Hi team,
Tomorrow we discussed integration tests for Mistral and looks like we have
many ideas how we can improve them and what we also want to test.
The ideas were described in this etherpad:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MistralNewTestsDesign
Please, fill free to add your ideas about our in
Yes, in my opinion salt can completely replace astute/mcollective/rabbitmq.
Listen and respond to the events generated by nailgun, or any other plugin
- not a problem.
There is already some kind of plugin for salt that adds ability to execute
puppet on minions (agents) [1]
[1]
http://docs.saltstac
I think the tasks stuff is something different, though. A task is a
(potentially) long-running operation. So it would be possible for an action
to result in the creation of a task. As the proposal stands today, the
actions we've been looking at are an alternative to the document-oriented
PATCH HTTP
Hi Steve,
I'm following NHO this week at Munich, so I won't be able to attend this
meeting.
Re: my action, we need to identify a Gerrit query
Le 10 juin 2014 16:43, "Steve Gordon" a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Just a reminder that the next meeting of the NFV sub-team is scheduled for
> Wednesday June
On 11/06/14 15:07, Jamie Lennox wrote:
> Among the problems cause by the inconsistencies in the clients is that
> all the options that are required to create a client need to go into the
> config file of the service. This is a pain to configure from the server
> side and can result in missing optio
Hi Cu Volker,
Many thanks for catching this. I will fix this shortly.
Thanks,
Ramki
-Original Message-
From: Volker Lötterle [mailto:openst...@systems-networking.de]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:48 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] NFV in OpenStack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/14 13:10, Jamie Lennox wrote:
> Among the problems cause by the inconsistencies in the clients is that
> all the options that are required to create a client need to go into the
> config file of the service. This is a pain to configure from th
Hi Dmitry,
Sorry for the late reply. I will try this version of fix and let you know
the status.
Thanks,
Tizy
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko
wrote:
> Here's a fix that increases haproxy server timeout for Horizon to 48h:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97645/
>
> I've ma
> That said, I prefer to have resources actually be things that the software
> creates. An action
> isn't created. It is performed.
>
> I would prefer to replace the term "action(s)" with the term "task(s)", as is
> proposed for Nova [1].
Glance already uses "tasks" in the v2 URL for creating re
Hi guys,
Looks like gate-***-requirements test failed across all the projects
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:openstack/requirements,n,z
due to an overlap check failure? I saw a patch
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97893/ to revert the check but that patch
se
Hi oslo.messaging gurus,
When we're debugging a ceilometer bug #1320420, we find that for the oslo
messaging
notification listener, if we have multiple endpoints registered through
oslo.messaging.get_notification_listener(), and one of the endpoints raise an
exception,
that would stop all other
Among the problems cause by the inconsistencies in the clients is that
all the options that are required to create a client need to go into the
config file of the service. This is a pain to configure from the server
side and can result in missing options as servers fail to keep up.
With the sessio
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>
>
> > Over the last 7 days ceilometer unit test jobs have a 18% failure rate
> in the
> > gate queue [0], while we see expect to see some failures in integration
> > testing, unit tests should not be failing in the gate with such a high
> > f
Hi Ramki,
On 11.06.2014 00:06, ramki Krishnan wrote:>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k60BQXOMkZS0SIxpFOppGgYp416uXcJVkAFep3Oeju8/edit%23heading%3Dh.wlbclagujw8c&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=%2FZ35AkRhp2kCW4Q3MPeE%2BxY2bqaf%2FKm29ZfiqAKXx
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> On 05/30/2014 02:22 PM, Hemanth Makkapati wrote:
>> > Hello All,
>> > I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance community has
>> > decided to take for doing functional API. Als
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Elizabeth K. Joseph
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The OpenStack Infrastructure (Infra) team is hosting our weekly
> meeting on Tuesday June 10th, at 19:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting
Meeting minutes and log:
Minutes:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/
A lot of people forgot last time, so this is your reminder that this
week the Heat IRC meeting will be held at the alternate time:
Wednesday at 1200 UTC in #openstack-meeting
or in your local time zone:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140611T12
cheers,
Zane.
__
Wuhongning,
The code for forwarding traffic from a DVR serviced node to the default snat
gw node is now included in the latest L-3 agent patch posted at
(https://review.openstack.org/89413). It utilizes a combination of ip rules and
ip routes to implement policy based routing for snat traffic.
Howdy all,
Just wanted to send a mini-announcement about a new taskflow release,
After a failed 0.3 push (due to a pypi-push-bug, that’s fixed) we committed a
few adjustments and now have a published release that is ready for general use
@ https://pypi.python.org/pypi/taskflow/0.3.21
The detai
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 02:22 PM, Hemanth Makkapati wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance community has
> > decided to take for doing functional API. Also, I'm writing to solicit
> > your feedback on this approac
Hi Jorge,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jorge Miramontes <
jorge.miramon...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> 1) We are assuming that load balancers can only operate on one update at a
> time correct? I.E. We are not allowing multiple updates to occur
> concurrently? Whatever the case on this I advoca
Well we got a few opinions, but not enough understanding of the two
options to make an informed decision. It was requested that the core
reviewers respond to this thread with their opinions.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 13:22 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Yep, I'd like to know here,
On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hi Evgeny,
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Carlos, Vivek, German, thanks for reviewing the RST doc.
>
> There are some issues I want to pinpoint final decision on them
This is a minor bug-fix release. Deleting claimed messages now works as
expected. You can get the latest client from PyPI, and a tarball is also
available:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-marconiclient/
http://tarballs.openstack.org/python-marconiclient/
NOTE: Yes, the installation instructio
I think its a nice ideal to not depend on < 1.0 libraries but I don't
think it's possible currently,
When I did the design session I gathered some stats about this:
Global-requirements.txt installed in a venv (u can try this at home).
- 206 requirements installed
- 102 were >= 1.0
- 104 were <
Hi Steve,
Forgot to mention, the "Smart Scheduler (Solver Scheduler) enhancements for
NFV: Use Cases, Constraints etc." is a good example of an NFV use case deep
dive for OpenStack.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k60BQXOMkZS0SIxpFOppGgYp416uXcJVkA
Hi Steve,
We are have OpenStack gap analysis documents in ETSI NFV under member only
access. I can work on getting public version of the documents (at least a
draft) to fuel the kick start.
Thanks,
Ramki
-Original Message-
From: Steve Gordon [mailto:sgor...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
I wanted to update people on this bug [1], which until the weekend was
affecting the gate. After spending a week and a half debugging this
issue with Armax and Salvatore, we've come to the conclusion this is
not a Neutron issue. After adding some debug code to dump the guest VM
console when the fai
Of what use is a database that randomly delete rows? That is, in effect, what
you’re allowing.
The secrets are only useful when paired with a service. And unless I’m
mistaken, there’s no undo. So you’re letting users shoot themselves in the
foot, for what reason, exactly? How do you expect
It does make sense to me that this isn't something the Neutron API or LBaaS
API needs to deal with directly (ie. it is more of a back-end issue).
Therefore, using "shadow store" in the back-end isn't something which
should affect Neutron or LBaaS interfaces at all.
I also think Doug Wiegley is cor
I think that having Barbican decide whether the user is or isn’t allowed to
delete a secret that they own based on a reference count that is not
directly controlled by them is unacceptable. This is indeed policy
enforcement, and we’d rather not go down that path.
I’m opposed to the idea of refer
On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>
>> The new CI system can create packages as
>> Python wheels and publish them to the appropriate servers, which means
>> projects will no longer need to refer explicitly to pre-release
>> tarballs.
>
> The details are a bit more nuanced he
> Either those semantics are fundamental requirements for this API, or the
requirement to have support for traditional message brokers is the
fundamental requirement. We can't have it both ways.
This captures the key trade off well. I would generalize it a bit to say
that the larger the scope of t
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> As part of the push to release code from the oslo incubator in
> stand-alone libraries, we have had several different discussions about
> versioning and release schedules. This is an attempt to collect all of
> the decisions we have made in
Doug: Right, we actually have a blueprint draft for EXACTLY this, but the
Barbican team gave us a flat "not happening, we reject this change" on causing
a delete to fail. The shadow-copy solution I proposed only came about because
the option you are proposing is not possible. :(
I also realized
A third option, that is neither shadow copying nor policy enforcement:
Ask the Barbican team to put in a small api that is effectively, “hey, I’m
using this container” and “hey, I’m done with this container”, and the have
their delete fail if someone is still using it. This isn’t calling into o
Hi, Robert
For your first question, I suspect it's something wrong and should be
'devi_id', which is the hypervisor's identification for the device. I will
leave Yongli to have more comments on it.
For the second one, thanks for point the issue out. Yes, I'm working
on fixing i
Meeting ended Tue Jun 10 19:59:25 2014 UTC
Minutes:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/python_openstacksdk/2014/python_openstacksdk.2014-06-10-19.01.html
Minutes (text):
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/python_openstacksdk/2014/python_openstacksdk.2014-06-10-19.01.txt
Log:
http://eav
Right, service VMs are the biggest case for this, because then we WILL need to
be tracking the barbicanID even in the backend. I also agree that it would be
more useful for OpenStack as a whole if it were managed by a central service
(i.e., Barbican handles this issue) rather than having to dupl
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 21:59 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 17:33 +, Janczuk, Tomasz wrote:
> > From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a
> > *multi-tenant*, *HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent
> > of SQS or Azure Storage Queues.
I get the impression that the "right place" that the barbican team wants to
support is in the eventing system they're already planning on implementing.
But I understand that's also not on tap for Juno release, which means if we
want to use barbican in how we do TLS termination on LBaaS, we need an
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 17:33 +, Janczuk, Tomasz wrote:
> From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a
> *multi-tenant*, *HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent
> of SQS or Azure Storage Queues.
>
> As far as I know there are no off-the-shelve message brokers
Using processes to isolate tenants is certainly possible. There is a range
of isolation mechanisms that can be used, from VM level isolation
(basically a separate deployment of the broker per-tenant), to process
level isolation, to sub-process isolation. The higher the density the
lower the overall
On 6/4/2014 11:02 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
>Matt and I chatted on IRC and have come up with an outlined plan, if
we missed anything please don't hesitate to comment or ask.
>
>https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/quota-classes-goof-up
I added a few thoughts / questions
*From:*Joe Gordon [mailto:
Hi Yunhong & Yongli,
In the routine _prepare_pci_devices_for_use(), it’s referring to
dev[‘hypervisor_name’]. I didn’t see code that’s setting it up, or the libvirt
nodedev xml includes hypervisor_name. Is this specific to Xen?
Another question is about the issue that was raised in this review:
> Doug: The reasons a LB might be reprovisioned are fairly important — mostly
> around HA, for fail overs or capacity — exactly the times we're trying avoid
> a failure.
Certainly the ticking time bomb is a bad idea, but HA seems cleaner to do in
the backend, rather than at the openstack API le
On Jun 10, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Doug Wiegley
wrote:
>> In any case, it strikes me as misleading to have an explicit delete command
>> sent to Barbican not have the effect of making the key unusable in all other
>> contexts. It would be less surprising behavior, IMO, to have a deleted
>> barbican
Hi Jesse,
it would be great collaborate with you on this.
No, I didn’t update to nova-specs yet.
It would be good to discuss on IRC. My nick is belmoreira.
Belmiro
--
Belmiro Moreira
CERN
Email: belmiro.more...@cern.ch
IRC: belmoreira
On Tue, Jun 10, 2
On 06/10/2014 06:33 PM, Janczuk, Tomasz wrote:
From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a
*multi-tenant*,*HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent
of SQS or Azure Storage Queues.
As far as I know there are no off-the-shelve message brokers out these
that fi
Hi, we have been struggling with getting a meaningful set of metrics from LB
stats thru ceilometer, and from a discussion about module responsibilities for
providing data, an interesting idea came up. (Thanks Pradeep!)
The proposal is to consolidate some kinds of metrics as pool up time (hours)
Hi Adam,
If nothing else, we could always write a "garbage collector" process which
periodically scans for shadow containers that are not in use by any
listeners anymore and cleans them up. I suppose that's actually not a
difficult problem to solve.
Anyway, yes, I'm liking your suggestion quite a
Yep, I'd like to know here, too-- as knowing the answer to this unblocks
implementation work for us.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Brandon Logan wrote:
> Any core neutron people have a chance to give their opinions on this
> yet?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +,
What was discussed at yesterday's Neutron core meeting?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan
wrote:
> Any core neutron people have a chance to give their opinions on this
> yet?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +, Buraschi, Andres wrote:
> > Thanks, Kyle. Gre
Following the discussions in the ML2 subgroup weekly meetings, I have added
more information on the etherpad [1] describing the proposed architecture
for modular L2 agents. I have also posted some code fragments at [2]
sketching the implementation of the proposed architecture. Please have a
look w
Doug: The reasons a LB might be reprovisioned are fairly important — mostly
around HA, for fail overs or capacity — exactly the times we're trying avoid a
failure.
Stephen: yes, I am talking about storing the copy in a non-tenant way (on the
tenant-id for the LBaaS Service Account, not visible
Hi Evgeny,
Comments inline.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Carlos, Vivek, German, thanks for reviewing the RST doc.
>
> There are some issues I want to pinpoint final decision on them here, in
> ML, before writing it down in the doc.
>
> Other issues w
Here my feedback regarding the designs:
Page 2:
* I think that the admin would probably want to filter alarms per user,
project, name, meter_name, current_alarm_state("ok"="alarm ready";
"insufficient data" = "alarm not ready"; "alarm" ="alarm triggered"), but we
don't have all that co
On 06/10/2014 02:57 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:39 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
We've been begging for input on this
stuff at the board and dev list level for a while now.
And people are all ear now and leaving comments, which is good :) I
think adding a clear warning on stackalytics.
I responded in the other thread just now, but I did want to say:
The problem with a dangling reference is this might mean that the
associated Listener breaks at some random time after the barbican container
goes away. While this is "intuitive" and "expected" behavior if it happens
shortly after th
> In any case, it strikes me as misleading to have an explicit delete command
> sent to Barbican not have the effect of making the key unusable in all other
> contexts. It would be less surprising behavior, IMO, to have a deleted
> barbican container result in connected load balancing services b
Adam--
Wouldn't the user see the duplicate key/cert copy in their barbican
interface, or are you proposing storing these secrets in a
not-assigned-to-the-tenant kind of way?
In any case, it strikes me as misleading to have an explicit delete command
sent to Barbican not have the effect of making
Ruslan Kamaldinov wrote:
> Hi community and TC members!
> [...]
Please only follow-up on -dev! This shall keep this thread consistent.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/
Any core neutron people have a chance to give their opinions on this
yet?
Thanks,
Brandon
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +, Buraschi, Andres wrote:
> Thanks, Kyle. Great.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:2
See adams message re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Barbican Neutron
LBaaS Integration Ideas.
He's advocating keeping a shadow copy of the private key that is owned by the
LBaaS service so that incase a key is tampered with during an
LB update migration etc we can still check with the shad
Hello everyone.
We have collected a fine number of name proposals for the library part
of Horizon, and now it is time to vote for them. I have set up a poll on
CIVS, and if you contributed to Horizon within the last year, you should
receive an e-mail with the link that lets you vote.
If you didn'
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Gordon"
> To: "Stephen Wong"
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Stephen Wong"
> > To: "ITAI MENDELSOHN (ITAI)" ,
> > "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> > questions)"
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Perhaps I have missed it somewh
So, it looks like any sort of validation on Deletes in Barbican is going
to be a no-go. I'd like to propose a third option, which might be the
safest route to take for LBaaS while still providing some of the
convenience of using Barbican as a central certificate store. Here is a
diagram of the inte
#5 is a good reference point for the type of apps we can encounter in NFV.
I guess it's a good idea to start with it.
Itai
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 7:16 PM, "Steve Gordon" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Stephen Wong"
>> To: "ITAI MENDELSOHN (ITAI)" ,
>> "O
On 06/10/2014 10:39 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> We've been begging for input on this
> stuff at the board and dev list level for a while now.
And people are all ear now and leaving comments, which is good :) I
think adding a clear warning on stackalytics.com that the data from
DriverLog may not be accu
On 06/10/2014 01:58 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Stackers,
>
> OK, we are fully aware that there are problems with the early DriverLog
> data that is shown in the dashboard. Notably, the Nova driver stuff is
> not correct for the default virt drivers. We will work on fixing that ASAP.
>
> Our focus to
Hi community and TC members!
First a little bit of history:
Murano applied for incubation in February 2014 [1]. TC discussion [2]
finished the following resolution (quote from ttx):
"Murano is slightly too far up the stack at this point to meet the
"measured progression of openstack as a whole" r
I the last few days I attempted to implement a RabbitMQ (AMQP 0.9) storage
driver for Marconi. These are the take-aways from this experiment. High level,
it showed that current Marconi APIs *cannot* be mapped onto the AMQP 0.9
abstractions. In fact, currently it is not even possible to support a
Stackers,
OK, we are fully aware that there are problems with the early DriverLog
data that is shown in the dashboard. Notably, the Nova driver stuff is
not correct for the default virt drivers. We will work on fixing that ASAP.
Our focus to date has mostly been on the Cinder and Neutron driv
Ok but we still need input from Stephen Balukoff and Jorge to see how this
will integrate with the API being proposed. I'm not sure if they were intending
to use the attributes your discussing as well as which object was going to
contain them.
On Jun 10, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk
wrote:
To elaborate on the case where containers get deleted while LBaaS still
references it.
We think that the following approach will do:
* The end user can delete a container and leave a "dangling" reference
in LBaaS.
* It would be nice to allow adding meta data on the container so
On 06/10/2014 01:00 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Sorry, I do feel like it's kind of crazy and irresponsible to throw data
out there with something as wrong as 'OpenStack doesn't test QEMU' and
then follow that up with 'Oh, file a bug to fix it!'.
Then promote it to something as prominent as stackalytic
>From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a
*multi-tenant*, *HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent
of SQS or Azure Storage Queues.
As far as I know there are no off-the-shelve message brokers out these
that fit that bill.
Note that when I say ³multi-tenant²
Hi Devs/All,
Does any one have comments/objections for following interim solution?
1. Add a config option to enable/disable parameter encryption and set
default value to disable
2. Encrypt parameters that were marked as hidden or encrypt all parameters
IMO, when a template author marks a parameter
Cool,
Thanks.
--
Sean M. Collins
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> Will Marconi only support HTTP as a transport, or will it add other
>protocols as well?
We are focusing on HTTP for Juno, but are considering adding a
lower-level, persistent transport (perhaps based on WebSocket) in the K
cycle.
> Can anyone describe what is unique about the Marconi design wit
On 06/10/2014 05:27 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
I think the crux of the issue is that Marconi follows the REST
architectural style. As such, the client must track the state of where it
is in the queue it is consuming (to keep the server stateless). So, it
must be given some kind of marker, allowing
Hi Rich
I'm able to solve the problem regarding PAPR in libguestfs on my powerpc
ubuntu.By default the libguestfs was configuring pseries machine and
afterwards I changed it to my original machine i.e ppce500 .The changes are
performed in ./src/guestfs-internal.h file.
However still my VM is stuc
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane
> > thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is
> > necessary to achieve your goals.
>
Sorry, I do feel like it's kind of crazy and irresponsible to throw data
out there with something as wrong as 'OpenStack doesn't test QEMU' and
then follow that up with 'Oh, file a bug to fix it!'.
Then promote it to something as prominent as stackalytics.
I mean... guys... seriously? :)
Thanks Jay.
Whatever inaccuracies or errors you see with DriverLog, please file a bug
or an update request:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/DriverLog#How_To:_Add_a_new_driver_to_DriverLog.
Also, we are more than happy to hear any suggestions on what information to
display and how to call what. A
On 06/10/2014 10:09 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
>> Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane
>> thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is
>> necessary to achieve your goals.
>
> What is cert
On 06/10/2014 12:32 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/10/2014 11:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/10/2014 09:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/10/2014 09:14 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
On 06/10/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at
I've been seeing failures from the requirements gating check on changes
proposed by the requirements bot. It's actually complaining that the
proposed changes don't match what's in global-requirements.txt, even
though they are textually identical. An example is here:
http://logs.openstac
> What are 'message feeds' in the Marconi context, in more detail? And
>what aspect of them is it that message brokers don't support?
Great question. When I say “feeds” I mean a “feed” in the sense of RSS or
Atom. People do, in fact, use Atom to implement certain messaging
patterns. You can think
Hi Luke,
Very impressive solution!
I do not think there is a problem to keep agent out of the tree in a short
term, but would highly recommend to put it upstream in a longer term.
You will benefit from quite valuable community review. And most important it
will allow to keep your code as much as
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Wong"
> To: "ITAI MENDELSOHN (ITAI)" , "OpenStack
> Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)"
>
> Hi,
>
> Perhaps I have missed it somewhere in the email thread? Where is the
> use case => bp document we are supposed to do for this
As part of the push to release code from the oslo incubator in
stand-alone libraries, we have had several different discussions about
versioning and release schedules. This is an attempt to collect all of
the decisions we have made in those discussions and to lay out the
rationale for the approach
Sorry, replied to wrong ML...
Original Message
Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:37:38 -0400
From: Jay Pipes
To: openstack...@lists.openstack.org
On 06/10/2014 09:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/10/2014 09:14 AM, An
Hi Sean,
On 10 June 2014 18:09, Collins, Sean
wrote:
> One of the links that is posted in that review comment for the Tail-f
> NCS Jenkins timed out for me.
>
> http://egg.snabb.co:8080/job/jenkins-ncs/19/
>
> I notice that there is another link included in that review that does
> work and has t
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:33:49AM EDT, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> Here is a successful Sandbox test from right now:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99061/. I don't immediately see how to
> list all historical sandbox tests. (The previous ones are from before the
> Summit anyway.)
One of
Hi Tim,
In our current implementation of Smart (Solver) Scheduler, the constraints are
defined as pluggable modules (just like filter definitions in the filter
scheduler) and are pulled in together when necessary to solve the scheduling
decision. And regarding the data that we get from diffe
Hi Tim,
Agree, Congress is a good place to store the scheduling constraints.
Thanks,
Ramki
-Original Message-
From: Tim Hinrichs [mailto:thinri...@vmware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:21 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Norival Figueira; Debo
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Ilya Shakhat wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Tail-f driver seems to be configured correctly. DriverLog will poll Gerrit
> in the next 4 hours and update driver details screen.
>
> Regarding green mark on summary screen - it is shown for those drivers that
> have configured CI an
Hi!
Tail-f driver seems to be configured correctly. DriverLog will poll Gerrit
in the next 4 hours and update driver details screen.
Regarding green mark on summary screen - it is shown for those drivers that
have configured CI and CI ran at least once. But it doesn't take into
account when the l
Hi all,
I see that many of the use cases require information from different OS
components, e.g. networking, compute, and storage. One thing to think about is
where those constraints are written/stored and how the data the constraints
depend on is pulled together. The Congress project might be
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
