Re: [openstack-dev] [ffe][requirements][monasca][heat][watcher][congress] FFE for python-monascaclient minimum version in g-r

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +, witold.be...@est.fujitsu.com wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I would like to ask for the FFE for python-monascaclient version in global > requirements. > > The current version in Pike (1.7.0) is not fully backward compatible. The > monasca exception

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Release countdown for week R-3, Aug 4 - Aug 11

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:07:54AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-08-03 15:03:59 +0200: > > > Actions > > --- > > > > Deliverables following the cycle-with-milestones model should post a RC1 > > openstack/releases request during the week

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][barbican][octavia][LBaaS][heat] FFE Request for python-barbicanclient library

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 04:26:12PM +, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) wrote: > > > On 8/1/17, 8:02 PM, "Tony Breeds" <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:58:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> Excerpts from Dave McCowan

Re: [openstack-dev] [ffe][release][requirements][tripleo] FFE for python-paunch-1.5.0

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:41:21AM +1200, Steve Baker wrote: > Adding a subject ^^ > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steve Baker wrote: > > > I would like to request a Feature Freeze Exemption

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][ptl][stable][release] stable/pike branches created for most libraries

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 07:22:15PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > OK, I see. I was assuming we would just tie it to series name, and > that series name could be taken from the .gitreview file or something. > So the URL calculation would always be done locally, and we wouldn't > need any sort of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][ptl][stable][release] stable/pike branches created for most libraries

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:33:46PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > this would mean that depends-on does not work anymore - if you update > the upper-constraint file and want to test, you can use depends-on today. > > with uploading to tarballs, this will not work, As Jeremy pointed out this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][ptl][stable][release] stable/pike branches created for most libraries

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:04:52AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-08-03 12:43:04 +1000: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:00:22AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Excerpts from Dmitry Tantsur's message of 2017-07-29 20:06:18 +0200: > > > > Just to clarify:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cyborg]Queens PTL candidacy

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:59:55AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote: > Hi Team, > > Even though Cyborg is not an official project yet, however with an ultimate > goal of becoming one it is necessary to conduct our project governance with > compliance of OpenStack community general requirements/culture.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cyborg]Queens PTL candidacy

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:59:55AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote: > More on the election procedure, if there are more than one candidate, we > will use http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/ to conduct our election. If there is > only one candidate, then no election will be held the candidate will be >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][ptl][stable][release] stable/pike branches created for most libraries

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:51:39AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-08-03 12:43:04 +1000 (+1000), Tony Breeds wrote: > [...] > > I wonder if we should look at publishing the upper-constraints.txt file > > somewhere (other than cgit). If we did something like: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][ptl][stable][release] stable/pike branches created for most libraries

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:00:22AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Dmitry Tantsur's message of 2017-07-29 20:06:18 +0200: > > Just to clarify: we cannot land the tox.ini change until the requirements > > repo > > is actually branched, right? > > Good point. The tests for those

Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][release][stable][ptl][infra] Strategic discussion regarding the future of documentation for EOL releases

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > That content will now live in the project trees. Perhaps part of marking > branches in those repos EOL needs to include deleting the install tree > from the docs? Now that the docs are in a standard location, that could > be part

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][release][docs] FFE for openstack-doc-tools

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:44:25PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 2017-08-02 20:34, Matthew Thode wrote: > > On 17-08-02 14:22:35, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> We need a new release of openstack-doc-tools to handle the changed > >> behaviour in how we build documents. > >> > >> The tool is only

[openstack-dev] [requirements][ffe][glance] glance_store minimum bump in pike

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:47:41AM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > If it turns out to be persistent I'll need some help from the glance > team debugging that so we can take the updates. The persistent failure has been corrected so #winning > The requirements team will discuss t

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][shade][infra] FFE for zuul-sphinx

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:32:36PM -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: > Heya, > > We'd like to request a requirements feature freeze exception to add the > zuul-sphinx library. > > zuul-sphinx is an Infra-managed Sphinx extension used to process job > documentation for zuul jobs for Zuul v3. Since jobs

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][barbican][octavia][LBaaS][heat] FFE Request for python-barbicanclient library

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:02:32AM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:58:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Dave McCowan (dmccowan)'s message of 2017-08-01 20:48:12 > > +: > > > This note is to request a Feature Freeze Exemption (FF

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][release][docs] FFE for openstack-doc-tools

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 02:22:35PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > We need a new release of openstack-doc-tools to handle the changed > behaviour in how we build documents. > > The tool is only used by documentation projects for building and nowhere > else listed in requirements file. > > Please

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements] FFE release for reno 2.5.0

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:39:07AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > We have a few projects that have modified stable branch release > notes by editing the files on master, which makes those notes appear > as part of the current release. Reno has a new option to address > that problem by ignoring some

[openstack-dev] [requirements] PTL non-candidacy

Hi All, As the requirements team knows I will not be running for PTL of requirements management. I'll still be an active core. It's been a blast being the PTL for the last 2 cycles but I need to focus on other parts of OpenStack for a while (like stable branch maintenance). The requirements

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][release][oslo] FFE for oslo.policy

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:32:36PM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > +1 here as well, my only concern is that this will need to be consumed > by so many projects. If the community consensus on this is to go > foraward with it then it's OK then. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][barbican][octavia][LBaaS][heat] FFE Request for python-barbicanclient library

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:58:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Dave McCowan (dmccowan)'s message of 2017-08-01 20:48:12 +: > > This note is to request a Feature Freeze Exemption (FFE) for the > > python-barbicanclient library in Pike. > > > > Python-barbicanclient 4.5.0 was

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder][Nova][Requirements] Lib freeze exception for os-brick

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:09:52PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 7/31/2017 5:21 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > We need a +1 from the release team (are they okay to accept a late > > release of glance_store); and a +1 from glance (are they okay to do said > > release) > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder][Nova][Requirements] Lib freeze exception for os-brick

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > I am requesting a library release of os-brick during the feature freeze > > in order to fix an issue with the recently landed online volume extend > > feature across Nova and Cinder. > > > > New os-brick 1.15.2 release has been

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][all] Freeze starting soon!

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 04:06:09PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi All, > As most of you working on milestone based projects know we're rigth > at the end of the freeze week. This means that at ~UTC Sat 29th > requirements will also freeze. > > global-requirements w

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Broken nova-lxd

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:55:53AM +0800, ChangBo Guo wrote: > For the specific case with method "last_bytes", it's also used in other > projects [1], an alternative solution is that add this method in > oslo.utils.fileutils, then consume it from oslo. > > [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] nominating Sean McGinnis for releases-core

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:14:51AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Sean has been increasingly active with the release team this cycle, and > wants to contribute. I think we should go ahead and add him to the > releases-core group. > > Please respond +1/-1. +1 Yours Tony. signature.asc

[openstack-dev] [requirements][all] Freeze starting soon!

Hi All, As most of you working on milestone based projects know we're rigth at the end of the freeze week. This means that at ~UTC Sat 29th requirements will also freeze. global-requirements will be pretty hard frozen with only libraries with significant negative impact on the stability

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:09:13PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 2017-07-17 15:51, Andy McCrae wrote: > > We held back the openstack-ansible repo to allow us to point to the > > mitaka-eol tag for the other role/project repos. > > That's been done - I've created the mitaka-eol tag in the > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][devstack] DIB builds after mysql.qcow2 removal

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:22:34PM +1000, Ian Wienand wrote: > I have taken the liberty of EOL-ing stable/liberty and stable/mitaka > for devstack. I get the feeling it was just forgotten at the time. > Comments in [4] support this theory. I have also taken the liberty of > approving backports

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:33:51AM +, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > Will this also be moving to eol - > https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/stable/mitaka/global-requirements.txt? We need to be very careful EOLing that repo (if at all) as project have deep links to the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:50:34PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Indeed, that's a bummer. I hadn't noticed it until you pointed it > out and assumed it had made it into the 2.13 series. Well, we're > planning to look at logistics for a 2.14 upgrade soon once 2.13 is > (hopefully!) in production,

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:48:09AM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi All, > Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. > Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the > stable-maint-core team. > > With the merge of [1] The h

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 08:59:27PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Fingers crossed that we'll be able to switch to Gerrit 2.13 soon and > resume that much needed development effort. This looks to have landed in 2.14[1] :( I don't know how hard it'd be to backport to 2.13 or even if that's a

[openstack-dev] [stable][release] Last release date vs End of Life date

Hi all, Up 'til now we haven't set a last release date for a stable branch approaching end of life. It seems like formalizing that would be a good thing. This comes up as we need time to verify that said release integrates well (at least doesn't break) said branch. So should we define a

[openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

Hi All, Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the stable-maint-core team. With the merge of [1] The have the groundwork for that team. I'd like to nominate: * dmllr -- Dirk Mueller * prometheanfire

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][ec2-api] How about using boto3 instead of boto in requirements

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 05:15:59PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:33:02PM +0800, jiaopengju wrote: > > Hi Dims, > > I got response from core member of ec2-api. What do you think about it? > > > > > > -- &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][ec2-api] How about using boto3 instead of boto in requirements

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:33:02PM +0800, jiaopengju wrote: > Hi Dims, > I got response from core member of ec2-api. What do you think about it? > > > -- > Hi, > > > I don't treat adding new library as a problem. > > > - I see that you don't remove boto - so

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] etcd v3.2.0?

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:17:53AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Tony, > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tony Breeds <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 08:19:16PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > >> Awesome! thanks To

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] How about using boto3 instead of boto in requirements

NOTE: - Removed Matthew and Sean from Cc as they'll get this via os-dev - Added ec2-api tag and PTL for visibility On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:05:55AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Hi Pengju Jiao, > > The main consume i believe is EC2-API : > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] etcd v3.2.0?

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 08:19:16PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Awesome! thanks Tony, some kolla jobs do that for example, but i think > this job is a better one to key off of: > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/project-config/tree/jenkins/jobs/infra.yaml#n381 > > Outline of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] etcd v3.2.0?

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 03:59:22PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Mikhail, > > I have a TODO on my list - " adding a job that looks for new releases > and uploads them to tarballs periodically " If you point me to how things are added to that mirror I can work towards that. Tony.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:14:59PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-06-16 15:12:36 +1000 (+1000), Tony Breeds wrote: > [...] > > It seeems a little odd to be following up so long after I first started > > this thread but can someone on infra please process the EOL

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] stable branches maintenance

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0300, Denis Meltsaykin wrote: > Greetings everyone! > > Since the development of fuel-related projects is currently not so active > as it used to be, I want to propose a change in how we maintain stable > branches. > > -Motivation- > As for now to commit

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][kolla][release] Policy regarding backports of gate code

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:38:44PM -0700, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On 06/05/2017 09:42 AM, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > > My question is, is it ok to backport gate logic to stable branch? > > Regular code doesn't change so it might not be considered a feature > > backport (users won't see a thing).

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi all, > I'm late in sending this announement, but I'm glad to see several projects > have already requested EOL releases to make it trivial and obvious where to > apply the tag. > > I'm proposing to EOL all

[openstack-dev] [devstack] etcd v3.2.0?

Hi All, I just push a review [1] to bump the minimum etcd version to 3.2.0 which works on intel and ppc64le. I know we're pretty late in the cycle to be making changes like this but releasing pike with a dependacy on 3.1.x make it harder for users on ppc64le (not many but a few :D) Yours

[openstack-dev] [tc][ptls] Apologies and update

Hi All, I'd belatedly like to apologise for my recent absence from my OpenStack duties. As a few people know I needed to take a small break due to medical leave. Also unrelated to that my employment circumstances have changed recently so I'm still committed to the community and my roles I'm

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 09:55:51AM -0400, Brian Rosmaita wrote: > On 4/12/17 2:47 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm late in sending this announement, but I'm glad to see several > > projects > > have already requested EOL releases to make it trivial and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:58:12PM -0700, Samuel Cassiba wrote: > Hi Tony, > > I’m not the PTL, but I asked in our channel. You can EOL Chef OpenStack as > well. Thanks! Cool. I've added the Chef repos to the EOL list. Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:48:34PM -0700, Sumit Naiksatam wrote: > Hi Tony, Kindly do not EOL openstack/group-based-policy, we are > maintaining this branch. Done. Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature __

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:55:56PM +0100, Andy McCrae wrote: > Can the openstack-ansible repository be skipped until other repo's are > EOL'd, please? The reason is that we'd like the mitaka-eol tag for OSA to > point to the mitaka-eol tag of the appropriate upstream projects, in order > for that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:27:22PM +, gordon chung wrote: > i imagine you can EOL python-aodhclient and ceilometermiddleware. thanks Thanks I've added those repos/projects. Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:06:36PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Please add openstack-manuals to the list for EOL, Thanks Added! Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 07:53:17AM -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: > Please EOL the Puppet OpenStack projects that have the stable/mitaka branch. Thanks Alex! I've added: openstack/puppet-aodh openstack/puppet-ceilometer openstack/puppet-cinder openstack/puppet-designate openstack/puppet-glance

[openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

Hi all, I'm late in sending this announement, but I'm glad to see several projects have already requested EOL releases to make it trivial and obvious where to apply the tag. I'm proposing to EOL all projects that meet one or more of the following criteria: - The project is

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] What's the plan for mitaka-eol?

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:19:00PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > There was no stable team meeting today but according to the release schedule > page [1], Mitaka EOL happens after today. So what's the plan? Same old song > and dance as always? Yup. I'm generating the list of EOL'able repos

[openstack-dev] [requirements] Cancelling today's (2017-03-22) meeting

Hi All, Sorry for the short notice but as several cores are unavailable for the meeting today I'm going to cancel it. We'll try again next week. Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptls] Project On-Boarding Rooms

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:31:49AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Infrastructure, QA, Release Management, Requirements, Stable maint > > Those teams are all under-staffed and wanting to grow new members, but > 90 min is both too long and too short for them. I feel like regrouping > them in a

Re: [openstack-dev] [telemetry][requirements] ceilometer grenade gate failure

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:16:29AM +, gordon chung wrote: > hi, > > this is just an fyi but i've proposed a fix[1] for ceilometer grenade > gate failures we have. > > i've added reasoning in commit message but to re-iterate, > ceilometermiddleware never gets bumped to master

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] ImportError: No module named neutron_lib

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:04:55PM +0800, Sam wrote: > Is this? > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/neutron-lib Make sure you're installing with upper-constratints otehrwise you'll get components that rely on features for newer releases Assuming you're installing with pip something like[1] wget

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:24:32PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > I know I'm talking to myself . Still. > A project on $branch without constraints is going to get pbr 2.0.0 and then > hit > version conflicts with projects that have pbr <2.0.0 caps *anyway* regardless > of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:07:47PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:01:43PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > And yes there are now plenty of pep8 jobs that are failing with PBR 2.0.0 > > > > We can't revert the requirements change that landed which

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:01:43PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > And yes there are now plenty of pep8 jobs that are failing with PBR 2.0.0 > > We can't revert the requirements change that landed which means that projects > using old hacking versions are going to need an update :( On

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:41:14PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:48:05PM +1100, Ian Wienand wrote: > > On 03/02/2017 01:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Tony identified caps in 5 OpenStack community projects (see [1]) as well > > > as powervm

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:48:05PM +1100, Ian Wienand wrote: > On 03/02/2017 01:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Tony identified caps in 5 OpenStack community projects (see [1]) as well > > as powervm and python-jsonpath-rw-ext. Pull requests to those other > > projects are linked from the bug [2].

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] state of the stable/mitaka branches

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:29:14PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-03-01 13:24:09 -0800 (-0800), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > [...] > > Other projects spent some time upfront and adopted constraints > > quite a while ago. I am surprised that there are still stable > > branches that don't do

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] state of the stable/mitaka branches

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:24:09PM -0800, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > I am surprised that there are still > stable branches that don't do that. It's so much easier to maintain > them with constraints in place! Taking a tanget. At the begining of the Ocata cycle we only had 55% constraints usage on

[openstack-dev] [all] PBR 2.0.0 release *may* cause gate failures

Hi All, Earlier today the release team tagged PBR 2.0.0. The reason for the major version bump is because warnerrors has been removed in favor of warning-is-error from sphinx >= 1.5.0. It seems that several projects outside both inside and outside OpenStack have capped pbr <2.0.0 so we can't

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] Managing project requirements

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Andreas Scheuring wrote: > Hi, I have a couple of questions in regards of how updates of > requirements are handled and what happens if I release a new version of > a library. I read along the README [1], but a few points are still > unclear to me. > > I

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] merging code from a github repo to an openstack existing repo: how ?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:31:34AM -0500, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hi, > > A bit of context to make my question clearer: openstack/networking-bagpipe > relies on bagpipe-bgp which is not an openstack project although done by the > same people, and we would see a significant benefit in moving the

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] [glance] revising the stable-maintenance list

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:44:49AM -0800, Ian Cordasco wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Brian Rosmaita > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Date: February 17, 2017 at 10:21:17 > To: 

[openstack-dev] [stable][requirements] Logos / Mascots

HI All, You've all seen many of the fly by so y'all know the drill. Here are the, I think, awesome logos/mascots for Requirements and Stable Branch maintenance - [stable] Scarab: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x5uh65yqqdge5ae/AABvq9ztd_MTE9GLZUPGibG4a?dl=0 - [requirements] Waterfall:

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Infra] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging liberty as EOL

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:55:41AM -0800, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Has the liberty-eol cleanup happened? Because I still see > stable/liberty branch in openstack/neutron repo, which gets in the way > of some logic around proactive backports: >

[openstack-dev] [requirements] No team meeting Feb-15th @ 1000 UTC

Hi all, We don't have anything specific on the agenda and we'll do the bulk of our cycle's planning next week so I vote we give the US folks a morning off, I go to bead early and the Eu team members use the time to get a coffee! See many of you next week in Atlanta! Yours Tony.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][logos] License for new project mascots

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:34:55PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2017-02-14 18:55:51 +: > > Are there hosted images we can link to? > > Maybe we can add the logos to the team pages published through the > governance repo. Would that mean adding a copy

[openstack-dev] [all][requirements] Eventlet verion bump coming?

Hi All, So there is a new version of eventlet out and we refused to bump it late in the ocata cycle but now that we're early in the pike cycle I think we're okay to do it. The last time[1] we tried to bump eventlet it was pretty rocky and we decided that we'd need a short term group of people

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Support phase clarification

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 06:26:57PM -0600, Jay S Bryant wrote: > > > On 2/9/2017 6:09 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:41:26PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > > On 2017-02-09 11:24:46 -0600 (-0600), Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Thanks both. The original

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] [Horizon][Karbor][Magnum] Requesting FFE for xstatic packages

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:42:06PM +, Adrian Otto wrote: > I voted to merge [1] and [2]: > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/429753/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430941/ > > FFE approved for Magnum, provided this does not cause problems for other > projects. Thanks everyone

Re: [openstack-dev] [FFE][requirements][murano][murano-pkg-check]pdate constraint for murano-pkg-check to new release 0.3.0

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:32:28AM +0800, Rong Zhu wrote: > The Bot Gerrit link is: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428200/ > > update constraint for murano-pkg-check to new release 0.3.0 Change-Id: > I4d8cbf55525c90efd5d46f4659b57197f4c6f9f3 >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] [Horizon][Karbor][Magnum] Requesting FFE for xstatic packages

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:39:41AM +1100, Richard Jones wrote: > Hi requirements team, > > We've had a downstream packager come to us with issues packaging the > Horizon RC as described in this bug report: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1662180 > > The issues stems from the

[openstack-dev] [all] Upcoming tox 2.6.0 release

Hi All, I don't expect a problem but I also don't know how/if we control which tox version is installed in out images. Based on the thread here [1] It seems there will be a tox 2.6.0 release real soon now. Yours Tony. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][neutron] bot bumping patches off gate queue

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:49:21AM -0800, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 1 February 2017 at 07:29, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> lately I see the requirements bot proposing new

Re: [openstack-dev] [watcher] meeting time and location change

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:18:00PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > Just talking to myself but the current eavesdrop page shows: > Page generated on 2017-01-12 15:06:44.58 UTC > > So yeah it looks like the publish job failed. Strange the publish job didn't run on the wa

Re: [openstack-dev] [watcher] meeting time and location change

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:20:21PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:49:28AM +0100, Antoine Cabot wrote: > > Thx Tony, I did this last week ;-) > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/425107/ > > Antoine > > Thanks! > > Hmm okay that's stran

Re: [openstack-dev] [watcher] meeting time and location change

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:49:28AM +0100, Antoine Cabot wrote: > Thx Tony, I did this last week ;-) > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/425107/ > Antoine Thanks! Hmm okay that's strange as the view I get seems t have stale data. I'll check the publish jobs Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] changing the order of values in upper-constraints.txt

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > When I tried to merge the upper-constraints updates for the library > releases we did today, I ran into quite a lot of merge conflicts > with the Oslo libraries. I'm exploring options for reducing the > likelihood that those sorts of

Re: [openstack-dev] [watcher] meeting time and location change

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:06:37AM +0100, Antoine Cabot wrote: > Hi Watcher team, > > I changed time & location of our weekly meeting on odd weeks. Today, > it will be at 13:00 UTC on #openstack-meeting-alt. Care to submit a review to openstack-infra/irc-meetings so that

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][all][ptl][stable] the process for creating stable/ocata branches

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:27:08PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > * I will branch the requirements repository shortly after all of > the cycle-with-milestone projects have branched. After the > requirements repository is branched and the master requirements > list is opened, projects that

Re: [openstack-dev] [ffe][requirements][gnocchi][rally][mistral] upper-constraint gnocchiclient 3.0.0

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:31:44PM +, gordon chung wrote: > > > On 31/01/17 04:09 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > > So, to summarize, new server doesn't work with old client. Will this > > require a global requirements update as well (seems like it)? > > i probably shouldve just typed that ^ >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Infra][Tacker] Creating feature branch for Tacker

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 07:40:13AM +0530, Digambar Patil wrote: > Hello Infra team, > > I am implementing new API framework in tacker based on Falcon. We have > decided to create separate branch for this so that we can push all the code > to feature branch and once dev is completed, will merge

Re: [openstack-dev] [FFE][requirements] VMware nsxlib 0.7.0

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:40:22PM +, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > At the moment we have a number of bugs in the plugin that are addressed by > the patches here. Could we please get this approved so that the Ocata version > will be ina state that we can release it. This is blocking us for

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable][relmgt] PTG prep

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:46:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi! > > The requirements team, the stable maintenance team and the release > management team will share a single room on the Monday and Tuesday of > the PTG. Since we don't all need 2 full days of coordination (and > several of us

Re: [openstack-dev] [Release-job-failures] Release of openstack/glance failed

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:31:42PM -0500, Ian Cordasco wrote: > I believe you asked in another thread (that I cannot locate) if it was > acceptable to the Glance team to not have an 11.0.3 tarball on > openstack.org. With Brian on vacation, I'm hoping the other stable > maintenance cores will

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Intermittent gate failures across multiple projects

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 04:31:38PM -0800, John Villalovos wrote: > We believe the error is caused by a bad wheel for lxml 3.7.0 that was > pushed today to PyPi > > Thanks to everyone working together on this issue in #openstack-infra ! > > A patch is proposed to blacklist that release and we are

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][nova-docker] Time to retire nova-docker?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 09:43:34PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > yep, it's time to pull the plug Tony > > fyi, http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/098940.html Okay I knew it'd come up before. If noone objects befoerm Monday Dec 26th, I'll send the announcement to

[openstack-dev] [nova][nova-docker] Time to retire nova-docker?

Hi All, I know this comes up from time to time, but as the subject says, is it time to retire nova-docker. The nova-docker has lagged behind the last 6 months of nova development and no longer passes simple CI unit tests. There are open patches to at least get the unit tests to pass[1] but

Re: [openstack-dev] [Release-job-failures] Tag of openstack/openstack-ansible-security failed

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:29:59AM +, jenk...@openstack.org wrote: > Build failed. > > - openstack-ansible-security-releasenotes > http://logs.openstack.org/6c/6cf9e9174441a071b3071e468235fc18a4c08478/tag/openstack-ansible-security-releasenotes/f814d7f/ > : FAILURE in 51s This should be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging liberty as EOL

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:18:20AM -0800, Samuel Cassiba wrote: > The Chef OpenStack cookbooks team is way late to the party. The cookbooks > (openstack/cookbook-openstack-*, openstack/openstack-chef-repo ) should have > had their liberty branches EOL’d. I have checked and no open reviews exist >

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Infra] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging liberty as EOL

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:52:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-12-16 13:58:58 +1100 (+1100), Tony Breeds wrote: > [...] > > Due to a failure in the release pipline [1] some of the release > > jobs haven't been done. > [...] > > [1] > > http://lists.op

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging liberty as EOL

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hey Tony, > > Could we also EOL tripleo-incubator and tripleo-image-elements > stable/icehouse please? Yup, No problem. Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >