Hi,
I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for blueprint
libvirt-disk-discard-option.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112977/
approved spec:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/85556/
blueprint was approved, but its status was changed to "Pending Approval"
because of FF.
https://blueprin
I agree. Also, as this does not preclude using the incubator when it is
ready, this is a good way to start iterating on implementation in parallel
with those issues being addressed by the community.
In my view, the issues raised around the incubator were significant enough
(around packaging, handl
Sumit
Thanks for initiating this and also good discussion today on the IRC.
My thoughts are that it is important to make this available to potential
users and customers as soon as possible so that we can get the necessary
feedback. Considering that the neutron cores and community are battling
nova
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Gauvain Pocentek <
gauvain.pocen...@objectif-libre.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A bit of background: I'm working on the publication of the HOT resources
> reference on docs.openstack.org. This book is mostly autogenerated from
> the heat source code, using the sphinx XML o
does it require bp or bug report to submit oslo.concurrency patch ?
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Zang MingJie,
>
> Can you please consider submitting a review against oslo.concurrency?
>
>
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.concurrency/tree/oslo/concurre
Hi,
A bit of background: I'm working on the publication of the HOT
resources reference on docs.openstack.org. This book is mostly
autogenerated from the heat source code, using the sphinx XML output. To
avoid publishing several references (one per released version, as is
done for the OpenStac
Sorry there was typo in the patch should be @validation and not @(validation
Please change that in vm_perf.py
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:51 PM, "masoom alam"
mailto:masoom.a...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why this is so when I patched with your sent patch:
http://paste.openstack.org/show
Hi all,
As the resident non-octavia-VM person, here are my two pennies.
"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection”
That’s all the driver layer is.
> 1. We will only support one driver per controller, e.g. if you upgrade
> a driver you deploy a new c
2014-09-04 22:36 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
> On 09/04/2014 09:30 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd like to request FFE for patches of v3-api-schema.
>> The list is the following:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67428/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103437/
>> https://review.open
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>
> On 09/04/2014 12:11 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>
>> I think that having a shared review team across all of the drivers
>> has definite benefits in terms of coherency and consistency - it is
>> very easy for experts on one technology to become t
Hi,
Stephen visited us today (the joy of spending some days in Seattle☺) and we
discussed that further (and sorry for using VM – not sure what won):
1. We will only support one driver per controller, e.g. if you upgrade a
driver you deploy a new controller with the new driver and either
Congrats to making it to 1.0!
May there be many more :)
Sent from my really tiny device...
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:18 PM, "James E. Blair" wrote:
>
> Announcing Gertty 1.0.0
>
> Gertty is a console-based interface to the Gerrit Code Review system.
>
> If that doesn't sound interesting to you,
Hi Paula,
Thank you for your comment.
I would like to discuss the API document in the community,
and to build a consensus to the specification.
I saw your comments at the Wiki discussion page,
and we also think these points are very important.
> Suggestion about Data Types
Certainly, we should
Why this is so when I patched with your sent patch:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/106196/
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 09/03/2014 11:47 AM, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu) wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> Looking into the following blueprint which requires that network
>> performance tes
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 11:32 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>>>
On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bit
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:37 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
> While the Keystone team has made pretty good strides toward Federation
> for getting a Keystone token, we do not yet have a complete story for
> Horizon. The same is true about Kerberos. I've been working on this,
> and I want to inform th
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
> If you're ready to give it a shot, here's what to do:
>
> pip install gertty
> wget
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/gertty/plain/examples/openstack-gertty.yaml
> -O ~/.gertty.yaml
> # edit ~/.gertty.yaml and update anything that sa
- Original Message -
> On 09/04/2014 11:32 AM, Vladik Romanovsky wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I very much agree with Dan's the propsal.
> >
> > I am concerned about difficulties we will face with merging
> > patches that spreads accross various regions: manager, conductor,
> > scheduler, etc..
>
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> I, for one, welcome our new gertty overlords.
>
> As an early pre-release user who also sits on aeroplanes a lot, I have
> found gertty to be a MASSIVE productivity increase. I cannot possibly
> recommend it highly enough.
>
> Thank you for y
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:30:51 +0900
"Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to request FFE for patches of v3-api-schema.
> The list is the following:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67428/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103437/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103436/
> https://re
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:08:09 +0900
"Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to request FFE for v2.1 API patches.
>
> This request is different from Christopher's one.
> His request is for the approved patches, but this is
> for some patches which are not approved yet.
>
> https://review.open
On 09/04/2014 04:17 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Announcing Gertty 1.0.0
Gertty is a console-based interface to the Gerrit Code Review system.
If that doesn't sound interesting to you, then just skip right on to
the next message. This mailing list gets a lot of traffic, and it's
going to take you
Congress isn’t incubated yet, so it won’t be a part of the official release.
There’s a command-line interface in review right now. The horizon integration
will be along not long after.
Tim
On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Baohua Yang
mailto:yangbao...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Congrats!
Will appear in J
On 09/04/2014 12:11 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
I think that having a shared review team across all of the drivers
has definite benefits in terms of coherency and consistency - it is
very easy for experts on one technology to become tunnel-visioned on
some points and miss the wider, cross project
Hi Folks!
Glance is going to have a bug day on Thursday, 9/11. During that day we
are asking people to take a break from feature work and help fix and/or
review glance and glanceclient bugs for the day. As of today, glance has
109 unconfirmed (marked "new") bugs out of 157 open bugs. It would
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
side effect of our effort to split out the scheduler will help but
not solve this problem).
The difference between Dan's proposal and the Gantt split is that Dan's
proposal featu
Approved.
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 02:42 PM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to request a FFE for 4 changesets to complete the
>> blueprint serial-ports.
>>
>> Topic on gerrit:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org
Approved.
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> 2014-09-04 20:34 GMT+09:00 Christopher Yeoh :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to request a FFE for 4 changesets from the v2-on-v3-api
>> blueprint:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113814/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c
So, that's your three. This exception is approved.
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 03:46 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:09:26PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
>>> I'd like to request a FFE for the remaining changes from
>>>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
[Heavy snipping because of length]
> The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
> follow this lead and split the nova virt drivers out into separate
> projects and delegate their maintainence to new dedicated tea
Announcing Gertty 1.0.0
Gertty is a console-based interface to the Gerrit Code Review system.
If that doesn't sound interesting to you, then just skip right on to
the next message. This mailing list gets a lot of traffic, and it's
going to take you a while to read it all in that web browser you'
On 09/04/2014 09:36 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
Hi,
I do not think that Nova is in a death spiral. I just think that the
current way of working at the moment is strangling the project. I do not
understand why we need to split drivers out of the core project. Why not
have the ability to provide Œcore r
Thanks Daniel for taking the time to write such deep message. Obviously
you have thought about this issue for a long time and your opinion comes
from deep personal understanding. I'm adding tags for neutron and
cinder, as I know they're having similar conversations.
I don't have a strong opinion o
On 09/04/2014 06:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Position statement
> ==
>
> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
> steps are not taken to avert this, the project is likely to loose
> a
On 05/09/14 04:51, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:32:53PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bitter
While the Keystone team has made pretty good strides toward Federation
for getting a Keystone token, we do not yet have a complete story for
Horizon. The same is true about Kerberos. I've been working on this,
and I want to inform the people that are interested in the approach, as
well as get
On 4 September 2014 23:42, Nejc Saje wrote:
>
>
> On 09/04/2014 11:51 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> It doesn't contain that term precisely, but it does talk about replicating
> the buckets. What about using a descriptive name for this parameter, like
> 'distribution_quality', where the higher the v
Approved.
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>
>> I'm good with this one too, so that makes three if Joe is ok with this.
>
>
> I am ok with this, I hope the move to oslo.db will fix a few bugs for us and
> th
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> Did you have a specific goal/date in mind for when you might start to
> finalize this list? I am guessing at least after the dust settles on J-3 and
> possibly even the first RCs but just curious.
Good question. Looking at the release cale
These look good to me, I will be your third core. The middle one has
some comments from Jay, but it didn't look like a big deal
Approved.
@John: can you please remove your -2's on 104048, 74537, and 99974?
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>
> On 09/04/2014 09:25 AM,
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but perhaps could have done a better
job at it) that we a
(see comments inline)
- Original Message -
> From: "Jay Pipes"
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 2:34:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Feature Freeze Exception process for Juno
>
> On 09/03/2014 11:57 AM, Solly Ross wrote:
> >> I will
I'll be the third core here. Approved.
@John: can you please remove your -2 from this one?
Michael
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 03:35 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 03:07 PM, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'd like to ask for a feature freeze
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> Position statement
> ==
>
> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
> steps are not taken to avert this, the project is likely to
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Position statement
> ==
>
> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
> steps are not taken to avert this, the project is likely to l
On 09/04/2014 08:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
As a core dev I want to feel that I'm still able to do valuable code
submission myself, while also doing the important code review work.
IOW, I don't want to end up with core team job requiring 100% of time
to be spent on review cycles, as from my
On 09/04/2014 03:35 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 03:07 PM, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for the
>> config-drive-image-property.
>>
>> The spec has been approved, and the corresponding patch
>> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7702
On 09/04/2014 03:07 PM, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for the
config-drive-image-property.
The spec has been approved, and the corresponding patch
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77027/ ) has been +W three time, but failed
to be merged in
On 09/03/2014 02:10 PM, Vladik Romanovsky wrote:
+1
I had several pacthes in "start lxc from block device" series. The blueprint
was waiting since Icehouse.
In Juno it was approved, however, besides Daniel Berrange no one was looking at
these patches.
Now it's being pushed to Kilo, regadless o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keystone logs auth tokens in URLs at the INFO log level
- ---
### Summary ###
When a client accesses Keystone using the Identity API version 2, the
tokens will be logged as part of some request URLs. Specifically all
requests to the tokens resource wi
Hi,
I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for the
config-drive-image-property.
The spec has been approved, and the corresponding patch
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77027/ ) has been +W three time, but failed
to be merged in the end because of gate issue and conflict on
no
Hi Xu Han,
Since I sent my message yesterday there has been some more discussion
in the review on that patch set. See [1] again. I think your
assessment is likely correct.
Carl
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70700/37/neutron/agent/l3_ha_agent.py
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Xu Han Pe
Sounds OK to me, assuming we can get this done in the next week so the
team still has time for comprehensive testing (and we commit thereto)
before the RC.
On 9/4/14, 1:39 PM, "Flavio Percoco" wrote:
>On 09/04/2014 06:01 PM, Victoria Martínez de la Cruz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to r
Hi
during this week's cinder weekly meeting [1], we discussed plans for
Kilo, a discussion that started at the mid-cycle meetup [2]. The
outcome is that we (the cinder core team and extended community) want
to focus on stability and code clean-up in the Kilo release, and
paying off some of the tec
On 09/04/2014 06:01 PM, Victoria Martínez de la Cruz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to request a FFE for 3 change sets to complete the
> API v1.1 Response Document Changes blueprint.
>
> Topic on Gerrit:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/api-v1,n,z
>
> Blueprint on Launchpad:
> http
On 09/03/2014 11:57 AM, Solly Ross wrote:
I will follow up with a more detailed email about what I believe we are
missing, once the FF settles and I have applied some soothing creme to
my burnout wounds, but currently my sentiment is:
Contributing features to Nova nowadays SUCKS!!1 (even as a co
Openstack,
My name is Amit Gandhi. A few months ago (just before the Atlanta Summit)
our team started to seek partners who shared an interest in building a
vendor-neutral and open API that leverages existing CDN providers in an
open source friendly way.
Abstract:
OpenStack operators have many ch
On Sep 3, 2014, at 5:48 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> On Wed Sep 3 19:23:52 UTC 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm proposing a freeze exception for the oslo.messaging AMQP 1.0
>>> driver:
>>>
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75815
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> > Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose
> during
> >
>
>> Anyway, not enough to -1 it, but enough to at least say something.
>
>>
>
>
>
> .. but I do not want to get into the discussion about software testing
>
> here, not the place really.
>
>
>
> However, I do think it is very harmful to respond to FFE request with
>
> such blanket statements and
> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
> the TC meeting
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > So, honestly,
Hi Flavio,
On 09/04/2014 08:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
- Concern on should we really reinvent a queue system rather than
piggyback on one
As mentioned in the meeting on Tuesday, Zaqar is not reinventing message
brokers. Zaqar provides a service akin to SQS from AWS with an OpenStack
flavor on
On 09/04/2014 04:25 AM, Sergey Nikitin wrote:
Hello.
I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for the instance tags API
extension:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97168/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103553/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107712/
approved spec https://review.openst
Hi all,
This is an issue that has been discussed quite a few times. As I was fearing the
bottleneck effect is getting worse with each release.
Nova grew simply too much and even though features like networking and block
storage have been spun off at some point in time, it still lacks the cohesion
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:23 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> Sorry for another top post, but I like how Nikola has pulled this
> problem apart, and wanted to respond directly to his response.
>
> On 3 September 2014 10:50, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> > The reason many features including my own may not make
On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:38 AM, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
>> It has been pointed out to me that one case where it won't be so easy is
>> osl
On 09/04/2014 11:23 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> Sorry for another top post, but I like how Nikola has pulled this
> problem apart, and wanted to respond directly to his response.
>
Thanks John - I'm glad this caught your eye.
> On 3 September 2014 10:50, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> The reason many f
It can, by running your own... but again it seems far better for
core reviewers to decide if a change has potential or needs to be
abandoned--that way there's an accountable human making that
deliberate choice rather than the review team hiding behind an
automated process so that no one is to blam
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][FFE] Feature freeze exception for virt-
> driver-numa-placement
>
> On 09/04/2014 04:51 PM,
A major concern about several encryption features within Nova [1, 2] has been
the lack of secure key management. To address this concern, work has been
underway to integrate these features with Barbican [3], which can be used to
manage encryption keys across OpenStack.
We request a feature free
On 09/04/2014 11:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:41:48AM -0400, Dan Genin wrote:
>> I would like to request a feature freeze exception for
>>
>> LVM ephemeral storage encryption[1].
>>
>> The spec[2] for which was approved early in the Juno release cycle.
>>
>> Th
On 09/04/2014 09:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Vladik Romanovsky wrote:
Hello,
I would like to ask for an extension for libvirt-start-lxc-from-block-devices
feature. It has been previously pushed from Ice house to Juno.
The spec [1] has been appro
Hi all!
The Juno 3 milestone has been tagged, and I am very proud of everyone
who worked on it, especially over the last few weeks while I was away.
https://launchpad.net/ironic/+milestone/juno-3
We had targeted 14 blueprints to this milestone, and managed to land
13 of them! This includes a l
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 02:11:15 -0700:
> Hey Clint,
>
> Thanks for reading, some comments in-line:
>
> On 09/04/2014 10:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> - Concern on should we reall
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
> On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
> >> the meeting some concerns arose. I
Hopefully, our schedule for Kilo will be flexible enough to allocate a session
to discuss CI for Third Party in Neutron.
So, I completely agree with Sukhdev that all MLs iteration should get us into a
formal conclusion and later into guidelines/process for all CI owners.
Edgar
From: Sukhdev Kap
Hello contributors,
We have just released first version of python-magnetodbclient package [1]
Can be found in pypi here [2]
[1] https://launchpad.net/python-magnetodbclient/+milestone/1.0.1
[2]
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=display&name=python-magnetodbclient&version=1.0.1
--
Ilya Svirid
I would like to request a feature freeze exception for the Websocket Proxy to
Host Security.
The spec [1] was approved for Nova, and the patches [2] are currently sitting
there with one
+2 (courtesy of @danpb), with a +1 from Jenkins.
For a TL;DR on the spec, essentially this patch series implem
Hello magnetians,
Let me announce magnetodb juno-3 milestone release [1]
New version is available at pypi repo as well [2]
[1] https://launchpad.net/magnetodb/juno/juno-3
[2]
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=display&name=magnetodb&version=2014.2.b3
--
Ilya Sviridov
isviridov @ FreeNode
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:32:53PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > >On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > >>On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > >>>Steve Baker has started the proc
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Still"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List"
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to start the summit planning process for Paris by asking for
> people to brain storm a list of topics we might want to cover. We can
> then prioritize that list and make sure tha
On 09/04/2014 11:32 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
Steve Baker has started the process of moving Heat tests out of the
On 09/04/2014 08:54 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
> [...]
>> How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
>
> A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a
> cold and emotionless way to provide feedback on a c
Doug Wiegley wrote on 09/03/2014 11:24:24 PM:
> From:
>
> Doug Wiegley
> Date:
>
> 09/03/2014 11:25 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] collecting recheck
> command to re-trigger third party CI
>
> Hi all,
>
> May I suggest putting your feedback into this review, whi
On 09/04/2014 11:32 AM, Vladik Romanovsky wrote:
+1
I very much agree with Dan's the propsal.
I am concerned about difficulties we will face with merging
patches that spreads accross various regions: manager, conductor, scheduler,
etc..
However, I think, this is a small price to pay for having
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:11:22PM +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 4 September 2014 16:00, Solly Ross wrote:
> >> My only question is about the need to separate out each virt driver into a
> >> separate project, wouldn't you
> >> accomplish a lot of the benefit by creating a single virt project
> > Am I missing some compelling advantage of moving all these emergent
> > project-specific meetups to the Friday?
>
> One is that due to space limitations, we won't have nearly as many
> "pods" as in Atlanta (more like half or a third of them). Without one
> pod per program, the model breaks a
Le 04/09/2014 17:57, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:49:26PM +, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Actually, I think Sylvain's point is even stronger as I don't think
splitting the virt drivers out of Nova is a complete fix. It may
solve the review latency for the virt driver
On 4 September 2014 16:00, Solly Ross wrote:
>> My only question is about the need to separate out each virt driver into a
>> separate project, wouldn't you
>> accomplish a lot of the benefit by creating a single virt project that
>> includes all of the drivers?
>
> I don't think there's particu
Hi all,
I would like to request a FFE for 3 change sets to complete the
API v1.1 Response Document Changes blueprint.
Topic on Gerrit:
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/api-v1,n,z
Blueprint on Launchpad:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zaqar/+spec/api-v1.1-response-document-changes
The
On 09/03/2014 11:47 AM, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu) wrote:
Hi
Looking into the following blueprint which requires that network
performance tests be done as part of a scenario
I plan to implement this using iperf and basically a scenario which
includes a client/server VM pair
My experience with net
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:49:26PM +, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> Actually, I think Sylvain's point is even stronger as I don't think
> splitting the virt drivers out of Nova is a complete fix. It may
> solve the review latency for the virt driver area but, unless virt
> drivers are the bulk of
Actually, I think Sylvain's point is even stronger as I don't think splitting
the virt drivers out of Nova is a complete fix. It may solve the review
latency for the virt driver area but, unless virt drivers are the bulk of Nova
patches, the Nova core team will still be swamped with review requ
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:41:48AM -0400, Dan Genin wrote:
> I would like to request a feature freeze exception for
>
> LVM ephemeral storage encryption[1].
>
> The spec[2] for which was approved early in the Juno release cycle.
>
> This feature provides security for data at-rest on comput
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> [...]
> Am I missing some compelling advantage of moving all these emergent
> project-specific meetups to the Friday?
One is that due to space limitations, we won't have nearly as many
"pods" as in Atlanta (more like half or a third of them). Without one
pod per program, the
I would like to request a feature freeze exception for
LVM ephemeral storage encryption[1].
The spec[2] for which was approved early in the Juno release cycle.
This feature provides security for data at-rest on compute nodes. The
proposed feature protects user data from disclosure due t
On 09/04/2014 05:16 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> The main sr-iov patches have gone through lots of code reviews, manual
>> rebasing, etc. Now we have some critical refactoring work on the
>> existing infra to get it ready. All the code for refactoring and sr-iov
>> is up for review.
>
> I've been doi
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> >On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >>On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> >>>Steve Baker has started the process of moving Heat tests out of the
> >>>Tempest repository and into the
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:36:04PM +, Gary Kotton wrote:
> Hi,
> I do not think that Nova is in a death spiral. I just think that the
> current way of working at the moment is strangling the project. I do not
> understand why we need to split drivers out of the core project. Why not
> have the
+1
I very much agree with Dan's the propsal.
I am concerned about difficulties we will face with merging
patches that spreads accross various regions: manager, conductor, scheduler,
etc..
However, I think, this is a small price to pay for having a more focused teams.
IMO, we will stiil have to
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
