- Original Message -
From: Julien Vey vey.jul...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:18 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
I like option #2, simply because we should force ourselves to justify every
attribute that is extracted as a queryable parameter, rather than making them
queryable at the start.
- Original Message -
Hi Arati,
I would vote for Option #2 as a short term solution. Probably later we
Maybe wednesday at noon?
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
: Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 10:35am
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Lang-pack working group meeting cancelled
today due to freenode DOS
Hi,
We will hold our third Git Integration working group meeting on IRC in #solum
on Monday, December 16, 2013 1700 UTC / 0900 PST. Previous meeting notes are
here [4]
Agenda for today's meeting:
* Administrative:
* Topics:
* Discuss lang-pack-examples spec for
- Original Message -
On Dec 11, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
Devdatta,
On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:37 PM, devdatta kulkarni
devdatta.kulka...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for creating https
- Original Message -
Devdatta,
On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:37 PM, devdatta kulkarni
devdatta.kulka...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for creating https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/solum-demystified
I am really excited to see the examples. Especially cool is how
Hi,
We will hold our second Git Integration working group meeting on IRC in #solum
on Monday, December 9, 2013 1700 UTC / 0900 PST.
Agenda for today's meeting:
* Administrative:
* Decide whether to continue this meeting at the same time in
January
* Topics:
- Original Message -
Hi,
We will hold our second Git Integration working group meeting on IRC in
#solum on Monday, December 9, 2013 1700 UTC / 0900 PST.
Agenda for today's meeting:
* Administrative:
* Decide whether to continue this meeting at the same time in
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
Hi,
We will hold our second Git Integration working group meeting on IRC in
#solum on Monday, December 9, 2013 1700 UTC / 0900 PST.
Agenda for today's meeting:
* Administrative:
* Decide whether to
- Original Message -
I created some relatively high level security best practices that I
thought would apply to Solum. I don't think it is ever too early to get
mindshare around security so that developers keep that in mind throughout
the project. When a design decision point could
- Original Message -
TLDR: Should Solum log a warning if operators do not use the InnoDB
storage engine with MySQL in Solum's control plane?
Details:
I was looking at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57024/
Models.py to be specific.
The default storage engine is InnoDB for
- Original Message -
With the comments that we've received, I would recommend that Clayton
remove the option to select the MySQL storage engine from Oslo config and
just hardcode InnoDB. I believe it entails just removing a few lines of
code. It doesn't sound like anyone has a reason
Meeting 1 was conducted on Monday and consisted mostly of freeform discussions,
clarification, and QA:
http://irclogs.solum.io/2013/solum.2013-12-02-17.05.html. The next meeting is
Monday, December 9, 2013 1700 UTC.
Wiki:
- Original Message -
Clayton, good detail documentation of the design approach @
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum/FeatureBlueprints/BuildingSourceIntoDeploymentArtifacts
A few questions -
1. On the objective of supporting both heroku build packs and openshift
cartridges: how
in the REST APIs (not yet closed, but
did not see much if any objections).
Package feels too low level, I agree.
Product is perhaps an alternative though also not ideal.
--A
On 27/11/2013 06:31, Clayton Coleman wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) tdeck...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Few comments on the Definitions blueprint [1]:
1. I'd propose to alter the term 'Application' to either
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers
- Original Message -
On 11/22/2013 09:51 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
Monty,
On Nov 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com
wrote:
On 11/22/2013 05:37 PM, Krishna Raman wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to kickoff the Git integration discussion. Goal of
On Nov 23, 2013, at 2:37 AM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Clayton Coleman's message of 2013-11-22 21:43:40 -0800:
On Nov 22, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:34 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
I have updated the language
I have updated the language pack (name subject to change) blueprint with the
outcomes from the face2face meetings, and drafted a specification that captures
the discussion so far. The spec is centered around the core idea of
transitioning base images into deployable images (that can be stored
On Nov 22, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:34 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
I have updated the language pack (name subject to change) blueprint
with the outcomes from the face2face meetings, and drafted a
specification that captures
Is there easy parking at the rackspace office?
On Nov 18, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
No. Registration is for in person attendance only.
--
Adrian
Original message
From: Rajdeep Dua
Date:11/18/2013 5:39 AM (GMT-08:00)
To:
- Original Message -
On 11/14/2013 10:36 AM, Murali Allada wrote:
I'm not a big fan of using date information in the version number. Is
there an advantage to doing that? Using a model like 0.0.1 makes it
easier to communicate.
A better approach might be to use
- Original Message -
So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat.
And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question
whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether
we really should just be targeting innovation
With no feedback on remotability so far (we can touch base at F2F next week)
here's a representative sample of the object model with sqlalchemy
implementations approach, without some of the bits that would enable
remotability (primarily the ability to rehydrate an object with the correct
advantages of the
object approach
(that it makes handling versioned data easier, and that it allows using sql
and non-sql
backends) we should be good.
Btw, thanks for sending across link to the F1 paper.
Regards,
- Devdatta
-Original Message-
From: Clayton Coleman ccole
- Original Message -
Hello,
Solum meets Tuesdays at 1600 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt (formerly in
#solum)
Note: Due to the Nov 3rd change in Daylight Savings Time, this now happens at
08:00 US/Pacific (starts in about 45 minutes from now)
Agenda:
- Original Message -
Clayton,
On Nov 13, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com
wrote:
- Original Message -
Hello,
Solum meets Tuesdays at 1600 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt (formerly in
#solum)
Note: Due to the Nov 3rd change
- Original Message -
I like this idea. I'd also propose that the format of the specification be
something machine-readable, such as API-Blueprint (a simple subset of
markdown, apiblueprint.org , also what apiary uses, if you've ever seen
that) or RAML (a more structured YAML-based
- Original Message -
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Christopher Armstrong
chris.armstr...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
One of the most important aspects in the early stages of Solum development
- Original Message -
1) Using objects as an abstraction for versioned data:
This seems like a good direction overall, especially from the
point-of-view
of backwards compatibility of consumers of the object. However, after
looking through some
of the objects
On Nov 11, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com
wrote:
The implication I heard from the session is the command infrastructure and
client code have or will have a well defined interface from
On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com
wrote:
On 13-11-10 12:36 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/10/2013 10:15 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
Hello all,
I registered a new blueprint [1] for command line client interface for
Solum. We need to decide whether
On Nov 10, 2013, at 11:41 PM, Noorul Islam K M noo...@noorul.com wrote:
Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com writes:
On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com
wrote:
On 13-11-10 12:36 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/10/2013 10:15 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote
- Original Message -
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L420
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/models.py#L43
This API and these models are what we are trying to avoid exposing to
the rest of nova. By
Some of us have already booked travel?
On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Roshan Agrawal roshan.agra...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Folks, some of us indicated they cannot make Nov 19,20, so I created a doodle
poll to finalize a date that works for most of us. Please take a moment to
indicate your
Quick summary of interesting discussions yesterday at the summit that relate to
things we will face in Solum wrt async flows.
The two nova sessions on async work [1] and the task API [2] had a lot of good
back and forth. The problem space is how to model and convey long running
tasks in the
On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Doug, I respect you very much as an engineer and as a community member, so I
want to preface this with a very important dislaimer:
On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2013 11:26 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 11/02/2013 11:54 AM, Adrian Otto wrote:
Noorul,
I agree that key decisions should be tracked in blueprints. This is the
one for this decision which was made in our
+1 - with the level of interest among existing vendors I think this will help
others who want to be API compatible with Solum (above and beyond normal
benefits)
On Nov 2, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
One of the most important aspects in the early stages
- Original Message -
Once all the gitreview stuff is cleaned up I was going to do some purely
mechanical additions.
I heard a few +1 for sqlalchemy with the standard OpenStack abstraction:
solum/db/api.py
manager abstraction for db calls
solum/db/sqlalchemy/api.py
- Original Message -
On 11/01/2013 11:14 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
- Original Message -
Noorul Islam K M noo...@noorul.com writes:
Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com writes:
Team,
Our StackForge code repo is open, so you may begin submitting code for
review
- Original Message -
On 11/01/2013 12:33 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
- Original Message -
Once all the gitreview stuff is cleaned up I was going to do some purely
mechanical additions.
I heard a few +1 for sqlalchemy with the standard OpenStack abstraction:
solum
- Original Message -
Team,
We have a blueprint for logging architecture within Solum, which is an
important feature to aid in debugging at runtime:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/logging
The team voted for a lightweight governance style, and because we are
- Original Message -
I was blindly assuming we want to pull in eventlet support, with the
implicit understanding that we will be doing some form of timeslicing and
async io bound waiting in the API... but would like to hear others weigh
in before I add the monkey_patch and stub
- Original Message -
I think there is a summit topic about what to do about a good 'oslo.db'
(not sure if it got scheduled?)
Will look.
I'd always recommend reconsidering just copying what nova/cinder and a few
others have for there db structure.
I don't think that has turned
- Original Message -
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L420
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/models.py#L43
This API and these models are what we are trying to avoid exposing to
the rest of nova. By
- Original Message -
Hi,
The Solum team has agreed[1] to use openstack-dev, and has closed its
project-specific mailing list. We look forward to discussing ongoing design
and development efforts here. We are also transitioning to an openstack
meeting channel for subsequent public
In the IRC meeting yesterday [1] we discussed splitting the individual topics
for the git deploy blueprint [2] into rough sub areas. To help frame the
abstractions we've been discussing I roughed out a flow based on two user
inputs, REST API create and a git push and then tried to draw boxes
50 matches
Mail list logo
