On Mon, Jan 26, 2015, at 08:55 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
> On 23/01/15 19:47, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >>> Mike Bayer wrote:
> >>>
> Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>
> > On 01/23/2015 05
On 23/01/15 19:47, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>>> Mike Bayer wrote:
>>>
Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>> We put the new
Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> Mike Bayer wrote:
>>
>>> Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>>
On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>> We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library b
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
> Mike Bayer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>>
> We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library because
> bot
Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
> Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>
>> On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library because
both the logging and messaging code wanted to influence it's API. Would
it make
Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>> We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library because
>>> both the logging and messaging code wanted to influence it's API. Would
>>> it make sense to do this database setup the
On 01/23/2015 05:38 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
Doug Hellmann wrote:
We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library because
both the logging and messaging code wanted to influence it's API. Would
it make sense to do this database setup there, too?
whoa, where’s that? is this an os
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> We put the new base class for RequestContext in its own library because
> both the logging and messaging code wanted to influence it's API. Would
> it make sense to do this database setup there, too?
whoa, where’s that? is this an oslo-wide RequestContext class ? that wo
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> Hey all -
>
> Concerning the enginefacade system, approved blueprint:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125181/
>
> which will replace the use of oslo_db.sqlalchemy.EngineFacade ultimately
> across all projects that use it (which is, al
Hey all -
Concerning the enginefacade system, approved blueprint:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125181/
which will replace the use of oslo_db.sqlalchemy.EngineFacade ultimately across
all projects that use it (which is, all of them that use a database).
We are struggling to find a solution
10 matches
Mail list logo