process to have
stripped out
One point of clarification:
On 03/10/2015 02:28 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
Even more concerning is the sentiment of projects we want to
consciously drop from Russell's original email.
This was in reference to criteria defined in:
On 03/10/2015 11:45 AM, Omkar Joshi wrote:
Hi,
I am using open stack swift server. Now say multiple clients are
requesting 5GB object from server. The rate at which server can push
data into server socket is much more than the rate at which client can
read it from proxy server. Is there
Thanks Rick for a quick reply.
Are you asking about the rate at which data might come from the object
server(s) to the proxy and need to be held on the proxy while it is sent-on
to the clients? Yes... the object sever will push faster and therefore
accumulation of data in proxy server will be
No, we're adding this to Yagi first and perhaps Notabene later. We don't need
rpc support, so it's too big a change for us to take on.
From: gordon chung g...@live.ca
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:58 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List not for usage
On 03/10/2015 02:00 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
We now have several new project proposals. However, I propose not
approving any new projects until we have a tagging system that is at
least far enough along to represent the set of criteria that we used to
apply to
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I guess that frustration has now become part of the norm for Openstack.
It is not the first time I frustrate people because I ask to reconsider
decisions approved in specifications.
I'm okay revisiting decisions.
Hi,
I am using open stack swift server. Now say multiple clients are requesting
5GB object from server. The rate at which server can push data into server
socket is much more than the rate at which client can read it from proxy
server. Is there configuration / setting which we use to control /
On 10/03/15 12:29, Russell Bryant wrote:
I feel that we're at a very vulnerable part of this transition. We've
abolished the incubation process and integrated release. We've
established a fairly low bar for new projects [2]. However, we have not
yet approved*any* tags other than the one
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
project governance. You can find an overview from Thierry on the
OpenStack blog [1].
Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being
Hey J,
Our (old) notification consumer was using carrot, which is dead but worked.
Lately though there have been conflicts with carrot and msgpack, so we had to
change. Around the same time, we ran into a bug where we were writing to an
unnamed exchange (completely valid, but too easy to do
I would suggest to do the migration but not to merge it till official yaql
1.0 release which is going to happen soon.
As for the docs it is still very hard to write them since yaql 1.0 has got
tons on new features and hundreds of functions. Any help is appreciated.
But 99% of yaql 1.0 features and
On 03/10/2015 02:43 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
We now have several new project proposals. However, I propose not
approving any new projects until we have a tagging
On 03/10/2015 02:56 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
One point of clarification:
On 03/10/2015 02:28 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
Even more concerning is the sentiment of projects we want to
consciously drop from Russell's original email.
This was in reference to criteria
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:28 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
Blocking the acceptance of new projects seems punitive and against
the spirit of the big tent. Classification (tagging) can be done at
any point, and is hardly fixed in stone.
Hi All,
Quick update.
We added GlusterFS CI job (gate-tempest-dsvm-full-glusterfs) to *check
pipeline (non-voting)* after the patch @ [1] was merged.
Its been running successfully ( so far so good ) on Cinder patches, few
examples are in [2]
I also updated the 3rd party CI status page
Hi all,
https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1255622
For this bug, I have added some comments to explain why the orphaned
volume that ends up in the end of the migration.
@John Griffith, I hope this can resolve your confusion a bit.
Best wishes,
Vincent Hou (侯胜博)
Staff Software Engineer,
Thanks to everybody working on this,
Answers inline:
On Tuesday, 10 de March de 2015 at 0:34, Tidwell, Ryan wrote:
Thanks Salvatore. Here are my thoughts, hopefully there’s some merit to them:
With implicit allocations, the thinking is that this is where a subnet is
created in a
Hi, stackers
I try to use the Kolla Images and pull them down from docker hub.
I found the size of the image is bigger than what I thought(for example, the
images of docker conductor service is about 1.4GB).
Is it possible to get a more smaller images.
Do we have the plan to minimize the
Richard,
I have been thinking for some time that each step controller should be able to
define the data it needs as well as manipulating it. Perhaps in the morning
before you get up in Australia I could take a pass at converting that for
access security. I’ll talk it over with Sean, since
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03/15 12:29, Russell Bryant wrote:
I feel that we're at a very vulnerable part of this transition. We've
abolished the incubation process and integrated release. We've
established a fairly low bar for new
Great to hear that this has been addressed, as this impacted a few tests in
keystone.
(but why was the fix not released as 1.7.1?)
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
wrote:
There was a broken wheel built when testtools 1.7.0 was released. The
wheel was
In the process of writing a unit test for this I discovered that it can
call out to keystone for a token with some configurations through the
call to get_configured_credentials. This surprised me since I thought it
would just check for the necessary admin credentials in either
tempest.conf or
Thanks for the insight, other Doug. :) It appears that this is in part due to
the fact that Tempest has not yet updated to oslo_log and is still using
incubator oslo.log. Can someone from the Tempest team chime in on what the
status of migrating to oslo_log is?
It’s imperative for us to fix
On Mar 10, 2015, at 7:32, Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com wrote:
I've just filed a bug on the confusing wording of help text for the
secgroup-{add,delete,list}-default-rules? commands:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-novaclient/+bug/1430354
As I note in the bug, though, I'm
Preventing the token request could be an improvement, as the token
request might not be expected to happen in that method.
If the token cannot be obtained because credentials are wrong, an
exception will be triggered.
If we removed the token request from is_admin_available, this scenario
would be
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
