On 09/17/2017 08:32 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Currently we use pypy for a couple of projects and many of these fail
with the version of pypy that we use.
A common error is "Pypy fails with "RuntimeError: cryptography 1.9 is
not compatible with PyPy < 5.3. Please upgrade PyPy to use this library
Hi Teams,
In Pike release QA team has copied the Tempest scenario manager on
plugin side to refactor the same and to avoid breaking any plugin [1].
But in many plugins, scenario manager was copied as complete and
expected to shrink by each plugin as per their usage.
Because scenario manager has l
Hi all
After discussion.
Heat decided to move our meeting to Wed. 13::00 UTC at #heat
Which is two hours earlier than the previous one.
So our meeting start from this week will be host at 13:00 UTC in #heat
(weekly).
We will keep doing 13:00 and see if that works for all.
Feel free to join us and
Excerpts from Qiming Teng's message of 2017-09-23 23:55:34 +0800:
> To some extent, I think Zhipeng is right. There are times we as a
> community have to do something beyond mentoring new developers. One of
> the reasons behind these patches are from the management chain of those
> companies. They
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:47:27PM -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
> A recent extreme example:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494981/1/specs/version0.8/active_passive_loadbalancer.rst
Haha, buddy, let me fix your name! ;)
> I would love to have a boilerplate statement I can use as a template
>
To some extent, I think Zhipeng is right. There are times we as a
community have to do something beyond mentoring new developers. One of
the reasons behind these patches are from the management chain of those
companies. They need numbers, and they don't care what kind of
contributions were made. Th
> On 2017. Sep 23., at 9:11, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Huang Zhiteng's message of 2017-09-23 10:00:00 +0800:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
>>> dispute as ma
Excerpts from Huang Zhiteng's message of 2017-09-23 10:00:00 +0800:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
> > dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and annoyed
Hi nova developers,
This mail is proposed to reconsider the key pair resetting of instance. The
nova queens PTG discuss is here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ptg-
queens L498. And there are now two proposals.
1. SPEC 1: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/375221/ started by me
(liuyulong)
Hi nova developers,
This mail is proposed to reconsider the key pair resetting of instance. The
nova queens PTG discuss is here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ptg-queens L498. And there are now
two proposals.
1. SPEC 1: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/375221/ started by me
(liuyulong) s
Hello All,
I added two tables schema in patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/486499/,
and when i run unit tests i am getting error which says,
InvalidRequestError: Table 'provisioning_status' is already defined for
this MetaData instance. Specify 'extend_existing=True' to redefine options
and co
Quick note (started quick anyway) since I haven't been as active on this
list as I have in the past.
Two things:
1. Great topic and addresses a historical, persistent well-known problem
with OpenStack - complexity. Technology is useless if it's so complex new
organizations can't get it t
12 matches
Mail list logo