Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
Dmitry, If you chose to use Rally framework for testing there are 3 opportunities: - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in separated tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in your project tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in Rally repo Rally plugins can be used for all kinds of testing: (perf, scalability, load...) so you are killing two birds with one stone. P.S. I would imho prefer to keep all high quality plugins inside Rally repo to simplify operators life.. Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi ken1ohmi...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-10 16:48 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/10/2015 09:40 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. So in my case we can start with putting test code to ironic-inspector tree using tempest-lib, right? Yeah, right. Neutron is already doing that. maybe neutron/tests/api/ of Neutron repository will be a hint for it. Will it be possible to run tests on Ironic as well using plugin from ironic-inspector? Yeah, it will be possible. but I'm guessing ironic-inspector is optional and Ironic should not depend on the gate test result of ironic-inspector. So maybe you just need to run Ironic tests on ironic-inspector gate tests, right? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Cool, thanks! Does it mean that devstack-gate will also be updated to allow something like DEVSTACK_GATE_TEMPEST_PLUGINS=https://github.com/...;? Yeah, will be. The idea of this external interface is based on DevStack's one. I think we will be able to use it on the gate like that. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi --- On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each
Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
On 06/10/2015 11:57 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: Dmitry, If you chose to use Rally framework for testing there are 3 opportunities: - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in separated tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in your project tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in Rally repo Rally plugins can be used for all kinds of testing: (perf, scalability, load...) so you are killing two birds with one stone. P.S. I would imho prefer to keep all high quality plugins inside Rally repo to simplify operators life.. Hi, that sounds interesting, I'll have a look. Note, however, that Inspector integration testing highly depends on Ironic one, so unless Ironic adapts/agrees to adapt Rally, it will be hard to Inspector to do it. Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi ken1ohmi...@gmail.com mailto:ken1ohmi...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-10 16:48 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/10/2015 09:40 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. So in my case we can start with putting test code to ironic-inspector tree using tempest-lib, right? Yeah, right. Neutron is already doing that. maybe neutron/tests/api/ of Neutron repository will be a hint for it. Will it be possible to run tests on Ironic as well using plugin from ironic-inspector? Yeah, it will be possible. but I'm guessing ironic-inspector is optional and Ironic should not depend on the gate test result of ironic-inspector. So maybe you just need to run Ironic tests on ironic-inspector gate tests, right? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec forhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Cool, thanks! Does it mean that devstack-gate will also be updated to allow something like DEVSTACK_GATE_TEMPEST_PLUGINS=https://github.com/...;? Yeah, will be. The idea of this external interface is based on DevStack's one. I think we will be able to use it on the gate like that. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi --- On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][python3] use of six.iteritems()
On 06/09/2015 08:15 PM, Robert Collins wrote: I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports. I'd like to call attention to one little wart in that process: I get the feeling that folk are applying a massive regex to find things like d.iteritems() and convert that to six.iteritems(d). I'd very much prefer that such a regex approach move things to d.items(), which is much easier to read. Here's why. Firstly, very very very few of our dict iterations are going to be performance sensitive in the way that iteritems() matters. Secondly, no really - unless you're doing HUGE dicts, it doesn't matter. Thirdly. Really, it doesn't. At 1 million items the overhead is 54ms[1]. If we're doing inner loops on million item dictionaries anywhere in OpenStack today, we have a problem. We might want to in e.g. the scheduler... if it held in-memory state on a million hypervisors at once, because I don't really to to imagine it pulling a million rows from a DB on every action. But then, we'd be looking at a whole 54ms. I think we could survive, if we did that (which we don't). So - please, no six.iteritems(). Thanks, Rob [1] python2.7 -m timeit -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i in d.items(): pass' 10 loops, best of 3: 76.6 msec per loop python2.7 -m timeit -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i in d.iteritems(): pass' 100 loops, best of 3: 22.6 msec per loop python3.4 -m timeit -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i in d.items(): pass' 10 loops, best of 3: 18.9 msec per loop pypy2.3 -m timeit -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i in d.items(): pass' 10 loops, best of 3: 65.8 msec per loop # and out of interest, assuming that that hadn't triggered the JIT but it had. pypy -m timeit -n 1000 -s 'd=dict(enumerate(range(100)))' 'for i in d.items(): pass' 1000 loops, best of 3: 64.3 msec per loop That's awesome, because those six.iteritems loops make me want to throw up a little. Very happy to have our code just use items instead. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] shellcheck all .sh scripts in murano-deployment
Hi Kirill, +1 from my side, shellcheck + bashate can help to increase quality of CI scripts. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Igor Yozhikov iyozhi...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, I'm using shellcheck during automation scripts writing as linter and I believe that incorporation of this tool for additional verification in CI is good idea. Thanks, Igor Yozhikov Senior Deployment Engineer at Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com skype: igor.yozhikov cellular: +7 901 5331200 slack: iyozhikov On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Kirill Zaitsev kzait...@mirantis.com wrote: What would you say about adding a job to murano-deployment, that would launch shellcheck http://www.shellcheck.net/about.html against all .sh files? We looked at shellcheck when the idea for bashate was brewing, frankly the Haskell runtime requirement was a bit of a sticking point for DevStack, I've no idea what that situation is these days. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __ 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 __ 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 -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] oslo releasing is noisy...
Le 09/06/2015 18:31, Thierry Carrez a écrit : We are currently exploring the option to repurpose the openstack-announce ML to be the extensive record of release announcements. It's part of a larger plan to streamline library releases, about which Doug should start a discussion pretty soon now. In the Python community, there are Special Interest Groups (SIG) which have their mailing lists: distutils-sig, import-sig, mobile-sig, etc. https://www.python.org/community/sigs/ Maybe we can move some traffic to new mailing lists, like a new openstack-oslo@ list, instead of using tags in the subject? Anyone would be able to choose to subscribe or not to openstack-oslo. Victor __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 10/06/15 12:07, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote: Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e. checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc. I think we welcome input from distribution maintainers on global-requirements; especially for new packages. But, the responsibility is ultimately a team effort: all the components of openstack have to meet the operator/distributor co-installability requirement. If one project has a minimum version of X, its not possible for other projects to have a max version of X otherwise we're not coinstallable. This works both ways of course. My wording was not that good here. I know, some distro packagers are already looking at changes, but maybe this could be improved, i.e. intensified? It was more about: giving this more basic openstack effort a home in a project. In some distros, there are multiple versions of the same package allowed, in others, it's forbidden. Thats true, but its also a per-distro thing. Within a distro you need to be consistent. There's no need for RHEL to match RDO for instance, and trying to make that happen across a dozen redistributors in the OpenStack context makes no sense at all. We're moving to making our ranges as wide as we can to make life easier for anyone that wants to pick slightly different versions: we can't assert that it will work, but unless we know it doesnt', we won't preclude you trying :) Yes, that's right. But distros have an interest in being able to install the full stack somewhere. If we have conflicting requirements preventing that, it should be a target of the packaging project, to fix this. Currently, we (as OpenStack devs) are offloading those checks (and fixes) completely to distributions. Matthias __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] shellcheck all .sh scripts in murano-deployment
Hi, I'm using shellcheck during automation scripts writing as linter and I believe that incorporation of this tool for additional verification in CI is good idea. Thanks, Igor Yozhikov Senior Deployment Engineer at Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com skype: igor.yozhikov cellular: +7 901 5331200 slack: iyozhikov On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Kirill Zaitsev kzait...@mirantis.com wrote: What would you say about adding a job to murano-deployment, that would launch shellcheck http://www.shellcheck.net/about.html against all .sh files? We looked at shellcheck when the idea for bashate was brewing, frankly the Haskell runtime requirement was a bit of a sticking point for DevStack, I've no idea what that situation is these days. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote: Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e. checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc. I think we welcome input from distribution maintainers on global-requirements; especially for new packages. But, the responsibility is ultimately a team effort: all the components of openstack have to meet the operator/distributor co-installability requirement. If one project has a minimum version of X, its not possible for other projects to have a max version of X otherwise we're not coinstallable. This works both ways of course. In some distros, there are multiple versions of the same package allowed, in others, it's forbidden. Thats true, but its also a per-distro thing. Within a distro you need to be consistent. There's no need for RHEL to match RDO for instance, and trying to make that happen across a dozen redistributors in the OpenStack context makes no sense at all. We're moving to making our ranges as wide as we can to make life easier for anyone that wants to pick slightly different versions: we can't assert that it will work, but unless we know it doesnt', we won't preclude you trying :) -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
Hi Derek, I selected these 80 to move all of what RDO is currently maintaining on gerrithub to review.openstack.org, this was perhaps too big a set and in RDO we instead may need to go hybrid. Yeah, In my opinion we ahve lots of repeated divergence between the different python modules, so getting them sorted out in a small set of packages and then extending it to all python-* modules (and then as a 3rd step to all openstack-* modules) would be a better approach in my opinion (small steps). 1. pull what I've proposed (or a subset of it) into a rpm namespace and from there work in package to get them to a point where all rpm interested parties can use them. +1 3. Same as 2 but start with Suse packaging well, imho we should have a look at which starting point makes more sense for both of us. I see goods and bads in the spec files on both sides (of course my view is a bit biased on that :-) ). For this specific example I think differences of opinion are ok, we should provide the tools for each party interest in the packaging can hook in their own patches (I'm not sure what this would look like yet), I'm assuming here that we would also have deployer's out there interested who would have their own custom patches and bug fixes that they are interested in. Right, that might be a good solution (use pristine upstream packaging and provide tools for downstream to modify/add patches easily). For most of the python-* dependencies we have zero patches so its not a big issue for the initial step, it gets more complex as we get closer to the python*clients and openstack* packages, as we tend to have a need for patches in there that have not yet been merged upstream (for whatever reason). +1, maybe we should schedule something in a few days where we could go though the differences of a specific package and how things could take shape. Good idea. Whats a good time and date? I'm mostly available tomorrow-Sunday in the CEST time zone. Greetings, Dirk __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] shellcheck all .sh scripts in murano-deployment
+1, nice idea. Shell script are not easy to review - large files, not covered by unit tests. Any automatic tool could be beneficial. Regards Filip On 06/09/2015 09:58 PM, Kirill Zaitsev wrote: Folks, I’ve got another proposal, mainly to the guys, who deal with CI and test jobs daily. What would you say about adding a job to murano-deployment, that would launch shellcheck http://www.shellcheck.net/about.html against all .sh files? I use it, when reviewing .sh scripts (well, actually my vim does it for me =P) and although It has some excessive checks I find it quite useful. We could also add a similar job to murano-apps, since they use shell scripts quite often. Any objections to this idea? -- Kirill Zaitsev Murano team Software Engineer Mirantis, Inc __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 10 June 2015 at 11:07, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote: Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e. checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc. I think we welcome input from distribution maintainers on global-requirements; especially for new packages. But, the responsibility is ultimately a team effort: all the components of openstack have to meet the operator/distributor co-installability requirement. If one project has a minimum version of X, its not possible for other projects to have a max version of X otherwise we're not coinstallable. This works both ways of course. In some distros, there are multiple versions of the same package allowed, in others, it's forbidden. Thats true, but its also a per-distro thing. Within a distro you need to be consistent. There's no need for RHEL to match RDO for instance, and trying to make that happen across a dozen redistributors in the OpenStack context makes no sense at all. We're moving to making our ranges as wide as we can to make life easier for anyone that wants to pick slightly different versions: we can't assert that it will work, but unless we know it doesnt', we won't preclude you trying :) -Rob Just to add some history here, this was *precisely* the problems that vendors were having - but worse, each openstack project had conflicting version requirements making it really quite hard for distro's to centralise package this.. This is why the project, openstack/requirements was created to centralise the management of this to avoid conflicting version requirements AND get input back from distro's and vendors. The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Vendors and distro's didn't engage as much as they could have (myself included), which means that they had less input. It is pretty easy to get that input back, you just need to review the incoming changes: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/requirements+branch:master,n,z I did start working on a jenkins job to check distro's to see what version of package was already in releases, but it wasn't really reliable enough, so I dropped it on the floor. If you wanted to work on a jenkins job to provide advise on proposed changesets, I am sure the infra' team would be supportive. -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
Dmitry, We introduced recently dsvm rally ironic job: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187997/ Now we are working on Rally tests for Ironic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186064/ Don't hesitate to join us=) Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com wrote: On 06/10/2015 11:57 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: Dmitry, If you chose to use Rally framework for testing there are 3 opportunities: - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in separated tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in your project tree - Keep Rally plugins (tests) in Rally repo Rally plugins can be used for all kinds of testing: (perf, scalability, load...) so you are killing two birds with one stone. P.S. I would imho prefer to keep all high quality plugins inside Rally repo to simplify operators life.. Hi, that sounds interesting, I'll have a look. Note, however, that Inspector integration testing highly depends on Ironic one, so unless Ironic adapts/agrees to adapt Rally, it will be hard to Inspector to do it. Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi ken1ohmi...@gmail.com mailto:ken1ohmi...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-10 16:48 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/10/2015 09:40 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. So in my case we can start with putting test code to ironic-inspector tree using tempest-lib, right? Yeah, right. Neutron is already doing that. maybe neutron/tests/api/ of Neutron repository will be a hint for it. Will it be possible to run tests on Ironic as well using plugin from ironic-inspector? Yeah, it will be possible. but I'm guessing ironic-inspector is optional and Ironic should not depend on the gate test result of ironic-inspector. So maybe you just need to run Ironic tests on ironic-inspector gate tests, right? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec forhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Cool, thanks! Does it mean that devstack-gate will also be updated to allow something like DEVSTACK_GATE_TEMPEST_PLUGINS=https://github.com/.. .? Yeah, will be. The idea of this external interface is based on DevStack's one. I think we will be able to use it on the gate like that. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi --- On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad
[openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
Hi, QA folks! As ironic-inspector is joining the openstack/* crows, we're faces with integration testing question. At the summit we discussed with Devananda that it makes sense for inspector + ironic integration test to live in tempest with other bare metal tests. However, judging by https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent even Ironic integration tests will no longer be welcome in Tempest itself, to say nothing about pretty new Inspector. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. Cheers, Dmitry On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. Best Regards, Yuiko Takada(Inspector team member) 2015-06-08 20:38 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: Hello, Inspector team! The renaming process is going pretty well, the last thing we need to do is to get Infra approval and actual rename [1][2]. I'd like to allow people (e.g. myself) to start packaging inspector under it's new name, so I'd like to make 2.0.0 release as soon as possible (as opposed to scheduling it to particular date). All breaking changes should land by this release - I don't expect 3.0.0 soon :) I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I would like 2.1.0 to be released with Ironic Liberty and be properly supported. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Dmitry [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188030/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188798/ [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-ironic-discoverd [4]
Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
On 06/10/2015 09:40 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: Hi Dmitry, 2015-06-10 16:11 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com: Hi, QA folks! As ironic-inspector is joining the openstack/* crows, we're faces with integration testing question. At the summit we discussed with Devananda that it makes sense for inspector + ironic integration test to live in tempest with other bare metal tests. However, judging by https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent even Ironic integration tests will no longer be welcome in Tempest itself, to say nothing about pretty new Inspector. Yeah, right. On big-tent trend, it is difficult to cover/review test of all projects by a single Tempest-team. It is easy to imagine Tempest-team will be bottleneck of developments if continuing current way. +1 To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. So in my case we can start with putting test code to ironic-inspector tree using tempest-lib, right? Will it be possible to run tests on Ironic as well using plugin from ironic-inspector? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Cool, thanks! Does it mean that devstack-gate will also be updated to allow something like DEVSTACK_GATE_TEMPEST_PLUGINS=https://github.com/...;? Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. Best Regards, Yuiko Takada(Inspector team member) 2015-06-08 20:38 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: Hello, Inspector team! The renaming process is going pretty well,
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Liberty Priorties for Nova
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:48:36AM +0200, Andreas Scheuring wrote: Daniel, if I got it right, the vif script blueprint only is about plug/unplug operations and not about generating new xml representations for vif types. What if for a new vif type it's sufficient to have the get_config_* method updated? In this case plug/unplug would be handled by libvirt (like with many other existing vif types). The plug/unplug methods would just contain a pass. Would you tend to be supportive in such cases? Probably, but it depends if there is any overlap with existing VIF drivers in terms of libvirt config generated. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] doubt about static routes and host routes
Yes, static routes can be added to the router: https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/42529/how-to-add-extra-static-route-in-neutron-havana/ host_routes are routes advertised to the clients via DHCP, they don't apply to the router. I also would like to know use case of static routes of router and --host_routes of subnet ? Static routes can be used to get to a subnet reachable via one of your instances that acts as a router. That's just one use case. host_routes can achieve something similar so the instances don't have to go through the router if they are on the same subnet as the next hop. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Saju M sajup...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can we add static routes to the router which created by #neutron router-create command ? What is the defference static routes of router and --host_routes of subnet ? I also would like to know use case of static routes of router and --host_routes of subnet ? Regards Saju Madhavan +91 09535134654 __ 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 -- Kevin Benton __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
2015-06-10 16:48 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/10/2015 09:40 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. So in my case we can start with putting test code to ironic-inspector tree using tempest-lib, right? Yeah, right. Neutron is already doing that. maybe neutron/tests/api/ of Neutron repository will be a hint for it. Will it be possible to run tests on Ironic as well using plugin from ironic-inspector? Yeah, it will be possible. but I'm guessing ironic-inspector is optional and Ironic should not depend on the gate test result of ironic-inspector. So maybe you just need to run Ironic tests on ironic-inspector gate tests, right? After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Cool, thanks! Does it mean that devstack-gate will also be updated to allow something like DEVSTACK_GATE_TEMPEST_PLUGINS=https://github.com/...;? Yeah, will be. The idea of this external interface is based on DevStack's one. I think we will be able to use it on the gate like that. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi --- On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. Best Regards, Yuiko Takada(Inspector team member) 2015-06-08 20:38 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: Hello, Inspector team! The renaming process is going pretty well, the last thing we need to do is to get Infra approval and actual rename [1][2]. I'd like to
Re: [openstack-dev] [release][oslo] oslotest release 1.7.0 (liberty)
Hi All, this oslotest release break oslo.messaging gate - unittest fails with ImportError, on import mox from six.moves - [0]. It caused by commit [1], which removed adding mox to six moves. There is a fix for oslo.messaging - [2] - please, help to merge it. [0] - http://paste.openstack.org/show/281091/ [1] - https://github.com/openstack/oslotest/commit/9e0c8ad2c251274128499a7fcfb591c488d27d2b [2] - https://review.openstack.org/190136 Thanks, Victor On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:14 PM, d...@doughellmann.com wrote: We are content to announce the release of: oslotest 1.7.0: Oslo test framework This release is part of the liberty release series. With source available at: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslotest For more details, please see the git log history below and: http://launchpad.net/oslotest/+milestone/1.7.0 Please report issues through launchpad: http://bugs.launchpad.net/oslotest Changes in oslotest 1.6.0..1.7.0 5bd9b31 Updated from global requirements ff9b38e Fix argument handling in oslo_run_cross_tests 960e444 Add class to deal with clouds.yaml support 1c0863f Remove unneeded runtime pbr dep 5f2e635 Updated from global requirements f8a5a3c Advertise support for Python3.4 / Remove support for Python 3.3 a063f25 Do not sync run_cross_tests.sh 0782ab7 Remove unused discover dependency 9e0c8ad Remove six.moves call Diffstat (except docs and test files) - openstack-common.conf | 7 -- oslotest/__init__.py | 1 - oslotest/functional.py | 59 ++ oslotest/moxstubout.py | 2 +- requirements.txt | 3 +-- setup.cfg | 6 + tox.ini| 3 +-- 8 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) Requirements updates diff --git a/requirements.txt b/requirements.txt index 674130c..1486ede 100644 --- a/requirements.txt +++ b/requirements.txt @@ -5,2 +4,0 @@ -pbr=0.6,!=0.7,1.0 -discover @@ -14,0 +13 @@ mox3=0.7.0 +os-client-config=1.2.0 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
Excerpts from Matthias Runge's message of 2015-06-10 12:29:45 +0200: On 10/06/15 12:07, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote: Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e. checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc. I think we welcome input from distribution maintainers on global-requirements; especially for new packages. But, the responsibility is ultimately a team effort: all the components of openstack have to meet the operator/distributor co-installability requirement. If one project has a minimum version of X, its not possible for other projects to have a max version of X otherwise we're not coinstallable. This works both ways of course. My wording was not that good here. I know, some distro packagers are already looking at changes, but maybe this could be improved, i.e. intensified? It was more about: giving this more basic openstack effort a home in a project. Given the history of lack of interest, I would want to see a significant increase in reviews from that team before giving them control of the repository. Doug __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Barbican] Multiple KMIP servers on a single barbican
You would need to update the KMIPSecretStore or create a new SecretStore to handle this. The logic should be behind the SecretStore abstraction because Barbican only allows one active secret store. I would think that the configuration file would have a listing of available KMIP server URLs. The URL as to where each key is stored would not be in the DTO but rather in the metadata associated with a secret. The return calls for the generate and store methods would return this metadata. Then all of the other calls would need to parse the metadata to determine where the secret is stored, so it would contact the correct KMIP server. That's how I am envisioning it, but perhaps you have a better design in which case I would vote for that one :) -Nate __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] ThirdPartyCI: Tempest job fails with Unexpected termination of the channel
Can you check dmesg –T to see at least if the messages are not too old? Are you using port2 as a connection to VM? Lenny Verkhovsky From: Eduard Matei [mailto:eduard.ma...@cloudfounders.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:34 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] ThirdPartyCI: Tempest job fails with Unexpected termination of the channel Short story: - all runs of the tempest job are failing after ~ 1,5 - 2 hrs with FATAL: java.io.IOException: Unexpected termination of the channel and jenkins logs SEVERE: I/O error in channel d-p-c-local_01-1655 java.io.IOException: Unexpected termination of the channel Long story: - Host is 4 core Intel Xeon, 32GB RAM, 3x1TB HDD -- devstack is 2015.1.1, networking is done via n-net - Jenkins master is a VM, 2 core, 8 GB RAM, 500 GB disk -- not managed through devstack, but using virsh, networking done manually via iptables - test slaves are VMs, m1.large (4 VCPU, 8 GB RAM, trusty), managed by nodepool Load on master is usually around 6-7, memory usage around 90%, little swapping. I tried increasing ClientAliveInterval/ServerAliveInterval and ClientAliveCountMax/ServerAliveCountMax on both the Jenkins VM and on the test vm (using the job to configure), but it still fails with the above mentioned error. On the host, dmesg is full of: (not sure if directly related to this) [1037245.231196] br100: port 2(vnet1) entered disabled state followed by [1037259.147672] br100: port 2(vnet1) entered forwarding state I think it might be something related to networking on the host itself but i couldn't figure it yet. Any suggestion on what to try next? Thanks, Eduard __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
On 06/09/2015 04:54 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-06-09 10:55:55 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] That's far from being in place. Also, while we are removing point releases, and support for Icehouse, we still don't have a common private Gerrit for security, which we've been told about 2 years ago. Removing collaboration tools before new ones are in place is definitively not the way to go. [...] In the stable branch management session at the Liberty summit, the Infrastructure Team position was confirmed that we can't maintain non-supported branches in a second Gerrit any more than we can in the primary one. The idea that there might be some branch of an OpenStack project which we just give up on testing but keep available for new changes is distasteful from a quality perspective. If there is sufficient interest from distro representatives in collaborating upstream on backports to, for example, stable/icehouse then that interest needs to include the resources necessary to maintain sufficient testing upstream (as defined by the upstream community). Jeremy, I have made a round table in Paris, and I have names of interested people who would work on this. But without a collaboration tool (and at least a common Git repository to work on), it is going to be harder to work on together. So, I'm sorry, but don't look to an OpenStack-maintained non-public code review system as a workaround for continuing to collaborate in private on branches unsupported upstream in public. Most of the time it ends up being non-distro upstream developers (quality assurance, release management, infrastructure, vulnerability management, individual projects) who bear the majority of the responsibility for keeping testing working on those branches and we're clearly at our breaking point now trying to maintain three besides our master branch. I understand, and I haven't asked the VMT or anyone upstream to work on this. If the interested distributions come back with teams of people to dedicate to this work, which means getting deeply embedded in the groups who currently maintain the existing testing and release management for stable branches and are currently understaffed for that effort, then we can certainly revisit the number of branches we're able to maintain in both the public and (future) embargoed security review systems. As we discussed, the goal isn't to maintain upstream CI, but to have a place to share our work between distributions. We would do the testing downstream, not using OpenStack infra. Please get this security gerrit up, so that we can work on a patch during the embargo period. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ 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
[openstack-dev] doubt about static routes and host routes
Hi, Can we add static routes to the router which created by #neutron router-create command ? What is the defference static routes of router and --host_routes of subnet ? I also would like to know use case of static routes of router and --host_routes of subnet ? Regards Saju Madhavan +91 09535134654 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [rabbitmq] ANN New ops-oriented guides on rabbitmq.com
First of all, apologies if this belongs strictly to openstack-docs, based on multiple discussions in Vancouver I'd like more people to be aware of this. As announced in April and at the summit in May, RabbitMQ team at Pivotal would like to help with OpenStack documentation and operations experience around RabbitMQ. It was later decided that most of the docs improvements should go to rabbitmq.com. I'm happy to announced that we recently have shipped two new ops-oriented guides: * Networking: http://www.rabbitmq.com/networking.html * Production Checklist: http://www.rabbitmq.com/production-checklist.html The former covers multiple subjects related to networking, in particular tuning for two common scenarios: maximum throughput and highest possible number of concurrent connections. The latter is aimed at users looking to move into production or validate their existing deployment. Nothing not OpenStack-specific so far but should be relevant to OpenStack operators. Expansions to the above guides and more OpenStack-focused docs are coming as time permits. Cheers. -- MK Staff Software Engineer, Pivotal/RabbitMQ __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][python3] use of six.iteritems()
On 10 June 2015 at 21:30, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/10/2015 02:15 AM, Robert Collins wrote: I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports. I'd like to call attention to one little wart in that process: I get the feeling that folk are applying a massive regex to find things like d.iteritems() and convert that to six.iteritems(d). I'd very much prefer that such a regex approach move things to d.items(), which is much easier to read. Here's why. Firstly, very very very few of our dict iterations are going to be performance sensitive in the way that iteritems() matters. Secondly, no really - unless you're doing HUGE dicts, it doesn't matter. Thirdly. Really, it doesn't. Does it hurt though? ;) Yes. Its: harder to read. Its going to have to be removed eventually anyway (when we stop supporting 2.7). Its marginally slower on 3.x (it has a function and an iterator wrapping the actual thing). Its unidiomatic, and we get lots of programmers that are new to Python; we should be giving them as beautiful code as we can to help them learn. At 1 million items the overhead is 54ms[1]. If we're doing inner loops on million item dictionaries anywhere in OpenStack today, we have a problem. We might want to in e.g. the scheduler... if it held in-memory state on a million hypervisors at once, because I don't really to to imagine it pulling a million rows from a DB on every action. But then, we'd be looking at a whole 54ms. I think we could survive, if we did that (which we don't). So - please, no six.iteritems(). The reason why in e.g. neutron we merged the patch using six.iteritems is that we don't want to go too deep into determining whether the original usage of iteritems() was justified. Its not. The goal of the patch is to get python3 support, not to apply subjective style guidelines, so if someone wants to eliminate .iteritems(), he should create another patch just for that and struggle with reviewing it. While folks interested python3 can proceed with their work. We should not be afraid of multiple patches. We shouldn't be indeed. All I'm asking is that we don't do poor intermediate patches. I've written code where performance tuning like that around iteritems mattered. That code also needed to optimise tuple unpacking to avoid performance hits and was aiming to manipulate million item data sets from interpreter startup in subsecond times. It was some of the worst, most impenetrable Python code I've ever seen, and while our code has lots of issues, it neither has the same performance context that that did, nor (thankfully) is it such impenetrable code. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
On 10 June 2015 at 09:53, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: So.. summarizing the various options again: Plan A Just drop stable point releases. (-) No more release notes (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations Plan B Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to time. (-) Encourages to continue using same version across the board (-) Almost as much work as making proper releases Plan C Let projects randomly tag point releases whenever (-) Still a bit costly in terms of herding cats Plan D Drop stable point releases, publish per-commit tarballs (-) Requires some infra changes, takes some storage space Plans B, C and D also require some release note / changelog generation from data maintained *within* the repository. Personally I think the objections raised against plan A are valid. I like plan D, since it's more like releasing every commit than not releasing anymore. I think it's the most honest trade-off. I could go with plan C, but I think it's added work for no additional value to the user. What would be your preferred option ? I see no point of doing D. I already don't use tarballs, and those who do could as well switch to generating them (how hard is it to run python setup.py sdist or git archive?). What counts is having a schedule date, where all distros are releasing a point release, so we have a common reference point. If that is a fully automated process, then great, less work for everyone, and it wont change anything from what we had in the past (we can even collectively decide for point release dates...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) This is really one of the things I think we want to get away from... If *every* stable commit is treated with the seriousness of it creating a release, lets make every commit a release. This means that Debian may be using a (micro)patch release newer or older than a different distro, but the key is that it empowers the vendors and/or users to select a release cadence that best fits them, rather than being tied to an arbitrary upstream community wide date. Yes, this might mean that your cadence might be more or less regular than an alternative vendor / distribution, but the key is that it empowers the vendor to meet the needs of their users/customers. For example, you could select a cadence of rebasing to a release every 6 months - where as another consumer could choose to do one every 6 weeks. The difference is how much of a jump, at which intervals.. Alternatively, a vendor might choose just to go with stock release + their own select cherry picked patches from stable/*, which is also a model that works. The issue around producing tarballs, is really about having forwards and backwards verification by means of sha/md5 sums, which is hard to do when generating your own orig tarball. Debian, Ubuntu and I believe Arch have made varying use of 'pristine-tar' - which was an effort to re-producible tarballs using xdelta to make the sum match. However, Maintainers seem to be moving away from this now. When I perform source NEW reviews for Ubuntu Archive, I always check that getting the source orig tarball can be done with either get-orig-source (inspecting the generation method) or uscan and then diff the tarballs with the one included on the upload and the one generated. Timestamps (or even shasums) haven't been an important issue for me, but the actual content and verifiable source is what has mattered more. -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker __ 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
[openstack-dev] ThirdPartyCI: Tempest job fails with Unexpected termination of the channel
Short story: - all runs of the tempest job are failing after ~ 1,5 - 2 hrs with FATAL: java.io.IOException: Unexpected termination of the channel and jenkins logs SEVERE: I/O error in channel d-p-c-local_01-1655 java.io.IOException: Unexpected termination of the channel Long story: - Host is 4 core Intel Xeon, 32GB RAM, 3x1TB HDD -- devstack is 2015.1.1, networking is done via n-net - Jenkins master is a VM, 2 core, 8 GB RAM, 500 GB disk -- not managed through devstack, but using virsh, networking done manually via iptables - test slaves are VMs, m1.large (4 VCPU, 8 GB RAM, trusty), managed by nodepool Load on master is usually around 6-7, memory usage around 90%, little swapping. I tried increasing ClientAliveInterval/ServerAliveInterval and ClientAliveCountMax/ServerAliveCountMax on both the Jenkins VM and on the test vm (using the job to configure), but it still fails with the above mentioned error. On the host, dmesg is full of: (not sure if directly related to this) [1037245.231196] br100: port 2(vnet1) entered disabled state followed by [1037259.147672] br100: port 2(vnet1) entered forwarding state I think it might be something related to networking on the host itself but i couldn't figure it yet. Any suggestion on what to try next? Thanks, Eduard __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][api] 1 new guideline entering freeze period
michael mccune wrote: The API working group has one new guidelines that is entering the freeze period. We would like to ask all PTLs and CPLs, and other interested parties, to take a look at these reviews. We will use lazy consensus at the end of the freeze to merge them if there are no objections. The guideline up for review is: * Clarification on the return code when a server has a hard coded length limit https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181784/ Added this to next week cross-project meeting agenda so that it gets more visibility. Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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
[openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver
Hello Manila, There is a HDFS driver in Manila summited by our team in Kilo, so I guess we do own this driver in Manila for current situation. But, CI systems are really new to us, and we heard from other teams that they took almost one year to implement a CI for going through all the company processes and building all related staff for it. And , the biggest issue we have is there is not enough resource to actually implement and maintain the CI as that is not allowed by the team's strategy. We strongly believe the HDFS driver will be really useful in Manila/Openstack, and might be used by other Openstack projects such as Sahara/Cognitive which are big data related projects in the near future, thus we don't want to see the driver to be remove. Do we have a volunteer to take over the CI for HDFS driver as it is an open source distributed storage system which actually has no vendor dependency ? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks. -chen __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: So.. summarizing the various options again: Plan A Just drop stable point releases. (-) No more release notes (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations Plan B Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to time. (-) Encourages to continue using same version across the board (-) Almost as much work as making proper releases Plan C Let projects randomly tag point releases whenever (-) Still a bit costly in terms of herding cats Plan D Drop stable point releases, publish per-commit tarballs (-) Requires some infra changes, takes some storage space Plans B, C and D also require some release note / changelog generation from data maintained *within* the repository. Personally I think the objections raised against plan A are valid. I like plan D, since it's more like releasing every commit than not releasing anymore. I think it's the most honest trade-off. I could go with plan C, but I think it's added work for no additional value to the user. What would be your preferred option ? I see no point of doing D. I already don't use tarballs, and those who do could as well switch to generating them (how hard is it to run python setup.py sdist or git archive?). What counts is having a schedule date, where all distros are releasing a point release, so we have a common reference point. If that is a fully automated process, then great, less work for everyone, and it wont change anything from what we had in the past (we can even collectively decide for point release dates...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][python3] use of six.iteritems()
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/10/2015 02:15 AM, Robert Collins wrote: I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports. I'd like to call attention to one little wart in that process: I get the feeling that folk are applying a massive regex to find things like d.iteritems() and convert that to six.iteritems(d). I'd very much prefer that such a regex approach move things to d.items(), which is much easier to read. Here's why. Firstly, very very very few of our dict iterations are going to be performance sensitive in the way that iteritems() matters. Secondly, no really - unless you're doing HUGE dicts, it doesn't matter. Thirdly. Really, it doesn't. Does it hurt though? ;) At 1 million items the overhead is 54ms[1]. If we're doing inner loops on million item dictionaries anywhere in OpenStack today, we have a problem. We might want to in e.g. the scheduler... if it held in-memory state on a million hypervisors at once, because I don't really to to imagine it pulling a million rows from a DB on every action. But then, we'd be looking at a whole 54ms. I think we could survive, if we did that (which we don't). So - please, no six.iteritems(). The reason why in e.g. neutron we merged the patch using six.iteritems is that we don't want to go too deep into determining whether the original usage of iteritems() was justified. The goal of the patch is to get python3 support, not to apply subjective style guidelines, so if someone wants to eliminate .iteritems(), he should create another patch just for that and struggle with reviewing it. While folks interested python3 can proceed with their work. We should not be afraid of multiple patches. Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVeAO+AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57/XwH/0AsOQHa1IDWOauginSHAbi+ ZNwAUDRSKEI+ydwf9u/DxRkZP2MsiJwAbrlPeGyjr8aqNpqoTLcS5CxYaS7IqSOn khrVGkczv6yNwKrB6j3jAFJtXz+Z2i475eTLJqRgdUeI4gJinhc0ghXJzF+4HpUN 2DewJlOqrD3OWJcUu0Gvmp4aEkr8JK0Iu2crCRoFJ2N5fvv7rt8FfcZ3oGkixJXd n0+xD5Aszl8M/jAv3xt7ZxqFSL7QUiEhAVVgJEHm0D8mAR+2J9bpCKVvjkJ5T7Tw fkHYXetzUipe0MMpXPl3jfSKBitpFOOOEBaqOSXvvgtxAo8U6nkNgPe6n+vuduc= =lUY4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack Diversity Working Group
Hi all, Thanks for starting this! I'd like to join you for the kick off meeting. In which timezone are the times in the Doodle? Cheers, Victoria 2015-06-09 17:28 GMT-03:00 Sousou, Imad imad.sou...@intel.com: Stackers – We’re happy to announce the creation of a Diversity Working Group. The genesis for this work group was a discussion at the May meeting of the OpenStack Board of Directors ahead of the Vancouver Summit. The Board is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming place for all people to collaborate to drive innovation and design cutting-edge data center capabilities, while finding the best answers to our most pressing challenges. To achieve this, the Board formed this Work Group to determine what actions are required to fulfill this commitment. Three Board members volunteered to work with community members in this Work Group and bring updates/requests to the Board for discussion and action on a regular basis, starting with the July meeting. If you’re interested in joining this effort, please: · Join the Foundation mail list to participate in discussions and shape the direction: click here http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation · Visit the wiki page for this work group to learn more about the charter: click here https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Diversity · Plan to join the kick-off IRC meeting and let us know what day/times work for you by accessing the Doodle here: click here http://doodle.com/z85c23dtexx8qzq7 We will send out the results of the Doodle to the mail list and look forward to working with you to foster a strong and diverse community. Thanks Imad Sousou (Intel), Egle Sigler (Rackspace), Kavit Munshi (Aptira) __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to SQLAlchemy 1.0.x
Hi Mike, Thanks a lot for your quick reply which is very useful to me. On 06/09/2015 07:08 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: On 6/9/15 9:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi, The python-sqlalchemy package has been uploaded to Debian Experimental, and is about to be uploaded to Debian Unstable. So I wonder what's the state of the project regarding upgrading SQLA. Maybe Mike can tell what kind of issue we may run into? How much work will it be to switch to SQLA 1.0.x for Liberty? Is it possible to be compatible with both 9.x and 1.x (which would be the best way forward)? The short answer is that there are no supported use cases that have been intentionally changed in any backwards incompatible way in 1.0 and all Openstack code should be able to accommodate from 0.9.x - 1.0.x without any change. Ah, super cool! I saw that this passed all tests: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189847/ Could we get it approved? Mike __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] [Ironic] [Inspector] Where should integration tests for non-core projects live now? (Was: Toward 2.0.0 release)
Hi Dmitry, 2015-06-10 16:11 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com: Hi, QA folks! As ironic-inspector is joining the openstack/* crows, we're faces with integration testing question. At the summit we discussed with Devananda that it makes sense for inspector + ironic integration test to live in tempest with other bare metal tests. However, judging by https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent even Ironic integration tests will no longer be welcome in Tempest itself, to say nothing about pretty new Inspector. Yeah, right. On big-tent trend, it is difficult to cover/review test of all projects by a single Tempest-team. It is easy to imagine Tempest-team will be bottleneck of developments if continuing current way. To solve it, we have decided the scope of Tempest as the etherpad mentioned. Are there any hints now on where we can start with our integration tests? For the other projects, we are migrating the test framework of Tempest to tempest-lib which is a library. So each project can implement their own tests in each repository by using the test framework of tempest-lib. After a quick look at devstack-gate I got an impression that it's expecting tests as part of tempest: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/devstack-vm-gate.sh#L600 Our final goal is to have devstack gate test for Ironic and Inspector projects working together. We have discussed external interfaces of Tempest on the summit, so that Tempest gathers tests from each project repository and runs them at the same time. There is a qa-spec for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184992/ Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi On 06/10/2015 08:07 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent Good catch. I guess the answer depends on where Ironic integration tests are going to live - we're going to live with them. Let me retarget this thread to a wider audience. But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. Best Regards, Yuiko Takada(Inspector team member) 2015-06-08 20:38 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: Hello, Inspector team! The renaming process is going pretty well, the last thing we need to do is to get Infra approval and actual rename [1][2]. I'd like to allow people (e.g. myself) to start packaging inspector under it's new name, so I'd like to make 2.0.0 release as soon as possible (as opposed to scheduling it to particular date). All
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 27/05/15 10:14, Thomas Goirand wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all, tl;dr: - - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream gerrit with reviews. - - The intention is to better share the workload, and improve the overall QA for packaging *and* upstream. - - The goal is *not* to publish packages upstream - - There's an ongoing discussion about using stackforge or openstack. This isn't, IMO, that important, what's important is to get started. - - There's an ongoing discussion about using a distribution specific namespace, my own opinion here is that using /openstack-pkg-{deb,rpm} or /stackforge-pkg-{deb,rpm} would be the most convenient because of a number of technical reasons like the amount of Git repository. - - Finally, let's not discuss for too long and let's do it!!! :) Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e. checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc. In some distros, there are multiple versions of the same package allowed, in others, it's forbidden. Matthias __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [Nova] [Ironic] [Magnum] Microversion guideline in API-WG
As a further data point, Neutron has been trying to introduce microversioning for a while, without success so far. Given the sheer amount of backends the management layer integrates with, and the constant need for the various subteams to experiment with the API, the proposal [1] has probably some differences with the proposed guideline. Since the proposal is not yet approved nor implemented, perhaps it would be worth looking at those differences, and get your advice on whether it might be better if neutron adheres to the current guideline proposal or whether it might be the case to include Neutron's requirements in the current guideline proposal. Salvatore [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136760/ On 10 June 2015 at 06:28, Xu, Hejie hejie...@intel.com wrote: I updated the Microversion specification in API-WG https://review.openstack.org/187112 The new patchset adds min/max version headers as Ironic used: X-Openstack-[PROJECT]-API-Minimum-Version X-Openstack-[PROJECT]-API-Maximum-Version And new response body for invalid version request. { versionFault: { max_version: 5.2, min_version: 2.1, description: Version 5.3 is not supported by the API. \ Minimum is 2.1 and maximum is 5.2. } } Which for backward compatible can add the existed fields in the response also. For example, the nova response is { versionFault: { max_version: 5.2, min_version: 2.1, description: Version 5.3 is not supported by the API. \ Minimum is 2.1 and maximum is 5.2. }, computeFault: { message: Version 5.3 is not supported by the API. \ Minimum is 2.1 and maximum is 5.2., code: 406 } } The “computeFault” fields is included by current implementation, we can still add here, hope deprecated in the future. And the “experimental” flag in the X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version header was deleted. It mentioned in the nova-spec but It didn’t implement. And I didn’t saw the same thing in the ironic. For current all the things satisfied all the cases. If we “experimental” flag still usefull, we can propose separately. Thanks Alex *From:* Devananda van der Veen [mailto:devananda@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2015 1:59 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [Nova] [Ironic] [Magnum] Microversion guideline in API-WG On Jun 5, 2015 4:36 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 06/05/2015 01:28 AM, Adrian Otto wrote: On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com mailto:devananda@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2015 12:00 AM, Xu, Hejie hejie...@intel.com mailto:hejie...@intel.com wrote: Hi, guys, I’m working on adding Microversion into the API-WG’s guideline which make sure we have consistent Microversion behavior in the API for user. The Nova and Ironic already have Microversion implementation, and as I know Magnum https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184975/ is going to implement Microversion also. Hope all the projects which support( or plan to) Microversion can join the review of guideline. The Mircoversion specification(this almost copy from nova-specs): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187112 And another guideline for when we should bump Mircoversion https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187896/ As I know, there already have a little different between Nova and Ironic’s implementation. Ironic return min/max version when the requested version doesn’t support in server by http-headers. There isn’t such thing in nova. But that is something for version negotiation we need for nova also. Sean have pointed out we should use response body instead of http headers, the body can includes error message. Really hope ironic team can take a look at if you guys have compelling reason for using http headers. And if we think return body instead of http headers, we probably need think about back-compatible also. Because Microversion itself isn’t versioned. So I think we should keep those header for a while, does make sense? Hope we have good guideline for Microversion, because we only can change Mircoversion itself by back-compatible way. Ironic returns the min/max/current API version in the http headers for every request. Why would it return this information in a header on success and in the body on failure? (How would this inconsistency benefit users?) To be clear, I'm not opposed to *also* having a useful error message in the body, but while writing the client side of api versioning, parsing the range consistently from the response header is, IMO, better than requiring a conditional. +1. I fully agree with Devananda on this point. Use the headers consistently, and add helpful errors into the body
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][python3] use of six.iteritems()
On 10 June 2015 at 17:22, gordon chung g...@live.ca wrote: maybe the suggestion should be don't blindly apply six.iteritems or items rather than don't apply iteritems at all. admittedly, it's a massive eyesore, but it's a very real use case that some projects deal with large data results and to enforce the latter policy can have negative effects[1]. one million item dictionary might be negligible but in a multi-user, multi-* environment that can have a significant impact on the amount memory required to store everything. [1] disclaimer: i have no real world results but i assume memory management was the reason for the switch in logic from py2 to py3 I wouldn't make that assumption. And no, memory isn't an issue. If you have a million item dict, ignoring the internal overheads, the dict needs 1 million object pointers. The size of a list with those pointers in it is 1M (pointer size in bytes). E.g. 4M or 8M. Nothing to worry about given the footprint of such a program :) -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] oslo releasing is noisy...
Victor Stinner wrote: Le 09/06/2015 18:31, Thierry Carrez a écrit : We are currently exploring the option to repurpose the openstack-announce ML to be the extensive record of release announcements. It's part of a larger plan to streamline library releases, about which Doug should start a discussion pretty soon now. In the Python community, there are Special Interest Groups (SIG) which have their mailing lists: distutils-sig, import-sig, mobile-sig, etc. https://www.python.org/community/sigs/ Maybe we can move some traffic to new mailing lists, like a new openstack-oslo@ list, instead of using tags in the subject? Anyone would be able to choose to subscribe or not to openstack-oslo. We've been considering that in the past, but figured that would result in further fragmentation of our community and loss of even more common culture. The goal is that we form a single community, beyond each specific project team, and openstack-dev (and #openstack-meeting, and...) has been a tool we've been using to keep that. You can search the list for past threads, which contain good advice on how using stronger client-side filtering and/or topics filtering to keep some sanity navigating this list. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
Dave Walker wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 09:53, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: What would be your preferred option ? I see no point of doing D. I already don't use tarballs, and those who do could as well switch to generating them (how hard is it to run python setup.py sdist or git archive?). What counts is having a schedule date, where all distros are releasing a point release, so we have a common reference point. If that is a fully automated process, then great, less work for everyone, and it wont change anything from what we had in the past (we can even collectively decide for point release dates...). That would be option B. The main issue with B is that it doesn't work well once server component versions start to diverge, which will be the case starting with Liberty. You can't tag everything with the same version number anymore. We already couldn't (with Swift using separate versioning), but we worked around that by ignoring Swift from stable releases. As more projects opt into that, that will no longer be a possible workaround. So we could do what you're asking (option B) for Kilo stable releases, but I think it's not really a viable option for stable/liberty onward. This is really one of the things I think we want to get away from... If *every* stable commit is treated with the seriousness of it creating a release, lets make every commit a release. This means that Debian may be using a (micro)patch release newer or older than a different distro, but the key is that it empowers the vendors and/or users to select a release cadence that best fits them, rather than being tied to an arbitrary upstream community wide date. +1 It also removes the stupid encouragement to use all components from the same date. With everything tagged at the same date, you kinda send the message that those various things should be used together. With everything tagged separately, you send te message that you can mix and match components from stable/* as you see fit. I mean, it's totally valid to use stable branch components from various points in time together, since they are all supposed to work. So I totally get that we should still have reference points to be able to tell this is fixed in openstack/nova stable/liberty starting with 12.1.134post34 (or whatever we settle with). I totally get that any of those should ship with relevant release notes. But that's about all I think we need ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] shellcheck all .sh scripts in murano-deployment
On 2015-06-10 13:48:26 +0200 (+0200), Filip Blaha wrote: +1, nice idea. Shell script are not easy to review - large files, not covered by unit tests. Any automatic tool could be beneficial. It's worth noting that just because your shell scripts don't have their own validation tests doesn't mean they can't. For example see the test-features.sh and test-functions.sh scripts in the https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/ repo, making sure we maintain a contract on things like branch fallback logic which is easy to subtly break if not tested. -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] (re)centralizing library release management
On 06/09/2015 01:25 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Until now we have encouraged project teams to prepare their own library releases as new versions of projects were needed. We've started running into a couple of problems with that, with releases not coming often enough, or at a bad time in the release cycle, or with version numbering not being applied consistently, or without proper announcements. To address these issues, the release management team is proposing to create a small team of library release managers to handle the process around all library releases (clients, non-application projects, middleware, Oslo libraries, etc.). This will give us a chance to collaborate and review the version numbers for new releases, as well as stay on top of stale libraries with fixes or features that sit unreleased for a period of time. It will also be the first step to creating an automated review process for release tags. The process still needs to be worked out, but I envision it working something like this: The release liaison/PTL for the project team submits a request for a new release, including the repo name, the SHA, the series (liberty, kilo, etc.), and the proposed version number. The release team checks the proposed version number against the unreleased changes up to that SHA, and then either updates it to reflect semver or uses it as it is provided. The release team would then handle the tag push and the resulting announcements. There would be a few conditions under which a new release might not be immediately approved, but really only when the gate is wedged and during freeze periods. The point of the change isn't to block releases, just ensure consistency and good timing. We have some tools to let us look for unreleased changes, and eventually we can set up a recurring job to build that report so we can propose releases to project teams with a large release backlog. That will likely come later, though. We can also pre-announce proposed releases if folks find that useful. We will need a small number of volunteers to join this team, and start building the required expertise in understanding the overall state of the project, and in semantic versioning. We do not necessarily want a liaison from every project -- think of this as the proto-team for the group that eventually has core reviewer rights on the release automation repository. Doug While I haven't participated in release management before, I'd like to volunteer my services to help. Where is the best place (IRC) to collaborate? PB __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote: The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Really? James, were you made core on the requirements? I once tried to follow the requirements repo, though it moves too fast, and sometimes, it takes less than 2 days to get a new thing approved. Also, this repository has more than just dependencies, there's a lot of noise due to changes changes in projects.txt. I also don't mind any upgrade for whatever oslo or client libs. I'd love to have an easier way to voice my opinion without having all the noise of that repo in my inbox. I'm not sure if there's a solution to this problem though. Thomas __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Enabling an Open Cloud with OpenStack
Hi Orran, We also have a project called Tricircle that aim to solve similar problem, but with a different approach with Mercador. You and your team are more than welcome to join the discussion we will hold in Tricircle Meeting. See the details at https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg54861.html, and https://github.com/stackforge/tricircle , and also our PoC results http://www.slideshare.net/JoeHuang7/test-report-for-open-stack-cascading-solution-to-support-1-million-v-ms-in-100-data-centers :) Hope you guys find it helpful. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Orran Krieger okr...@gmail.com wrote: Dear OpenStack community, The short version: We are proposing a new set of use cases for OpenStack and a set of changes to enable a multi-landlord cloud model, where multiple service providers can cooperate (and compete) to stand up services in a single cloud. We had great feedback from the community in the summit, and came away with two strong messages: 1) this is a radical enough change that we should do an end-to-end proof of concept, and 2) we should post to this list what we are doing to make it visible to the broader developer community; fully solving the problems of a multi-landlord cloud will impact more projects than we understand today. We hope to have available prototypes of the key enabling changes by the keystone mid-cycle and an end-to-end demo by the Tokyo summit. Two additional points: 1. Solving the problems of landlords that don't trust each other also brings defense in depth for a single provider cloud; potentially preventing an exploit of one service from compromising an entire cloud. 2. This work strongly relates to resource federation work that is ongoing in OpenStack, and is complementary to, and being persued in the context of the recently annouced Mercador project. We, of course, welcome participating by other developers interested in working with us on this through the Mercador project or by contacting us as per info below. The long version: -- All current clouds are stood up by a single company or organization, creating a vertically integrated monopoly. Any competition is between entire clouds and is limited by the customer's ability to move their data over the connectivity between clouds. We think an alternative model is possible, where different organizations can stand up individual services in the same data centers, and the customer (or intermediaries acting on their behalf) can pick and choose between them. We call this model of having multiple landlords in a cloud an Open Cloud eXchange (OCX) (http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/best/res/papers/ic14.pdf). The OCX model would enable more innovation by technology companies, enable cloud research and provide more choice to cloud consumers. We are developing this model in a new public cloud, the Massachusetts Open Cloud (MOC), that is just being started in the MGHPCC data center (http://www.mghpcc.org) shared between Boston University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts. Some use cases being explored in the context of the MOC illustrate the potential of this model: o Harvard and MIT both stand up their own OpenStack cloud for students, but provide resources on-demand to the MOC that can be used by researchers that collaborate between the universities and by external users. o A storage company stands up a new innovative block storage service on a few racks in the MGHPCC, operates it themselves, and makes it available to users of the MOC and/or the individual university clouds. The storage company is in total control of price, automation, and SLA for the service, and users can choose if they want to use the service. o A company stands up a new compute service with innovative hardware (e.g., FPGAs, crypto accellerator) or pricing model. A customer with a two Petabyte disk volume can switch to using that compute without having to move the data. o A research group at Boston University and Northeastern develops a highly elastic compute service that can checkpoint 1000s of servers in seconds into SSD, and broadcast provision a distributed application to allow an interactive medical imaging application that wants 1000s of servers for a few seconds. o A security sensitive life sciences company exploits software from the MACS project (http://www.bu.edu/hic/research/macs/) to distribute their data across two storage services from non-colluding providers. The data is accessed from a Nova compute service running on a trusted compute platform developed collaboratively with Intel. Since all services are deployed in the same datacenter, the computation is efficient. o Students in a cloud computing course offered by Northeastern and Boston University faculty
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] API Extensions - Namespace URLs
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:21:18PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: I wasn't planning on wiping them out for now since I'm leveraging a lot of the extension loading that exists so someone can remove the namespaces if they want. OK - I'll take it on if there's no objections -- Sean M. Collins __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/06/15 15:12, Thomas Goirand wrote: The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Really? James, were you made core on the requirements? Believe it or not, I've not *always* worked on OpenStack for Ubuntu :-); that pre-dates my direct involvement. - -- James Page Ubuntu and Debian Developer james.p...@ubuntu.com jamesp...@debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVeEgKAAoJEL/srsug59jDrqEQAK6jXUCDzHb8XIVM6GM82QOy +6NXp99us8xDzq/2mWuZAUZ4abon4JvZmOjngSoQmTXs1e9L3HiQr4iTlW4ZlJ9w JCL8Xlq2/SJL8KJ2hMFg6sWanJZ0eglJ21F/bq2Rz6/fjhx/i7q8CPLHJghG5RXm 2sk9seXHFLK3syW4g/sVmz3MkPAYwu6ZqFiTDDcgNjkD+OegoMltn/d+HRLf20G9 VeTuL6mjW2ZnnJozBuqJ+ZbX+Gc35OhV8NWFzhaPkMPNT48BULr7rpfAgQ22WXyP v9EnXaYtzyhUQBOdyrKXoPLK2dhCTcqRGImM1lZl3mKJbG/jf8d9U24M20bw4kQE h6LHOyH+PQQcsAm+uKH2mpB8c+XElmeL7BO9sSUsC30oL0QI3OxRcFt/wgIycHwd f8OoXPc8RsZERlsWYPF9gA16bTRQn08vIgVweNKu7vkP5qR6nvOjCzRBoUZdlIpu 4tqlzprYDSzSAJi8mzDq+nw3YulXjuTk/vQusp4MCjfA3VXS1yry8i+1HpjF/MO/ eAoKpZM2ntksRcObj947yh7ncsxjrQmOXHPfqMlbZTa6NWmQnElufJJ0nk5s30el cBxUTjLN4lvAc6xjZPXqHk1U0kiP95E0wAa3EMVSDLeULG4Hq57+bSE63zHTts77 Y+UyyJswgeA6ZHC+W5Ct =egET -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 10 June 2015 at 15:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote: The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Really? James, were you made core on the requirements? I once tried to follow the requirements repo, though it moves too fast, and sometimes, it takes less than 2 days to get a new thing approved. Also, this repository has more than just dependencies, there's a lot of noise due to changes changes in projects.txt. I also don't mind any upgrade for whatever oslo or client libs. I'd love to have an easier way to voice my opinion without having all the noise of that repo in my inbox. I'm not sure if there's a solution to this problem though. On the Ubuntu side, I believe Chuck and myself were carrying the flag (we had +2). When the openstack/requirements project was created James was less involved upstream, and two representatives of a distro ought to have been enough. An yes, I also found that the flow was too much to keep up with which is why I tried to automate some of this. I hoped the burden has reduced somewhat, as prospective changes now need to do more of the distro research themselves. Is the library already packaged in the distros we target (Ubuntu latest / Fedora latest)? By adding something to OpenStack global-requirements.txt we are basically demanding that Linux Distros package this for the next release of OpenStack. If they already have, great. If not, we should be cautious of adding it.:ref:`finding-distro-status`[0] But only so much can be done by non-distro focussed upstream consumers... [0] https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/README.rst#for-new-requirements -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Is volume connection_info modeled/documented anywhere?
I don't think you need an entry per driver, you need an entry per connection type - iSCSI, FC, DRDB, CEPH being the ones I can think of off the top of my head On 10 Jun 2015 16:57, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: While investigating/discussing bug 1463525 [1] I remembered how little I know about what can actually come out of the connection_info dict returned from the os-initialize_connection cinder API call. So we added some debug logging in nova and I remembered that there are potentially credentials (auth_password) stored in connection_info, so we have a bug to clean that up in Nova [2]. The plan is to model connection_info using objects where we have a parent object BdmConnectionInfo containing the common keys, like 'driver_volume_type' and 'data', and then child objects for the vendor-specific connection_info objects, like RbdBdmConnectionInfo, ISCSIBdmConnectionInfo, etc. The problem I have right now is knowing what can all be in there, since there are a ton of vendor drivers in Cinder. Is anyone aware of a wiki page or devref or anything that documents what can be in that wild west connection_info dict? If not, the first thing I was going to do was start documenting that - but where? It seems it should really be modeled in Cinder since it is part of the API contract and if a vendor driver were to say rename or drop a key from the connection_info they were returning in os-initialize_connection it would be a backwards incompatible change. Is devref best for this with a listing for each vendor driver? At least then it would be versioned with the code and updates could be made as new keys are added to connection_info or new drivers are added to Cinder. I'm looking for any advice here in how to get started since I don't primarily work on Cinder and don't have a full history here. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1463525 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1321785 -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On 6/10/15, 09:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote: The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Really? James, were you made core on the requirements? I once tried to follow the requirements repo, though it moves too fast, and sometimes, it takes less than 2 days to get a new thing approved. Also, this repository has more than just dependencies, there's a lot of noise due to changes changes in projects.txt. I also don't mind any upgrade for whatever oslo or client libs. I'd love to have an easier way to voice my opinion without having all the noise of that repo in my inbox. I'm not sure if there's a solution to this problem though. Thomas You should be able to subscribe to a subset of the changes in gerrit. I don't recall if it only works for directories, but you should be able to make something work for *requirements.txt. The docs are easy to find on Google or DDG. Cheers, Ian __ 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
[openstack-dev] Enabling an Open Cloud with OpenStack
Dear OpenStack community, The short version: We are proposing a new set of use cases for OpenStack and a set of changes to enable a multi-landlord cloud model, where multiple service providers can cooperate (and compete) to stand up services in a single cloud. We had great feedback from the community in the summit, and came away with two strong messages: 1) this is a radical enough change that we should do an end-to-end proof of concept, and 2) we should post to this list what we are doing to make it visible to the broader developer community; fully solving the problems of a multi-landlord cloud will impact more projects than we understand today. We hope to have available prototypes of the key enabling changes by the keystone mid-cycle and an end-to-end demo by the Tokyo summit. Two additional points: 1. Solving the problems of landlords that don't trust each other also brings defense in depth for a single provider cloud; potentially preventing an exploit of one service from compromising an entire cloud. 2. This work strongly relates to resource federation work that is ongoing in OpenStack, and is complementary to, and being persued in the context of the recently annouced Mercador project. We, of course, welcome participating by other developers interested in working with us on this through the Mercador project or by contacting us as per info below. The long version: -- All current clouds are stood up by a single company or organization, creating a vertically integrated monopoly. Any competition is between entire clouds and is limited by the customer's ability to move their data over the connectivity between clouds. We think an alternative model is possible, where different organizations can stand up individual services in the same data centers, and the customer (or intermediaries acting on their behalf) can pick and choose between them. We call this model of having multiple landlords in a cloud an Open Cloud eXchange (OCX) (http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/best/res/papers/ic14.pdf http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/best/res/papers/ic14.pdf). The OCX model would enable more innovation by technology companies, enable cloud research and provide more choice to cloud consumers. We are developing this model in a new public cloud, the Massachusetts Open Cloud (MOC), that is just being started in the MGHPCC data center (http://www.mghpcc.org http://www.mghpcc.org/) shared between Boston University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts. Some use cases being explored in the context of the MOC illustrate the potential of this model: o Harvard and MIT both stand up their own OpenStack cloud for students, but provide resources on-demand to the MOC that can be used by researchers that collaborate between the universities and by external users. o A storage company stands up a new innovative block storage service on a few racks in the MGHPCC, operates it themselves, and makes it available to users of the MOC and/or the individual university clouds. The storage company is in total control of price, automation, and SLA for the service, and users can choose if they want to use the service. o A company stands up a new compute service with innovative hardware (e.g., FPGAs, crypto accellerator) or pricing model. A customer with a two Petabyte disk volume can switch to using that compute without having to move the data. o A research group at Boston University and Northeastern develops a highly elastic compute service that can checkpoint 1000s of servers in seconds into SSD, and broadcast provision a distributed application to allow an interactive medical imaging application that wants 1000s of servers for a few seconds. o A security sensitive life sciences company exploits software from the MACS project (http://www.bu.edu/hic/research/macs/ http://www.bu.edu/hic/research/macs/) to distribute their data across two storage services from non-colluding providers. The data is accessed from a Nova compute service running on a trusted compute platform developed collaboratively with Intel. Since all services are deployed in the same datacenter, the computation is efficient. o Students in a cloud computing course offered by Northeastern and Boston University faculty (https://okrieg.github.io/EC500/index.html https://okrieg.github.io/EC500/index.html) develop and stand up an experimental proxy service for open stack services that provides users of the MOC a Swift service that combines the inventory of multiple underlying Swift services. While no existing cloud stack can support the OCX model out of the box, OpenStack is much closer than anything else, and we have been exploring what changes will be required to enable this model (http://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/11214 http://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/11214) and worked with our partners in the community to submit a number of
[openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Is volume connection_info modeled/documented anywhere?
While investigating/discussing bug 1463525 [1] I remembered how little I know about what can actually come out of the connection_info dict returned from the os-initialize_connection cinder API call. So we added some debug logging in nova and I remembered that there are potentially credentials (auth_password) stored in connection_info, so we have a bug to clean that up in Nova [2]. The plan is to model connection_info using objects where we have a parent object BdmConnectionInfo containing the common keys, like 'driver_volume_type' and 'data', and then child objects for the vendor-specific connection_info objects, like RbdBdmConnectionInfo, ISCSIBdmConnectionInfo, etc. The problem I have right now is knowing what can all be in there, since there are a ton of vendor drivers in Cinder. Is anyone aware of a wiki page or devref or anything that documents what can be in that wild west connection_info dict? If not, the first thing I was going to do was start documenting that - but where? It seems it should really be modeled in Cinder since it is part of the API contract and if a vendor driver were to say rename or drop a key from the connection_info they were returning in os-initialize_connection it would be a backwards incompatible change. Is devref best for this with a listing for each vendor driver? At least then it would be versioned with the code and updates could be made as new keys are added to connection_info or new drivers are added to Cinder. I'm looking for any advice here in how to get started since I don't primarily work on Cinder and don't have a full history here. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1463525 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1321785 -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [release][oslo] oslotest release 1.7.0 (liberty)
Good news: your fix is already merged into oslo.messaging ;-) oslo.messaging now uses directly mox3, on Python 2 and Python 3. Victor Le 10/06/2015 14:04, Victor Sergeyev a écrit : Hi All, this oslotest release break oslo.messaging gate - unittest fails with ImportError, on import mox from six.moves - [0]. It caused by commit [1], which removed adding mox to six moves. There is a fix for oslo.messaging - [2] - please, help to merge it. [0] - http://paste.openstack.org/show/281091/ [1] - https://github.com/openstack/oslotest/commit/9e0c8ad2c251274128499a7fcfb591c488d27d2b [2] - https://review.openstack.org/190136 Thanks, Victor On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:14 PM, d...@doughellmann.com mailto:d...@doughellmann.com wrote: We are content to announce the release of: oslotest 1.7.0: Oslo test framework This release is part of the liberty release series. With source available at: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslotest For more details, please see the git log history below and: http://launchpad.net/oslotest/+milestone/1.7.0 Please report issues through launchpad: http://bugs.launchpad.net/oslotest Changes in oslotest 1.6.0..1.7.0 5bd9b31 Updated from global requirements ff9b38e Fix argument handling in oslo_run_cross_tests 960e444 Add class to deal with clouds.yaml support 1c0863f Remove unneeded runtime pbr dep 5f2e635 Updated from global requirements f8a5a3c Advertise support for Python3.4 / Remove support for Python 3.3 a063f25 Do not sync run_cross_tests.sh 0782ab7 Remove unused discover dependency 9e0c8ad Remove six.moves call Diffstat (except docs and test files) - openstack-common.conf | 7 -- oslotest/__init__.py | 1 - oslotest/functional.py | 59 ++ oslotest/moxstubout.py | 2 +- requirements.txt | 3 +-- setup.cfg | 6 + tox.ini| 3 +-- 8 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) Requirements updates diff --git a/requirements.txt b/requirements.txt index 674130c..1486ede 100644 --- a/requirements.txt +++ b/requirements.txt @@ -5,2 +4,0 @@ -pbr=0.6,!=0.7,1.0 -discover @@ -14,0 +13 @@ mox3=0.7.0 +os-client-config=1.2.0 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] (re)centralizing library release management
Paul Belanger wrote: While I haven't participated in release management before, I'd like to volunteer my services to help. Where is the best place (IRC) to collaborate? I would encourage prospective release managers to join #openstack-relmgr-office where Doug and I discuss that sort of things, and (if timing allows) attend the release team meeting, or read the logs afterwards if you can't attend. It's currently set to a EU-friendly Monday 1300 UTC. Thanks, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver
Hi Chen, You can ask if OpenStack Infrastructure team can set up CI for this driver. They have set up CI's for a few Cinder drivers based on open source storage systems. Thanks, Xing From: Li, Chen [mailto:chen...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:48 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) (openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver Hello Manila, There is a HDFS driver in Manila summited by our team in Kilo, so I guess we do own this driver in Manila for current situation. But, CI systems are really new to us, and we heard from other teams that they took almost one year to implement a CI for going through all the company processes and building all related staff for it. And , the biggest issue we have is there is not enough resource to actually implement and maintain the CI as that is not allowed by the team's strategy. We strongly believe the HDFS driver will be really useful in Manila/Openstack, and might be used by other Openstack projects such as Sahara/Cognitive which are big data related projects in the near future, thus we don't want to see the driver to be remove. Do we have a volunteer to take over the CI for HDFS driver as it is an open source distributed storage system which actually has no vendor dependency ? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks. -chen __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to SQLAlchemy 1.0.x
On 6/10/15 3:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi Mike, Thanks a lot for your quick reply which is very useful to me. On 06/09/2015 07:08 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: On 6/9/15 9:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi, The python-sqlalchemy package has been uploaded to Debian Experimental, and is about to be uploaded to Debian Unstable. So I wonder what's the state of the project regarding upgrading SQLA. Maybe Mike can tell what kind of issue we may run into? How much work will it be to switch to SQLA 1.0.x for Liberty? Is it possible to be compatible with both 9.x and 1.x (which would be the best way forward)? The short answer is that there are no supported use cases that have been intentionally changed in any backwards incompatible way in 1.0 and all Openstack code should be able to accommodate from 0.9.x - 1.0.x without any change. Ah, super cool! I saw that this passed all tests: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189847/ whew! :) Could we get it approved? Mike __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [murano] shellcheck all .sh scripts in murano-deployment
Thanks for comment and suggestion! there is also shutil2 framework for unit testing over shell scripts. We shall consider it whether it could bring us value for the effort. I personally have no strong opinion about that. Little contradiction to my previous mail:-) Regards Filip On 06/10/2015 03:34 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-06-10 13:48:26 +0200 (+0200), Filip Blaha wrote: +1, nice idea. Shell script are not easy to review - large files, not covered by unit tests. Any automatic tool could be beneficial. It's worth noting that just because your shell scripts don't have their own validation tests doesn't mean they can't. For example see the test-features.sh and test-functions.sh scripts in the https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/ repo, making sure we maintain a contract on things like branch fallback logic which is easy to subtly break if not tested. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Ian Cordasco ian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote: On 6/10/15, 09:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote: The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and vendors to get their input on viability in distro's. Really? James, were you made core on the requirements? I once tried to follow the requirements repo, though it moves too fast, and sometimes, it takes less than 2 days to get a new thing approved. Also, this repository has more than just dependencies, there's a lot of noise due to changes changes in projects.txt. I also don't mind any upgrade for whatever oslo or client libs. I'd love to have an easier way to voice my opinion without having all the noise of that repo in my inbox. I'm not sure if there's a solution to this problem though. Thomas You should be able to subscribe to a subset of the changes in gerrit. I don't recall if it only works for directories, but you should be able to make something work for *requirements.txt. The docs are easy to find on Google or DDG. Query to see only *requirements.txt changes: project:openstack/requirements file:^.*requirements.txt is:open how to subscribe to a subset of changes: https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-notify.html Cheers, Ian __ 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 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [neutron][fwaas] FWaaS IRC meetings to happen alternate Wed (no mtg today).
Hi All: Just a reminder to FWaaS meeting attendees, as discussed in last weeks FWaaS IRC [1], with all the PTO’s going on and the need for time to build up on the SG alignment discussions – it was felt that it would be good to go to an alternate week format. So the next meeting will be on Jun 17 [2]. Whenever there is a need, we can revert back to the weekly format. Thanks Sridar [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2015/networking_fwaas.2015-06-03-18.31.log.html [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Is volume connection_info modeled/documented anywhere?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: While investigating/discussing bug 1463525 [1] I remembered how little I know about what can actually come out of the connection_info dict returned from the os-initialize_connection cinder API call. So we added some debug logging in nova and I remembered that there are potentially credentials (auth_password) stored in connection_info, so we have a bug to clean that up in Nova [2]. The plan is to model connection_info using objects where we have a parent object BdmConnectionInfo containing the common keys, like 'driver_volume_type' and 'data', and then child objects for the vendor-specific connection_info objects, like RbdBdmConnectionInfo, ISCSIBdmConnectionInfo, etc. The problem I have right now is knowing what can all be in there, since there are a ton of vendor drivers in Cinder. Is anyone aware of a wiki page or devref or anything that documents what can be in that wild west connection_info dict? If not, the first thing I was going to do was start documenting that - but where? It seems it should really be modeled in Cinder since it is part of the API contract and if a vendor driver were to say rename or drop a key from the connection_info they were returning in os-initialize_connection it would be a backwards incompatible change. Is devref best for this with a listing for each vendor driver? At least then it would be versioned with the code and updates could be made as new keys are added to connection_info or new drivers are added to Cinder. I'm looking for any advice here in how to get started since I don't primarily work on Cinder and don't have a full history here. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1463525 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1321785 -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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 Hi Matt, This used to be much simpler than it is now, so I think documenting it in the cinder dev docs is a great idea. The basics of initialize_connection are documented via a comment (a not so great one) in the code here [1] which will point you to here [2]. The challenge is as you've noticed things like RBD and now FC and all of the other crazy transport layers that are getting thrown in. I don't have good info on the non-iscsi items, but sounds like you found the RBD stuff the hard way, maybe the FC stuff is in the code somewhere as well. I think each of the unique items have their own libvirt connection class, so that kinda helps organize it a bit. Also there the provider_* fields in the model update that come in (best place to see those is in the DB model). Anyway, I think this is would be great for us to have; I'm happy to help as much or as little as you like, just hit me up on IRC if you want. Thanks, John [1]: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/targets/iscsi.py#L278 [2]: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/targets/iscsi.py#L53 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [nova] vif type libvirt-network
Hi Daniel, Neil and others, I was thinking about introducing libvirt-network as a new vif type to nova. It can be used when Neutron prepares a libvirt network for attaching guests. Would you see any general concerns with such an approach? Anything that I need to consider with libvirt networks in addition? Maybe I should mention one thing due to the discussion this morning: No plug/unplug behavior would required. Any feedback is welcome! I added a blueprint and wrote a spec with more details [1]. This blueprint would make the macvtap-vif blueprint [2] dispensable. The neutron code exploiting this libvirt network vif type will land on stackforge. It will manage macvtap backed libvirt networks -- offer guest attachments via macvtap. [3] [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-network-vif [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-macvtap-vif [3] https://launchpad.net/networking-macvtap (I'm still waiting for the repo to be approved, so for now I only have a launchpad project to ref to). -- Andreas (irc: scheuran) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [Inspector] Toward 2.0.0 release
Hi, Dmitry, I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. OK, I see. One more concern, about Tempest integration test which I will implement in V2.1.0, it seems like that we cannot add Ironic-inspector's tests into Tempest even if integration tests. Please see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-in-the-big-tent But I heard from you that Devananda thinks we need this in tempest itself. [3] Do you know something like current situation? Best Regards, Yuiko Takada 2015-06-09 15:59 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com: On 06/09/2015 03:49 AM, Yuiko Takada wrote: Hi, Dmitry, Thank you for notifying. I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I've assigned one item to myself in [3], and also I added one BP to [4], so please take a look. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+spec/delete-db-api Looks good, though I don't think it's a big priority for 2.0.0. Definitely worth doing for 2.1.0. Thanks for assigning for tempest work, that's definitely a priority right now. BTW, how do you think about Ironic-inspector's release model? You wrote Version released with Ironic Liberty as Ironic-inspector Version 2.1.0 in etherpad [3], but as you know, Ironic's release model has changed to feature releases.(right?) Should we make our release model same as Ironic? I guess the whole idea of new release models is NOT to tie projects to each other any more except for The Big Release twice a year :) So I think no, we don't need to. We still can do it, if we have something to release by the time Ironic releases, but I suggest deciding it on case-by-case basis. Best Regards, Yuiko Takada(Inspector team member) 2015-06-08 20:38 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com mailto:dtant...@redhat.com: Hello, Inspector team! The renaming process is going pretty well, the last thing we need to do is to get Infra approval and actual rename [1][2]. I'd like to allow people (e.g. myself) to start packaging inspector under it's new name, so I'd like to make 2.0.0 release as soon as possible (as opposed to scheduling it to particular date). All breaking changes should land by this release - I don't expect 3.0.0 soon :) I've updated our summit etherpad [3] with whatever priorities I remembered, please have a look. I've also untargeted a few things in launchpad [4] (and will probably untarget more later on). Please assign yourself, if you want something done in this release time frame. I would like 2.1.0 to be released with Ironic Liberty and be properly supported. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Dmitry [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188030/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188798/ [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-ironic-discoverd [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ironic-inspector/+milestone/2.0.0 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Liberty Priorties for Nova
Daniel, if I got it right, the vif script blueprint only is about plug/unplug operations and not about generating new xml representations for vif types. What if for a new vif type it's sufficient to have the get_config_* method updated? In this case plug/unplug would be handled by libvirt (like with many other existing vif types). The plug/unplug methods would just contain a pass. Would you tend to be supportive in such cases? Thanks! -- Andreas (irc: scheuran) On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 15:28 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:07:51PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: On 04/06/15 13:05, Neil Jerram wrote: Hi John, On 04/06/15 12:21, John Garbutt wrote: Hi, We had a great discussion at the summit around priorities: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-nova-liberty-priorities I have made a stab at writing that up here, please to review if you are interested: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187272/ Note we plan to keep focus on the reviews using the etherpad like we did in kilo: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-priorities-tracking As you may have seen, I've collated libvirt/VIF type work at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-libvirt-vif-work. Where would you prefer any discussion about that to continue? Here on the ML, or in that review job? Hello again... So, just pinging again about the libvirt/VIF type work that I've collated at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-libvirt-vif-work. I'm keen if possible to have some kind of next step for discussing whether and how this work can be integrated into Nova's Liberty cycle. I wonder if it would help to present this work at a higher level - especially as it's really a grouping of three different kinds of work, and it may be that there is an elephant in the room of one of those kinds, which needs to be brought more into the open. Firstly there is a group of simple changes for new VIF types: TAP, macvtap, Infiniband SR-IOV; and removal of mlnx_direct. Changes of similar intent, scale and scope went in during Kilo, and I imagine that these could be reviewed and merged quite quickly, at any time from now on. It would be nice from my point of view to have that 'done', and perhaps from others' point of view too. Secondly there is the VIF plug script idea, and it's here that the elephant may be. I'm afraid that some of the interested people (including me) missed it, but I heard that the core team discussed this and expressed concern, in one of the Vancouver sessions, about 'not wanting Nova to become a pass-through API'. Since then, spec work has continued, but the only core input has come from Dan PB, who wasn't in that Vancouver session - so I'm worried that the Nova core team as a whole might not support this idea, and that the ongoing spec refinement might turn out to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As you said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the objections were, but I'm personally not supportive of adding any new VIF types until we have the VIF plugging script work done. This concept is critical to preventing the further explosion in the number of VIF types we need, and in allowing vendors to add new neutron mechanisms without always requiring a lock-step update to Nova. So from that POV I think the VIF script thing needs to be the #1 priority wrt VIF driver work in Nova/libvirt for Liberty. Regards, Daniel __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Liberty Process, Deadlines and Dates for Nova
On 4 June 2015 at 12:42, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote: Hi, Following up from nova-meetings and this summit session: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-nova-liberty-process snip With that in mind, does this seem like a good idea? June 12: spec review day (to be confirmed) Note this is happening on Friday, and its confirmed. A day where I hope everyone can help review nova-specs, so we can get as many specs merged before the spec freeze deadline thats coming up soon. We can discuss the details more in the nova-meeting tomorrow. July 10: feature review bash day (to be confirmed) August 7: bug triage day (to be confirmed) September 11: bug review bash day (to be confirmed) I am adding more details here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule I have updated the above wiki page. It helps define what all the deadlines mean, and how the exceptions will be processed. I noticed I missed out a few dates in the original list, so here is the updated list: * June 23-25: liberty-1 -- spec freeze for L, backlog stays open * July 13-17: non-priority feature proposal freeze * July 21-23: mid-cycle meetup * July 28-30: liberty-2 -- non-priority feature freeze * August 17-21: Feature Proposal Freeze * September 1-3: liberty-3 -- align with string freeze, etc, open specs for M Thanks, John __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] Openstack Diversity Working Group
If anyone needs help with the timezone conversion, I recommend http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html Just put in Portland and your nearest city into the boxes and you'll get an hour-by-hour breakdown :) On 10/06/15 23:39, Barrett, Carol L wrote: The Doodle time zone doesn’t seem to be appearing in the local timebased upon the viewer. Sorry – The time zone is US/Pacific time (UTC-7), you’ll need to do your own conversion. Thanks Carol *From:*Sousou, Imad [mailto:imad.sou...@intel.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:34 AM *To:* foundat...@lists.openstack.org; openst...@lists.openstack.org; commun...@lists.openstack.org; foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org; openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* [OpenStack Foundation] Openstack Diversity Working Group Stackers – We’re happy to announce the creation of a Diversity Working Group. The genesis for this work group was a discussion at the May meeting of the OpenStack Board of Directors ahead of the Vancouver Summit. The Board is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming place for all people to collaborate to drive innovation and design cutting-edge data center capabilities, while finding the best answers to our most pressing challenges. To achieve this, the Board formed this Work Group to determine what actions are required to fulfill this commitment. Three Board members volunteered to work with community members in this Work Group and bring updates/requests to the Board for discussion and action on a regular basis, starting with the July meeting. If you’re interested in joining this effort, please: · Join the Foundation mail list to participate in discussions and shape the direction: click here http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation · Visit the wiki page for this work group to learn more about the charter: click here https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Diversity · Plan to join the kick-off IRC meeting and let us know what day/times work for you by accessing the Doodle here: click here http://doodle.com/z85c23dtexx8qzq7 We will send out the results of the Doodle to the mail list and look forward to working with you to foster a strong and diverse community. Thanks Imad Sousou (Intel), Egle Sigler (Rackspace), Kavit Munshi (Aptira) ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
On 10 June 2015 at 17:06, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: So... as an op, without release notes, how am I supposed to figure out the proper upgrade procedure's when you often have to lockstep, in the right order, nova+neutron upgrades (or other project combinations)? Thanks, Kevin Hi Kevin, I suspect there is some confusion here between stable point releases and major releases. The major releases are still continuing as expected with rich release notes. This is talking about stable patch releases such as: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/2014.2.3 As you can see there is only notices in Known Issues and Limitations section of low impact. I do not believe we've ever required ordering in the updates of these, as they are supposed to be pretty conservative changes that shouldn't enforce limitations like that. HTH -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Openstack Diversity Working Group
The Doodle time zone doesn't seem to be appearing in the local timebased upon the viewer. Sorry - The time zone is US/Pacific time (UTC-7), you'll need to do your own conversion. Thanks Carol From: Sousou, Imad [mailto:imad.sou...@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:34 AM To: foundat...@lists.openstack.org; openst...@lists.openstack.org; commun...@lists.openstack.org; foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org; openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Openstack Diversity Working Group Stackers - We're happy to announce the creation of a Diversity Working Group. The genesis for this work group was a discussion at the May meeting of the OpenStack Board of Directors ahead of the Vancouver Summit. The Board is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming place for all people to collaborate to drive innovation and design cutting-edge data center capabilities, while finding the best answers to our most pressing challenges. To achieve this, the Board formed this Work Group to determine what actions are required to fulfill this commitment. Three Board members volunteered to work with community members in this Work Group and bring updates/requests to the Board for discussion and action on a regular basis, starting with the July meeting. If you're interested in joining this effort, please: * Join the Foundation mail list to participate in discussions and shape the direction: click herehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation * Visit the wiki page for this work group to learn more about the charter: click herehttps://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Diversity * Plan to join the kick-off IRC meeting and let us know what day/times work for you by accessing the Doodle here: click herehttp://doodle.com/z85c23dtexx8qzq7 We will send out the results of the Doodle to the mail list and look forward to working with you to foster a strong and diverse community. Thanks Imad Sousou (Intel), Egle Sigler (Rackspace), Kavit Munshi (Aptira) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] modeling connection_info with a versioned object in os-brick
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: This is a follow-on to the thread [1] asking about modeling the connection_info dict returned from the os-initialize_connection API. The more I think about modeling that in Nova, the more I think it should really be modeled in Cinder with an oslo.versionedobject since it is an API contract with the caller (Nova in this case) and any changes to the connection_info should require a version change (new/renamed/dropped fields). That got me thinking that if both Cinder and Nova are going to use this model, it needs to live in a library, so that would be os-brick now, right? In terms of modeling, I don't think we want an object for each vendor specific backend since (1) there are a ton of them so it'd be like herding cats and (2) most are probably sharing common attributes. So I was thinking something more along the lines of classes or types of backends, like local vs shared storage, fibre channel, etc. Yes, I think experiance with the VIF drivers in Neutron/Nova has shown that we should try to have an N:1 mapping between the vendor drivers and the Nova side plugin. This avoids the need to lock-step upgrade the Nova code every time a new plugin appears on the cinder side, and avoids re-inventing the same code over over for each vendor. I'm definitely not a storage guy so I don't know the best way to delineate all of these, but here is a rough idea so far. [2] This is roughly based on how I see things modeled in the nova.virt.libvirt.volume module today, but there isn't a hierarchy there. os-brick could contain the translation shim for converting the serialized connection_info dict into a hydrated ConnectionInfo object based on the type (have some kind of factory pattern in os-brick that does the translation based on driver_volume_type maybe given some mapping). Then when Nova gets the connection_info back from Cinder os-initialize_connection, it can send that into os-brick's translator utility and get back the ConnectionInfo object and access the attributes from that. Thoughts? Agree, that it does seem like we could be sharing the object definitions between Nova Cinder, instead of re-creating them in both projects. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases
So... as an op, without release notes, how am I supposed to figure out the proper upgrade procedure's when you often have to lockstep, in the right order, nova+neutron upgrades (or other project combinations)? Thanks, Kevin From: Thomas Goirand [z...@debian.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:53 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: So.. summarizing the various options again: Plan A Just drop stable point releases. (-) No more release notes (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations Plan B Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to time. (-) Encourages to continue using same version across the board (-) Almost as much work as making proper releases Plan C Let projects randomly tag point releases whenever (-) Still a bit costly in terms of herding cats Plan D Drop stable point releases, publish per-commit tarballs (-) Requires some infra changes, takes some storage space Plans B, C and D also require some release note / changelog generation from data maintained *within* the repository. Personally I think the objections raised against plan A are valid. I like plan D, since it's more like releasing every commit than not releasing anymore. I think it's the most honest trade-off. I could go with plan C, but I think it's added work for no additional value to the user. What would be your preferred option ? I see no point of doing D. I already don't use tarballs, and those who do could as well switch to generating them (how hard is it to run python setup.py sdist or git archive?). What counts is having a schedule date, where all distros are releasing a point release, so we have a common reference point. If that is a fully automated process, then great, less work for everyone, and it wont change anything from what we had in the past (we can even collectively decide for point release dates...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group-xxxx in token validation
Hello folks, Thanks for the consideration of this feature. Does it seem realistic for a Liberty release of Keystone middleware to expose X-Group-Ids, or would this be an M and beyond sort of thing? Thanks, John From: Henry Nash henryna...@mac.commailto:henryna...@mac.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 12:49 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation The one proviso is that in single LDAP situations, the cloud provider can chose (for backward compatibility reasons) to allow the underlying LDAP user/group ID….so we might want to advise this to be disabled (there’s a config switch to use the Public ID mapping for even this case). Henry On 5 Jun 2015, at 18:19, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.commailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Nash henry.n...@uk.ibm.commailto:henry.n...@uk.ibm.com wrote: So I think that GroupID's are actually unique and safesince in the multi LDAP case we provide an indirection already in Keystone and issue a Public ID (this is true for bother users and groups), that we map to the underlying local ID in the particular LDAP backend. Oh, awesome! I didn't realize we did that for groups as well. So then, we're safe exposing X-Group-Ids to services via keystonemiddleware.auth_token but still not X-Group-Names (in any trivial form). Henry From: Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.commailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Henry Nash hen...@linux.vnet.ibm.commailto:hen...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Henry Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 05/06/2015 15:38 Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:17 PM, John Wood john.w...@rackspace.commailto:john.w...@rackspace.com wrote: Hello folks, Regarding option C, if group IDs are unique within a given cloud/context, and these are discoverable by clients that can then set the ACL on a secret in Barbican, then that seems like a viable option to me. As it is now, the user information provided to the ACL is the user ID information as found in X-User-Ids now, not user names. To Kevin’s point though, are these group IDs unique across domains now, or in the future? If not the more complex tuples suggested could be used, but seem more error prone to configure on an ACL. Well, that's a good question, because that depends on the backend, and our backend architecture has recently gotten very complicated in this area. If groups are backed by SQL, then they're going to be globally unique UUIDs, so the answer is always yes. If they're backed by LDAP, then actually it depends on LDAP, but the answer should be yes. But the nightmare scenario we now support is domain-specific identity drivers, where each domain can actually be configured to talk to a different LDAP server. In that case, I don't think you can make any guarantees about group ID uniqueness :( Instead, each domain could provide whatever IDs it wants, and those might conflict with those of other domains. We have a workaround for a similar issue with user IDs, but it hasn't been applied to groups, leaving them quite broken in this scenario. I'd consider this to be an issue we need to solve in Keystone, though, not something other projects need to worry about. I'm hoping Henry Nash can chime in and correct me! Thanks, John From: Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.govmailto:kevin@pnnl.gov Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 6:01 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation In Juno I tried adding a user in Domain A to group in Domain B. That currently is not supported. Would be very handy though. We're getting a ways from the original part of the thread, so I may have lost some context, but I think the original question was, if barbarian can add group names to their resource acls. Since two administrative domains can issue the same group name, its not safe I believe. Simply ensuring the group name is associated with a user and the domain for the user matches the domain for the group wouldn't work because someone with control of their own domain can just make a user and give them
[openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] modeling connection_info with a versioned object in os-brick
This is a follow-on to the thread [1] asking about modeling the connection_info dict returned from the os-initialize_connection API. The more I think about modeling that in Nova, the more I think it should really be modeled in Cinder with an oslo.versionedobject since it is an API contract with the caller (Nova in this case) and any changes to the connection_info should require a version change (new/renamed/dropped fields). That got me thinking that if both Cinder and Nova are going to use this model, it needs to live in a library, so that would be os-brick now, right? In terms of modeling, I don't think we want an object for each vendor specific backend since (1) there are a ton of them so it'd be like herding cats and (2) most are probably sharing common attributes. So I was thinking something more along the lines of classes or types of backends, like local vs shared storage, fibre channel, etc. I'm definitely not a storage guy so I don't know the best way to delineate all of these, but here is a rough idea so far. [2] This is roughly based on how I see things modeled in the nova.virt.libvirt.volume module today, but there isn't a hierarchy there. os-brick could contain the translation shim for converting the serialized connection_info dict into a hydrated ConnectionInfo object based on the type (have some kind of factory pattern in os-brick that does the translation based on driver_volume_type maybe given some mapping). Then when Nova gets the connection_info back from Cinder os-initialize_connection, it can send that into os-brick's translator utility and get back the ConnectionInfo object and access the attributes from that. Thoughts? [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/066450.html [2] https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1geSKQXz4SqfXllq1Pk5o2YVCycZVf_i6ThY88r9YF4A/edit?usp=sharing -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group-xxxx in token validation
We're aiming for a Spec Proposal Freeze deadline for Liberty of June 23rd, but are requiring that specs are approved by our spec reviewers by that date. The spec [1] is currently pretty straightforward and provides us several benefits, so I don't expect it to be a complicated process, but is currently pending a revision from myself. I'm confident in Liberty at this point. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188564/ On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, John Wood john.w...@rackspace.com wrote: Hello folks, Thanks for the consideration of this feature. Does it seem realistic for a Liberty release of Keystone middleware to expose X-Group-Ids, or would this be an M and beyond sort of thing? Thanks, John From: Henry Nash henryna...@mac.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 12:49 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation The one proviso is that in single LDAP situations, the cloud provider can chose (for backward compatibility reasons) to allow the underlying LDAP user/group ID….so we might want to advise this to be disabled (there’s a config switch to use the Public ID mapping for even this case). Henry On 5 Jun 2015, at 18:19, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Nash henry.n...@uk.ibm.com wrote: So I think that GroupID's are actually unique and safesince in the multi LDAP case we provide an indirection already in Keystone and issue a Public ID (this is true for bother users and groups), that we map to the underlying local ID in the particular LDAP backend. Oh, awesome! I didn't realize we did that for groups as well. So then, we're safe exposing X-Group-Ids to services via keystonemiddleware.auth_token but still not X-Group-Names (in any trivial form). Henry From: Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Henry Nash hen...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Henry Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 05/06/2015 15:38 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation -- On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:17 PM, John Wood *john.w...@rackspace.com* john.w...@rackspace.com wrote: Hello folks, Regarding option C, if group IDs are unique within a given cloud/context, and these are discoverable by clients that can then set the ACL on a secret in Barbican, then that seems like a viable option to me. As it is now, the user information provided to the ACL is the user ID information as found in X-User-Ids now, not user names. To Kevin’s point though, are these group IDs unique across domains now, or in the future? If not the more complex tuples suggested could be used, but seem more error prone to configure on an ACL. Well, that's a good question, because that depends on the backend, and our backend architecture has recently gotten very complicated in this area. If groups are backed by SQL, then they're going to be globally unique UUIDs, so the answer is always yes. If they're backed by LDAP, then actually it depends on LDAP, but the answer should be yes. But the nightmare scenario we now support is domain-specific identity drivers, where each domain can actually be configured to talk to a different LDAP server. In that case, I don't think you can make any guarantees about group ID uniqueness :( Instead, each domain could provide whatever IDs it wants, and those might conflict with those of other domains. We have a workaround for a similar issue with user IDs, but it hasn't been applied to groups, leaving them quite broken in this scenario. I'd consider this to be an issue we need to solve in Keystone, though, not something other projects need to worry about. I'm hoping Henry Nash can chime in and correct me! Thanks, John *From: *Fox, Kevin M *kevin@pnnl.gov* kevin@pnnl.gov * Reply-To: *OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org * Date: *Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 6:01 PM * To: *OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org * Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group- in token validation In Juno I tried adding a user in Domain A to group in Domain B. That currently is not supported. Would be very handy though. We're getting a ways from the original part of the thread, so I may have lost some context, but I think the original question was, if barbarian can add group names to their resource acls. Since two administrative
Re: [openstack-dev] [javascript] Linters
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:37 PM Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 04:01, Michael Krotscheck krotsch...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it looks like everyone has disqualified jslint and jshint, so let's just make a decision there and remove them from the running. Unless I hear a compelling reason to use something that has the infamous do no evil license in it, let's dump it. ... As for how this is synchronized, a brief discussion in the infra channel proposed that we put global javascript requirements in the global-requirements repo, and then update the update.py script in that repo to also handle bower.json and package.json. Then, if we build an eslint/jscs plugin similar to our hacking rules, we can just update that when we want to modify the linting rules. Any objections? Yes, I think this should live in openstack/requirements. bower.json is clearly js specific; package.json isn't AFAICT - can you give me some sane pointers to go level up on that? There are two package managers in the JavaScript world right now, one that focuses on node.js/server dependencies (karma, lint, express, etc), and one that focuses on in-browser dependencies (angular, bootstrap, etc). They're both required for thick browser clients, but for server apps you only really need package.json https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/blob/master/refstack-ui/package.json https://github.com/angular-ui/bootstrap/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/package.json In the absence of information I'm assuming we should make a subdir 'js' and put bower.json and package.json in there (and do the same for the python things in a subdir called python for symmetry, though backwards compat and tooling considerations may mean that we have to prepare for that. The reason being that if package.json is js specific, its just confusing to have it live at the top level. Also we may want to call them global-$thing, since if we do have js in the requirements repo itself at some point, it would be good not to conflict on names. FYI, it looks like the monasca team may want to start doing similar things with Java. More information after I hunt them down this morning :) I'm not at all sure that update.py should handle the json files per se; will the policy for those files be the same as we use for python? Add linting rule sets to this list, contained either in .jscsrc or .eslintrc. Javascript does not have the privilege of pep8 being baked into the language tooling, so we have to sync it ourselves. If not it might be cleaner to have a new entry point. OTOH I'll need to look closely at a few real {bower,package}.json files to proffer an useful opinion. [Perhaps you covered this in IRC - it didn't come through in your summary]. It depends on what you think update.py is supposed to do. If I look at that repository, I would argue that the purpose is to Synchronize common files and properties across registered openstack projects. In this case, a requirement is defined as something required to meet a minimum set of project sanity standards. Also, I'm in the middle of rearranging update.py to handle PEP 426 and so we should probably coordinate so we don't tromp on each other. Do you have a patch? Michael __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver
On 2015-06-10 14:39:46 + (+), yang, xing wrote: You can ask if OpenStack Infrastructure team can set up CI for this driver. They have set up CI's for a few Cinder drivers based on open source storage systems. To be fair, the Infra team hasn't really written the jobs to test those, but we have pointed the developers responsible for the drivers to our documentation and reviewed the changes they submit to add the jobs to our CI. -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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
[openstack-dev] Announcing Gertty 1.2.0
Announcing Gertty 1.2.0 === Gertty is a console-based interface to the Gerrit Code Review system. Gertty is designed to support a workflow similar to reading network news or mail. It syncs information from Gerrit to local storage to support disconnected operation and easy manipulation of local git repos. It is fast and efficient at dealing with large numbers of changes and projects. The full README with installation instructions may be found here: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/gertty/tree/README.rst Changes since 1.1.0: * Changes may be reviewed directly from the change list. * Multiple changes may be reviewed at once by selecting them from the change list. This can be very useful for mass application of changes across many repositories, or to leave comments about dependencies, etc, on a whole series of changes. * The local database and git repositories are pruned of closed changes to save space and speed up operations. By default, changes closed more than two months ago are removed, but the value is configurable. * Searches by filename, age, reviewer, and messages are now supported. * Change IDs are now supported as simple searches (without a search predicate). * Syncing operations have been improved. * The file name is always displayed at the top of the diff screen. * Change IDs, topics, and project names are now searchable links on the change screen. * A URL (e.g., https://review.example.com/#/c/1234/) may be copied into the search box to open a change directly. * The permalink is now displayed on the change screen for easy copy/paste. * Local checkout and cherry-pick are supported directly from the change list. * Starred and owned changes are synced regardless of whether the project is subscribed. * If Gertty is about to upload a review of a change where someone else has since left a more negative vote than the one it is about to upload, Gertty will cancel the upload operation and mark the change as held for re-review and alert the user. In this manner, offline reviewers can avoid accidentally ignoring potentially important negative feedback on a change. * Scrolling by mouse wheel is now supported. * Times are displayed in the local timezone, or optionally (by configuration) in UTC. * Several other display and performance improvements. Thanks to the following people whose changes are included in this release: Adam Spiers Christoph Gysin James Polley Jan Kundrát Jeremy Stanley K Jonathan Harker Matthew Treinish Miguel Grinberg Paul Belanger __ 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
[openstack-dev] [murano] backporting changes to stable/juno and stable/kilo
Hi all. I’ve been looking through the bugs/fixes we’ve made during kilo cycle. Some of them are worthy of being backported to stable/juno. And some of the fixes we’ve already made in liberty are worthy of being backported to stable/kilo. Since we’ve agreed on using tags for bugs I’ve marked those bugs as juno-backport-potential and kilo-backport-potential. Here are the links for them murano bugs with tag 'juno-backport-potential’ and without a tag ‘in-stable-juno’ : http://j.mp/murano-juno-backport murano bugs in murano with tag ‘kilo-backport-potential’ and without a tag ‘in-stable-kilo’: http://j.mp/murano-kilo-backport python-muranoclient bugs with tag 'juno-backport-potential’ and without a tag ‘in-stable-juno’ : http://j.mp/muranoclient-juno-backport python-muranoclient bugs in murano with tag ‘kilo-backport-potential’ and without a tag ‘in-stable-kilo’: http://j.mp/muranoclient-kilo-backport Sorry for using url shortener, the links are really large and would clutter the email otherwise. I also hope I didn’t mess up with them. =) You can construct them from Launchpads advanced search. If you have any objections to the list of bugs to be backported — you can comment in respective bugs on l-pad and we can discuss it on a per-bug basis. If you're aware of any bugs, that have backport potential that are not present on the list: feel free to tag them. -- Kirill Zaitsev Murano team Software Engineer Mirantis, Inc__ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] vif type libvirt-network
On 10/06/15 15:47, Andreas Scheuring wrote: Hi Daniel, Neil and others, I was thinking about introducing libvirt-network as a new vif type to nova. It can be used when Neutron prepares a libvirt network for attaching guests. Would you see any general concerns with such an approach? Anything that I need to consider with libvirt networks in addition? Maybe I should mention one thing due to the discussion this morning: No plug/unplug behavior would required. Any feedback is welcome! I added a blueprint and wrote a spec with more details [1]. This blueprint would make the macvtap-vif blueprint [2] dispensable. The neutron code exploiting this libvirt network vif type will land on stackforge. It will manage macvtap backed libvirt networks -- offer guest attachments via macvtap. [3] [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-network-vif [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-macvtap-vif [3] https://launchpad.net/networking-macvtap (I'm still waiting for the repo to be approved, so for now I only have a launchpad project to ref to). Thanks, Andreas, this looks interesting. I wonder if network namexyz/name forward mode=route\ ... /network domain ... interface type='network' source network='xyx'/ /interface ... /domain would provide the connectivity that my Calico project wants to set up [1] - i.e. where all data to and from VMs is routed on the compute host - instead of domain ... interface type='ethernet' ... /interface ... /domain Do you happen to know how data gets routed _to_ a VM, in the type='network' case? Regards, Neil [1] http://docs.projectcalico.org/en/latest/home.html __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Brian Haley to Neutron L3 Core Reviewer Team
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote: Folks, As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to propose Brian Haley as a member of the Neutron L3 core reviewer team. Brian has been a long time contributor in Neutron showing expertise particularly in IPv6, iptables, and Linux kernel matters. His knowledge and involvement will be very important especially in this area. Brian has become a trusted member of our community. His review stats [2][3][4] place him comfortably with other Neutron core reviewers. He regularly runs proposed patches himself and gives insightful feedback. He has shown a lot of interest in the success of Neutron. Existing Neutron core reviewers from the L3 area of focus, please vote +1/-1 for the addition of Brian to the core reviewer team. Specifically, I'm looking for votes from Henry, Assaf, and Mark. +1 Thanks for being the first Lieutenant to nominate a core reviewer to your area of focus Carl! I obviously think Brian is a great choice here, and I'm glad to see you growing the L3 area in Neutron. Thanks, Kyle Thanks! Carl [1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.html#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:%22Brian+Haley+%253Cbrian.haley%2540hp.com%253E%22,n,z [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90 [4] http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=brian-haleymetric=marks __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Brian Haley to Neutron L3 Core Reviewer Team
+1 - Original Message - Folks, As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to propose Brian Haley as a member of the Neutron L3 core reviewer team. Brian has been a long time contributor in Neutron showing expertise particularly in IPv6, iptables, and Linux kernel matters. His knowledge and involvement will be very important especially in this area. Brian has become a trusted member of our community. His review stats [2][3][4] place him comfortably with other Neutron core reviewers. He regularly runs proposed patches himself and gives insightful feedback. He has shown a lot of interest in the success of Neutron. Existing Neutron core reviewers from the L3 area of focus, please vote +1/-1 for the addition of Brian to the core reviewer team. Specifically, I'm looking for votes from Henry, Assaf, and Mark. Thanks! Carl [1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.html#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:%22Brian+Haley+%253Cbrian.haley%2540hp.com%253E%22,n,z [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90 [4] http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=brian-haleymetric=marks __ 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 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [oslo] Adopt mox3
Oslo folks, everyone, mox3 needs to be maintained since some of our projects use it and we have it in our global requirements. Here's the proposal from Doug - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/190330/ Any objections? Please chime in here or on the review. thanks, dims -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-operators][openstack][chef] Pre-release of knife-openstack is out (1.2.0.rc1)
On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:12 PM, JJ Asghar jasg...@chef.io wrote: I have cut a new release of the knife-openstack[1] gem today. We have a couple new features[2] which has been asked for a while. I have pushed another pre-release (1.2.0.rc2) of knife-openstack. The main change is support for the `—bootstrap-template` now. If you would like to give it a shot and report back any issues you might find[3]. gem install knife-openstack --pre I’m hoping to give this a week or two to bake, then I’ll push it to master and a 1.2.0 release. If you have any questions, thoughts, concerns please don’t hesitate to reach out! [1]: https://rubygems.org/gems/knife-openstack https://rubygems.org/gems/knife-openstack [2]: https://github.com/chef/knife-openstack/pull/165/files https://github.com/chef/knife-openstack/pull/165/files [3]: https://github.com/chef/knife-openstack/issues https://github.com/chef/knife-openstack/issues -JJ Thanks!__ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] vif type libvirt-network
Hi Ian, Thanks for your reply! On 10/06/15 21:07, Ian Wells wrote: I don't see a problem with this, though I think you do want plug/unplug calls to be passed on to Neutron so that has the opportunity to set up the binding from its side (usage 0) and tear it down when you're done with it (usage 1). There may be a set of races you need to deal with, too - what happens if Nova starts a VM attached to a Neutron network binding that has yet to be set up? Neutron doesn't (well, technically, shouldn't be expected to) do things instantaneously on a call, even binding, or you get into the realm of distributed system failure case analysis. Good point. Andreas, how do you think the timing of the Nova and Neutron parts will work? Neil, are you trying to route to the host - where this will work, because a libvirt network is L2 - or to the VM - where this won't, for the same reason? Consider data that's arriving at a local VM, and has come from a VM on another compute host. VM - Host A - Host B - VM 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 In Host B's routing table there is a rule like this: 10.0.0.2/32 dev tap12345-CD where tap12345-CD is the TAP interface towards the VM. Does that answer your question, and would that be possible with a libvirt network? Thanks, Neil -- Ian. On 10 June 2015 at 12:16, Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com mailto:neil.jer...@metaswitch.com wrote: On 10/06/15 15:47, Andreas Scheuring wrote: Hi Daniel, Neil and others, I was thinking about introducing libvirt-network as a new vif type to nova. It can be used when Neutron prepares a libvirt network for attaching guests. Would you see any general concerns with such an approach? Anything that I need to consider with libvirt networks in addition? Maybe I should mention one thing due to the discussion this morning: No plug/unplug behavior would required. Any feedback is welcome! I added a blueprint and wrote a spec with more details [1]. This blueprint would make the macvtap-vif blueprint [2] dispensable. The neutron code exploiting this libvirt network vif type will land on stackforge. It will manage macvtap backed libvirt networks -- offer guest attachments via macvtap. [3] [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-network-vif [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-macvtap-vif [3] https://launchpad.net/networking-macvtap (I'm still waiting for the repo to be approved, so for now I only have a launchpad project to ref to). Thanks, Andreas, this looks interesting. I wonder if network namexyz/name forward mode=route\ ... /network domain ... interface type='network' source network='xyx'/ /interface ... /domain would provide the connectivity that my Calico project wants to set up [1] - i.e. where all data to and from VMs is routed on the compute host - instead of domain ... interface type='ethernet' ... /interface ... /domain Do you happen to know how data gets routed _to_ a VM, in the type='network' case? Regards, Neil [1] http://docs.projectcalico.org/en/latest/home.html __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Openstack Diversity Working Group
Doodle does this automatically. At least it presented me with what appeared to be US East times. There is a box on the upper right that tells you the time zone and lets you change it. Pete On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 23:43 +0800, Tom Fifield wrote: If anyone needs help with the timezone conversion, I recommend http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html Just put in Portland and your nearest city into the boxes and you'll get an hour-by-hour breakdown :) On 10/06/15 23:39, Barrett, Carol L wrote: The Doodle time zone doesn’t seem to be appearing in the local timebased upon the viewer. Sorry – The time zone is US/Pacific time (UTC-7), you’ll need to do your own conversion. Thanks Carol *From:*Sousou, Imad [mailto:imad.sou...@intel.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:34 AM *To:* foundat...@lists.openstack.org; openst...@lists.openstack.org; commun...@lists.openstack.org; foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org; openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* [OpenStack Foundation] Openstack Diversity Working Group Stackers – We’re happy to announce the creation of a Diversity Working Group. The genesis for this work group was a discussion at the May meeting of the OpenStack Board of Directors ahead of the Vancouver Summit. The Board is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming place for all people to collaborate to drive innovation and design cutting-edge data center capabilities, while finding the best answers to our most pressing challenges. To achieve this, the Board formed this Work Group to determine what actions are required to fulfill this commitment. Three Board members volunteered to work with community members in this Work Group and bring updates/requests to the Board for discussion and action on a regular basis, starting with the July meeting. If you’re interested in joining this effort, please: · Join the Foundation mail list to participate in discussions and shape the direction: click here http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation · Visit the wiki page for this work group to learn more about the charter: click here https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Diversity · Plan to join the kick-off IRC meeting and let us know what day/times work for you by accessing the Doodle here: click here http://doodle.com/z85c23dtexx8qzq7 We will send out the results of the Doodle to the mail list and look forward to working with you to foster a strong and diverse community. Thanks Imad Sousou (Intel), Egle Sigler (Rackspace), Kavit Munshi (Aptira) ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openst...@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack -- Pete Chadwick Senior Product Manager SUSE pchadw...@suse.com (M) +1.617.281.2847 www.suse.com __ 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
[openstack-dev] Proposing Brian Haley to Neutron L3 Core Reviewer Team
Folks, As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to propose Brian Haley as a member of the Neutron L3 core reviewer team. Brian has been a long time contributor in Neutron showing expertise particularly in IPv6, iptables, and Linux kernel matters. His knowledge and involvement will be very important especially in this area. Brian has become a trusted member of our community. His review stats [2][3][4] place him comfortably with other Neutron core reviewers. He regularly runs proposed patches himself and gives insightful feedback. He has shown a lot of interest in the success of Neutron. Existing Neutron core reviewers from the L3 area of focus, please vote +1/-1 for the addition of Brian to the core reviewer team. Specifically, I'm looking for votes from Henry, Assaf, and Mark. Thanks! Carl [1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.html#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:%22Brian+Haley+%253Cbrian.haley%2540hp.com%253E%22,n,z [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90 [4] http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=brian-haleymetric=marks __ 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
[openstack-dev] Online Migrations.
All, I am taking over work on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154521/ from Johanness and have spent some time today discussing the current patchset and what is remaining with Dan and Johannes. I wanted to broach the topic of the remaining development with the lists to make sure we go in the right direction with it as it is not an easy problem to solve. The remaining work is to have a way of preventing database contracts from running until data migrations that the column interacts with are complete, this is not an easy problem to solve as the goal of the online migrations is to do pure model based schema migrations and there is no way of currently identifying when a data migration has taken place and a contract is safe to perform. The first thought I had was to default to a requirement of a data migration removing data from a column and have the default check of the contract be one of verifying that the column is currently empty. This has the issue of not working in all cases, especially around Foreign Keys. At this point I would like to open this discussion up to all in order to make sure the best solution is chosen for this problem.. -Ph __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Brian Haley to Neutron L3 Core Reviewer Team
+1 Brian will be a great addition for L3 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote: Folks, As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to propose Brian Haley as a member of the Neutron L3 core reviewer team. Brian has been a long time contributor in Neutron showing expertise particularly in IPv6, iptables, and Linux kernel matters. His knowledge and involvement will be very important especially in this area. Brian has become a trusted member of our community. His review stats [2][3][4] place him comfortably with other Neutron core reviewers. He regularly runs proposed patches himself and gives insightful feedback. He has shown a lot of interest in the success of Neutron. Existing Neutron core reviewers from the L3 area of focus, please vote +1/-1 for the addition of Brian to the core reviewer team. Specifically, I'm looking for votes from Henry, Assaf, and Mark. Thanks! Carl [1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.html#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:%22Brian+Haley+%253Cbrian.haley%2540hp.com%253E%22,n,z [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90 [4] http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=brian-haleymetric=marks __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Online Migrations.
I like the idea of having a named condition, but the issue is how to maintain and control multiple of these conditions in a system that will use model against current schema to determine changes. I also agree that we should get the current patch in as soon as possible and can move my -1 as a hold from it if others don’t mind it going as is while we work on the next part. I have updated the patchset to pass check’s this afternoon. -Ph On Jun 10, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote: The remaining work is to have a way of preventing database contracts from running until data migrations that the column interacts with are complete, this is not an easy problem to solve as the goal of the online migrations is to do pure model based schema migrations and there is no way of currently identifying when a data migration has taken place and a contract is safe to perform. I'd still like to see what we have done so far merged as soon as possible. That facilitates testing the main goal of it, which is actually moving the schema along. It's experimental and completely optional, and should have a may eat your lunch warning anyway. The first thought I had was to default to a requirement of a data migration removing data from a column and have the default check of the contract be one of verifying that the column is currently empty. This has the issue of not working in all cases, especially around Foreign Keys. I'm not sure if SQLAlchemy will balk at this or not, but we could do something like: class NameRemovedCondition(object): def satisfied(self): # Check to see if name has been fully migrated class Instance(sqla.Model): id = sqla.Integer() uuid = sqla.String() name = RemovedField(original=sqla.String(), condition=NameCondition()) Then the schema migration bit can catch RemovedField entries, know what they were (so that it can leave that bit alone), and only remove them when condition is satisfied. Complex migrations that affect multiple columns can share a condition that checks the full situation. Like I said, I'd like to get the existing patch merged so that we can discuss options for this remaining bit in a smaller scope. --Dan __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Mechanism drivers and Neutron server forking?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com wrote: On 08/06/15 22:02, Kevin Benton wrote: This depends on what initialize is supposed to be doing. If it's just a one-time sync with a back-end, then I think calling it once in each child process might not be what we want. I left a comment on Terry's patch. I think we should just use the callback manager to have a pre-fork and post-fork even to let drivers/plugins do whatever is appropriate for them. Can you point me to more detail about the callback manager (or registry)? I haven't come across that yet. http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/devref/callbacks.html Thanks, Neil __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Online Migrations.
The remaining work is to have a way of preventing database contracts from running until data migrations that the column interacts with are complete, this is not an easy problem to solve as the goal of the online migrations is to do pure model based schema migrations and there is no way of currently identifying when a data migration has taken place and a contract is safe to perform. I'd still like to see what we have done so far merged as soon as possible. That facilitates testing the main goal of it, which is actually moving the schema along. It's experimental and completely optional, and should have a may eat your lunch warning anyway. The first thought I had was to default to a requirement of a data migration removing data from a column and have the default check of the contract be one of verifying that the column is currently empty. This has the issue of not working in all cases, especially around Foreign Keys. I'm not sure if SQLAlchemy will balk at this or not, but we could do something like: class NameRemovedCondition(object): def satisfied(self): # Check to see if name has been fully migrated class Instance(sqla.Model): id = sqla.Integer() uuid = sqla.String() name = RemovedField(original=sqla.String(), condition=NameCondition()) Then the schema migration bit can catch RemovedField entries, know what they were (so that it can leave that bit alone), and only remove them when condition is satisfied. Complex migrations that affect multiple columns can share a condition that checks the full situation. Like I said, I'd like to get the existing patch merged so that we can discuss options for this remaining bit in a smaller scope. --Dan __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Mechanism drivers and Neutron server forking?
On 08/06/15 22:02, Kevin Benton wrote: This depends on what initialize is supposed to be doing. If it's just a one-time sync with a back-end, then I think calling it once in each child process might not be what we want. I left a comment on Terry's patch. I think we should just use the callback manager to have a pre-fork and post-fork even to let drivers/plugins do whatever is appropriate for them. Can you point me to more detail about the callback manager (or registry)? I haven't come across that yet. Thanks, Neil __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ops][tags][packaging] [tc] ops:packaging tag - a little common sense, please
Forgive the top posting. Thank you Jay for your clarification and apology. I wrote the piece below **before** you sent out your email this afternoon, so again this is nothing personal and not targeted at any **specific** person. With that said, I still think that what I have to say is still relevant (if I am raked over the coals for it, then so be it), and should be voiced here on both of these lists, and is quoted here below in full. Hello all. I would like to bring to your attention the following log from last nights TC meeting [1] (if you have not already gone through it) Starting at 20:17:42 ttx #topic Discuss differences between Ops and TC tags Ending at 20:27:13 ttx #topic Add the Searchlight Project With some highlights *20:19:47 - ---: they are also setting themselves up for failure, IMHO, and a situation where the data will be almost immediately stale and worse than in the openstack.org wiki. ** * *20:21:37 -- what ops want is not so much tags as more targeted analytics data (extension to bitergia/stackalytics) by the sounds of it * *20:22:45 - I prefer 1/ really, but I'm more than happy to let their current strategy fail and then revisit. ** * *20:24:42 -- --: I have *already* engaged with them. and their answer has been f off, we'll do it our way. ** * *20:25:46 * looks forward to the ops:packaged:centos:call-me-maybe:ok-with-cern-this-week tag* (in order to not single out any single person from the meeting last night I have removed the names from the snippet - the originals are in the raw log). Personally I find some of the comments highly condescending, and in some cases blatantly a pure insult. It could be that some of it was supposed to be humorous, was said in the 'spur of the moment', but I think it is appropriate to remind people that all of these things are logged, and available for eternity. If that is the way that certain members of the TC would like treat an initiative that was not born purely as a part of the developer community, but as part of the other side of the fence then I am sorry but this is destined to fail. Before it even starts. Yes some of the comments are true, there are things to fix, but instead of going down the route of we know better, because we know OpenStack and we have been here for 10 cycles already, so let us let them stew in their own juice and not help them out, they could be more receptive and embrace change and live up to their motto of being more inclusive. If this attitude continues we will find ourselves after another cycle or two (or ten), and the community (and the TC) will still not have proper input from what they deem to be an 'important' factor in the community. It seems to me that the operations aspect of OpenStack is of no interest to them - unless it is done their way and their way only. To me this is classic case of typical OpenStack - That way is no good, I have a better way of doing it. A large number of bytes were spilled during the TC elections of why Operators feel excluded from the OpenStack community. For me, the interaction in the meeting above, is a perfect example of why. As was voiced already on the mailing list lately [2] Not cool .! Not even a little bit. ***Again I would like to stress this is not a personal attack on any single member of the TC - but a general feeling *I have* of the wrong attitude that is coming across from the people that are supposed to be representing and leading the WHOLE OpenStack community.*** I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2015/tc.2015-06-09-20.01.log.txt [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/066031.html -- On 06/10/15 20:51, Jay Pipes wrote: Cross-posting to -operators and -dev because this involves *packagers* of OpenStack, as well as operators who use those packages. Hello Operators, First, let me start out by saying if you were offended by my snarky comments at yesterday's TC meeting [1] regarding the direction of the Ops Tags Team, I apologize. Sometimes I am snarky and/or moody, especially when I feel strongly about something, as is the case here. Please accept my apologies. Let's move on. = tl;dr = * The proposed things are not tags * Operators should not be curating packaging tags (packagers should) * Tags should not have a value component * Packaging tags should be release-specific, or they will be wrong = The details = OK, that said, here are the issues I have with the proposed ops:packaging tags [2]. = The proposed things are not tags = The things being proposed by the Ops Tags Team are in fact not tags, which are simple strings of binary information that have a well-defined and singular meaning. What the Ops Tags Team has proposed is structured, schema-full data objects. There is nothing wrong with having a structured object for purposes of generating useful information. But
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] vif type libvirt-network
I don't see a problem with this, though I think you do want plug/unplug calls to be passed on to Neutron so that has the opportunity to set up the binding from its side (usage 0) and tear it down when you're done with it (usage 1). There may be a set of races you need to deal with, too - what happens if Nova starts a VM attached to a Neutron network binding that has yet to be set up? Neutron doesn't (well, technically, shouldn't be expected to) do things instantaneously on a call, even binding, or you get into the realm of distributed system failure case analysis. Neil, are you trying to route to the host - where this will work, because a libvirt network is L2 - or to the VM - where this won't, for the same reason? -- Ian. On 10 June 2015 at 12:16, Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com wrote: On 10/06/15 15:47, Andreas Scheuring wrote: Hi Daniel, Neil and others, I was thinking about introducing libvirt-network as a new vif type to nova. It can be used when Neutron prepares a libvirt network for attaching guests. Would you see any general concerns with such an approach? Anything that I need to consider with libvirt networks in addition? Maybe I should mention one thing due to the discussion this morning: No plug/unplug behavior would required. Any feedback is welcome! I added a blueprint and wrote a spec with more details [1]. This blueprint would make the macvtap-vif blueprint [2] dispensable. The neutron code exploiting this libvirt network vif type will land on stackforge. It will manage macvtap backed libvirt networks -- offer guest attachments via macvtap. [3] [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-network-vif [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-macvtap-vif [3] https://launchpad.net/networking-macvtap (I'm still waiting for the repo to be approved, so for now I only have a launchpad project to ref to). Thanks, Andreas, this looks interesting. I wonder if network namexyz/name forward mode=route\ ... /network domain ... interface type='network' source network='xyx'/ /interface ... /domain would provide the connectivity that my Calico project wants to set up [1] - i.e. where all data to and from VMs is routed on the compute host - instead of domain ... interface type='ethernet' ... /interface ... /domain Do you happen to know how data gets routed _to_ a VM, in the type='network' case? Regards, Neil [1] http://docs.projectcalico.org/en/latest/home.html __ 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 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [Glance] [all] python-glanceclient release 0.19.0
The python-glanceclient release management team is pleased to announce: Release of python-glanceclient version 0.19.0 Please find the details related to the release at: https://launchpad.net/python-glanceclient/liberty/0.19.0https://launchpad.net/python-glanceclient/+milestone/v0.17.0 Please report the issues through launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-glanceclient -- Thanks, Nikhil __ 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
[openstack-dev] [ops][tags][packaging] ops:packaging tag - a little common sense, please
Cross-posting to -operators and -dev because this involves *packagers* of OpenStack, as well as operators who use those packages. Hello Operators, First, let me start out by saying if you were offended by my snarky comments at yesterday's TC meeting [1] regarding the direction of the Ops Tags Team, I apologize. Sometimes I am snarky and/or moody, especially when I feel strongly about something, as is the case here. Please accept my apologies. Let's move on. = tl;dr = * The proposed things are not tags * Operators should not be curating packaging tags (packagers should) * Tags should not have a value component * Packaging tags should be release-specific, or they will be wrong = The details = OK, that said, here are the issues I have with the proposed ops:packaging tags [2]. = The proposed things are not tags = The things being proposed by the Ops Tags Team are in fact not tags, which are simple strings of binary information that have a well-defined and singular meaning. What the Ops Tags Team has proposed is structured, schema-full data objects. There is nothing wrong with having a structured object for purposes of generating useful information. But please don't call these things tags, because they aren't. Before I move on to other issues, I'd like to point out that the more you go down the route of adding more and more attributes, most of which would be optional, to these structured documents, the more you will run into a problem of having stale and misleading data contained in these JSON files. And that will lead to a worse user experience for operators than the current wiki, which, like all wikis, is notoriously out-of-date in many places. A tag should mean one thing, and one thing only, to encourage clarity. The definition of the tag should be decisive regarding why a particular project has been tagged with that tag. = Operators should not be curating packaging tags = *Packagers* should be curating tags that correspond to whether or not packages exist for particular projects in OpenStack. Operators consume these packages, for sure, but the packagers in the upstream operating system communities are the ones that know the most accurate information about the state of packaging for a particular project and a particular release. I strongly believe that these ops:packaged tags should really just be tags in the openstack/governance repository (i.e. regular TC tags) and be curated by the packaging community, which means they would not have the ops: prefix on them. = Remove value component from the tag = The current proposal for both ops:packaged and ops:production-use [3] tag definitions include a value component. For example, the ops:packaged tags must include one of the following values: - good - beginning - warning - no With each of the above values attempting to indicate to the audience that the packages for a particular project are in varying states of repair and bug-freeness. There are a number of problems with including this value in the tag: 1) This value judgement about the packaging quality is ripe for getting out-of-date VERY quickly. Who is going to continually update the value parts for the different projects? Things change very quickly in packaging-land. Bugs are fixed, new packages built and published. Who in the ops community is going to track this? Please see point above about Operators should not be curating packaging tags. 2) All software, including packages, has bugs. This is something that the Ops community just needs to accept and get over. Quabbling with each other about what constitutes a major bug in packaging and how many major bugs bugs constitute a warning value is less than useful to the audience here. Instead, the ops community should focus on providing useful documentation and links to the audience, in the form of long-form release notes or opinions about packages and documentation on the OpenStack wiki. = Packaging tags should be release-specific, or they will be wrong = For these packaging tags, the release must be part of the tag itself, otherwise the information it denotes would be indeterminate. As an example, suppose you have a tag that looks like this: ops:packaged:centos:good And in the tag definition you say that the tag is applied to projects that have CentOS RPM packages available within the last 6 months. Well, as you all know, packages are published for a *particular release of OpenStack*. So, if Nova is tagged with ops:packaged:centos:good in, say, August 2015, the tag would ostensibly be saying that packages exist for Nova in Kilo. However, once November rolls around, and packages for Liberty don't (yet) exist, are you going to remove this ops:packaged:centos:good tag from Nova or (worse) change it to ops:pacakged:centos:no? Instead, have the tag be specific to a release of OpenStack: packaged:centos:kilo = In summary = In short, I would love it if the Ops Tags
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver
Thanks Jeremy. I assume Chen could follow this example to add a job for the HDFS driver? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188744/ Thanks, Xing -Original Message- From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:40 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver On 2015-06-10 14:39:46 + (+), yang, xing wrote: You can ask if OpenStack Infrastructure team can set up CI for this driver. They have set up CI's for a few Cinder drivers based on open source storage systems. To be fair, the Infra team hasn't really written the jobs to test those, but we have pointed the developers responsible for the drivers to our documentation and reviewed the changes they submit to add the jobs to our CI. -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] weekly meetings and sub-team reports and people
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:33:41PM -0400, Ruby Loo wrote: Hi, I noticed (from reading the logs[1]) that there weren't many folks in this week's weekly meeting. And no cores attended. And the sub-team reports (in our etherpad[2]) were woefully lacking. I guess that means only driver developers are working like mad (just kidding). I'd really like to investigate moving this meeting to a different time. While it is beneficial for the sake of inclusivity, I tend to see not many cores attending (if at all), and usually not a ton of discussion. // jim I'm hoping this was a one-off due to a blue moon or a unicorn-sighting;) But I did want to take the opportunity to remind the leads of sub-teams -- you don't have to attend the meeting, but please use this opportunity to communicate anything that you feel is useful to communicate to the rest of the group. (It is fine if there is nothing to report; no news is good news.) Recently, someone wondered who our cross-project liaisons were -- you can find that via the 'People' section in the main Ironic wiki[3]. --ruby [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ironic/2015/ironic.2015-06-09-05.06.log.html [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicWhiteBoard [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic#People __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [javascript] Linters
On 11 June 2015 at 03:29, Michael Krotscheck krotsch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:37 PM Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: There are two package managers in the JavaScript world right now, one that focuses on node.js/server dependencies (karma, lint, express, etc), and one that focuses on in-browser dependencies (angular, bootstrap, etc). They're both required for thick browser clients, but for server apps you only really need package.json https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json Ok, thanks. So within that only the *Dependencies fields seem interesting, no? With our multiple ways of expressing requirements in Python we fold all the things that might be in any of them into global-requirements.txt. I think we're going to want to do the same here : e.g. /not/ literal package.json, but something very similar - say one with all the project specific metadata missing and just a dependencies sub-dict. In the absence of information I'm assuming we should make a subdir 'js' and put bower.json and package.json in there (and do the same for the python things in a subdir called python for symmetry, though backwards compat and tooling considerations may mean that we have to prepare for that. The reason being that if package.json is js specific, its just confusing to have it live at the top level. Also we may want to call them global-$thing, since if we do have js in the requirements repo itself at some point, it would be good not to conflict on names. FYI, it looks like the monasca team may want to start doing similar things with Java. More information after I hunt them down this morning :) And swift w/go. Yes. I'm not at all sure that update.py should handle the json files per se; will the policy for those files be the same as we use for python? Add linting rule sets to this list, contained either in .jscsrc or .eslintrc. Javascript does not have the privilege of pep8 being baked into the language tooling, so we have to sync it ourselves. Ah so - I don't think that linting rule sets fit global-requirements at all. pep8 (the tool) isn't baked into the language tooling, it was created and maintained by a third party based on PEP 8 (the specification), and is more opinionated than PEP8 was ever intended to be (and in fact PEP8 isn't intended to apply outside of the stdlib, even though folk like us use it as a starting point). The set of folk that are interested in requirements management (distributors want a control point to review licensing and whether its in their distro, the community consensus also cared about maturity, supportability and Python3 readiness)... and the set of folk interested in linting configuration are very different and IMO it makes no sense to squash them together. If not it might be cleaner to have a new entry point. OTOH I'll need to look closely at a few real {bower,package}.json files to proffer an useful opinion. [Perhaps you covered this in IRC - it didn't come through in your summary]. It depends on what you think update.py is supposed to do. If I look at that repository, I would argue that the purpose is to Synchronize common files and properties across registered openstack projects. In this case, a requirement is defined as something required to meet a minimum set of project sanity standards. There are two related bits of tooling. We have openstack/requirements which is a central place for dependency ('requirements' inspired from requirements.txt and the -r parameter to pip). And we have a separate tool that runs scripts *like* requirements/update.py and proposes things from them: project-config/jenkins/scripts/propose_update.sh project-config/jenkins/scripts/propose_translation_update_horizon.sh project-config/jenkins/scripts/propose_translation_update_manuals.sh project-config/jenkins/scripts/propose_translation_update_django_openstack_auth.sh project-config/jenkins/scripts/propose_translation_update.sh So - we have a bunch of places where we synchronise things across projects in various ways. The code in openstack/requirements today is all and only about dependency management. I think it should stay that way. Adding js and other languages makes a tonne of sense; whether the /code/ involved in adding those languages should be Python or $other language, and whether it should be added to the existing update.py or a new entry point in the same project - those are two questions whose answers are not entirely clear to me. By 'same policy' earlier - let me expand: the policy update.py implements for Python today is: 0: global requirements are defined in global-requirements.txt 1: projects MUST NOT have dependencies not present in global-requirements. 2: dependencies must be an exact textual match for those in global-requirements 3: project requirements are in requirements.txt or test-requirements.txt Adding JS to update.py specifically involves: - abstracting out the location and parsing of requirements -
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] polling agent configuration speculation
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Luo Gangyi wrote: In current, ceilometer load pollsters by agent namespace, So do you mean you want load pollsters one by one through their name(maybe defined in pipeline.yaml)? If loading all pollsters in one time do not cost much, I think your change is bit unnecessary. But if it does cost much, your change is meaningful. The goal is to avoid importing code into a process that is not going to be used. Not because it is slow or uses a lot of memory (in my testing it is not slow, I'm unclear (thus far) about memory use) but simply because it is inappropriate: Any single process should only contain code (and config) that it is actually going to use. BTW, I like the idea Separate polling and publishing/transforming into separate workers/processes. Good to know, thank you. This seems to be the growing consensus. What's not yet clear is how soon we'll be able to make this happen but at least we know we'll be trying to make progress in the right direction. -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Ask for help on supportting the 3-rd party CI for HDFS driver
On 2015-06-10 18:20:24 + (+), yang, xing wrote: Thanks Jeremy. I assume Chen could follow this example to add a job for the HDFS driver? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188744/ That's a fine short-form answer. The longer answer is to solicit input from some of the people who have done similar work, so that mistakes can be learned from rather than repeated. -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] polling agent configuration speculation
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, gordon chung wrote: i still like the idea of splitting polling and processing task. pros: - it moves load off poll agents and onto notificaiton agent - we essentially get free healthcheck events by doing this con: to play devil's advocate. the one down side is that now there's two levels of filtering (something we also ran into for declarative meters.) Many of the ideas we have floating around at the moment have concerns about duplication/split-brain of any of: * activity in the various processes * configuration information * data models We should certain take care to avoid too much complexity arising from these sorts of things but I hope we won't let it dissuade us from decomposing our heavyweight monoliths into smaller pieces that are more amenable to custom composition. so now you need to ensure what you're polling matches up with what you want to build (ie. you're polling the right things to build the data you want or you're not polling stuff you don't intend to poll)... this may or may not be a huge issue but it may be confusing to some. True, but if we are moving in the direction of making configuration more explicit and more contained then it will become a little easier to manage. If we remove guesswork and ambiguity then it becomes easier to create tools to automate the management (and distribution) of configuration. In the absence of additional feedback what I'm getting here is that some prototyping is worth exploring and we'll evaluate as we go. -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for changing 1600UTC meeting to 1700 UTC
After some upstream discussion, moving the meeting from 1600 to 1700 UTC does not seem very popular. It was brought up that changing the time to 16:30 UTC could accommodate more people. For the people that attend the 1600 UTC meeting time slot can you post further feedback to address this? Thanks, Ryan - Original Message - From: Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 2:19:00 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Proposal for changing 1600UTC meeting to 1700 UTC On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:15:54PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: Folks, Several people have messaged me from EMEA timezones that 1600UTC fits right into the middle of their family life (ferrying kids from school and what-not) and 1700UTC while not perfect, would be a better fit time-wise. For all people that intend to attend the 1600 UTC, could I get your feedback on this thread if a change of the 1600UTC timeslot to 1700UTC would be acceptable? If it wouldn’t be acceptable, please chime in as well. Both 1600 and 1700 UTC are fine for me. Jeff __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] Midcycle
Hi Adam, Do you have any more information on the Boston University dorm situation? On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote: Keystone Liberty Midcycle Meetup Time and Location When: July 15-17 (Wed-Fri) Where: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Keystone Midcycle Wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints/KeystoneLibertySprint Please sign up if you are attending __ 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 __ 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