Kolla team has made great strides in improving the documentation, keep it
going!
Second, there will be 2 others from my ppc64le team getting involved in
Kolla, Mark Hamzy and Ed Leafe. Ed will be attending PTG and will try to
get a chance to meet a few of you there.
Kurt Taylor (krt
ntent.
Thanks in advance to anyone that wants to help.
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
(1) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504801
(2) https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-queens-doc-restructure
(3) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/kolla/+spec/queens-doc-restru
.
Comments?
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
In my opinion, we have to be careful about the "supported" label. Saying
that third-party tested drivers are community supported implies a
commitment that may have not been intended.
Personally, I see no problem with leaving everything just as planned.
Drivers that are in tree are either tested up
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
> Hi Ironicers,
>
> This email serves as a reminder (and a bit of a call to action) about our
> third party CI policy:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/
> not-implemented/third-party-ci.html
>
> 1) When I went to fin
few folks with edits, but please review this
info and let me know if you have any changes. You can make needed changes
yourself, but let me know so I can keep track.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
__
OpenStack Development Mailing
way to test your CI system without posting garbage to the
ironic project patch comments. The sandbox is a place to post comments on a
test pass and verify that it all llooks good and satisfies the
requirements. See:
http://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/third_party.html#testing-your-ci-setup
3]
Let me know if you have any questions.
[1]
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/third-party-ci.html
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems
[3] http://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/third_party.html
Kurt Taylor
work more effectively with
> people in different locations and time zones.
>
I was hoping to suggest that we have a mid-cycle co-located with neutron,
but they are not having a mid-cycle. So, my preference would be 4) no mid
cycle. I would like for us to try a few
this weeks meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 15th, 1700UTC in #openstack-meeting.
I'm really proud of what we have accomplished since the formation of the
working group. Please join us on Tuesday and get involved, there is still
much more to do.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
https://wiki.openstac
preparing for the common CI virtual sprint, among other things. Please try
to attend if at all possible.
As always, feel free to add items to the agenda and we will get to them as
time permits.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor
Tuesday, June 23rd. Note that this skips next week since we are dropping
the 0400 meeting time. The meetings will continue bi-weekly: June 23rd,
July 7th, July 21st, August 4th...
I will send out reminders to make sure that everyone remembers this
transition.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
[1] https
. Please try to attend if at all possible.
As always, feel free to add items to the agenda and we will get to them as
time permits.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions
meeting and discuss, or just
submit a patch.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartyCIWorkingGroup
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175520
[3] https://github.com/stackforge/third-party-ci-tools
[4]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartyCIWorkingGroup
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Lenny Verkhovsky
wrote:
> Hi Ramy,
>
> Will there be any discussions of this issue on the Vancouver Summit?
>
See previous email in this thread, I have proposed a cross-project session
to discuss third party CI topics.
>
>
> *Lenny Verkhovsky*
>
> SW Engineer
Thanks Ramy!
I'd suggest that we use the cross-project session I proposed [1] for
Liberty summit as a working session primarily focused on this work [2].
[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCTZBJKCMZ2xBhglnuK3ciKo3E8UMFo5S5lmIAYMCSE/edit?usp=sharing
[2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/l
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:24:24AM -0600, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Team Nova,
> > >
> > > This is a message to al
gt; ______
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
&
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> Hi Team Nova,
>
> This is a message to alert everyone to the fact that the old hypervisor
> support matrix on the wiki[1], should really be considered obsolete.
>
> The canonical location for it going forward will be
>
>http://docs.o
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/2015 3:52 PM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
>
>> Thanks Morgan, That's why I wanted to email. We will gladly come to a
>> meeting and formally request to comment and will turn off commenting on
>> Keyston
Thanks Morgan, That's why I wanted to email. We will gladly come to a
meeting and formally request to comment and will turn off commenting on
Keystone until then.
Thanks,
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Morgan Fainberg
wrote:
> I assumed [my mistake] this
Just FYI, in case there was any questions,
In addition to testing and reporting on Nova, the IBM PowerKVM CI system is
now also testing against Keystone patches.
We are happy to also be testing keystone patches on PowerKVM, and will be
adding other projects soon.
Regards,
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor
Just a reminder, the third-party documentation sprint is happening now.
Come help if you can!
Kurt Taylor
(krtaylor)
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Kurt Taylor
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The OpenStack Third-party CI working group will be hosting a virtual
> sprint for refreshing a
the sprint would be great
so we could review and close out the patches as they come in.
Thanks everyone!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ
/cgit/openstack-infra/system-config/tree/doc/source/third_party.rst
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:18 PM, yongli he wrote:
> 在 2015年01月08日 10:31, yongli he 写道:
> to make a more stable service we upgrade the networking device, then the
> log server address change
.
Refer to the meetings page for more details:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Third_Party_Meeting
Thanks,
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli
wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2014 07:08 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> > 1. Meeting content: Having 2 meetings per week is more than is needed at
> > this stage of the working group. There just isn't enough meeting content
> > t
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2014 10:55 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> > Anita, please, creating yet another meeting time without input from
> anyone
> > just confuses the issue.
> When I ask people to attend meetings to reduce noise on the m
us!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
>
> On 12/09/2014 11:55 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
> > On 12/09/2014 08:32 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> >> All of the feedback so far has supported moving the existing IRC
> >> Third-party CI mee
urit, Edwin and
Ramy for taking the time to vote.
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> All of the feedback so far has supported moving the existing IRC
> Third-party CI meeting to better fit a worldwide audience.
>
> The consensus is that we w
this.
Thanks again for everything that you do for us!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 12/09/2014 08:32 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> > All of the feedback so far has supported moving the existing IRC
> > Third-party CI meeting to better
/e=21b93c
Please vote on the time that is best for you. I would like to finalize the
new times this week.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
es at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings) I volunteered to chair, then ask
other CI Operators to chair as the meetings evolved. The meeting times
could be any between 1300-0300 UTC. That way, one week we are good for US
and Europe, the next week for APAC.
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Wed,
can decide how to proceed.
Since the Infra manual virtual sprint was such a success, how would
everyone feel about a 2 day third-party CI documentation virtual sprint? I
think we could bang out a pretty nice doc in that timeframe.
Thanks!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor
:
Wednesday 1400 UTC in #openstack-meeting-3
Wednesday 2200 UTC in #openstack-meeting-3
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Nurit Vilosny wrote:
> HI,
> Thanks Anita for pushing it. We will be able to be much more involved if
> meetings would be earlier.
> We&#
Hi,
Reminder: the Third-party Work Group meeting for this week (November
3) has been cancelled due to Summit. We will resume our normal time
next week.
The meeting details are here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty
Kurt Taylor
(krtaylor
Congratulations everyone, well deserved!
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> With unanimous consent[1][2][3] of the OpenStack Project
> Infrastructure core team (infra-core), I'm pleased to welcome
> Andreas Jaeger, Anita Kuno and
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Rochelle.RochelleGrober
wrote:
> +1000
> This is *great*. Not only for newbies, but refreshers, learning different
> approaches, putting faces to the signatures, etc. And Mock best practices is
> a brilliant starting place for developers.
Yes!
> I'd like to v
ividual CI system recheck is supported is to have this shown
in
CI system's wiki page, which is also now a requirement. If the CI system
does
not support an individual recheck, then the default behavior would be to
just
support "recheck" as is currently required.
Any feedback o
> fact that they are too rolled up as it is. For instance, a docs only
> change gets Tempest results, which humans know are irrelevant, but
> Jenkins insists they aren't. I think that if we rolled up more
> information, and waited longer, we'd be in a worse state.
Maybe it co
ize when one of them *hasn't*
> voted. If the new thing could fill out the chart based on everything
> we expect to see a vote from, so that it's very clear that one is
> missing, then that's a net win right there.
There is a similar old bug for that, with a good sug
Anita Kuno wrote on 04/15/2014 09:41:17 AM:
> On 04/15/2014 10:20 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sorry if you get this twice.
> >
> > Since summit is approaching quickly, I wanted to see if anyone had
interest
> > in forming a meetup for 3rd p
ng
I have not worked out all the details for when and where to meet, but I
would be happy to set it up and facilitate the discussion. I wanted to see
if there was any interest before I took it any further.
Any interest?
Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
OpenStack Development Lead - PowerKVM CI
IBM Linux
>
Once this is more solid, is the eventual plan to put this out on the wiki?
There are several pockets of organization around 3rd party CI. It makes
tracking all of them across all the projects difficult. I would like to see
this organized into a global set of requirements, then maybe addit
44 matches
Mail list logo
