Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][I18n][OpenStackClient][Quality Assurance][Security][Telemetry][ec2-api][heat][horizon][ironic][kuryr][magnum][manila][monasca][murano][neutron][octavia][senlin][solu

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:17:23AM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:46:32PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > In an effort to qualify which projects are likley to be affected if > > when we open the requirements repo I generat

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][I18n][OpenStackClient][Quality Assurance][Security][Telemetry][ec2-api][heat][horizon][ironic][kuryr][magnum][manila][monasca][murano][neutron][octavia][senlin][solu

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:22:56PM +0900, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > Tony, > > Thanks for taking care. > > > The following repos don't seem to use the openstack/releases repo so I > > have less information there. > > Most of them are projects not under the governance (so-called "hosted" > or "unoff

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][I18n][OpenStackClient][Quality Assurance][Security][Telemetry][ec2-api][heat][horizon][ironic][kuryr][magnum][manila][monasca][murano][neutron][octavia][senlin][solu

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:46:20AM +0900, Ian Y. Choi wrote: > Akihiro Motoki wrote on 8/10/2017 7:22 PM: > > Tony, > > > > Thanks for taking care. > > > > > > > i18n I18n > > At now, i18n repo is a part of governance but this is a project which > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][I18n][OpenStackClient][Quality Assurance][Security][Telemetry][ec2-api][heat][horizon][ironic][kuryr][magnum][manila][monasca][murano][neutron][octavia][senlin][solu

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:01:23PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Yes, it comes up often enough and as far as I'm aware reviewers > haven't previously rejected unofficial projects who want to receive > requirements updates. There are definitely projects who don't want > to (or for license reasons

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][masakari] FFE for adding python-masakariclient in global-requirements

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:58:21PM -0500, Sam P wrote: > Hi Tony, > > For maskari-monitors, earliest we can cut stable/pike is 8/11. > You was mentioned about masakari and related projects in [1]. > For python-masakariclient, stable/pike can be cut on 8/11. > However, for maskari I would like to l

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][masakari] FFE for adding python-masakariclient in global-requirements

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:23:12AM -0500, Sam P wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Correction: > >> You can take that or: > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457491/ > > Thanks for the update and I will try to merge #/c/457491 asap. > > Otherwise I will resolve the merge conflicts. > I did not realize th

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][ptls] HELP! Thawing the requirements repo

Hi All, The requirements repo is now branched. If your project does NOT have a stable/pike branch please review any bot generated changes *very* carefully until you do have a stable/pike branch. If you're not sure ask in #openstack-requirements for a team member to do a quick review. Yours T

Re: [openstack-dev] [distributions][devstack][requirements] Upper constraints broken in stable/ocata on CentOS 7/RHEL 7

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:58:50PM -0700, Arun SAG wrote: > Hi, > > RHEL/CentOS 7 released new libvirt packages (upgraded from 2.x to 3.x) > which broke bootstrapping devstack on stable/ocata branch. I have a review > up here to fix this in upper-requirements.txt > https://review.openstack.org/#/c

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Secrets of edit-constraints

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:36:33AM +, Csatari, Gergely (Nokia - HU/Budapest) wrote: > Hi, > > I have an interesting situation with the parametrization of edit-constraints > in tools/tox_install.sh. This happens at the moment in neutron-lib, but as > amotoki pointed out in [1] the same shoul

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] [telemetry] Ceilometer stable/pike branch outlook

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 02:37:50PM -0400, William M Edmonds wrote: > > Julien Danjou wrote on 08/16/2017 02:13:10 PM: > > From: Julien Danjou > > To: "Eric S Berglund" > > Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Date: 08/16/2017 02:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [release] [telemetry]

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] Unfreezing of the requirements repo

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:47:14PM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > Hi all, > > It's time to unfreeze the requirements repo. > > For projects that have branched (most everyone at this point) this > won't be a change. > > For projects that have yet to branch, you will need to look out for > and bloc

Re: [openstack-dev] Minimum version of shred in our supported distros?

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 03:43:22PM +1000, Michael Still wrote: > Hi, > > nova.virt.libvirt.storage.lvm.clear_volume() has a comment that we could > use shred to zero out volumes efficiently if we could assume that shred > 8.22 was in all our downstream distros [1]. shred 8.22 shipped in 2013 [2].

Re: [openstack-dev] Minimum version of shred in our supported distros?

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:40:31AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: > If there's really only one distro which hasn't updated, I'd also be > inclined to try and push them to update before they move to Queens. Surely > that's a thing we can ask them nicely to do? It might also be that SLES-11 isn't a thi

[openstack-dev] [all][QA][group-based-policy][zaqar][packaging_deb][fuel][networking-*] Marking <= mitaka EOL

Hello all, We have a number of old stable/* branches hanging around and I'd like to mark anything <= stable/mitaka as EOL. I've highlighted a few projects on the subject line: QA: Are the older branches of grenade safe to go? IIUC we don't use them as we don't do grenade testing on $olde

Re: [openstack-dev] [relmgt] Libraries published to pypi with YYYY.X.Z versions

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:09:32PM +, Claudiu Belu wrote: > (test) ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ pip freeze | grep networking-hyperv > > (test) ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ pip install networking-hyperv I know this isn't a solution but I'd be remiss if I didn't point it out: uc_url=https://git.openstack.org/cgit/op

Re: [openstack-dev] [relmgt] Libraries published to pypi with YYYY.X.Z versions

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:04:58PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Tony Breeds wrote: > > An extension to this would be to check for other items in the same boat. > > I wrote [1] to find anything in the openstack namespace that isn't a > > service and has something th

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] all you need to know for PTG TripleO-related topics

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:07:20PM -0600, John Fulton wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > If you use Google Calendar, you really want to use this one: > > https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/c1g5npdrsd3p37ods24s19gg0g%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.i

Re: [openstack-dev] Should we be using subprocess32?

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Hi folks, > > I know there is a bunch of usage of subprocess in openstack and especially > since there is heavy usage of python 2.7 it made me wonder if we should try > to move to subprocess32 to avoid some of the bugs that seem to e

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Marking <= mitaka EOL

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:14:56PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hello all, > We have a number of old stable/* branches hanging around and I'd > like to mark anything <= stable/mitaka as EOL. I've highlighted a few > projects on the subject line: > > QA: Are the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Marking <= mitaka EOL

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:39:56PM +1000, Joshua Hesketh wrote: > Hi All, > > I've processed the list that Tony sent through this morning, removing the > branches and tagging their positions as described. Thanks Josh! > The only exception being that openstack/zaqar doesn't have stable/liberty >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][QA][group-based-policy][zaqar][packaging_deb][fuel][networking-*] Marking <= mitaka EOL

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:56:07PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > So, for fuel we have stable/7.0 etc - what are the plans for these? Can > we retire them as well? > > Those are even older AFAIK, As discussed on IRC, when I started this I needed to start with something small and simple, so I pic

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Marking <= mitaka EOL

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:23:07AM -0400, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:39:56PM +1000, Joshua Hesketh wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I've processed the list that Tony sent through this morning, removing the > > branches and tagging their position

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 01:08:45PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-09-20 13:36:38 +: > > On 2017-09-20 08:41:14 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > > [...] > > > Is there any reason not to use the published files for all regular > > > builds, inste

[openstack-dev] [all][charms][fuel][Packaging-Deb] Remove old numeric branches

Hello all, Now we have cleaned up some of the older series based branches I've taken a look at some of the numeric based branches. The projects in $subject are particularly impacted. I've made my best guess at which branches are current, but I'd really appreciate guidance on the life span of

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 01:43:51PM -0400, Tony Breeds wrote: > The solution I thought we decide on at the PTG is: > * Add a post job to all branches that publish a constraints/$series.txt >to $server (I don't mind if it's releases.o.o or tarballs.o.o). Actually we might b

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:09:15PM -0400, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 01:43:51PM -0400, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > The solution I thought we decide on at the PTG is: > > * Add a post job to all branches that publish a constraints/$series.txt > >to $serv

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:24:32PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > That solves the problem of having the constraints file disappear after > the EOL, but it doesn't really solve the problem of having to update the > branches every time we open one. Having tox_install.sh figure out the > URL from the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:59:50PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-09-20 14:46:32 -0400 (-0400), Tony Breeds wrote: > [...] > > I'd like to find a solution that doesn't need a tox_install.sh > [...] > > This wart came up when discussing Zuul v3 job translati

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:51:21PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-09-20 18:59:50 +: > > On 2017-09-20 14:46:32 -0400 (-0400), Tony Breeds wrote: > > [...] > > > I'd like to find a solution that doesn't need a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:08:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > I like the idea. I'm not sure why, if the constraints file is only used > for the dependency installation step, we still need tox_install.sh? Right now that isn't true, when we get something like my idea implemented we'd still need

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][stable] EOL tags and upper-constraints.txt in tox.ini

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:13:23PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-09-21 08:36:39 -0400: > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:08:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > > I like the idea. I'm not sure why, if the constraints file is only used > > > for the depe

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

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:34:05PM +0800, ChangBo Guo wrote: > Thanks tony for raising up this, better document this in some place :-) For the record this was just added to the queens schedule [1]. The deadline is this week but in reality early nest week would probably also be accepted. Yours T

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

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:06:47PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > 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 d

Re: [openstack-dev] Disk Image Builder for redhat 7.4

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:19:45PM +0530, Amit Singla wrote: > Hi, > > Could you tell me how I can create qcow2 image for rhel 7.4 by disk image > builder and I want also to install oracle 12.2 on that image with DIB. Is > it possible? For the RHEL 7.4 side of things there is a rhel7 dib target,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:58:46AM -0600, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Newton is officially EOL next month: > https://releases.openstack.org/index.html#release-series > > As an action from our weekly meeting, we decided to accelerate the > reviews for stable/newton before it's too late. > This email is

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:55:13AM +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote: > On 09/26/2017 06:58 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > Newton is officially EOL next month: > > https://releases.openstack.org/index.html#release-series > > > > As an action from our weekly meeting, we decided to accelerate the > > revie

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:31:59PM -0700, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > With that in mind I'd suggest that your review isn't appropriate for > > If we have to give up backports that help customers to get > production

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:39:13AM -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: > One idea would be to allow trailing projects additional trailing on > the phases as well. Honestly 2 weeks for trailing for just GA is hard > enough. Let alone the fact that the actual end-users are 18+ months > behind. For some dep

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:35:43PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > It's a little weird because essentially we want to provide a higher level of > support for stable branches than most of OpenStack. My understanding is > that a lot of the current stable branch policy came out of the fact that > there w

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:17:16PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > On 09/27/2017 08:13 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:35:43PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > It's a little weird because essentially we want to provide a higher level > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Newton End-Of-Life (EOL) next month (reminder #1)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:14:19PM -0700, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:39:13AM -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: > > > >> One idea would be to allow trailing projects additional trailing on > >>

[openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

Hi All, This is a quick update on the process for tagging stable/newton as EOL: The published[1][2] timeline is: Sep 29 : Final newton library releases Oct 09 : stable/newton branches enter Phase III Oct 11 : stable/newton branches get tagged EOL Given that those key dates were a little disru

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][elections] Candidate proposals for TC (Technical Committee) positions are now open

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:26:33PM +, Kendall Nelson wrote: > Hello Again, > > A few corrections from the kickoff email: > > Candidates for the Technical Committee Positions: Any Foundation individual > member can propose their candidacy for an available, directly-elected TC > seat. (except t

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:00:00AM -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > Would it be possible to delay the Newton EOL for the TripleO projects > for ~1month? We still have some patches outstanding and would like to > delay the EOL

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:51:06PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > I'll prep the list of repos that will be tagged EOL real soon now for > review. As promised here's the list. The fomat is new, It's grouped by project team so it should be easy for teams to find repos they care

Re: [openstack-dev] [DIB] DIB Meetings

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:19:07PM +0200, Andreas Scheuring wrote: > Hi, > > seems like there is some confusing information about the DIB meetings in the > wiki [1]. The meeting is alternating between 15:00 and 20:00 UTC. But > whenever the Text says 15:00 UTC, the link points to a 20:00 UTC world

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][elections] Candidate proposals for TC (Technical Committee) positions are now open

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:30:51AM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > While all of the prose above is correct, the table does not reflect > the extended dates (although we'd be delighted to have nominations well in > advance of the dates listed). The updated delayed-two-days dates are: > > Events

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Update on Zuul v3 Migration - and what to do about issues

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:06:24PM +0900, Takashi Yamamoto wrote: > i was told this is a fix. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508898/ Yup the transition will be complete when https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509855/ merges. At that point we'll be using all the zuulv3 goodness :) Thanks again

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][elections] TC nomination period is now over

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:18:30AM +, Kendall Nelson wrote: > Hello!TC Nomination is now over. The official candidate list is available > on the election website[0].We now enter the campaigning period where > candidates and electorate may debate their statements.The election will > start this S

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

Hi All, With the election behind us it's somewhat traditional to look at some simple stats from the elections: +--+---+---+---+ | Election | Electorate (delta %) | Voted (delta %) | Turnout % (delta %) | +--+

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:35:34AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote: > I agree, we should care about not repeating this Pike trend. It looks > like Queens is better in terms of turnout (see the amazing positive > delta!). However, I can't help but noticing that the trend for > turnouts is slowly

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:15:56AM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:51:06PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > > I'll prep the list of repos that will be tagged EOL real soon now for > > review. > > As promised here's the list. The fomat is new, It

Re: [openstack-dev] [os-vif] [nova] Changes to os-vif cores

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:32:15PM +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote: > Hey, > > I'm not actually sure what the protocol is for adding/removing cores to a > library project without a PTL, so I'm just going to put this out there: I'd > like to propose the following changes to the os-vif core team. FWI

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 05:11:15PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:15:56AM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:51:06PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > I'll prep the list of repos that will be tagged EOL real soon now for &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][charms][fuel][Packaging-Deb] Remove old numeric branches

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 01:52:11PM -0400, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hello all, > Now we have cleaned up some of the older series based branches I've > taken a look at some of the numeric based branches. > > The projects in $subject are particularly impacted. I've made

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:11:01AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote: > On 25 October 2017 at 03:57, Tony Breeds wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 05:11:15PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:15:56AM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > >> > On W

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 01:11:53PM +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > The last ironic newton release was done, we're ready for EOL. Thanks that must've happened overnight. Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature _

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Preping for the stable/newton EOL

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:24:59AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 10/24/2017 9:57 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > The timing of the next phase is uncertain right now but I'd like to take > > care of: > > > > - openstack/nova > > Just a status update, but the f

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:05:44AM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:35:34AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote: > > > > > I agree, we should care about not repeating this Pike trend. It looks > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:18:59PM -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 20/10/17 20:20, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > With the election behind us it's somewhat traditional to look at > > some

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 09:48:06PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-10-25 12:18:59 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote: > [...] > > Can we maybe calculate the electorate size using the old method as well so > > that we can quantify how much of the dropoff (in theory it could be more > > than 100

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [elections] Technical Committee Election Results

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:06:46PM -0400, David Moreau Simard wrote: > Was it just me or did the "official" period for campaigning/questions was > awfully short ? > > The schedule [1] went: > ​TC Campaigning: (Start) Oct 11, 2017 23:59 UTC (End) Oct 14, 2017 23:45 > UTC​ The original was: - nam

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-infra][stable][urgent][rally] Someone deleted Rally stable branch, we need to restore

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:36:01PM -0700, Boris Pavlovic wrote: > Hi, > > Someone somehow deleted 0.9.* branches from GitHub repo > https://github.com/openstack/rally > A lot of end users are using these branches and are affected by this > change. > > Can someone help to restore them? So sorry t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How do you use the instance IP filter?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:23:50PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Nova has had this long-standing known performance issue if you're filtering > a large number of instances by IP. The instance IPs are stored in a JSON > blob in the database so we don't do filtering in SQL. We pull the instances > ou

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] How do you use the instance IP filter?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:35:47PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 10/26/2017 9:54 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > Can you use RLIKE/REGEX? or is that too MySQL specific ? > > I thought about that, and my gut response is 'no' because even if it does > work for mysql

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [requirements] moving driver dependencies to global-requirements?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:51:49PM +0100, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > Hi all, > > So far driver requirements [1] have been managed outside of > global-requirements. This was mostly necessary because some dependencies > were not on PyPI. This is no longer the case, and I'd like to consider > managing t

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [requirements] moving driver dependencies to global-requirements?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:07:10PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Richard.Pioso's message of 2017-10-30 23:11:31 +: > > 2. And would that be correctly handled? > > Good question. We should test the requirements update script to see. It does. I did a quick fictional test: This:

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

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 03:07:33AM +, z...@openstack.org wrote: > Build failed. > > - publish-openstack-javascript-tarball > http://logs.openstack.org/e5/e5831f230bd29516dc202eb406270604f27e27f9/release/publish-openstack-javascript-tarball/9908482/ > : SUCCESS in 4m 58s > - release-openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Blueprints moved out to Rocky

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:34:09PM -0700, Alex Schultz wrote: > Hey folks, > > So I went through the list of blueprints and moved some that were > either not updated or appeared to have a bunch of patches not in a > mergable state. > > Please take some time to review the list of blueprints curren

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Blueprints moved out to Rocky

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:01:41PM -0700, Alex Schultz wrote: > I assume since some of this work was sort of done earlier outside of > tripleo and does not affect the default installation path that most > folks will consume, it shouldn't be impacting to general testing or > increase regressions. My

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Removing old baremetal commands from python-tripleoclient

Hi All, In review I01837a9daf6f119292b5a2ffc361506925423f11 I updated ValidateInstackEnv to handle the case when then instackenv.json file needs to represent a node that deosn't require a pm_user for IMPI to work. It turns out that I foudn that code path with grep rather than the result of a d

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Blueprints moved out to Rocky

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:39:16AM -0700, Alex Schultz wrote: > Perhaps we can start reviewing the items and those with little to no > impact we can merge for the remainder of the cycle. I know > realistically everything has an impact so it'll be >0, but lets try > and keep it as close to 0 as pos

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] propose to upgrade python kubernetes (the k8s python client) to 4.0.0

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:16:29PM +1300, Lingxian Kong wrote: > hi, leyal, > > I suppose the upgrade is backward compatible, right? By, semantic versioning, defintion 1.y.z is NOT compatible with 4.y.z. That's what a major bump means. And in this case we're doing 3 major bumps. The only questi

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Removing old baremetal commands from python-tripleoclient

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > On 12/15/2017 04:49 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > Hi All, > > In review I01837a9daf6f119292b5a2ffc361506925423f11 I updated > > ValidateInstackEnv to handle the case when then instackenv.json file > >

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Mutli-arch image support

Hi All, As you're all aware we're trying to bring support to tripleo that enables multiple-architectures in the same tripleo managed/deployed overcloud. The first real difference comes to how we handle the ,now, multiple images required. To validated that my understanding of the x86_64 only s

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] Independent tag and stable branches

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:51:19PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > Hi release team, > > So I'm about to release Gnocchi 2.2.0. I'd expect to have a stable/2.2 > branch. Is this going to happen? Based on the format of the YAML file, > I'm not sure this scenario is handled. Note, I'm clearly note a r

[openstack-dev] [heat][requirements] Re: [Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/heat failed

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:44:06AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack Stable Branch test reports. wrote: > Build failed. > > - periodic-heat-docs-liberty > http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-heat-docs-liberty/6835807/ > : SUCCESS in 10m 19s > - periodic-heat-python27-db-lib

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptl][requirements] nomination period started

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:07:20AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > For the record, Anita has agreed to be the primary election official, > and I will assist her. Thanks Doug and Anita! Yours Tony. signature.asc Description: PGP signature __

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptl][requirements] nomination period started

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:41:17AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > We've started a period of self nomination in preparation for the > requirements project fully moving into project (as it's still under Doug > Hellmann). > > We are gathering the self nominations here before we vote next week. > https

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][requirements] Re: [Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/heat failed

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:20:38PM +0800, Ethan Lynn wrote: > Hi Tony, > I submit a patch to use upper-constraints for review, > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/347639/ > . Let’s wait for the feedback > and results. Thanks. I see that you have r

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] SFC stable/mitaka version

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 12:40:48PM +, Gary Kotton wrote: > Hi, > Is anyone looking at creating a stable/mitaka version? What if someone want > to use this for stable/mitaka? If that's a thing you need it's a matter of Armando asking the release managers to create it. Yours Tony. signature.a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] SFC stable/mitaka version

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:23:30PM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > I only suggest Armando is not dragged into it, the release liaison > (currently me) should be able to handle the request if it comes from the > core team for the subproject. Good point. I defaulted to PTL but you're right the rel

Re: [openstack-dev] [constraints] Updating stable branch URL

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 03:02:45PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Yes, I think updating that branching script is the best course. > > We might want to modify the tox.ini to make it easier to edit with > sed by defining a variable for the branch. It would be nice if we > could just read the value f

[openstack-dev] [oslo][nova][requirements] Getting oslo.context 2.6.0 into the gate

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:09:54PM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote: > Since yesterday, Nova uses "oslo.context" 2.6.0 [1] but the needed > change [2] is not yet in place, which broke "gate-nova-python27-db"[3]. > Logstash counts 70 hits/h [4]. Most folks will be at the midcycle in > Portland and won't

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptl][requirements] nomination period started

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:21:26PM -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > So Doug and I had a chat and we propose the following workflow for > deciding the requirements ptl: > 1) Nominations open, done: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/100173.html > 2) Nominations close:

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptl][requirements] nomination period started

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:42:32PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > As part of our discussion, we realized that over time we'll be > automating more and more of the submissions to the requirements > repo so the core review team (and everyone else) will likely end > up submitting fewer manual patches.

Re: [openstack-dev] [ptl][requirements] nomination period started

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:13:03AM -0500, Tony Breeds wrote: > I'd like to nominate for PTL of the, to be formed, requirements project. I'd just like to clarify something as I've been asked by several people privately. The gist of the question is: You're the S

[openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

Hi all, I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team members. The current policy for approving requirements[1] bumps contains the following text: Changes to update the minimum version of a library developed by the OpenStack community can be approved by one reviewer, as lo

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:14:43PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 for volunteers to step up. I'll do it and I have a *very* basic prototype done. It wont be in Newton though. Having said that if there is another volenteer I'm happy to work with them or free up time :) Yours Tony. PS: Repl

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:21:19PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > I fully understood the proposal but I still think you're optimizing for the > wrong thing. We have a community process for doing backports and maintaining > released versions of OpenStack code. The fundamental problem here is actu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > So I guess what I'm asking: If stable branches exist as a place for > package maintainers to collaborate on a common set of backported > fixes, and are not actually usable to that end, why do we continue > to provide them? I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't a part of the sessions in Austin on the topic of long > terms support of Cinder drivers. There's a lot going on during the summits > these days. For the record the session in Austin, that I think Matt was referencing

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:33:52AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and > while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince > my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much > of t

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] near term gate optimization opportunity

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 09:13:12AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 2016-08-10 23:06, Sean Dague wrote: > > Based on reading some logs, it looks like requirements updates are > > getting regenerated on every requirements land for all open patches, > > even if they aren't impacted by it - > > https

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][elections] Requirements PTL Results

rward, showing their > enthusiasm for the role. It is plain to see this new team has a lot of > leadership available to it as it moves forward. Congratulations Requirements > team. > > Please join me in welcoming your new Requirements PTL, Tony Breeds (tonyb). Thanks to Matthew Thode (p

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] near term gate optimization opportunity

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:59:04PM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > That seems like a further optimization. Honestly, I would rarely expect > these to be in merge conflict, and at worse, they would be so until the next > requirements push. Cool, we'll try to make it so. Yours Tony. signature.asc Desc

[openstack-dev] [requirements] upcoming freeze (was Re: [release] Release countdown for week R-5, 29 Aug - 2 Sept)

Hi all, I'd just like to add a point to Doug's email. Along with this being the Final release for client libraries freeze its also the requirements freeze. That means that on Thursday Sept 1st (UTC) we'll add a procedural -2 to all open changes in the master branch of openstack/requirements.

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] upcoming freeze (was Re: [release] Release countdown for week R-5, 29 Aug - 2 Sept)

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:48:42PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > Along with this being the Final release for client libraries freeze its also > the requirements freeze. > > That means that on Thursday Sept 1st (UTC) we'll add a procedural -2 to all > open changes in the master

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] oslosphinx

On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > https://review.openstack.org/365253 > > released newton version of python-swiftclient 3.1.0 requires newer version > of oslosphinx. Without it, docs can't be built. > > So i prepared fix: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][FFE] oslosphinx

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:46:11PM +1000, Matthew Oliver wrote: > Thanks Tony, > > Yup that's my understanding too. > > Like you said, thanks to the upper-constraints having the correct version > (4.7.0), and the fact that currently the swiftclient has oslosphinx > unconstrained, means that the o

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >