Basically we should kill quota classes.
It required out of tree stuff that was never implemented, AFAIK.
When I checked with Kevin about this, my memory says the idea was out
of tree authorization plugin would populate context.quota_class with
something like "i_have_big_credit_limit" or
Back to the deprecation for a moment...
My plan was to tell folks to use Traits to influence placement
decisions, rather than capabilities.
We probably can't remove the feature till we have deploy templates,
but it seems wrong not to warn our users to avoid using capabilities,
when 80% of the
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/27/2018 06:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from
> >> . This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits API in
> >> order
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 16:02, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 9/20/2018 4:16 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> > Following on from the PTG discussions, I wanted to bring everyone's
> > attention to Nova's plans to deprecate ComputeCapabilitiesFilter,
> > including most of the the in
+1 consistent names
I would make the names mirror the API
... because the Operator setting them knows the API, not the code
Ignore the crazy names in Nova, I certainly hate them
Lance Bragstad wrote:
> I'm curious if anyone has context on the "os-" part of the format?
My memory of the
eds that the ResourceClass and Traits scheme does not currently address,
or can think of a problem with a transition to the newer approach.
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for us
So I am really excited for us to try runways out, ASAP.
On 20 March 2018 at 23:44, melanie witt wrote:
> We were thinking of starting the runways process after the spec review
> freeze (which is April 19) so that reviewers won't be split between spec
> reviews and
On 23 January 2018 at 04:04, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > To anyone that cares, I don't plan on running for Nova PTL again for the
> Rocky release. Queens was my fourth tour and it's definitely time for
While I was looking at the traits work, I noticed we still have policy and
config in tree for ironic and ironic inspector:
On 19 October 2017 at 15:38, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 05:31 AM, Nisha Agarwal wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>> As i understand John's spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507052/ <
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507052/>, it is actually a replacement
On 16 October 2017 at 17:55, Eric Fried wrote:
> * Adding references to the specs: ironic side ; nova side  (which
> just merged).
> * Since Jay is on vacation, I'll tentatively note his vote by proxy 
> that ironic should be the source of truth - i.e. option (a).
On Mon, 22 May 2017 at 10:43, Alexandra Settle wrote:
> We could also view option 1 as the longer-term goal,
> and option 2 as an incremental step toward it
+1 doing option 2 then option 1.
It just seems a good way to split up the work.
+1 on not forcing Operators to transition to something new twice, even if
we did go for option 3.
Do we have an agreed non-distruptive upgrade path mapped out yet? (For any
of the options) We spoke about fallback rules you pass but with a warning
to give us a smoother transition. I think that's
A quick summary of what happened in the writing applications for the
VM and Baremetal forum session. The etherpad is available here:
We had a good number of API users and API developers talking together
about the issues facing API
On the ops list I have started a thread about the forum session sumary
and the actions needed to keep things going. Please do join in over
>>> filtering such that hosts are grouped by cell and then they can be sent
>>> to the cells for retries as necessary.
>> That's already proposed for reviews in
>>> There was also some si
On 17 May 2017 at 20:02, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> The timeline depends on who signed up to do the next revision. Did
>> we get someone to do that, yet, or are we still looking for a
On 16 May 2017 at 16:08, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-16 10:49:54 -0400:
>> On 05/16/2017 09:38 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> > Folks,
>> > See $TITLE :)
>> > Thanks,
>> > Dims
>> I'd rather avoid #openstack-tc and just
On 27 April 2017 at 06:45, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu) wrote:
> I am just issuing a reboot command on the compute node
> Not a reboot –f
> From: Mark Mielke
> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 8:42 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
Matt, thanks for pulling that list together.
I have context on most of those, if people would like to take those on.
I hope to review most of those an clarify where everything is at.
I am going to take a look at where we are at with policy stuff first.
On 24 April
On 12 April 2017 at 17:19, Kendall Nelson wrote:
> -What is one trait you have that makes it difficult to work in groups like
> the TC and how do you counteract it?
My inability to say no to more work (and being too interested in everything).
I think I am slowly getting
On 12 April 2017 at 12:04, Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:51 AM, John Garbutt <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2017 at 03:54, joehuang <joehu...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> What's the one platform will be in
On 12 April 2017 at 10:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
>>> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor >> > wrote:
>>> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
On 11 April 2017 at 09:58, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate
>> contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
>> The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
>> I have to
On 12 April 2017 at 03:54, joehuang wrote:
> What's the one platform will be in your own words? What's your proposal and
> your focus to help one platform vision being achieved?
The more I think about this, the less I like the phrase "one platform".
I like to think of
On 10 April 2017 at 11:31, wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:50 +0530, Nisha Agarwal wrote:
>> Hi team,
>> Please could you pour in your suggestions on the mail?
>> I raised a blueprint in Nova for this https://blueprints.launchpad.ne
On 10 April 2017 at 10:16, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
> responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
> it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
> Committee matters,
On 10 April 2017 at 01:56, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I found a fun little legacy nugget of compute API non-interoperability joy
> The "allow_instance_snapshots" config option disables the createImage server
> action API. Completely config driven and therefore not
I added some notes on the blueprint:
I have seen quite a few patches trying to remove the use of
"self.stub_out". While possibly interesting in the future, I think
this should be out of scope for the mox removal blueprint. The aim
On 15 March 2017 at 12:33, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 08:10 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 15 March 2017 at 11:58, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2017 07:44 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 13 March 2017 at 17:14, Balazs Gibizer wrote:
> As part of the Searchlight integration we need to extend our instance
> notifications with BDM data . As far as I understand the main goal is to
> provide enough data about the instance to Searchlight so
On 13 March 2017 at 21:10, Zane Bitter wrote:
> Yes. this is a problem with the default policy - if you have *any* role in a
> project then you get write access to everything in that project. I don't
> know how I can even call this role-based, since everybody has access to
On 13 March 2017 at 15:17, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 11:13 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> Interestingly, we just had a meeting about cells and the scheduler,
>> which had quite a bit of overlap on this topic.
>>> That said, as mentioned in the previous email, the
On 15 March 2017 at 09:50, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Colette Alexander wrote:
>> Currently the Stewardship Working Group meetings every other Thursday at
>> 1400 UTC.
>> We've had a couple of pings from folks who are interested in joining us
>> for meetings that live in US
On 15 March 2017 at 11:58, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 07:44 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 03/14/2017 11:00 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> a) awesome. when the rest of this dips momentarily into words that might
>>> sound negative, please hear it all wrapped in an
On 15 March 2017 at 03:23, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 12:05 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> So just fyi, this has been talked about before (but prob in context of
>> zookeeper or various other pluggable config backends).
>> Some links:
On 9 March 2017 at 11:05, Alexandra Settle wrote:
> I have attached the error logs that our tester, Brian Moss, sent to me
> earlier this morning.
> He has noted that some people have been able to get the instructions to work,
> but many others haven't.
> Also, noted that
On 27 February 2017 at 21:18, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> We talked about a few things related to quotas at the PTG, some in
> cross-project sessions earlier in the week and then some on Wednesday
> morning in the Nova room. The full etherpad is here .
> Counting quotas
On 3 February 2017 at 02:59, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> The Foundation wants to have the mascots finalized before the PTG. This is
> just an opportunity for people to raise issues with it if they have any.
Honestly it looks a bit aggressive / sharp / pointy.
Maybe less spikes
On 26 January 2017 at 14:14, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> That's where I think we have another problem, which is bigger than the
>> corner case you mentioned above : when upgrading from Newton to Ocata,
>> we said
On 26 January 2017 at 13:50, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 26/01/2017 05:42, Matt Riedemann a écrit :
>> This is my public hand off to Sylvain for the work done tonight.
> Thanks Matt for your help yesterday, was awesome to count you in even
> you're personally away.
On 8 December 2016 at 15:33, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
> Colette Alexander wrote:
>> What are the sorts of things you'd like to see tackled?
> John Garbutt recently proposed that the TC works on defining visions for
> itself and OpenS
+1 from me.
He will be a great add. I really enjoyed working with him as part of OSIC
early on in his Nova journey, and I trust him to a great job as part of the
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 at 00:00, Michael Still wrote:
> +1, I'd value him on the team.
On 24 November 2016 at 13:52, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 11/24/2016 05:57 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> It seems Nova broke its PostgreSQL support recently, and that impacts
>> Telemetry as we do gate on PostgreSQL. I opened a bug:
In Barcelona, between Tuesday 3:55pm (Oct 25) and Wednesday 2:55pm
(Oct 26) we have some dedicated time to discuss and resolve some of
the issues that span across our OpenStack Community.
As before, we will be doing proposals for this via etherpad.
Please propose items into here:
On 4 August 2016 at 14:18, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016, at 08:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 08:54 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>> > I've brought some of these thoughts up a few times in conversations
>> > where the Nova team is trying to decide if a
On 4 August 2016 at 16:28, Edward Leafe wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>> This gets to the point I'm trying to make. We don't guarantee old
>> behavior in all cases at which point users can no longer rely on
>> microversions to
On 29 July 2016 at 19:58, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 02:29 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 07/28/2016 09:02 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2016 05:40 PM, Brad Morgan wrote:
I'd like to solicit some advice about potentially implementing
On 26 July 2016 at 10:52, Sam Betts (sambetts) <sambe...@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 26/07/2016 09:32, "John Garbutt" <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>>On 22 July 2016 at 11:51, Vasyl Saienko <vsaie...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> Kevin, thanks for reply
On 22 July 2016 at 11:51, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
> Kevin, thanks for reply,
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> Once you solve the issue of getting the baremetal ports to transition to
>> the ACTIVE state, a
On 22 July 2016 at 14:54, Andrey Volkov wrote:
> Hi, nova and neutron teams,
> While booting new instance nova requests port for that instance in the
> It's possible to have a situation when neutron doesn't response due timeout
> or connection break and nova
On 25 July 2016 at 13:56, Bhor, Dinesh wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 5:53 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Remove duplicate code using Data
On 15 July 2016 at 09:26, Cheng, Yingxin wrote:
> It is easy to understand that scheduling in nova-scheduler service consists
> of 2 major phases:
> A. Cache refresh, in code .
> B. Filtering and weighing, in code .
> Couple of previous experiments   shows
On 15 June 2016 at 02:37, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 07:28 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> On 06/14/2016 05:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> I think this is the most important thing to me as it relates to this.
>> I'm obviously a huge proponent of clouds behaving more
On 7 June 2016 at 17:41, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:10:24PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:37:25AM -0400, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
>> > Right, so that's a third case. How I'd see this working is maybe an
>> > image
On 16 June 2016 at 09:58, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Project team requirements are just guidelines, which are interpreted by
> humans. In the end, the TC members vote and use human judgment rather than
> blind 'rules'. I just want (1) to state that a level playing field is an
I just fixed up Timofei's BP.
I went through all the specs and spotted another 5 or 6 that were out of sync.
There may well be others I didn't spot.
On 14 June 2016 at 09:17, Timofei Durakov wrote:
On 27 May 2016 at 17:15, Markus Zoeller <mzoel...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 20.05.2016 11:33, John Garbutt wrote:
>> The current config template includes a list of "Services which consume this":
On 24 May 2016 at 19:03, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Erno Kuvaja
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Date: May 24, 2016 at 06:06:14
> To: OpenStack
On 24 May 2016 at 10:16, Matthew Booth wrote:
> During its periodic task, ImageCacheManager does a checksum of every image
> in the cache. It verifies this checksum against a previously stored value,
> or creates that value if it doesn't already exist. Based on this
The current config template includes a list of "Services which consume this":
I propose we drop this list from the template.
I am worried this is going to be hard to
On 17 May 2016 at 09:56, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
> John Garbutt wrote:
>> Agreed that with a shared language, the ML is more effective.
>> I think some IRC meeting work, in a standup like way, for those with a
On 16 May 2016 at 09:58, Tarun wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have setup the Openstack controller and compue node on 2 VMs in my windows
> 8 Laptop.
> It is running.
> I am starting development for the NOVA compute APIs.
> To kick-off, i am trying to call compute API, for
We need everyone agreeing and understanding the "why" behind what we are doing.
A shared language/understanding of the context is an important part of that.
Writing things down, and giving people links to that, really helps.
On 15 May 2016 at 13:07, Chris Dent
We have created the Nova milestone for RC2:
To make bugs appear there, you need to add the mitaka series and
target RC2. Annoying LP permissions means this can only be done by a
We will keep using the mitaka-rc-potential
On 16 March 2016 at 10:09, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 05:46 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>> On 16 March 2016 at 09:15, Tim Bell > > wrote:
>> Then, there were major reservations from the PTLs at the impacts in
>> terms of
On 16 March 2016 at 18:17, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Nova is next to produce a release candidate for the end of the Mitaka cycle!
> Congratulations to all the Nova devs. You can find the RC1 source code
> tarball at:
To kick off the discussion about what sessions we need at the summit
we now have:
We tried a google form last time, but that excluded too many folks
from submitting ideas, so defaulting back to the etherpad,
It has been greatly rewarding serving you all as Nova PTL over the
Liberty and Mitaka cycles. I thank you all for the support,
encouragement and advice I have been given over the last year. I
really appreciate that. (That's british speak for "I love you all", or
something like that).
On 9 March 2016 at 17:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> I will process each repository as I hear from the owning team.
> openstack/python-novaclient 3.3.0
+1 from me.
On 10 March 2016 at 09:35, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> Radomir Dopieralski wrote on 03/09/2016 01:22:56
>> From: Radomir Dopieralski
>> To: email@example.com
>> Date: 03/09/2016 01:24 PM
On 3 March 2016 at 13:10, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> We have now 11-15 days left  until it is planned to release the first
> release candidate. To provide a stable release, we need to identify the
> potential release blockers. Bugs which potentially block the release
As on IRC, I don't think this should get an FFE this cycle.
On 4 March 2016 at 10:56, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> The actual BP that links to the approved spec is here:  and 2
> outstanding patches are .
> Apart from the usual empathy-inspired reasons to
On 29 February 2016 at 18:49, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, at 01:18 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> > Forgive my ignorance or for playing devil's advocate, but wouldn't the
>> > main difference between notifications and hooks be that notifications
>> > are asynchronous
On 1 March 2016 at 10:10, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:36:03PM -0700, Rich Megginson wrote:
>> On 02/29/2016 12:19 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> >On 02/29/2016 12:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> >>There's three core scenarios for hooks
On 1 March 2016 at 08:34, Cheng, Yingxin wrote:
> I have simulated the distributed resource management with the incremental
> update model based on Jay's benchmarking framework:
On 25 February 2016 at 05:32, Angus Lees wrote:
> (Reposting my reply to your gerrit comment here as well - conversation will
> probably be easier here than in gerrit)
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 00:07 Duncan Thomas wrote:
>> My (negative) feedback is
On 22 February 2016 at 22:08, Walter A. Boring IV <walter.bor...@hpe.com> wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 11:24 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> Just came up on IRC, when nova-compute gets killed half way through a
>> volume attach (i.e. no graceful shutdo
Just came up on IRC, when nova-compute gets killed half way through a
volume attach (i.e. no graceful shutdown), things get stuck in a bad
state, like volumes stuck in the attaching state.
This looks like a new addition to this conversation:
On 13 January 2016 at 14:28, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 12:11 AM, joehuang wrote:
>> Thanks for the information, it's good to know the documentation. The
>> further question is whether there is any XML format like document will be
>> published for each
So just attempting to read through this thread, I think I hear:
1. multi-attach breaks the assumption that made detach work
2. live-migrate, already breaks with some drivers, due to not fully
understanding the side affects of all API calls.
3. evacuate and shelve issues also related
On 22 February 2016 at 17:38, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 12:20 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:07:37PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 02/22/2016 10:43 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
We've recently run into some interesting
On 22 February 2016 at 15:31, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 07:24 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez >> > wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> TL;DR: Let's split the events,
On 22 February 2016 at 15:14, John Garbutt <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 12:01, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/22/2016 06:56 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2016 12:49 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 22 February 2016 at 12:01, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 06:56 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 02/19/2016 12:49 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>> Consider a user that uses these four clouds:
>>> * nova-network flat DHCP
On 21 February 2016 at 13:51, Cheng, Yingxin <yingxin.ch...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 5:58, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 17 February 2016 at 17:52, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Cheng, Yingxin's message of 2016-02-14 21:21
On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 02/19/2016 09:30 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 05:34 PM, melanie witt wrote:
>> >> On Feb 12, 2016, at 14:49, Jay Pipes
nStack, and it
>>> will be a
>>> shame if we won't be able to land it in Mitaka.
>>> As far as I know, Feature Freeze will be announced on March, 3rd, and
>>> we still
>>> have enough time and people to test it before. All patches are split
On 17 February 2016 at 17:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Cheng, Yingxin's message of 2016-02-14 21:21:28 -0800:
>> I've uploaded a prototype https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280047/ to
>> testify its design goals in accuracy, performance, reliability and
On 18 February 2016 at 17:58, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 12:17 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:32 AM Sean Dague > > wrote:
>> Ok, to make sure we all ended up on the same page at the
On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova
>> would use a microversion in the nova API for the get-me-a-network
>> feature recently
On 2 February 2016 at 14:11, Sascha Vogt <sascha.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 31.01.2016 um 18:57 schrieb John Garbutt:
>> We need to make sure we don't have configuration values that change
>> the semantic of our API.
>> Such things, at a minimum, need
For all the details see this etherpad:
Here I am attempting a brief summary, picking out some highlights.
Feel free to reply and add your own details / corrections.
Non-priority FFE deadline is this Friday (5th Feb).
On 31 January 2016 at 15:53, John Garbutt <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote:
> We have recently past the deadline for the non-priority Feature Freeze:
> We do this to make sure we prioritise review
>>> I also captured my understanding of the discussion we had this
>>> afternoon as things were winding down. I remember Jay Pipes, Andrew
>>> Laskey, Dan Smith, John Garbutt, and Armando Migliaccio actively
>>> participating in that discussio
On 27 January 2016 at 16:59, Sascha Vogt wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Am 27.01.2016 um 10:38 schrieb Andrew Laski:
>> 1. This allows for a poor experience where a user would not be able to
>> turn on and use an instance that they already have due to overquota.
>> This is a
We have recently past the deadline for the non-priority Feature Freeze:
We do this to make sure we prioritise review and developer bandwidth
for Bug Fixes and our agreed release priorities:
On 22 January 2016 at 02:38, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 07:38, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>> I think this is a solid proposal but I'm not sure what (if anything) the TC
>> needs to do about this. This is something most
On 22 January 2016 at 10:08, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> The dates and times are final now . They differ from the previously
> dates in this thread! The first and next meetings will be:
> Tuesday 2016-02-09 18:00 UTC #openstack-meeting-4
> Tuesday 2016-02-23
So at the end of Thursday we hit the non-priority (thats roughly, all
the low priority blueprints) Feature Freeze. I will forward more
details about the exception process, once we know the scale of what is
I have already postponed low priority blueprints that had no code up
1 - 100 of 458 matches
Mail list logo