Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][neutron] publish and update Gerrit dashboard link automatically

Hi all, I automated a non-dashboard version of Rossella’s script. The tweaked script that gets run: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/281446/ Results, updated hourly (bookmarkable, will redirect to gerrit): http://104.236.79.17/ http://104.236.79.17/current http://104.236.79.17/current-min

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] discussion about core reviewer limitations by company

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > > Armando, > > I apologize if neutron does not have a limit of 2 core reviewers per company > – I had heard this through the grapevine but a google search of the mailing > list shows no such limitation. It goes

Re: [openstack-dev] Octavia (LBaaS) license question

It’s a binary dependency with no code modification. According to http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html , it should be fine, unless I’m mistaken. Thanks, doug > On Feb 13, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Gal Sagie

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Ihar as *-aas core reviewer

The cleanup was my fault. I had removed folks that were added initially just for the initial *aas split. Welcome back. :-) Thanks, doug > On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:33 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > Sean M. Collins wrote: > >> I probably speak for all

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]Where did the flows go in ovs bridge?

Take a look in /var/log/neutron/openvswitch-agent.log, or similar, on the hypervisor. Doug > On Mar 12, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Zhi Chang wrote: > > hi, guys. > > I deployed DVR in my local environment by following this >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [neutron-lib] adding a new flag to neutron-lib

tl;dr is, if you need a new constant/method/whatnot quickly, it should go into *neutron*, not *neutron-lib*. The lib is meant to be for stable interfaces that are being used in more than one place. As such, I don’t think it should be the first stop for anything, nor should you ever set

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Proposing Hirofumi Ichihara to Neutron Core Reviewer Team

+1 (ditto) > On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote: > > +1 (whether my vote counts or note for this area) > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Akihiro Motoki wrote: >> Hi Neutrinos, >> >> As the API Lieutenant of Neutron team, >> I would like

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack][neutron] Eliminating the DevStack layer

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > > Assaf Muller wrote: >> I do want to say that ML2's "mechanism_drivers" option probably does >> not have a default for the same reason we do not have a default for >> the core_plugin value, we don't want to play

Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas] [octavia] Proposing Bharath Munirajulu as Octavia Core

+1 > On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: > > +1 > > From: Brandon Logan > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:04 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics stats

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Team, > > Steve pointed out to a problem in Stackalytics: > https://twitter.com/stevebot/status/718185667709267969 > > It's pretty clear what's happening if you look here: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Maintaining httplib2 python library

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Date: March 14, 2016 at 09:41:02 > To:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Maintaining httplib2 python library

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:57, Brian Haley <brian.ha...@hpe.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/17/2016 06:04 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>>>> Here is the non comprehensive

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] report from Brno code sprint, Mar 14-16

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just giving my fellows an update from the event where we gathered our > upgrades subteam to plan for Newton and do some coding. > > == > > We had folks from multiple companies participating in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][heat] Removing LBaaS v1 - are weready?

___ >>>>> From: Stephen Balukoff >>>>> [sbaluk...@bluebox.net<mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net>] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:49 PM >>>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage ques

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

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 5:40 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]Removing LBaaS v1 - are we ready?

Hi, A few things: - It’s not proposed for removal in Mitaka. That patch is for Newton. - HEAT and Horizon are planned for Mitaka (see neutron-lbaas-dashboard for the latter.) - I don’t view this as a “keep or delete” question. If sufficient folks are interested in maintaining it, there is a

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

I vote for “Big Giant Pencil”. We can call it BGP for short. doug > On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > > I for one, have grown fond of "Mutnauq" while doing the DevStack neutron > re-write ;) > > > -- > Sean M. Collins > >

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

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > Armando M. wrote: > >> >> >> 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

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

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 09:22, Ihar Hrachyshka > wrote: > Armando M. > wrote: > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 09:01, Ihar

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron lib hack has broken all decomposed projects

Reverted the neutron change that started using this, which is the quickest path to unbreaking the children. We’ll have to unwind those child projects first. doug > On Apr 24, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: > > Another example is Lbaas -

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron lib hack has broken all decomposed projects

That revert is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309776 <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309776> , and is working its way through CI now. About to lose connectivity for my flight to the summit… doug > On Apr 24, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.c

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

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > WAT??? > > It was never supposed to be core only. Everyone is welcome! +2 irony intended. Socials are not controlled by gerrit ACLs. :-) doug > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 25 Apr 2016, at 11:56, Edgar

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

I’m in. > On Apr 25, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Martin Hickey wrote: > > +1 > > Regards, > Martin > - > Martin Hickey | Software Development | OpenStack | Tel: + 353 21 7306040 > > Nate Johnston ---25/04/2016 10:58:21---Count me in. --N. > > From: Nate Johnston

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

> 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 session, which needs > your immediate attention as it will impact many

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

In a nutshell, you’ve got it, you can’t add an API without a reference implementation, including data-plane, which has to be open-source (though does not have to itself be openstack.) > o Especially as Stadium, can we let Neutron to lead the industry, given > broad enough community interest?

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Is it still valid/supported to create a network with a br- id?

> On May 15, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Matt Riedemann > wrote: > >> On 5/15/2016 10:56 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote: >> Matt Riedemann wrote: >>> The nova create-server API allows passing a network id that's prefixed with >>> br- [1]. That was added due to this bug from

[openstack-dev] [neutron][fwaas][vpnaas][lbaas][octavia] summit summary - future of the advanced services

Egads, that’s a long subject prefix. Anyways, we had a design session on the future of the advanced services: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-neutron-future-adv-services In a nutshell, vpn and fw are critically lacking active contributors at present. Again. A proposal was made to

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

> On May 5, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > > During the Austin summit, there was a discussion in the QA meetings > about the future of Neutron's support in DevStack. It's been an ongoing > effort, and I'd like to step back and give everyone a view of the Big >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][FWaaS] __init__ arguments issue status

This break is almost certainly because of the following neutron change, to unwind the incestuous inheritance that was in neutron (dependency arrow was circular): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223343/ I don’t expect there will be a lot of appetite

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

Were we looking at the same etherpad? I think the ‘inclusion criteria’ and ‘benefits of the proposal’ sections cover those two points. Are you referring to something else? Thanks, doug > On May 2, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Gal Sagie wrote: > > Maybe it can help if instead of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Proposing Jakub Libosvar for testing core

+1 > On Jul 21, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Carl Baldwin > wrote: > +1 from me > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Assaf Muller

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Plugins for all

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-07-18 17:13:09 +: >> On 18/07/2016 17:57, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Hayes, Graham wrote: [...] The point is that we were supposed to be a level field as a

[openstack-dev] [kosmos] new meeting time?

Hi all, The Kosmos team has shuffled a lot, and we have some prospective new members. The current meeting time of 1600 UTC may not be optimal anymore. If you’re interested in attending, can you post what times work for you? I’m in the U.S. mountain time zone, so 1500 - 2300 UTC are optimal

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][neutron] - best way to load 8021q kernel module into cirros

I would be tempted to make a custom image, and ask to put it on our mirrors, or have nodepool manage the image building and storing. You can also likely just have the module on the local mirrors, which would alleviate the random internet issue. Bigger OS'es with nested Virt is kinda pain.

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia][upgrades] upgrade loadbalancer to new amphora image

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> >> On 30 Jun 2016, at 01:16, Brandon Logan wrote: >> >> Hi Ihar, thanks for starting this discussion. Comments in-line. >> >> After writing my comments in line, I might now realize

Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas][octavia] suggestion for today's meeting agenda: How to make the Amphora-agent support additional Linux flavors

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > >> On 30 Jun 2016, at 06:03, Kosnik, Lubosz wrote: >> >> Like Doug said Amphora suppose to be a black box. It suppose to get some >> data - like info in /etc/defaults and do everything

Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas][octavia] suggestion for today's meeting agenda: How to make the Amphora-agent support additional Linux flavors

Interesting discussion, but the first question I’d ask is ‘why’ ? Unlike openstack server software, the amphora are meant to be black box appliance images, so why do we want to run different distros on them? Is there a deployment scenario you’re concerned with, or other use case? Thanks, doug

Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas][octavia] suggestion for today's meeting agenda: How to make the Amphora-agent support additional Linux flavors

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> On 29 Jun 2016, at 18:10, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: >> >> Interesting discussion, but the first question I’d ask is ‘why’ ? >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] gate iffy, hold your rechecks

The ip collisions with the devstack fixed range are no longer an issue, so rechecks and approvals can resume. Thanks, doug > On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> > wrote: > > And cores, please hold your +A’s until the patch below has m

[openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] gate iffy, hold your rechecks

Hi all, The CI system is having some issues with osic nodes running dsvm jobs right now, and the odds of getting one are pretty high with neutron or lbaas, because of how many dsvm jobs we run on each change. Please hold your rechecks until the following patch merges:

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] gate iffy, hold your rechecks

And cores, please hold your +A’s until the patch below has merged. Thanks, doug > On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > The CI system is having some issues with osic nodes running dsvm jobs right > now,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][heat] Removing LBaaS v1 - are weready?

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> > wrote: > > Migration script has been submitted, v1 is not going anywhere from > stable/liberty or stable/mitaka, so it’s about to disappear from master. > > I’m thinking in this order:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

> On Sep 8, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann > wrote: > > On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the >>> PTL to be the

Re: [openstack-dev] TC candidacy

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > +1 to release notes or something of that like. i was asked to give an update on the TC internally and it seems the only information out there is to read

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Embracing new languages in OpenStack

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Chris Dent > wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Ash wrote: > > I couldn't agree more. I don't like change for the sake of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron team social event in Barcelona

+1 Doug > On Oct 14, 2016, at 6:24 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: > > +1 > > >> On Oct 14, 2016 1:33 PM, "Miguel Lavalle" wrote: >> Dear Neutrinos, >> >> I am organizing a social event for the team on Thursday 27th at 19:30. After >> doing some Google

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 11:25 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: >> We really don't want bindep IMO -- it's much safer to use the >> non-packaged version from pypi for our purposes, since we may not be >> running on a system that

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

nstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > >> Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> [...] Paths forward: >>> >>> 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. >>> >>> 2. Create a p

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 02:44 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> For the record uwsgi was not (at least at one point) allowed in g-r as >> it was not a "runtime dependency" it was to be installed more like >> apache mod_wsgi at the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

t;> >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>> >>> Subject: Re: [open

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

gt;> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.opens

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 2016 17:32, "Thomas Goirand" > wrote: > > > > On 10/17/2016 08:43 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > > > Jim, that is exactly my thought -- the main focus of g-r as

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

@lists.openstack.org >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>>>>> &

[openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Hi, On a review to add gunicorn to global requirements[1], we were asked to send a notice to the ML. In this particular application, it’s for use inside a service VM for Octavia. Objections/comments/other? Thanks, doug [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386790/

[openstack-dev] [trove][octavia][tacker][designate][manila][sahara][magnum][infra] servicevm working group meetup

As part of a requirements mailing list thread [1], the idea of a servicevm working group, or a common framework for reference openstack service VMs, came up. It's too late to get onto the official schedule, but unofficially, let's meet here: When: Tuesday, 1:30pm-2:10pm Where: CCIB P1 Room 128

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][octavia][tacker][designate][manila][sahara][magnum][infra] servicevm working group meetup

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 8:23 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> > wrote: > > As part of a requirements mailing list thread [1], the idea of a servicevm > working group, or a common framework for reference openstack service VMs, > came up. It's too late

[openstack-dev] [kosmos] meetings canceled until post summit

We will pick back up on 11/1. Doug__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas] [octavia] Proposing Lubosz Kosnik (diltram) as Octavia Core

+1 > On Oct 10, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Brandon Logan > wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 13:06 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: >> Greetings Octavia and developer mailing list folks, >> >> I propose that we add Lubosz Kosnik (diltram) as an OpenStack Octavia >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Infra] Third Party CI Question

You can also selectively not use zuul. For those jobs pointed at other source control, use standard Jenkins triggers, and all the rest of the tooling remains the same (including jjb for those new triggers.) Doug > On Oct 16, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > >> On

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Jim Rollenhagen <j...@jimrollenhagen.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Doug Wiegley > <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On a review to add gunicorn to global requirements[1], we we

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] proposing Ryan Tidwell and Nate Johnston as service LTs

Belated but enthusiastic +1 doug > On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > Hi neutrinos, > > I would like to propose Ryan and Nate as the go-to fellows for > service-related patches. > > Both are core in their repos of focus, namely neutron-dynamic-routing and

<    1   2   3