Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [patrole] Question regarding patrole release management

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:29 AM, MONTEIRO, FELIPE C wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I have a question regarding patrole and release management. Many projects > like heat or murano have a tempest plugin within their repos, so by > extension their tempest plugins have releases, as the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

On 3/17/2017 3:23 PM, Sean Dague wrote: Yes... with fire. Realistically this was about the pinnacle of the extensions on extensions API changes, which is why we didn't even let it into v2 in the first place. Here it is: https://review.openstack.org/457854 -- Thanks, Matt

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] release-model of tripleo-common

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-19 13:05:37 +1200: > > Other than being consumed as a library, tripleo-common is the home for a > > number of tripleo related files, image building templates, heat

[openstack-dev] [glance] virtual midcycle thursday 20 april

The Glance virtual midcycle meeting will be held on Thursday 20 April 2017 from 14:00-17:00 UTC. Please signup on the agenda page: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-pike-virtual-midcycle The meeting will be held in Zoom. Connection information is on the midcycle etherpad. See you there!

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI] Bridging the production/CI workflow gap with large periodic CI jobs

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Justin Kilpatrick > wrote: > > Because CI jobs tend to max out about 5 nodes there's a whole class of > > minor bugs that make it into releases. > > > > What

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] release-model of tripleo-common

Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-19 13:05:37 +1200: > Other than being consumed as a library, tripleo-common is the home for a > number of tripleo related files, image building templates, heat plugins, > mistral workbooks. > > I have a python-tripleoclient[1] change which is failing

[openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] release-model of tripleo-common

Other than being consumed as a library, tripleo-common is the home for a number of tripleo related files, image building templates, heat plugins, mistral workbooks. I have a python-tripleoclient[1] change which is failing unit tests because it depends on changes in tripleo-common which have

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposing Florian Fuchs for tripleo-validations core

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jason E. Rist wrote: > On 04/18/2017 02:28 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:53:04AM +0200, Martin André wrote: >> > Hellooo, >> > >> > I'd like to propose we extend Florian Fuchs +2 powers to the >> > tripleo-validations

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][glance][ironic][octavia][nova]oslo.config 4.0 will break projects' unit test

On 4/17/2017 9:08 PM, ChangBo Guo wrote: Nova: https://review.openstack.org/457188 need review This change introduced an intermittent failure in one of the tests: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1683953 -- Thanks, Matt

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposing Florian Fuchs for tripleo-validations core

On 04/18/2017 02:28 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:53:04AM +0200, Martin André wrote: > > Hellooo, > > > > I'd like to propose we extend Florian Fuchs +2 powers to the > > tripleo-validations project. Florian is already core on tripleo-ui > > (well, tripleo technically so

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] notification update week 15

On 4/18/2017 3:55 AM, Balazs Gibizer wrote: Hi, Here is the status update / focus setting mail about notification work for week 15. Bugs [Medium] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1657428 The instance notifications are sent with inconsistent timestamp format. We need to iterate more on

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

On 18 April 2017 at 13:54, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2017-04-18 13:37:30 -0700: >> On 18 April 2017 at 12:41, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-18 10:46:43 +1200: >> >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] version document for project navigator

Thank you, sir! :) Monty Taylor April 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM I just sent out the email requesting folks send in patches. Maybe we'll get a flood of them now ... __ OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2017-04-18 13:37:30 -0700: > On 18 April 2017 at 12:41, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-18 10:46:43 +1200: > >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Doug Hellmann > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] version document for project navigator

I just sent out the email requesting folks send in patches. Maybe we'll get a flood of them now ... On 04/18/2017 08:46 AM, Jimmy McArthur wrote: All, we have modified our ingest tasks to look for this new data. Can we get an ETA on when to expect updates from the majority of projects? Right

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

On 18 April 2017 at 12:41, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-18 10:46:43 +1200: >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Doug Hellmann >> wrote: >> >> > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2017-04-12 15:59:34

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [third-party-ci] pkvmci ironic job breakage details

On 04/18/2017 07:56 AM, Vladyslav Drok wrote: Hey Michael, On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Michael Turek > wrote: Hey ironic-ers, So our third party CI job for ironic has been, and remains, broken. I was able to do

[openstack-dev] [all][ptls][tc] help needed filling out project-navigator data

Hey everybody! The Foundation is rolling out a new version of the Project Navigator. One of the things it contains is a section that shows API versions available for each project for each release. They asked the TC's help in providing that data, so we spun up a new repository:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform vision

On 18/04/17 10:39, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 16/04/17 09:03 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: FWIW, I think the Lego analogy is not actually helpful for another reason: it has vastly too many ways of combining, and (hence) no sense at all of consistency / interoperability between the different things

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform vision

Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2017-04-18 10:33:32 -0700: > My personal feeling: > > We need to be very very careful. While I really respect Jay Pipes and his > commentary, I fundamentally disagree with his toolbox mindset. OpenStack is > one tool in the Enterprise toolbox. It isn't a

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

Excerpts from Steve Baker's message of 2017-04-18 10:46:43 +1200: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > > > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2017-04-12 15:59:34 -0700: > > > My dear Kollegues, > > > > > > Today we had discussion about how

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

Yes. within a stable branch, the kolla code hardly ever changes. but nova may put out a new release, or openssl may put out a new release. From: Michał Jastrzębski [inc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:19 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing

[openstack-dev] [tc][swg]The 2019 TC Vision Draft - anonymous feedback now open

Hello Stackers, By now, you all should have received an invitation to comment anonymously[0] on the current draft of a TC Vision for 2019 that is up for review in the governance repository[1]. We're going to leave the survey open for comment until the Boston Forum, but I'd like to start

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Kolla's general target is in the node range of 1 - 100 nodes. A lot of > smaller clusters can't afford to do ci/cd of their own and so Kolla > currently pushes all the work to the site, and the site can't afford to do > it

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI] Bridging the production/CI workflow gap with large periodic CI jobs

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: > Because CI jobs tend to max out about 5 nodes there's a whole class of > minor bugs that make it into releases. > > What happens is that they never show up in small clouds, then when > they do show up in larger

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform vision

My personal feeling: We need to be very very careful. While I really respect Jay Pipes and his commentary, I fundamentally disagree with his toolbox mindset. OpenStack is one tool in the Enterprise toolbox. It isn't a toolbox. K8s is another tool in the toolbox since it's turning out to be much

[openstack-dev] [qa] [patrole] Question regarding patrole release management

Hi all, I have a question regarding patrole and release management. Many projects like heat or murano have a tempest plugin within their repos, so by extension their tempest plugins have releases, as the projects change over time. However, since patrole is just a tempest plugin, yet heavily

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

Kolla's general target is in the node range of 1 - 100 nodes. A lot of smaller clusters can't afford to do ci/cd of their own and so Kolla currently pushes all the work to the site, and the site can't afford to do it right, and so just doesn't deal with security updates. This is akin to a site

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

I think we need to meet the following: 1. provide up to date containers including if the dependencies changed without the main package changed. 2. trackable changes. If a dep in a container changed, the tag should be different. This allows users to know that something changed. 3. atomic

[openstack-dev] [Congress] Tempest test (congress-datasources)

Carmine -- Messaggio inoltrato -- Da: "Carmine Annunziata" Data: 16 apr 2017 18:21 Oggetto: Tempest test (congress-datasources) A: "Tim Hinrichs" Cc: "Eric K" Hi guys, I'm trying to write the tempest test

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

Our issue is a bit complex tho. Dockerhub-pushed images are less affected by version of our code than versions of everyone else's code. On 18 April 2017 at 07:36, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 13/04/17 13:48 +1200, Steve Baker wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michał

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][infra][pbr] Nominating Stephen Finucane for pbr-core

On 2017-04-12 08:14:31 -0500 (-0500), Monty Taylor wrote: [...] > Recently Stephen Finucane (sfinucan) has stepped up to the plate > to help sort out issues we've been having. He's shown a lack of > fear of the codebase and an understanding of what's going on. He's > also following through on

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] placement/resource providers update 19

On 4/17/2017 2:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: I was wondering if we could re-use some of Yingxin's performance scale testing work that he presented at the Newton summit [1]. Alex said Yingxin is working on Ceph now, but the tooling should be on github somewhere. Found it:

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On 18/04/17 10:42 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote: > >> do we want it configurable? tbh, would anyway one configure it or know >> how to configure it? even for us, we're just guessing somewhat.lol i'm >> going to leave it static for now. > > I think we want it

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On 18/04/17 10:42 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote: > >> do we want it configurable? tbh, would anyway one configure it or know >> how to configure it? even for us, we're just guessing somewhat.lol i'm >> going to leave it static for now. > > I think we want it

[openstack-dev] [tripleo][quickstart][RFE] supporting arbitrary OS type, review and feedback required

Hello owls and stackers. As you know, tripleo-quickstart can run on only rhel/centos. For those who want to try it on an arbitrary OS from a docker container, I created that RFE [0] and an implementation [1]. Those are just minor changes to the quickstart repo only but as well are enablers for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI] Bridging the production/CI workflow gap with large periodic CI jobs

On 04/17/2017 02:52 PM, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: Because CI jobs tend to max out about 5 nodes there's a whole class of minor bugs that make it into releases. What happens is that they never show up in small clouds, then when they do show up in larger testing clouds the people deploying those

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] New resource implementation workflow

Hi, Thanks for the advices! The HIDDEN status looks better for me as it completely hides the resource from the user and it won't be included in the documentation, but using this to status to mark the implementation of the resource incomplete feels like a misuse of this status. So I believe,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform vision

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:45 PM Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 16/04/17 09:03 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: > >FWIW, I think the Lego analogy is not actually helpful for another > reason: it has vastly too many ways of combining, and (hence) no sense at > all of consistency /

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] uwsgi for API services - RSN

This is all merged now. If you run into any issues with real WSGI running, please poke up in #openstack-qa and we'll see what we can to to get things ironned out. -Sean On 04/18/2017 07:19 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > Ok, the patch series has come together now, and >

[openstack-dev] [neutron][tripleo] early feedback about upgrades from ocata to pike

I've been playing with TripleO uprades from Ocata to Pike and I've seen that it doesn't work yet. We're currently stuck on Neutron bits: https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1683835 After the upgrade, here are the versions of Neutron:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform vision

On 16/04/17 09:03 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: FWIW, I think the Lego analogy is not actually helpful for another reason: it has vastly too many ways of combining, and (hence) no sense at all of consistency / interoperability between the different things that you can construct with it. Whereas

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote: > do we want it configurable? tbh, would anyway one configure it or know > how to configure it? even for us, we're just guessing somewhat.lol i'm > going to leave it static for now. I think we want it to be configurable, though most people would

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Tags, revisions, dockerhub

On 13/04/17 13:48 +1200, Steve Baker wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: My dear Kollegues, Today we had discussion about how to properly name/tag images being pushed to dockerhub. That moved towards general discussion on revision mgmt.

[openstack-dev] [ironic] this week's priorities and subteam reports

Hi, We are glad to present this week's priorities and subteam report for Ironic. As usual, this is pulled directly from the Ironic whiteboard[0] and formatted. This Week's Priorities (as of the weekly ironic meeting) 1. rolling upgrades

Re: [openstack-dev] [intel experimental ci] Is it actually checking anything?

> -Original Message- > From: Mikhail Medvedev [mailto:mihail...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 10:51 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Cc: openstack-networking-ci >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] version document for project navigator

All, we have modified our ingest tasks to look for this new data. Can we get an ETA on when to expect updates from the majority of projects? Right now, there isn't too much to test with. Cheers, Jimmy Thierry Carrez April 14, 2017 at 3:21 AM OK approved. Doug

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On 18/04/17 08:44 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > Live upgrade never has been supported in Gnocchi, so I don't see how > that's a problem. It'd be cool to support it for sure, but we're far > from having been able to implement it at any point in time in the best. > So it's not a new issue or

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tacker][OSC] Command naming specs

On 04/17/2017 07:46 PM, Sridhar Ramaswamy wrote: I like this suggestion. Keyword 'vnf' is the closest to the unit of things orchestrated by Tacker. Building on that we can have, openstack vnf create - /create a single VNF based on TOSCA template/ openstack vnf service create - /create a service

Re: [openstack-dev] Emails for OpenStack R Release Name voting going out - please be patient

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:50:15AM +, Eduardo Gonzalez wrote: > Hi all, > is there any new about the mailing issue? Still not received mine. > Same for me - I still have not seen anything. __ OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote: > the issue i see is not with how the sacks will be assigned to metricd > but how metrics (not daemon) are assigned to sacks. i don't think > storing value in storage object solves the issue because when would we > load/read it when the api and metricd

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On 18/04/17 05:21 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: >> - dynamic sack size >> making number of sacks dynamic is a concern. previously, we said to have >> sack size in conf file. the concern is that changing that option >> incorrectly actually 'corrupts' the db to a state that it cannot recover >> from.

[openstack-dev] [neutron] [classifier] CCF Meeting

Hi all, Reminding that the Common Classification Framework meeting is today 1400 UTC @ #openstack-meeting. Agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/CommonClassificationFramework#Discussion_Topic_18_April_2017 Feel free to add more topics. Best regards, Igor.

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [third-party-ci] pkvmci ironic job breakage details

Hey Michael, On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Michael Turek wrote: > Hey ironic-ers, > > So our third party CI job for ironic has been, and remains, broken. I was > able to do some investigation today and here's a summary of what we're > seeing. I'm hoping someone

[openstack-dev] [cloudkitty] IRC Meeting

Dear OpenStackers Since the last IRC meeting related to Cloudkitty has been postpone, we have planned the next meeting on Tuesday 25th April 12:30 UTC Like usually this IRC meeting will be on #cloudkitty. I hope to see many of you there ! All the best Christophe Christophe

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] pingtest vs tempest

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Arx Cruz wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] uwsgi for API services - RSN

Ok, the patch series has come together now, and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456344/ remains the critical patch. This introduces a new global config option: "WSGI_MODE", which will be either "uwsgi" or "mod_wsgi" (for the transition). https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456717/6/lib/placement

[openstack-dev] [kuryr] Videoconf meeting for Actor refactor proposal

Hi Kuryrs, Tomorrow there's going to be a meeting to discuss Ilya's proposal for a refactor of Kuryr controller entities based on the actor model. The meeting will be held at: https://bluejeans.com/826701641 12:00 UTC I'll post the recording probably the day after. See you there, Toni

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] pingtest vs tempest

On Monday, 17 April 2017 18:28:24 CEST Ben Nemec wrote: > On 04/17/2017 10:51 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > We haven't got much feedback from TripleO core reviewers, who are > > usually more involved on this topic. I'll give a chance to let them > > talk because we take some actions based on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][sfc][fwaas][taas][horizon] where would we like to have horizon dashboard for neutron stadium projects?

Thanks for your feedback, all! It seems we have a consensus and the route is "(a) dashboard repository per project". I would suggest -dashboard as a repository name where is your main repo name. 2017-04-11 0:09 GMT+09:00 Akihiro Motoki : > Hi neutrinos (and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] pingtest vs tempest

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:07 AM Arx Cruz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [gnocchi] new measures backlog scheduling

On Mon, Apr 17 2017, gordon chung wrote: Hi Gordon, > i've started to implement multiple buckets and the initial tests look > promising. here's some things i've done: > > - dropped the scheduler process and allow processing workers to figure > out tasks themselves > - each sack is now handled

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] pingtest vs tempest

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec > wrote: > > > Tempest isn't really either of those things. According to another

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] pingtest vs tempest

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > > Tempest isn't really either of those things. According to another message > > in this thread it takes around 15 minutes to run just the smoke tests.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] blog post about being PTL in OpenStack

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:22:50PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Exceptionally, I'll self-promote a blog post that I wrote about my > personal experience of being PTL in OpenStack. > > http://my1.fr/blog/my-journey-as-an-openstack-ptl/ Thanks for writing this up Emilien - it aligns pretty well

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposing Florian Fuchs for tripleo-validations core

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:53:04AM +0200, Martin André wrote: > Hellooo, > > I'd like to propose we extend Florian Fuchs +2 powers to the > tripleo-validations project. Florian is already core on tripleo-ui > (well, tripleo technically so this means there is no changes to make > to gerrit

Re: [openstack-dev] Emails for OpenStack R Release Name voting going out - please be patient

Hi all, is there any new about the mailing issue? Still not received mine. Regards On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 1:51 AM Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 05:27:13PM -0500, Jay S Bryant wrote: > > I also didn't receive an e-mail. :-( > > > I don't think we need to

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposing Florian Fuchs for tripleo-validations core

+1! On 6.4.2017 11:53, Martin André wrote: Hellooo, I'd like to propose we extend Florian Fuchs +2 powers to the tripleo-validations project. Florian is already core on tripleo-ui (well, tripleo technically so this means there is no changes to make to gerrit groups). Florian took over many

[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Buildroot deploy image POC ready for testing

Hi all, Over the last couple of months I have been working on creating a smaller, more flexible deploy image for Ironic. It is now ready for testing, if anyone is interested. For this proof of concept I chose Buildroot [1], a well regarded, simple to use tool for building embedded Linux images.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Mistral][Murano] Glare client was added to global requirements

Awesome, thanks Mike! Looking forward to implementing Mistral/Glare integration. Renat Akhmerov @Nokia On 17 Apr 2017, 23:06 +0700, Mikhail Fedosin , wrote: > Hello! > > I'm happy to announce that recently glare client was added to openstack's > global requirements. Current

Re: [openstack-dev] [mistral] New CI Job definitions

Thanks Brad! So kombu gate is now non-apache, right? Thanks Renat Akhmerov @Nokia On 17 Apr 2017, 22:17 +0700, Brad P. Crochet , wrote: > Hi y'all... > > In the midst of trying to track down some errors being seen with tempest > tests whilst running under mod_wsgi/apache,