Josh,
Yep let's just make experiment in Rally and I will share experience with
the rest of community.
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
S, just some thoughts,
If boris thinks this might help rally, why not just let him
On 06/03/2015 01:59 PM, John Griffith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com wrote:
There are a couple of cases [1][2] I'm seeing where new Cinder volume
drivers for Liberty are rebranding other volume drivers. This involves
inheriting off another volume
Anastasia, thank you!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Anastasia Urlapova aurlap...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Timur,
some numbers and devs recommendations you can find by link[0], it is our
HA Guid, feel free to contribute.
Nastya.
[0]
On 2015-06-03 13:22:50 -0700 (-0700), Joshua Harlow wrote:
[...]
I don't know if thats easy or not, but prolog seems like way
overkill.
[...]
Prolog is the extension mechanism Gerrit has settled on. If the goal
is to have Gerrit enforce voting permissions on changes based on
which files are
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 15:37:06 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt
On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
In the design that we have been building for a policy administration
database, we dont require a single policy in order to unify common
concepts such as hierarchical attributes and roles between the different
policies of Openstack services. This is
On 06/03/2015 01:43 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Assume that Keystone git tree owns that file. Nova adds an API via
microversions for an intermediate milestone that adds new policy in.
Deployers CD this version out, leaving Keystone at the previous release
version. Now Nova has code out there that
Several of us including Bruno Lago, Victoria Martinez de la Cruz (vkmc), Flavio
Percoco, Nikhil Manchanda (SlickNik), Vipul Sabhaya (vipul), Doug Shelley
(dougshelley66), and several others from the Trove team met in Vancouver and
were joined by some others (who I do not know by name) from
S, just some thoughts,
If boris thinks this might help rally, why not just let him try it?
If boris (and friends) will make the needed changes to jenkins or other
to have whatever ACL format (avoid a turing complete language please)
that says who can work in what directories in the rally
On 06/02/2015 12:57 PM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
Hello! I think it's a good time to discuss implementation of trusts in
Glance v2 and v3 api.
Currently we have two different situations during image creation where
our token may expire, which leads to unsuccessful operation.
First is connection
Hi All,
Unable to retrieve the secret in text/plain format generated from Barbican
order resource
Please find the curl command and responses for
*Order creation with payload content type as text/plain* :
[root@barbican-automation ~]# curl -X POST -H
'content-type:application/json' -H
Robert,
Some of the the consequences of splitting up repos:
- atomic changes become non-atomic
- cross-cutting changes become more complex
- code analysis has to deal with more complex setups (can't lint
across boundaries as readily, for instance)
- distribution and installation via
Hello Fellow Ironic-ers,
Below is the poll link for the Mid-Cycle. We are looking at holding the Sprint
in Seattle, WA [USA]. The proposed date is Aug 12-14.
Poll Link: http://goo.gl/forms/RJvq0uqfSD
Cheers!
John Stafford
Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2015 02:16:55 PM:
From: Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 06/03/2015 02:17 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Kilo v3 identity
[purely outside-looking-in observation below...]
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Andreas Jaeger a...@suse.com wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers
On 03/06/2015 19:55, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
In the design that we have been building for a policy administration
database, we dont require a single policy in order to unify common
concepts such as hierarchical attributes and roles between the
Hi everyone,
Just a quick reminder that the weekly OpenStack QA team IRC meeting will be
tomorrow Thursday, June 4th at 17:00 UTC in the #openstack-meeting channel.
The agenda for tomorrow's meeting can be found here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting
Anyone is welcome to
Oh. I think it might be possible if you use Heat template based
applications. As Murano has no clue how to merge two independent heat
templates it might create a new stack. That is why we use workflows to
define an expected behavior.
Thanks
Gosha
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Georgy
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-06-03 11:45:57 -0700 (-0700), Joshua Harlow wrote:
[...]
If boris (and friends) will make the needed changes to jenkins or
other to have whatever ACL format (avoid a turing complete
language please)
[...]
The proposal is to introduce Prolog into the Gerrit ACLs
On 06/03/2015 12:08 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/03/2015 07:22 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, talking with James Page (from Canonical, head of their server
team which does the OpenStack packaging), we believe it's best if we had
2 different distinct teams: one for
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-03 13:34:11 -0400:
On 06/03/2015 12:10 PM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
I definitely buy the idea of layering policies on top of each other.
But I'd worry about the long-term feasibility of putting default
policies into code mainly because it ensures
Hi, right now there is a little used (e.g. its not in any active
project these days) previous feature of pbr/global-requirements: we
supported things that setuptools does not: to whit, tarball and git
requirements.
Now, these things are supported by pip, so the implementation involved
recursing
On 03/06/2015 14:54, Henrique Truta wrote:
Hi David,
You mean creating some kind of delimiter attribute in the domain
entity? That seems like a good idea, although it does not solve the
problem Morgan's mentioned that is the global hierarchy delimiter.
There would be no global hierarchy
On 2015-06-03 11:45:57 -0700 (-0700), Joshua Harlow wrote:
[...]
If boris (and friends) will make the needed changes to jenkins or
other to have whatever ACL format (avoid a turing complete
language please)
[...]
The proposal is to introduce Prolog into the Gerrit ACLs to match on
file
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Chenhong Liu liuchenh...@unitedstack.com
wrote:
There is keystone/exception.py which contains Exceptions defined and used
inside keystone provide 4xx and 5xx status code. And we can use it like:
exception.Forbidden.code, exception.forbiddent.title
Hi David,
There needs to be some form of global hierarchy delimiter - well more to
the point there should be a common one across OpenStack installations to
ensure we are providing a good and consistent (and more to the point
inter-operable) experience to our users. I'm worried a custom defined
In the design that we have been building for a policy administration
database, we dont require a single policy in order to unify common
concepts such as hierarchical attributes and roles between the different
policies of Openstack services. This is because policies and hierarchies
are held
The propose-requirements job fail on updating the heat-translator repo
[1] since it has as requirement python-dateutil which is not in the
global requirements list.
Please either remove the requirement or get it into the global requirements.
I've also proposed the usual check-requirements job
There have been a number of comments regarding this in IRC in the last
week. I think we should at least straighten out how to do this even if it's
by hand.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:15 AM Sergii Golovatiuk sgolovat...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,
Are we going to add this feature to 7.0? There are
On 2015-06-03 20:15:05 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...]
You could still have one shared repository with the understanding
of who approves what. Working on one repo makes it easier to see
what the other team does.
[...]
For that matter, if different distros used different branches
This is interesting. I never saw such behavior. I don't think this is the
way how Murano supposed to behave. Is this a devstack version of Murano?
You probably see some issue here.
Thanks
Gosha
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Vahid S Hashemian
vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Gosha,
I am happy to share that the Keystone module[0] has now been designated
as a 'Puppet Approved Module'[1]. At a high level, this designation
means that the module meets Puppet Labs' expectations for quality and
usability.
Thank you to Hunter (and modules team) for helping guide the process and
On 06/03/2015 08:07 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers reviewing
proposed packaging changes needs to be aligned IMO - so I think it
I am not a big fan of putting admins through a multi-step process. It looks
like admins will need to learn unified policy file first, then 1 or 2 or more
releases later, learn about policy in the db. I understand we are doing things
incrementally. I would prefer that we come up with
On 06/03/2015 03:31 PM, Haïkel wrote:
2015-06-03 23:41 GMT+02:00 Allison Randal alli...@lohutok.net:
I have to disagree on that point, integration with underlying OS and low-level
services is important. If that integration doesn't exists, it's
off-loaded to the
operators. So downstream
-Original Message-
From: Eric Harney [mailto:ehar...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:54 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Rebranded Volume Drivers
On 06/03/2015 01:59 PM, John Griffith wrote:
We recently ran into an issue where nova couldn't write an image file due to
lack of space and so just quit reading from glance.
This caused glance to be stuck with an open file descriptor, which meant that
the image consumed space even after it was deleted.
I have a crude fix for nova at
Hello folks,
There has been discussion about adding user group support to the per-secret
access control list (ACL) feature in Barbican. Hence secrets could be marked as
accessible by a group on the ACL rather than an individual user as implemented
now.
Our understanding is that Keystone does
Some comments and questions in line. Thanks.
2015-06-03 11:27 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com:
Eric,
On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Eric Windisch e...@windisch.us wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com
wrote:
I have reflected on
Hi Haikel!
On 06/03/2015 06:28 PM, Haïkel wrote:
First, we all agree that we should move packaging recipes (to use a
neutral term)
and reviewing to upstream gerrit. That should *NOT* be delayed.
We (RDO) are even willing to transfer full control of the openstack-packages
namespace on github.
undefined
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
As long as there's some way to get the *declarative* policy from the system
(as a data file or as an API call) that sounds fine. But I'm dubious that
it will be easy to keep the API call that returns the declarative policy in
sync with the actual code that implements that policy.
Tim
On Wed,
On 6/3/15 6:16 PM, Bruns, Curt E wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Eric Harney [mailto:ehar...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:54 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Rebranded Volume Drivers
On
On 06/03/2015 09:21 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
I think it would be beneficial to have a single team and single PTL with
multiple sets of repos
This isn't the direction we're taking, sorry. Yes, we can try to work as
much as possible together, and try to have consistency across
distributions if
On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
If this doesn't match semver, then don't call it semvar versioning.
We should do what's right for the nova project, rather than try to
fit with an arbitrary set of versioning rules defined elsewhere.
Semver is hardly
On 06/03/2015 11:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
Hi, right now there is a little used (e.g. its not in any active
project these days) previous feature of pbr/global-requirements: we
supported things that setuptools does not: to whit, tarball and git
requirements.
Now, these things are
On 06/03/2015 01:30 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
So wouldn't that be more of an arguement to move as much of the
installation logic back into the python packages as possible.
So that pip install nova was a thing that you could do, and get
reasonable results, and then the packaging teams would
Hi,
Murano documentation about all internals is here:
http://murano.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
You probably need to take some example applications from here:
https://github.com/openstack/murano-apps
Take something simple like Tomcat and PostgresSQL. You will need to have an
image for
2015-06-03 23:41 GMT+02:00 Allison Randal alli...@lohutok.net:
TBH, I don't think pip or distro packaging are ever going to be the
right answer for fully configuring an OpenStack cloud. Because, there is
no one true cloud, there are a variety of different configurations and
combinations
On 06/03/2015 02:55 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
In the design that we have been building for a policy administration
database, we dont require a single policy in order to unify common
concepts such as hierarchical attributes and roles between the
On 2015-06-04 02:01:25 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
FYI, I'm also for having a separate namespace, just because adding more
than 150 Git repositories at once in /openstack will be a huge mess.
[...]
Simply from an infra standpoint there's no real distinction. We only
ended up with that
Thanks Gosha.
That's right. I have been using HOT based applications. I have not used
workflows before and need to dig into them.
If you have any pointers on how to go about workflows please share them with me.
Thanks.
Regards,
Hello everyone,
We are still struggling with Keystone bugs [1]. This is the only
showstopper for HCF. The plan is - we close this out tomorrow, make an
ISO and put it through smoke testing overnight. If the test results do
not show regression, we declare HCF on Friday, June 5thwith defining
Thanks Adrian, some questions and comments in-line.
2015-06-03 10:29 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com:
I have reflected on this further and offer this suggestion:
1) Add a feature to Magnum to auto-generate human readable names, like
Docker does for un-named containers, and
On 06/03/2015 08:15 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 06/03/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We could try to work as a single entity (RPM + deb teams), but rpm+yum
and dpkg+apt are 2 distinct worlds which have very few common
attributes. So even if it may socially be nice, it's not the right
Hello Sean!
+1 on defaults, resource-url style entries, hierarchy
But, in the interest of staying declarative, I am not comfortable with having
default policies in code.
I would rather have a default nova policy.json file in the nova code base and
if no policy.json is supplied, have the nova
Thanks for this topic, also, I think it is similar situation when
talking about keystone users, not only the instances's password.
在 2015/6/3 17:48, 郑振宇 写道:
Hi All,
The current OpenStack does not provide user password complexity
verification option.
When performing actions such as create
On 06/02/2015 08:39 PM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
4) Auto-abandon after N months/weeks if patch has a -1 or -2
```
If a change is given a -2 and the author has been unresponsive for at
least 3 months, a script will automatically abandon the change,
leaving a message about how the author can
From: Renat Akhmerov rakhme...@mirantis.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Global Requirements] Adding apscheduler to global
requirements
Date: 3 Jun 2015 16:48:08 GMT+6
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Thanks Doug, got it.
Ihar,
Reverting patches is unacceptable for Rally project.
This means that we merged bug and this is epic fail of PTL of project.
Let's take a look from other side, Ihar would you share with me
your password of your email?
You can believe me I won't do anything wrong with it.
And yes I don't
Hi team,
I'm working on HA / destructive / recovery automated tests [1] for
OpenStack clouds and I want to get some expectations from users, operators
and developers for the speed of OpenStack recovery after some destructive
actions.
For example, how long cluster should be unavailable if one of
Hi All,
The current OpenStack does not provide user password complexity verification
option.
When performing actions such as create instances, evacuate instances, rebuild
instances, rescue instances and update instances' admin password. The
complexity of user provided admin password has not
Looks like I forgot to add the link to [1] in the first email:
[1] https://github.com/stackforge/haos
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Timur Nurlygayanov
tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi team,
I'm working on HA / destructive / recovery automated tests [1] for
OpenStack clouds and I
Hi,
This issues was introduced when python-sahara client moved to using
keystone-client sessions. The keystone client has debug logs enabled and tries
to log all requests and responses. So when uploading a job binary the request
body has a binary content which is not printable from python’s
Hi Neil,
We're already having this discussion on the downstream list.
RDO is currently moving packages publication for RHEL/CentOS over CentOS
mirrors. That's just a matter of time and finish the tooling
automating the publication
process for source packages.
In the mean time, you can find
Timur,
some numbers and devs recommendations you can find by link[0], it is our HA
Guid, feel free to contribute.
Nastya.
[0]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HAGuideImprovements/TOC#HA_Intro_and_Concepts
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Timur Nurlygayanov
tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/03/2015 08:29 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Guys,
I will try to summarize all questions and reply on them:
*- Why not splitting repo/plugins?*
I don't want to make architectural decisions based on social or
not enough good tool for
On 06/03/2015 02:34 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 06/03/2015 12:16 AM, Jens Rosenboom wrote:
I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be
changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently
discard options that are not allowed for non-admins? For me it would
2015-06-01 13:40 GMT+02:00 John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com:
On 31 May 2015 at 14:15, Xu, Hejie hejie...@intel.com wrote:
Replied in line with prefix [alex]
-Original Message-
...
2)
We also agreed that all micro version bumps need a spec, to help avoid is
adding more bad things
Excerpts from Boris Pavlovic's message of 2015-06-02 16:36:20 -0700:
Jeremy,
the Infrastructure Project is now past 120 repos with more
than 70 core reviewers among those.
I dislike the idea of having 120 repos for single tool. It makes things
complicated for everybody:
On 02/06/2015 23:34, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
Hi Henrique,
I don't think we need to specifically call out that we want a domain, we
should always reference the namespace as we do today. Basically, if we
ask for a project name we need to also provide it's namespace (your
option #1). This
-Original Message-
From: John Garbutt [mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com]
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 7:41 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for api bug
fix or not?
On 31 May 2015 at
Hi Devs,
So for I have got following responses on the proposed solutions:
Solution 1: Return tuple containing headers and body from - 3 +1
Solution 2: Use thread local storage to store 'x-openstack-request-id' returned
from headers - 0 +1
Solution 3: Unique request-id across OpenStack Services
On 06/02/2015 06:16 PM, David Lyle wrote:
The Horizon project also uses the nova policy.json file to do role based
access control (RBAC) on the actions a user can perform. If the defaults
are hidden in the code, that makes those checks a lot more difficult to
perform. Horizon will then get to
Guys,
One more time it's NOT about reputation and it's NOT about believing
somebody.
It's about human nature. We are all making mistakes.
System that checks can code review merge patch is just extra check
to avoid unintentional mistakes of core reviewers and make things
self organized.
Best
We are excited to announce the release of:
stevedore 1.5.0: Manage dynamic plugins for Python applications
This release is part of the liberty release series.
With source available at:
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/stevedore
For more details, please see the git log history below
On 06/02/2015 10:40 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The
(I unfortunately need to quote a second time since Chris cut half of the
message below)
Le 03/06/2015 03:48, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 06/02/2015 07:25 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 06/02/2015 02:36 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
There used to be a project that I think was looking for an API like
this
On Wed, Jun 03 2015, Robert Collins wrote:
We *really* don't need a technical solution to a social problem.
I totally agree. The trust issues is not going to be solve with a tool.
--
Julien Danjou
;; Free Software hacker
;; http://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Le 02/06/2015 22:36, Andrew Laski a écrit :
On 06/02/15 at 11:28am, Alexis Lee wrote:
Andrew Laski said on Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:26:33AM -0400:
However what these parameters give users, versus orchestrating
outside of Nova, is the ability to have the instances all scheduled
as a single
On 06/03/2015 12:16 AM, Jens Rosenboom wrote:
I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be
changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently
discard options that are not allowed for non-admins? For me it would
make more sense to return an error in that
Hi all:
We have the instance action and action event for most of the instance
operations,
exclude: live-migration. In the current master code, when we do
live-migration, the
instance action is recorded, but the action event for live-migration is
lost. I'm not sure that
it's a bug or design
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:22:59AM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03 2015, Robert Collins wrote:
We *really* don't need a technical solution to a social problem.
I totally agree. The trust issues is not going to be solve with a tool.
+1 I can not believe people will commit
Where are the source RPMs that correspond to the binary RPMs at
https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack/openstack-kilo/el7/ ?
I guess that
https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack/openstack-kilo/testing/source/
might be quite close - but the 'testing' in this URL suggests that
Guys,
I will try to summarize all questions and reply on them:
*- Why not splitting repo/plugins?*
I don't want to make architectural decisions based on social or
not enough good tool for review issues.
If we take a look at OpenStack that was splited many times: Glance,
Cinder, ...
we
-Original Message-
From: Jens Rosenboom [mailto:j.rosenb...@x-ion.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 2:17 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for api bug
fix or not?
2015-06-01 13:40
-Original Message-
From: Xu, Hejie [mailto:hejie...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 3:34 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for api bug
fix or not?
-Original
Hi David,
it looks like a bug for me (as a user) just because I don't want to get
'dirty' config in the result. And looks like it should be easy to fix, we
can just verify parameters from DEFAULT section and add them to the
specific section only if we need to set another value for this parameter.
Great thanks for your votes! Thanks for trust in this challenging role.
I don't know what to say more :-)
Regards
Filip
On 06/02/2015 05:17 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote:
Filip, my congratulations! Welcome!
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Stan Lagun sla...@mirantis.com
mailto:sla...@mirantis.com
On 2 June 2015 at 23:48, Kevin L. Mitchell kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 16:16 -0600, David Lyle wrote:
The Horizon project also uses the nova policy.json file to do role
based access control (RBAC) on the actions a user can perform. If the
defaults are hidden in
On 2 June 2015 at 17:22, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
Nova has a very large API, and during the last release cycle a lot of
work was done to move all the API checking properly into policy, and not
do admin context checks at the database level. The result is a very
large policy file -
Le 03/06/2015 04:17, Chris Friesen a écrit :
On 06/02/2015 07:48 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/02/2015 07:25 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
In many cases only nova-compute can resolve races (resource tracking of
specific CPU cores, specific PCI devices, etc. in the face of parallel
scheduling) so
Robert Collins said on Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:12:35AM +1200:
So I'd like us to really get our heads around the idea that folk are
able to make promises ('I will only commit changes relevant to the DB
abstraction/transaction management') and honour them. And if they
don't - well, remove their
Doesn’t this overlap with the work done for the OSProfiler ?
More comments inline.
Miguel Ángel Ajo
On Wednesday, 3 de June de 2015 at 11:43, Kekane, Abhishek wrote:
Hi Devs,
So for I have got following responses on the proposed solutions:
Solution 1: Return tuple containing
When trove-mgmt-client can be ready?
--
Best
Li Tianqing__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
On 06/02/2015 06:27 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com
mailto:ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Since this a cross project concern, sending it out to the wider
mailing list:
We have a sub-effort in Keystone to do better access
Thanks Doug, got it.
Limor, can you please explain why exactly do you need this library?
Renat Akhmerov
@ Mirantis Inc.
On 02 Jun 2015, at 18:45, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
Excerpts from Renat Akhmerov's message of 2015-06-02 18:26:40 +0600:
Any comments from TC on that?
Many thanks, Haïkel, that looks like the information that my team needed.
Neil
On 03/06/15 11:18, Haïkel wrote:
Hi Neil,
We're already having this discussion on the downstream list.
RDO is currently moving packages publication for RHEL/CentOS over CentOS
mirrors. That's just a matter
On 06/03/2015 12:32 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Guys,
One more time it's NOT about reputation and it's NOT about believing
somebody.
It's about human nature. We are all making mistakes.
And if we do, we can always revert a patch.
System that checks can code review merge patch is just extra
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:04 AM liusheng liusheng1...@126.com wrote:
Thanks for this topic, also, I think it is similar situation when talking
about keystone users, not only the instances's password.
In the past we've talked about having more advanced password management
features in Keystone
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
