Le 05/09/2014 01:26, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
side effect of our effort to split out the scheduler will help but
not solve this problem).
The difference between Dan's proposal and th
Le 05/09/2014 01:22, Michael Still a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
[Heavy snipping because of length]
The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
follow this lead and split the nova virt drivers out into separate
projects and deleg
I agree with Prasad here.
There remains lots of unknown about Neutron incubator and its workflow at
this point, and the idea of Neutron feature branch is at best in embryonic
stage. It seems like among the three options, the most well-defined one is
indeed through stackforge.
When and if the Neut
Thanks Ajay
I corrected this earlier. But facing another problem. Will forward paste in
a while.
On Friday, September 5, 2014, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu)
wrote:
> Sorry there was typo in the patch should be @validation and not
> @(validation
> Please change that in vm_perf.py
>
> Sent from my
Tl;dr - Neutron incubator is only a wiki page with many uncertainties. Use
StackForge to make progress and re-evaluate when the incubator exists.
I also agree that starting out in StackForge as a separate repo is a better
first step. In addition to the uncertainty around packaging and other
proce
On 09/04/2014 07:08 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
>> On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar.
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>> Am I missing some compelling advantage of moving all these emergent
>>> project-specific meetups to the Friday?
>>
>> One is that due to space limitations, we won't have nearly as many
>> "pods" as in Atlanta (more like half or a third of them). Without one
>> pod per progra
On 09/04/2014 07:42 PM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>>> Anyway, not enough to -1 it, but enough to at least say something.
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> .. but I do not want to get into the discussion about software testing
>
>>
>
>> here, not the place really.
>
>>
Hi,
I am wondering if the solution I was trying to sketch with the spec
"https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96867/13"; is not easier to implement
and manage then the steps highlated till n.2. Maybe, the spec is not
yet there and should be improved (I will abandon or move to Kilo as
Marek suggest) bu
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:56:04PM -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
> > Proposal / solution
> > ===
> >
> > In the past Nova has spun out its volume layer to form the cinder
> > project. The Neutron project started as an atte
Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>
>> Did you have a specific goal/date in mind for when you might start to
>> finalize this list? I am guessing at least after the dust settles on J-3 and
>> possibly even the first RCs but just curious.
>
> Good quest
http://paste.openstack.org/show/106297/
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:12 PM, masoom alam wrote:
> Thanks Ajay
>
> I corrected this earlier. But facing another problem. Will forward paste
> in a while.
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 5, 2014, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu)
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry there was typ
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:44:17PM -0600, John Griffith wrote:
> Just some thoughts and observations I've had regarding this topic in Cinder
> the past couple of years. I realize this is a Nova thread so hopefully
> some of this can be applied in a more general context.
>
> TLDR:
> 1. I think mov
Tim Bell wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
>> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
>> the TC meeting
>>
>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>>
Please forward ur vmtasks.py file
On Friday, September 5, 2014, masoom alam wrote:
> http://paste.openstack.org/show/106297/
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:12 PM, masoom alam > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ajay
>>
>> I corrected this earlier. But facing another problem. Will forward paste
>> in a while.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:57:57PM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
> > Proposal / solution
> > ===
> >
> > In the past Nova has spun out its volume layer to form the cinder
> > project. The Neutron project started as an attempt
Carl,
Seem so. I think internal router interface and external gateway port
GARP are taken care by keepalived during failover. And if HA is not
enable, _send_gratuitous_arp is called to send out GARP.
I think we will need to take care IPv6 for both cases since keepalived
1.2.0 support IPv6. M
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:48:33PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 06:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Position statement
> > ==
> >
> > Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
> > Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but perha
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100
"Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
>
> - A fairly significant amount of nova code would need to be
>considered semi-stable API. Certainly everything under nova/virt
>and any object which is passed in/out of the virt driver API.
>Changes to such APIs would h
Hi folks,
Is there anybody working on this?
In most of our cloud environments, business networks are isolated from
management network. So, we are thinking about making *an agent in guest machine
to send metrics to compute node using virtual serial port*. And then, compute
node could send those
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:57:57 -0700
Joe Gordon wrote:
>
> Overall I do think we need to re-think how the review burden is
> distributed. That being said, this is a nice proposal but I am not
> sure if it moves the review burden around enough or is the right
> approach. Do you have any rough number
Hi everyone,
We just hit feature freeze[1], so please do not approve changes that add
features or new configuration options unless those have been granted a
feature freeze exception.
This is also string freeze[2], so you should avoid changing translatable
strings. If you have to modify a translat
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:54:28PM -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> Thanks Daniel for taking the time to write such deep message. Obviously
> you have thought about this issue for a long time and your opinion comes
> from deep personal understanding. I'm adding tags for neutron and
> cinder, as I k
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:50PM +0930, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100
> "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> >
> > - A fairly significant amount of nova code would need to be
> >considered semi-stable API. Certainly everything under nova/virt
> >and any object wh
Greetings!
I think I found a problem in extra attributes handling in LDAP backend.
Also I'd like to propose a solution :)
There is a bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1336769
"LDAP additional attribute mappings do not care about model attribute"
reported by Marcos Lobo (https://launchp
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:56:34PM +1000, Angus Salkeld wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Gauvain Pocentek
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A bit of background: I'm working on the publication of the HOT resources
> reference on docs.openstack.org. This book is mostly autogenerate
On 4 September 2014 23:48, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 06:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Position statement
>> ==
>>
>> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
>> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
>> steps are no
On 09/04/2014 12:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Position statement
> ==
>
> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
> steps are not taken to avert this, the project is likely to loose
> a
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:22:18PM -0500, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>
> [Heavy snipping because of length]
>
> > The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
> > follow this lead and split the nova virt drivers out
On 09/05/2014 03:02 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>
> Le 05/09/2014 01:22, Michael Still a écrit :
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
>> wrote:
>>
>> [Heavy snipping because of length]
>>
>>> The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
>>> follow this lead a
On 5 September 2014 00:26, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
>>
>> Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
>> side effect of our effort to split out the scheduler will help but
>> not solve this problem).
>
>
> The difference between Dan
On 09/05/2014 01:26 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
>> Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
>> side effect of our effort to split out the scheduler will help but
>> not solve this problem).
>
> The difference between Dan's propo
On 09/04/2014 07:22 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>
> [Heavy snipping because of length]
>
>> The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
>> follow this lead and split the nova virt drivers out into separate
>> pr
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:29:43AM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 4 September 2014 23:48, Russell Bryant wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 06:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > If we ignored gerrit for a moment, is rapid increase in splitting out
> > components the ideal workflow? Would we be better of
On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:50PM +0930, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100
>> "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
>>>
>>> - A fairly significant amount of nova code would need to be
>>>considered semi-stable API. Certainl
On 09/04/2014 10:25 PM, Solly Ross wrote:
> Anyway, I think it would be useful to have some sort of page where people
> could say "I'm an SME in X, ask me for reviews" and then patch submitters
> could go
> and say, "oh, I need an someone to review my patch about storage backends,
> let me
> ask
given the code size, a BP may be a over stretch. I'd just file a review + bug
-- dims
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Zang MingJie wrote:
> does it require bp or bug report to submit oslo.concurrency patch ?
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>> Zang MingJie,
>>
>>
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:40:59PM +0200, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 12:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > - A fairly significant amount of nova code would need to be
> >considered semi-stable API. Certainly everything under nova/virt
> >and any object which is passed in/out o
On 09/05/2014 06:40 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 12:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Position statement
>> ==
>>
>> Over the past year I've increasingly come to the conclusion that
>> Nova is heading for (or probably already at) a major crisis. If
>> steps are not ta
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:00:44AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:50PM +0930, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100
> >> "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> - A fairly significant amount o
Blueprint restored, patches re-approved.
Thanks,
John
On 5 September 2014 00:25, Michael Still wrote:
> Approved.
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 02:42 PM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to request a FFE for
Patches re-approved.
Thanks,
John
On 5 September 2014 00:24, Michael Still wrote:
> Approved.
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi
> wrote:
>> 2014-09-04 20:34 GMT+09:00 Christopher Yeoh :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to request a FFE for 4 changesets from the v2-on-v3-
On 09/05/2014 05:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Tim Bell wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
>>> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose
Yeah, I have been reviewing these, so happy to sponsor them too.
Patches have been re-approved.
Thanks,
John
On 5 September 2014 00:23, Michael Still wrote:
> So, that's your three. This exception is approved.
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 09/04/20
On 5 September 2014 08:44, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> In fact, I personally have long been a proponent of using the best tool
> for the job. The Zaqar project was kicked off at an unconference session
> several summits ago because the community saw a need that was not covered
> by other messaging sy
On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
> lines of a baseball card interface with a short description of the
> project, a list of the requirements to d
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12:37AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 06:40 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> > A handy example of this I can think of is the currently granted FFE for
> > serial consoles - consider how much of the code went into the common
> > part vs. the libvirt specific part, I
Hi,
We have now tagged juno-3, so we are good to approve patches for FFE now.
Given how much there is to get through the gate, it would be nice to
concentrate on FFE code, and higher priority bugs, till we break the
back of those merges.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:28:55AM +, Bohai (ricky) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for blueprint
> libvirt-disk-discard-option.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112977/
>
> approved spec:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/85556/
>
> blueprint was approved
Blueprint re-approved, patches have -2 removed, now we are free to
approve code again.
Thanks,
John
On 4 September 2014 21:45, Michael Still wrote:
> These look good to me, I will be your third core. The middle one has
> some comments from Jay, but it didn't look like a big deal
>
> Approved.
>
Blueprint re-approved, code re-approved.
Thanks,
John
On 4 September 2014 21:11, Michael Still wrote:
> I'll be the third core here. Approved.
>
> @John: can you please remove your -2 from this one?
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 03:35 PM, Jay
In the nova-meeting we agreed this gets a FFE, based on previous
agreements in nova-meetings.
Blueprint is approved for juno-rc1.
Thanks,
John
On 4 September 2014 16:38, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 05:16 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> The main sr-iov patches have gone through lots of code r
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Dobies [mailto:jason.dob...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 04 September 2014 18:24
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Review metrics - what do we want
> to measure?
>
> >> It can, by running your own... but again it seems
On 09/05/2014 07:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:00:44AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:50PM +0930, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100
"Daniel P. Berrange"
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:19:45PM +, Coffman, Joel M. wrote:
> A major concern about several encryption features within Nova [1, 2] has been
> the lack of secure key management. To address this concern, work has been
> underway to integrate these features with Barbican [3], which can be used
I am happy to sponsor this too.
That makes three cores, so lets call this approved.
Thanks,
John
On 5 September 2014 05:55, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> 2014-09-04 22:36 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
>> On 09/04/2014 09:30 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'd like to request FFE for patches o
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I venture to suggest that the reason we care so much about those kind
of things is precisely because of our policy of pulling them in the
tree. Having them in tree means their quality (or not) reflects directly
on the project as a whole. Separate the
On 09/05/2014 07:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12:37AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 06:40 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>>> A handy example of this I can think of is the currently granted FFE for
>>> serial consoles - consider how much of the code went into
Thanks!!!
—Robert
On 9/5/14, 7:48 AM, "John Garbutt" wrote:
>In the nova-meeting we agreed this gets a FFE, based on previous
>agreements in nova-meetings.
>
>Blueprint is approved for juno-rc1.
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
>On 4 September 2014 16:38, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 05:16 PM, Dan
On 09/05/2014 07:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:28:55AM +, Bohai (ricky) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for blueprint
>> libvirt-disk-discard-option.
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112977/
>>
>> approved spec:
>> https://r
On 09/05/2014 07:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:28:55AM +, Bohai (ricky) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for blueprint
>> libvirt-disk-discard-option.
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112977/
>>
>> approved spec:
>> https://r
On 09/05/2014 07:39 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
>> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
>> lines of a baseball card interface with a short descript
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Does a Qpid/Rabbit/Kafka provisioning service make sense? Probably.
I think something like that would be valuable, especially in conjunction
with some application layer proxying and mapping between 'virtual'
addresses/endpoints and specific queues
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:49:04AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:00:44AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:50PM +0930, Christopher Yeoh wro
On 09/05/2014 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:19:45PM +, Coffman, Joel M. wrote:
>> A major concern about several encryption features within Nova [1, 2] has
>> been the lack of secure key management. To address this concern, work has
>> been underway to integr
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> For a long time I've use the LKML 'subsystem maintainers' model as the
> reference point for ideas. In a more LKML like model, each virt team
> (or other subsystem team) would have their own separate GIT repo with
> a complete Nova codebase, where they did they day to da
Now that the project is incubated, we should be moving our docs from the
openstack wiki to the openstack-manuals project. Rushil Chugh has volunteered
to lead this effort so please coordinate any updates to documentation with him
(and me). Our goal is to have the updates to openstack-manuals ups
Michael Still wrote:
> We're soon to hit feature freeze, as discussed in Thierry's recent
> email. I'd like to outline the process for requesting a freeze
> exception:
>
> * your code must already be up for review
> * your blueprint must have an approved spec
> * you need three (3) spo
On 09/05/2014 02:59 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 01:26, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
side effect of our effort to split out the scheduler will help but
not solve this problem).
On 09/05/2014 08:11 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:19:45PM +, Coffman, Joel M. wrote:
>>> A major concern about several encryption features within Nova [1, 2] has
>>> been the lack of secure key management. To address thi
Le 05/09/2014 13:05, Nikola Đipanov a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:25 PM, Solly Ross wrote:
Anyway, I think it would be useful to have some sort of page where people
could say "I'm an SME in X, ask me for reviews" and then patch submitters could
go
and say, "oh, I need an someone to review my patc
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:59:07PM -0400, Solly Ross wrote:
> I would like to request a feature freeze exception for the Websocket Proxy to
> Host Security.
> The spec [1] was approved for Nova, and the patches [2] are currently sitting
> there with one
> +2 (courtesy of @danpb), with a +1 from J
Hi,
I'd like to ask for a FFE for the 3 patchsets that implement quotas for server
groups.
Server groups (which landed in Icehouse) provides a really useful anti-affinity
filter for scheduling that a lot of customers woudl like to use, but without
some form of quota control to limit the amount
On 09/04/2014 07:54 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:08:09 +0900
> "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd like to request FFE for v2.1 API patches.
>>
>> This request is different from Christopher's one.
>> His request is for the approved patches, but this is
>> for some p
Le 05/09/2014 14:48, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 02:59 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 01:26, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
side effect of our effort to split out the schedul
Since this did not get an 'Approved' as of yet, I want to make sure that
this is not because the number of sponsors. 2 core members have already
sponsored it, and as per [1] cores can sponsor their own FFEs so that's 3.
N.
[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/0446
Le 05/09/2014 12:48, Sean Dague a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 03:02 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 01:22, Michael Still a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
[Heavy snipping because of length]
The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus
On 09/04/2014 01:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
https://dague.net/2014/08/26/openstack-as-layers/
Just wanted to say that I found this article very useful indeed and
agree with the points you make in it.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists
On 09/05/2014 08:58 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 14:48, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 02:59 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 01:26, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel is saying (note that, as mentioned, a
side
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
> Sent: 05 September 2014 11:49
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out
> virt drivers
>
> On 09/05/2014 03:02 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >
> >
On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm proposing a freeze exception for the oslo.messaging AMQP 1.0
> driver:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75815/
>
> Blueprint:
>
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+spec/amqp10-driver-implementation
>
>
Hi Ben,
Since manila just entered incubation, the openstack-manuals repo and common
documentation will not include it until it is integrated. During incubation
we ask you to start documentation in your own repo and identify what will
eventually move into common docs. See
https://wiki.openstack.org/
While reviewing this zookeeper service group fix in Nova -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102639/ it was exposed that the
zookeeper tests aren't running in infra.
The crux of the issue is that zookeeper python modules are C extensions.
So you have to either install from packages (which we don't
2014-09-05 9:09 GMT-03:00 Sean Dague :
> On 09/05/2014 07:39 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
> >
> >> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
> >> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
> >> lines
Le 05/09/2014 15:11, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 08:58 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 14:48, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 02:59 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 01:26, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 09/04/2014 10:33 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
Basically +1 with what Daniel
>
>
> - Each virt driver project gets its own core team and is responsible
>for dealing with review, merge & release of their codebase.
>
> Note, I really do mean *all* virt drivers should be separate. I do
> not want to see some virt drivers split out and others remain in tree
> because I fee
Hey Devs,
I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94915/
This feature is the final patch set for the User Namespace BP
(https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-lxc-user-namespaces). This
is an important feature for libvirt-lxc because in
hey folks,
I am requesting an exception for the Swift trust authentication blueprint[1].
This blueprint addresses a security bug in Sahara and represents a significant
move towards increased security for Sahara clusters. There are several reviews
underway[2] with 1 or 2 more starting today or m
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:49:20PM +, Andrew Melton wrote:
> Hey Devs,
>
> I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94915/
>
> This feature is the final patch set for the User Namespace BP
> (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-lx
+1 for ServerGroup quotas. It's been a while since this feature is
discussed and approved. As a public cloud provider we really want to get
ServerGroup into production. However, without quotas it is more harm than
gain. Since ServerGroup (and even its novaclient's command) is merged in
Icehouse, IM
On 09/05/2014 06:29 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
Scheduler: I think we need to split out the scheduler with a similar
level of urgency. We keep blocking features on the split, because we
know we don't have the review bandwidth to deal with them. Right now I
am talking about a compute related scheduler
On 3 September 2014 21:57, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Hey
>>
>> The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and
>> one perception of the whole thing appears to be:
>>
>> A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red
On 09/05/2014 04:49 AM, Marco Fargetta wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if the solution I was trying to sketch with the spec
"https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96867/13"; is not easier to implement
and manage then the steps highlated till n.2. Maybe, the spec is not
yet there and should be improved (I w
Hi,
My name is Mykola Grygoriev and I'm engineer who currently working on
deploying 3d party CI for Сoraid Сinder driver.
Following instructions on
http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html#requesting-a-service-account
asking for adding gerrit CI account (coraid-ci) to the Voting Third-Party
CI
Hi all,
Between recent IRC meetings and the mid-cycle operators meetup, we've
heard things ranging from "is the SDK project still around" to "I
can't wait for this." I'm Brian Curtin from Rackspace and I'd like to
tell you what the python-openstacksdk [0][1] project has been up to
lately.
After i
On 2 September 2014 20:23, Michael Still wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 09/02/2014 08:16 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> We're soon to hit feature freeze, as discussed in Thierry's recent
>>> email. I'd like to outline the process for requesting a fr
On 09/05/2014 06:32 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
While reviewing this zookeeper service group fix in Nova -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102639/ it was exposed that the
zookeeper tests aren't running in infra.
The crux of the issue is that zookeeper python modules are C extensions.
So you have to e
Hi Mykola,
On 09/05/2014 04:09 PM, Mykola Grygoriev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Mykola Grygoriev and I'm engineer who currently working on
> deploying 3d party CI for Сoraid Сinder driver.
Great, thanks!
> Following instructions on
>
> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html#requesting-a-servi
On 09/05/2014 04:21 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 06:32 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> While reviewing this zookeeper service group fix in Nova -
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102639/ it was exposed that the
>> zookeeper tests aren't running in infra.
>>
>> The crux of the issue is that z
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
