Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat][Neutron] Mitaka RC1 available

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
On 16 March 2016 at 22:45, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Heat and Neutron just produced a release candidate for the end of the > Mitaka cycle! You can find their RC1 source code tarballs at: > > https://tarballs.openstack.org/heat/heat-6.0.0.0rc1.tar.gz > >

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Team meeting this Monday at 2100 UTC

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
Hi neutrinos, A kind reminder for next week's meeting. More on the agenda [1]. Cheers, Armando [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] RC1 candidate

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
An update: On 15 March 2016 at 21:38, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Neutrinos, > > I believe we reached the point [1] where RC1 can be cut [2]. If I made an > error of judgement, or any other catastrophic failure arises, please report > a bug, and tag it as m

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Newton Design Summit ideas kick-off

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
Hi folks, It's the time of the year where we need to plan for design summit sessions. This summit we are going for 9 fishbowl sessions, plus a full day on Friday for team get-together. We will break down sessions in three separate tracks as we did last summit. Each track will have its own theme

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] RBAC: Fix port query and deletion for network owner

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
On 17 March 2016 at 14:00, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > The review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255285/ breaks our CI. Since > this has landed we are getting failed tests with the: > "Details: {u'message': u"Quota exceeded for resources: ['port'].", > u'type': u'OverQuota',

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] PTL Candidacy

2016-03-20 Thread Armando M.
I would like to propose my candidacy for the Neutron PTL. I have been the Neutron PTL for the Mitaka release, and I would like to continue the journey on which I have embarked upon a little over six months ago. Back then, I had a number of objectives which I wanted to achieve with the help of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Newton Design Summit - Proposed slot allocation

2016-03-20 Thread Armando M.
On 16 March 2016 at 15:26, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi PTLs, > > Here is the proposed slot allocation for project teams at the Newton > Design Summit in Austin. This is based on the requests the mitaka PTLs have > made, space availability and project activity &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat][Neutron] Mitaka RC1 available

2016-03-20 Thread Armando M.
On 18 March 2016 at 00:16, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > On 2016-03-17 09:44:59 +0530 (+0530), Armando M. wrote: > > Unfortunately, Neutron is also going to need an RC2 due to > > upstream CI issues triggered by infra change [1] that merged right > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] CI jobs take pretty long, can we improve that?

2016-03-21 Thread Armando M.
On 21 March 2016 at 04:32, Sean M. Collins wrote: > Rossella Sblendido wrote: > > 2) multi-node jobs run for every patch set. Is that really what we want? > > They take pretty long. We could move them to a periodic job. > > I would rather remove all the single-node jobs. Nova

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] CI jobs take pretty long, can we improve that?

2016-03-21 Thread Armando M.
On 21 March 2016 at 04:15, Rossella Sblendido wrote: > Hello all, > > the tests that we run on the gate for Neutron take pretty long (longer > than one hour). I think we can improve that and make better use of the > resources. Here are some ideas that came up when Ihar and

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] CI jobs take pretty long, can we improve that?

2016-03-21 Thread Armando M.
On 21 March 2016 at 11:08, Clark Boylan <cboy...@sapwetik.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016, at 09:32 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > Do you have an a better insight of job runtimes vs jobs in other > > projects? > > Most of the time in the job runtime is actually spent set

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] RC1 candidate

2016-03-19 Thread Armando M.
On 16 March 2016 at 19:58, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > An update: > > On 15 March 2016 at 21:38, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Neutrinos, >> >> I believe we reached the point [1] where RC1 can be cut [2]. If I made an >&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] - Changing the Neutron default security group rules

2016-03-02 Thread Armando M.
On 1 March 2016 at 14:52, Kevin Benton wrote: > Hi, > > I know this has come up in the past, but some folks in the infra channel > brought up the topic of changing the default security groups to allow all > traffic. > > They had a few reasons for this that I will try to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia][Docs] Need experienced contributor documentation best-practices and how-tos

2016-03-03 Thread Armando M.
On 3 March 2016 at 16:56, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hello! > > I have a problem I'm hoping someone can help with: I have gone through the > task of completing a shiny new feature for an openstack project, and now > I'm trying to figure out how to get that last

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia][Docs] Need experienced contributor documentation best-practices and how-tos

2016-03-03 Thread Armando M.
On 3 March 2016 at 18:35, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hi Armando, > > Please rest assured that I really am a fan of requiring. I realize that > sarcasm doesn't translate to text, so you'll have to trust me when I say > that I am not being sarcastic by saying that. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][tempest] Timestamp service extension breaks CI

2016-03-06 Thread Armando M.
On 6 March 2016 at 06:04, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > The commit > https://review.openstack.org/#q,4c2c983618ddb7a528c9005b0d7aaf5322bd198d,n,z > causes > the CI to fail. This is due to the fact that the port creation does not > return the created_at and updated_at keys. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] constrained tox targets

2016-03-07 Thread Armando M.
On 4 March 2016 at 11:15, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 March 2016 at 11:12, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 4 March 2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

2016-03-03 Thread Armando M.
Hi folks, Status update on this matter: Russell, Kyle and I had a number of patches out [1], to try and converge on how to better organize Neutron-related efforts. As a result, a number of patches merged and a number of patches are still pending. Because of Mitaka feature freeze, other

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Mitaka release planning

2016-03-03 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, Mitaka-3 is out [1] and we should be focussing on rc1. This is the time where we switch gear: - Test M-3, find issues and target them for RC1 [2]; - Apply/agree for FFE status for pending features on the postmortem [3]; - For features that get FFE granted, I'll be moving

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][tempest] Timestamp service extension breaks CI

2016-03-07 Thread Armando M.
On 7 March 2016 at 01:02, Gary Kotton wrote: > I do not think that this is a bug in the plugin. Why are we not doing the > changes in the base class (unless that is not possible). Having an extra > read when a resources is created seems like a little of an overkill. I >

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Team meeting this Monday at 2100 UTC

2016-03-04 Thread Armando M.
Hi neutrinos, A kind reminder for next week's meeting. More on the agenda [1]. Cheers, Armando [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] constrained tox targets

2016-03-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 March 2016 at 11:12, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> On 4 March 2016 at 08:50, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> currently we have both

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] constrained tox targets

2016-03-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 March 2016 at 08:50, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Hi all, > > currently we have both py27 and py27-constraints tox targets in neutron > repos. For some repos (neutron) they are even executed in both master and > stable/liberty gates. TC lately decided that instead of having

[openstack-dev] [neutron][release] Releasing python-neutronclient 4.1.2?

2016-03-08 Thread Armando M.
Hi folks, There's a feature or two that are pending to be delivered in Mitaka [1,2], and those involve changes to both the server and client sides. Ideally we'd merge both sides in time for Mitaka RC and that implies that we would be able to release a new version of the client including changes

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][api] advanced search criteria

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 April 2016 at 17:08, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 04/04/2016 06:57 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> - why do we even need to control those features with configuration >> options? can we deprecate and remove them? >> > > This would be my choice. Configuration options that make

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Newton blueprints call for action

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, During today's team meeting [0], we went through the current milestone workload [1]. This is mostly made of Mitaka backlog items, amongst which we discussed two blueprints [2, 3]. These two efforts had their spec approved during the Mitaka timeframe, but code lagged behind, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] What to do about booting into port_security_enabled=False networks?

2016-03-29 Thread Armando M.
On 29 March 2016 at 08:08, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Nova has had some long-standing bugs that Sahid is trying to fix here [1]. > > You can create a network in neutron with port_security_enabled=False. > However, the bug is that since Nova adds the 'default' security

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Adding amuller to the neutron-drivers team

2016-03-31 Thread Armando M.
Hi folks, Assaf's tenacity is a great asset for the Neutron team at large. I believe that the drivers team would benefit from that tenacity, and therefore I would like to announce him to be a new member of the Neutron Drivers team [1]. At the same time, I would like to thanks mestery as he steps

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Team meeting this Monday at 2100 UTC

2016-04-01 Thread Armando M.
Hi neutrinos, A kind reminder for next week's meeting. More on the agenda [1]. Cheers, Armando [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] -2'ing all patches on every gate breakage

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 April 2016 at 09:51, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] -2'ing all patches on every gate breakage

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 April 2016 at 09:01, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed that often times we go and -2 all the patches in the review > queue on every neutron specific gate breakage spotted. This is allegedly > done to make sure that nothing known to be broken land in merge

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] -2'ing all patches on every gate breakage

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 April 2016 at 09:22, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> On 4 April 2016 at 09:01, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I noticed that often times we

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] -2'ing all patches on every gate breakage

2016-04-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 April 2016 at 09:36, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Graham wrote: > > On 04/04/2016 17:11, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I noticed that often times we go and -2 all the patches in the review >>> queue >>> on every neutron specific gate

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]: Neutron naming legal issues

2016-04-01 Thread Armando M.
On 31 March 2016 at 22:46, Jimmy Akin wrote: > > Dear Neutrinos, > > We've been following the project for quite some time. > To our satisfaction the project seems to have done well; the base line of > features that were available to the networking component of OpenStack >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Newton blueprints call for action

2016-04-13 Thread Armando M.
I/Implementation works for all servers ( VMs as > well BMs) > > Thanks > -Sukhdev > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Rossella Sblendido <rsblend...@suse.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 04/05/2016 05:43 AM, Armando M. wrote: >> &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron client and plan to transition to OpenStack client

2016-04-22 Thread Armando M.
Hopefully these will help > during the discussions at the summit. > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309515/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309530/ > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309587/ > Super! Thanks for your help Richard! Cheers, Armando > > "Armand

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Social at the summit

2016-04-25 Thread Armando M.
On 25 April 2016 at 10:01, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > WAT??? > > It was never supposed to be core only. Everyone is welcome! > In fact this should be cross-posted the other openstack ML too. > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 25 Apr 2016, at 11:56, Edgar Magana

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron client and plan to transition to OpenStack client

2016-04-22 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, During the Mitaka release the team sat together to figure out a plan to embrace the OpenStack client and supplant the neutron CLI tool. Please note that this does not mean we will get rid of the openstack-neutronclient repo. In fact we still keep python client bindings and keep the

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack][Neutron][Monasca] Traffic counters at Layer 3

2016-04-25 Thread Armando M.
On 25 April 2016 at 11:20, Rubab Syed wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm writing a plugin for Monasca to monitor traffic at layer 3. My Neutron > backend is OVS and I'm using iptables of network namespaces for getting > traffic counters. Would the following rules in router

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

2016-05-20 Thread Armando M.
etworking-sfc can be added now? > I don't know what you mean by supporting NSH explicitly in networking-sfc. Can you be more specific? Do you intend via OpenDaylight? What would be the NSH provider? > > > > > Thx > > > > Uri (“Oo-Ree”) > > C: 949-37

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][DevStack] Do we still need the neutron-debug command?

2016-05-19 Thread Armando M.
On 19 May 2016 at 08:56, Sean M. Collins wrote: > Assaf Muller wrote: > > As far as I know Devstack is/was the only user. From my perspective, > > I've never heard anyone using neutron-debug, reporting a bug against > > it or asking any questions about it. I think it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Re: [Neutron][L2GW] Mitaka release of L2 Gateway now available

2016-05-17 Thread Armando M.
On 17 May 2016 at 03:25, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 16 May 2016, at 21:16, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2016 at 05:15, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][L2GW] Mitaka release of L2 Gateway now available

2016-05-16 Thread Armando M.
On 16 May 2016 at 05:15, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > > On 11 May 2016, at 22:05, Sukhdev Kapur wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > I am happy to announce that Mitaka release for L2 Gateway is released > and now available at

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

2016-05-13 Thread Armando M.
13, 2016 3:02 PM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); > Armando M > *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC > > > > Hi Armando > > > > As an industry we are working on SFC for 3 years or so (more?). Still to >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

2016-05-13 Thread Armando M.
568 > > > > *From:* Cathy Zhang [mailto:cathy.h.zh...@huawei.com] > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2016 4:02 PM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; Armando M <arma...@gmail.com> > *Subject:* Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

2016-05-13 Thread Armando M.
On 13 May 2016 at 15:02, Elzur, Uri wrote: > Hi Armando > > > > As an industry we are working on SFC for 3 years or so (more?). Still to > date, we are told we can’t get Neutron or even a Stadium project e.g. > networking-SFC to support NSH (in IETF LC phase) because OvS has

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][stable] Ryu 4.2 breaking python34 jobs

2016-05-18 Thread Armando M.
On 18 May 2016 at 09:25, Tidwell, Ryan wrote: > I just wanted to give a heads-up to everyone that a bug in Ryu 4.2 which > was just recently pushed to pypi seems to causing issues in the python34 > jobs in neutron-dynamic-routing. This issue will likely also cause >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron client and plan to transition to OpenStack client

2016-05-03 Thread Armando M.
this up > > and running with it; and thanks to armando for embracing OSC and > > putting it in neutron's plan. > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:33 PM, reedip banerjee <reedi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for the information :) &g

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] stadium evolution - report

2016-05-03 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, For those who could not attend or be in Austin for session [2], we've had some recent discussions [1] and past ones in [3]. I am trying to get to a closure on this topic, and I followed up with a spec proposal on [4]. I am open to suggestions on how to improve the proposal and how

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Armando M.
On 30 April 2016 at 15:42, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Fawad Khaliq wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) > > At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Armando M.
On 30 April 2016 at 14:24, Fawad Khaliq wrote: > Hi folks, > > Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) > > At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which > needs your immediate attention as it will impact many stakeholders of

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Development track: completing the Mitaka backlog - report

2016-05-04 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, During session [1] we went over the following items: a) specs in the backlog b) any item that was targeted for M and rolled over automatically to N-1 c) RFE that were either approved, or expired The objective of the session was to ensure that we took a moment to focus on the stuff

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][devstack] State of the refactor

2016-05-05 Thread Armando M.
On 5 May 2016 at 11:31, Sean M. Collins wrote: > Sean M. Collins wrote: > > Here is the patch I'm using to test the refactor against the Neutron > > CI jobs. > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/278417/ > > > > Here's the test patch to make sure anything that is using the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][stable] - exception for stable/kilo DVR back-ports

2016-05-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 May 2016 at 14:26, Assaf Muller wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I would like to propose a freeze exception for > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312253/ and > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312254/ .

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Team meeting this Tuesday at 1400 UTC

2016-05-09 Thread Armando M.
Hi neutrinos, Just a reminder that from this week, we'll resume the usual schedule for the weekly team meeting. Many thanks, Armando __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] L2gw

2016-05-09 Thread Armando M.
On 9 May 2016 at 18:03, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > Are there plans to cut a a stable/mitaka version for the l2gw? > https://github.com/openstack/networking-l2gw > Thanks > Gary > I know Sukhdev was working on it. > >

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Meetings schedule: an update

2016-04-15 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, This is a reminder of meetings [1,2] and their schedule for the next few weeks: Week R24: - Apr 18: Team meeting at 2100UTC - Apr 21: Drivers meeting cancelled Week R23: - Apr 26: Team meeting cancelled - Apr 27: Drivers meeting cancelled Week R22: - May 2: Team

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] the nova network facade that isn't

2016-04-19 Thread Armando M.
On 18 April 2016 at 15:41, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 04/18/2016 04:33 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > >> When doing bug triage this morning a few bugs popped up: >> >> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1456899 - nova absolute-limits >> Security groups count incorrect when using

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] the nova network facade that isn't

2016-04-19 Thread Armando M.
On 19 April 2016 at 07:02, Sean Dague wrote: > On 04/18/2016 04:48 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > > > I guess at a high level my thinking was always, if nova-network isn't > > deprecated, and these APIs are broken when using Neutron, it's (mostly) > > trivial to add a proxy to

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][release] neutron *-aas release notes are not linked.

2016-04-20 Thread Armando M.
On 20 April 2016 at 00:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 2016-04-20 06:20, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I noticed Mitaka release notes for neutron *-aas [1,2,3] are not > > referred to from anywhere. > > Neutron has four deliverables (neutron, lbaas, fwaas, vpnaas), > > but

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][sfc] A standards-compliant SFC API

2016-04-20 Thread Armando M.
On 20 April 2016 at 09:31, Duarte Cardoso, Igor < igor.duarte.card...@intel.com> wrote: > Dear OpenStack Community, > > > > We've been investigating options in/around OpenStack for supporting > Service Function Chaining. The networking-sfc project has made significant > progress in this space,

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

2016-05-24 Thread Armando M.
On 24 May 2016 at 04:51, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > Hi, > > There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in > the near future. Are there any solid plans for that? > Who spreads these rumors :)? To the best of my knowledge I have not seen any RFE

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

2016-05-25 Thread Armando M.
another message in this > thread, “ As to OvS features, I guess the OvS ml is a better place, but > wonder if the Neutron community wants to hold itself hostage to the pace of > other projects who are reluctant to adopt a feature ”, what I mean is > again, that chicken and egg situation as above.

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][oslo] Mitaka neutron-*aas are broken when --config-dir is passed

2016-05-25 Thread Armando M.
On 25 May 2016 at 09:02, Brandon Logan wrote: > +1 > > This sounds like a sane plane. That magical config load caused me some > problems in the past when I didn't know about it, would be glad to see > it go. I thought it being deprecated and removed was planned

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][networking-l2gw] Python 3 support

2016-07-26 Thread Armando M.
On 25 July 2016 at 04:13, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > > This morning I discovered that the project does not have python 3 support. > This was due to the fact that it broke the vmware-nsx unit tests. > > I have started to kick the wheels with the python 3 support: > > 1.

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Project mascot - propose your choice/cast your vote

2016-07-14 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, Based on proposal [1], I prepared an etherpad to allow us to choose collaboratively a set of candidates for our mascot. Propose/vote away on [2]. You have time until Friday, July 22nd. After the deadline the most voted ones (depending on the number) will be sent to Heidi Joy

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Project mascot - propose your choice/cast your vote

2016-07-25 Thread Armando M.
On 14 July 2016 at 10:00, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Neutrinos, > > Based on proposal [1], I prepared an etherpad to allow us to choose > collaboratively a set of candidates for our mascot. Propose/vote away on > [2]. You have time until Friday, July 22nd

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Project mascot - propose your choice/cast your vote

2016-07-27 Thread Armando M.
On 25 July 2016 at 10:52, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 July 2016 at 10:00, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Neutrinos, >> >> Based on proposal [1], I prepared an etherpad to allow us to choose >> collaboratively a set of ca

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Mid-cycle agenda

2016-07-30 Thread Armando M.
Neutrinos, For those of you who are going to attend the Neutron mid-cycle [1] in person or be engaged on IRC, please refer to [2] for a list of topics we should give some attention and priority during our time in Cork. The list of topics is already pretty packed, however if you would like to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Project mascot - propose your choice/cast your vote

2016-07-27 Thread Armando M.
On 27 July 2016 at 12:13, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 25 July 2016 at 10:52, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14 July 2016 at 10:00, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Neutrinos, >>> &

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Team and Driver meetings for the week of Aug 15th

2016-08-11 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, The meetings will be cancelled due to the mid-cycle. Cheers, Armando __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Feature Classification

2016-08-10 Thread Armando M.
On 10 August 2016 at 10:20, Gupta, Ankur wrote: > Hello Neutrinos, > > > > One of the things, that is required to have ease of use, is good > documentation. > > Similar to what's done for Nova [4], I've decided to prepare Feature > Classification for Neutron. > > Work was

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Can we recheck mindfully?

2016-08-03 Thread Armando M.
Folks, I have been noticing that some of us use 'recheck' as a knee jerk reaction. Please STOP! Please, take the time to look into the failure mode, see if there's a bug reported already, help the triage process, and ultimately, once you're sure that the issue is not introduced by your patch,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Thoughts on testing novaclient functional with neutron

2016-08-12 Thread Armando M.
On 12 August 2016 at 08:13, Matt Riedemann wrote: > I opened a bug yesterday against novaclient for running the functional > tests against a neutron-backed devstack: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-novaclient/+bug/1612410 > > With neutron being the default in

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][infra] Switch to xenial and Neutron unit tests

2016-07-12 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, OpenStack infra is in the process of testing OpenStack tests on ubuntu Xenial so that it can be adopted as default platform for testing in the Gate. It is likely that the switch is going to happen sometime next week. It was noted in the channel at [1] that some unit tests are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] MultiTenant support for VLAN-Aware-VM

2016-07-13 Thread Armando M.
On 13 July 2016 at 15:32, Cathy Zhang wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > We have been discussing on multi-tenant VNF for service chain on the OVN > mailing alias. > We are thinking about leveraging the vlan-aware-VM for supporting this. > > AFAIK, with current nova, we cannot

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] MultiTenant support for VLAN-Aware-VM

2016-07-13 Thread Armando M.
ve it until I test it :) On Jul 13, 2016 7:15 PM, "Armando M." <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 13 July 2016 at 15:32, Cathy Zhang <cathy.h.zh...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> We have been discussing

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][api] networking API reference clean up sprint

2016-07-19 Thread Armando M.
On 19 July 2016 at 06:49, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > Hi Neutron folks, > > As you may know, the OpenStack API references have been moved into > individual project repositories. > For the networking API, we have the api-ref document in neutron-lib > repository. > The api-ref

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron-lib and Stadium evolution

2016-07-08 Thread Armando M.
ack.org/#/admin/groups/1187,members > Right now this is limited to the core maintainers of repos that spun out of Neutron. We'll extend rights to other teams over time as soon as we complete the Stadium transition plan. > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:07 PM Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] devstack changing to neutron by default RSN

2016-08-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 August 2016 at 11:35, Sean Dague wrote: > One of the cycle goals in newton was to get devstack over to neutron by > default. Neutron is used by 90+% of our users, and nova network is > deprecated, and is not long for this world. > > Because devstack is used by developers as

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] devstack changing to neutron by default RSN

2016-08-05 Thread Armando M.
On 5 August 2016 at 11:25, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5 August 2016 at 10:21, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2016 11:34 AM, Armando M. wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 5 August 2016 at 05:59, Sean

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] devstack changing to neutron by default RSN

2016-08-05 Thread Armando M.
On 5 August 2016 at 10:21, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 11:34 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 5 August 2016 at 05:59, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net > > <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: > > > > On 08/04/2016 09:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] devstack changing to neutron by default RSN

2016-08-05 Thread Armando M.
On 5 August 2016 at 13:05, Dan Smith wrote: > > I haven't been able to reproduce it either, but it's unclear how packets > > would get into a VM on an island since there is no router interface, and > > the VM can't respond even if it did get it. > > > > I do see outbound

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

2016-08-04 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, I have noticed that Liberty seems to be belly up [1]. I wonder if anyone knows anything or has the time to look into it. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349039/ __ OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

2016-08-04 Thread Armando M.
On 4 August 2016 at 11:45, Brian Haley <brian.ha...@hpe.com> wrote: > On 08/04/2016 01:36 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> Hi Neutrinos, >> >> I have noticed that Liberty seems to be belly up [1]. I wonder if anyone >> knows >> anything or has the time to l

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Drivers meeting - switching gear

2016-08-04 Thread Armando M.
Folks, As some of you may be familiar with, the typical agenda for the drivers meeting [1] involves the members of the drivers team going over triaged RFEs. Prior to the meeting we typically process confirmed and new RFEs to see whether some of them are worth triaging (i.e. discussed during the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] devstack changing to neutron by default RSN - current issues with OVH

2016-08-08 Thread Armando M.
On 8 August 2016 at 08:01, Sean Dague wrote: > In summary, it turns out we learned a few things: > > 1) neutron guests in our gate runs don't have the ability to route > outwards. For instance, if they tried to do a package update, it would > fail. > > 2) adding the ability for

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] place of subport details in the API

2016-07-21 Thread Armando M.
On 21 July 2016 at 04:56, Bence Romsics wrote: > Hi, > > Looking at all the trunk port patches nicely coming along I was > wondering where do we want to see all the subport details in the API? > > In the spec a trunk object does not have a 'sub_ports' attribute: > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron Port MAC Address Uniqueness

2016-08-09 Thread Armando M.
On 9 August 2016 at 13:53, Anil Rao wrote: > Is the MAC address of a Neutron port on a tenant virtual network globally > unique or unique just within that particular tenant network? > The latter:

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron-lib and Stadium evolution

2016-06-29 Thread Armando M.
Hi Neutrinos, As some of you may have noticed, since the merge of [1] you have now +2 rights on neutron-lib changes. Please make yourself familiar with review guidelines [2]: in general, code that targets the library should go through a much greater level of scrutiny and should be targeted if and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Deprecated Configuration Option in Nova Mitaka Release

2016-07-01 Thread Armando M.
On 30 June 2016 at 10:55, HU, BIN wrote: > I see, and thank you very much Dan. Also thank you Markus for unreleased > release notes. > > Now I understand that it is not a plugin and unstable interface. And there > is a new "use_neutron" option for configuring Nova to use Neutron

[openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-01 Thread Armando M.
Hi, [TL;DR]: OpenStack services have steadily increased their memory footprints. We need a concerted way to address the oom-kills experienced in the openstack gate, as we may have reached a ceiling. Now the longer version: We have been experiencing some

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
On 2 February 2017 at 12:19, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 02:28 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 2 February 2017 at 10:08, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net > > <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: > &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
On 2 February 2017 at 10:08, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 12:49 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 2 February 2017 at 08:40, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net > > <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: > > > > On 02/02/2017 1

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
handle concurrent > > connections, which is the entire purpose of the library, no? > > > > On Feb 2, 2017 13:53, "Sean Dague" <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >> > >> On 02/02/2017 03:32 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> > > >> > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
On 2 February 2017 at 13:36, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Treinish > wrote: > > Yeah, I'm curious about this too, there seems to be a big jump in Newton > for > > most of the project. It might not a be a single

[openstack-dev] [neutron] Drivers meeting cancelled today

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
Hi, With the release coming up, it's best to spend the time to polish what we have. Sorry for the short notice. Thanks, Armando __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

[openstack-dev] [neutron] [stadium] subprojects on independent release cycle

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
Hi neutrinos, I have put a number of patches in the merge queue for a few sub-projects. We currently have a number of these that are on an independent release schedule. In particular: - networking-bagpipe - networking-bgpvpn - networking-midonet - networking-odl - networking-sfc

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

2017-02-02 Thread Armando M.
On 2 February 2017 at 12:50, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 03:32 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 2 February 2017 at 12:19, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net > > <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: > &g

[openstack-dev] [neutron] [release] misleading release notes

2017-02-01 Thread Armando M.
Hi, There is something puzzling about release notes. I don't see 8.0.0 [1], and it looks like features released in Mitaka are being advertised as Newton features [2]. For instance, [3] 'Agent availability zones' shows as a Newton feature when I am pretty positive that it went in Mitaka [4]. I

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >