[openstack-dev] [Heat][Horizon] Liberty horizon and get_file workaround?

Hi, I wanted to add my yaml as new resources (via /etc/heat/environment.d/default.yaml, but we use some external files in the OS::Nova::Server personality section. It looks like the heat cli handles that when you pass yaml to it, but I couldn't get it to work either through horizon, or even

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Seek advices for a licence issue

I got confirmation from Mesosphere that we can use the open source DC/OS in Magnum now, it is a good time to enhance the Mesos Bay to Open Source DCOS. From Mesosphere DC/OS software is licensed under the Apache License, so you should feel free to use it within the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] os-vif status report

In case it wasn't already assumed, anyone is welcome to contact me directly (irc: gus, email, or in Austin) if they have questions or want help with privsep integration work. It's early days still and the docs aren't extensive (ahem). os-brick privsep change just recently merged (yay), and I

[openstack-dev] [Glance] Glare and future of artifacts in OpenStack.

Hello! Today I'm happy to present you a demo of a new service called Glare (means GLance Artifact REpository) which will be used as a unified catalog of artifacts in OpenStack. This service appeared in Mitaka in February and it succeeded Glance v3 API, that has become the experimental version of

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

On 21/04/16 17:38, "Hongbin Lu" wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com] >> Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > Hey everyone- > > So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are > varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has > drastically increased the # of cores, and the

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

Michael Krotscheck wrote: So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format change creates quite a bit of uncertainty on everything

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

On 04/21/2016 11:01 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 21/04/16 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Joshua Harlow wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Newton Design Summit sessions planning

Folks, I'd like to request workroom sessions swap. I planned to lead a discussion of Fuel UI modularization on Wed 11.00-11.40, but at the same time there will be discussion of handling JS dependencies of Horizon which I'd really like to attend. So I request to swap my discussion with

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Leadership training dates - please confirm attendance

Excerpts from Colette Alexander's message of 2016-04-21 08:07:52 -0700: > > > > > > >> Colette Alexander wrote: > > >>> Hi everyone! > > >>> > > >>> Quick summary of where we're at with leadership training: dates are > > >>> confirmed as available with ZingTrain, and we're finalizing trainers > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat]informal meetup during summit

+1 re Mon, though Fri could work as well. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Jay Dobies wrote: > > > On 4/20/16 1:00 PM, Rico Lin wrote: > >> Hi team >> Let plan for more informal meetup(relax) time! Let all heaters and any >> other projects can have fun and chance for

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat]informal meetup during summit

On 20/04/16 13:00, Rico Lin wrote: Hi team Let plan for more informal meetup(relax) time! Let all heaters and any other projects can have fun and chance for technical discussions together. After discuss in meeting, we will have a pre-meetup-meetup on Friday morning to have a cup of cafe or some

[openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

Hey everyone- So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format change creates quite a bit of uncertainty on everything surrounding

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

There¹s one more issue with lowest common denominator API. Every time a new version of native client is released, magnum will be responsible for making those sure the common denominator API works with that version of native client. Since the native client will always have more functions/features

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] I think it's inappropriate because it gives a wrong incentive to become a core reviewer. Core reviewing should just be a duty you sign up to, not necessarily a way to get into a cool party. It was also a bit exclusive of other types of contributions. Apparently in

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200: > Michael Krotscheck wrote: > > So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are > > varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent > > has drastically increased the # of cores, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

On 04/21/2016 11:03 AM, Tim Bell wrote: On 21/04/16 17:38, "Hongbin Lu" wrote: -Original Message- From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com] Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] JavaScript RoadMap for OpenStack Newton

On 04/21/2016 10:35 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:28 AM Monty Taylor > wrote: On 04/21/2016 10:05 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote: >> used piecemeal, however

Re: [openstack-dev] JavaScript RoadMap for OpenStack Newton

On 04/21/2016 10:32 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:10 AM Hayes, Graham > wrote: On 21/04/2016 15:39, Michael Krotscheck wrote: python-openstackclient does require the creation of a new repo for each project

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On 21/04/16 19:40, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: >Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200: >> Michael Krotscheck wrote: >> >> >> So.. while I understand the need for calmer parties during the week, I >> think the general trends is to have less

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

I vote for Monday to get the ball rolling, meet the interested parties, and Continue on Thursday at 3:10 in a quieter setting ... so we leave with some consensus. Thanks Cathy! Malini -Original Message- From: Cathy Zhang [mailto:cathy.h.zh...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

I haven't spent much time on this, so the answers below are a first approximation based on a quick visual inspection (e.g. subject to change when I get a chance to hack on some code). On 4/21/16 12:10 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: > Can you share more details on the "few things we need" that >

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

I agree with that, and thats why providing some bare minimum abstraction will help the users not have to choose a COE themselves. If we can't decide, why can they? If all they want to do is launch a container, they should be able to script up "magnum launch-container foo/bar:latest" and get

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

Salvatore Orlando wrote: On 21 April 2016 at 16:54, Boden Russell > wrote: On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we > need minor modifications, before we create

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] High Availability

Hi. The thread is a month old, but I sent a shorter version of this to Daneyon before with some info on the things we dealt with to get Magnum deployed successfully. We wrapped it up in a post (there's a video linked there with some demos at the end):

Re: [openstack-dev] Question about OpenStack Code of Conduct

On 2016-04-21 17:54:56 + (+), Adrian Otto wrote: > Below is an excerpt from: > https://www.openstack.org/legal/community-code-of-conduct/ > > "When we disagree, we consult others. Disagreements, both social > and technical, happen all the time and the OpenStack community is > no

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

On 21 April 2016 at 16:54, Boden Russell wrote: > On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we > > need minor modifications, before we create something new. > > We can leverage the 'retrying' module

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Newton midcycle planning

On 4/11/2016 3:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: A few people have been asking about planning for the nova midcycle for newton. Looking at the schedule [1] I'm thinking weeks R-15 or R-11 work the best. R-14 is close to the US July 4th holiday, R-13 is during the week of the US July 4th holiday, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

Boden Russell wrote: On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we need minor modifications, before we create something new. We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirements). It lacks a few things we need,

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] High Availability

Ricardo, That is great! It is good to hear Magnum works well in your side. Best regards, Hongbin > -Original Message- > From: Ricardo Rocha [mailto:rocha.po...@gmail.com] > Sent: April-21-16 1:48 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > Hey everyone- > > So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are > varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent has > drastically increased the # of cores, and the

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

+1. From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

Hi everyone, We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the two topics. Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C" during Monday or Wednesday lunch time. Room 400 at 3:10pm is a closed room while the Salon C is a big open room which can

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > > On 21/04/16 19:40, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: > > >Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 18:22:53 +0200: > >> Michael Krotscheck wrote: > >> > >> > >> So.. while I understand the need for

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

Boden Russell wrote: I haven't spent much time on this, so the answers below are a first approximation based on a quick visual inspection (e.g. subject to change when I get a chance to hack on some code). On 4/21/16 12:10 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: Can you share more details on the "few

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

The COE's have a pressure not to standardize their api's between competing COE's. If you can lock a user into your api, then they cant go to your competitor. The standard api really needs to come from those invested in not being locked in. OpenStack's been largely about that since the

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On 2016-04-21 13:40:15 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > I didn't realize the tag was being used that way. I agree it's > completely inappropriate, and I wish someone had asked. [...] It's likely seen by some as a big-tent proxy for the old integrated vs. incubated distinction. --

Re: [openstack-dev] JavaScript RoadMap for OpenStack Newton

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM Monty Taylor wrote: > Neat! Maybe let's find a time at the summit to sit down and look through > things. I'm guessing that adding a second language consumer to the > config will raise a ton of useful questions around documentation, data >

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-21 17:54:37 +: > On 2016-04-21 13:40:15 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > [...] > > I didn't realize the tag was being used that way. I agree it's > > completely inappropriate, and I wish someone had asked. > [...] > > It's likely seen by

[openstack-dev] [release] release hiatus

The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as many of you are. With that in mind, we are going to hold off on releasing anything until 2 May, unless there is some sort of critical issue or gate blockage. Please feel free to submit release requests to openstack/releases,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

Cathy Zhang wrote: Hi everyone, We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the two topics. Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C" during Monday or Wednesday lunch time. Room 400 at 3:10pm is a closed room

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On 04/21/2016 02:08 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Krotscheck > wrote: Hey everyone- So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are varied - internal sponsors

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Here's where we disagree. Your speaking for everyone in the world now, and all you need is one counter example. I'll be that guy. Me. I want a common abstraction for some common LCD stuff. Both Sahara and Trove have LCD abstractions for very common things. Magnum should too. You are falsely

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

There are a few reasons, but the primary one that affects me is Its from the app-catalog use case. To gain user support for a product like OpenStack, you need users. The easier you make it to use, the more users you can potentially get. Traditional Operating Systems learned this a while back.

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

I believe you just described Murano. On 04/21/2016 03:31 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: There are a few reasons, but the primary one that affects me is Its from the app-catalog use case. To gain user support for a product like OpenStack, you need users. The easier you make it to use, the more users

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

As I was preparing some thoughts for the Board/TC meeting on Sunday that will discuss this topic, I made the notes below and was going to post them on a topic specific etherpad but I didn't find one. I want to represent the view point of a consumer of compute services in OpenStack. Trove is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

100% agreed on all your points… with the addition that the level of functionality you are asking for doesn’t need to be baked into an API service such as Magnum. I.e., Magnum doesn’t have to be the thing providing the easy-button app deployment — Magnum isn’t and shouldn’t be a Docker Hub

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

If you don¹t want a user to have to choose a COE, can¹t we just offer an option for the operator to mark a particular COE as the ³Default COE² that could be defaulted to if one isn¹t specified in the Bay create call? If the operator didn¹t specify a default one, then the CLI/UI must submit one in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] snapshot tool

Team, A "bicycle" will have to be present anyway, as a code which interacts with Ansible, because as far as I understand Ansible on it's own cannot provide all the functionality in one go, so a wrapper for it will have to be present anyway. I think me and Alexander we will look into converting

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

I thought this was also what the goal of https://cncf.io/ was starting to be? Maybe to early to tell if that standardization will be an real outcome vs just an imagined outcome :-P -Josh Fox, Kevin M wrote: The COE's have a pressure not to standardize their api's between competing COE's. If

Re: [openstack-dev] Summit Core Party after Austin

On 04/21/2016 04:04 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 04/21/2016 02:08 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: >> The first cross-project design summit tracks were held at the following >> summit, in Atlanta, though I recall it lacking the necessary >> participation to be successful. Today, we have many more

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

On 4/21/16 1:38 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > This might be harder in retrying, but I think I can help u make > something that will work, since retrying has a way to provide a custom > delay function. Thanks for that. My question was if this might be useful as a new backoff in retrying (vs a

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

> -Original Message- > From: Keith Bray [mailto:keith.b...@rackspace.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:11 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

On 04/21/2016 03:18 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: Here's where we disagree. We may have to agree to disagree. Your speaking for everyone in the world now, and all you need is one counter example. I'll be that guy. Me. I want a common abstraction for some common LCD stuff. We also disagree on

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

+1 on Wednesday lunch On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Cathy Zhang wrote: > > Hi everyone, >> >> We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of the >> two topics. >> Another option is to use the common

[openstack-dev] [kolla] deploy kolla on ppc64

I've been using Kola to deploy Mitaka on x86 and it works great. Now I would like to do the same thing on IBM Power8 systems (ppc64). I've setup a local registry with an Ubuntu image. I've docker and a local registry running on a Power8 system. When I issue the following command: kolla-build

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [releases] Behavior change in the bot for jenkins merge?

Thanks! somehow I missed it earlier. On 4/11/16 9:53 PM, Clark Boylan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 06:18 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed on a recent merge to glance [1] that the bot updated the bug >> [2] with comment from "in progress" to "fix released" vs. earlier >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Yeah. its good to disagree and talk through it. sometimes there just isn't a way to see eye to eye on something. thats fine too. I was just objecting to the assertion: "I do not believe anyone in the world wants us to build an > abstraction layer on top of the _use_ of swarm/k8s/mesos. People

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Hi Monty, I respect your position, but I want to point out that there is not only one human wants this. There are a group of people want this. I have been working for Magnum in about a year and a half. Along the way, I have been researching how to attract users to Magnum. My observation is

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] deploy kolla on ppc64

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Franck Barillaud wrote: > I've been using Kola to deploy Mitaka on x86 and it works great. Now I would > like to do the same thing on IBM Power8 systems (ppc64). I've setup a local > registry with an Ubuntu image. > I've docker and a local

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] release hiatus

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:13:15PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as > many of you are. With that in mind, we are going to hold off on > releasing anything until 2 May, unless there is some sort of critical > issue or gate

[openstack-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: [probably forge email可能是仿冒邮件]Re: 答复: [probably forge email可能是仿冒邮件]Re: openstack-dev] [vitrage] vitrage alarms list

Hi I get the latest sources and delete the /etc/vitrage/vitrage.conf，do unstack.sh and stack.sh. But deploy failed. The local.cnof is the same as before. Is there any vitrage configures i missed? Use openstack user create cli to create nova,glance and etc is successful. Thanks for your help. :)

Re: [openstack-dev] More on the topic of DELIMITER, the Quota Management Library proposal

Inline below ... thread is too long, will catch you in Austin. > -Original Message- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:08 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] More on the topic of DELIMITER, the Quota >

[openstack-dev] [magnum] Link to the latest atomic image

Hi team, Based on a request, I created a link to the latest atomic image that Magnum is using: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/magnum/fedora-atomic-latest.qcow2 . We plan to keep this link pointing to the newest atomic image so that we can avoid updating the name of the image for every image

Re: [openstack-dev] More on the topic of DELIMITER, the Quota Management Library proposal

On 04/21/2016 07:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hmm, where do I start... I think I will just cut to the two primary disagreements I have. And I will top-post because this email is way too big. 1) On serializable isolation level. No, you don't need it at all to prevent races in claiming. Just use a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Is the Intel SRIOV CI running and if so, what does it test?

On 3/30/2016 8:47 PM, yongli he wrote: Hi, mriedem Shaohe is on vacation. And Intel SRIOV CI comment to Neutron. running the macvtap vnic SRIOV testing and plus required neutron smoking test. [4] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/Intel-SRIOV-CI Regards Yongli He 在

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Is the Intel SRIOV CI running and if so, what does it test?

On 3/31/2016 7:31 AM, Znoinski, Waldemar wrote: [WZ] See comments below about full/small wiki but would the below is enough or you'd want or to see more: - networking-ci runs (with exceptions): tempest.api.network tempest.scenario.test_network_basic_ops - nfv-ci runs (with exceptions):

[openstack-dev] [RefStack] Weekly RefStack IRC meetings moved from Monday to Tuesday

Hello folks. As we agreed at the last IRC meeting [1], RefStack weekly IRC meetings will be moved to Tuesday at 19:00 UTC [2]. In addition, the next two meetings are skipped. We will resume weekly IRC meeting on Tuesday May 10, 2016. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

On 21/04/16 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Joshua Harlow wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. The lowest common denominator of all COEs is an

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Thats cool. Hopefully something great will come of it. :) Thanks for sharing the link. :) Kevin From: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:06 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject:

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

+1. That's a very good list. Thanks for writing it up. :) Kevin From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:16 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Yup, Murano indeed may be part of the solution. The problem is much larger then any one single OpenStack project though, so its good to have the discussions with the various projects to see where the pieces best fit. If Magnum at the end of the day rejects the idea that a COE abstraction is not

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

I like Malini’s suggestion on meeting for a lunch to get to know each other, then continue on Thursday. So let’s meet at "Salon C" for lunch from 12:30pm~1:50pm on Wednesday and then continue the discussion at Room 400 at 3:10pm Thursday. Since Salon C is a big room, I will put a sign “Common

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [nova] scheduling bandwidth resources / NIC_BW_KB resource class

On 04/20/2016 06:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: Note that I think the only time Nova gets details about ports in the API during a server create request is when doing the network request validation, and that's only if there is a fixed IP address or specific port(s) in the request, otherwise Nova

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Amrith, Very well thought out. Thanks. :) I agree a nova driver that let you treat containers the same way as vm's, bare metal, and lxc containers would be a great thing, and if it could plug into magnum managed clusters well, would be awesome. I think a bit of the conversation around it gets

Re: [openstack-dev] More on the topic of DELIMITER, the Quota Management Library proposal

Hmm, where do I start... I think I will just cut to the two primary disagreements I have. And I will top-post because this email is way too big. 1) On serializable isolation level. No, you don't need it at all to prevent races in claiming. Just use a compare-and-update with retries strategy.

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Link to the latest atomic image

@hongbin, FYI, there is a patch from yolanda to using fedora atomic images built in our mirros https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306283/ On 2016年04月22日 10:41, Hongbin Lu wrote: Hi team, Based on a request, I created a link to the latest atomic image that Magnum is using:

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] release hiatus

Safe travels! See you in austin. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:13:15PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > The release team is preparing for and traveling to the summit, just as > > many of you are. With that in mind, we

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][keystone][documentation][gate] Babel dependency for oslo.log

Hi Andreas, so if some projects, such as ceilometer, need babel even if they don't directly depend on it, just because they are setup in infra for translations? can you explain a bit more to me, or just provide some links, or keywords for search ? Thanks ZhiQiang On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:34

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [devstack] Adding example "local.conf" files for testing?

+1 more example and documentation are welcomed On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:10 AM, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Markus Zoeller > wrote: > >> Sometimes (especially when I try to reproduce bugs) I have the need >> to set

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][keystone][documentation][gate] Babel dependency for oslo.log

Thanks for the confirm. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 2016-04-21 13:22, ZhiQiang Fan wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > so if some projects, such as ceilometer, need babel even if they don't > > directly depend on it, just because they are setup in infra

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][keystone][documentation][gate] Babel dependency for oslo.log

On 2016-04-21 13:22, ZhiQiang Fan wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > so if some projects, such as ceilometer, need babel even if they don't > directly depend on it, just because they are setup in infra for > translations? > > can you explain a bit more to me, or just provide some links, or > keywords for

[openstack-dev] [Fuel][NFV] Features status

Hello, QA team are content to announce the stable status of next NFV features in Fuel Mitaka release: - NUMA and CPU pinning - Hugepages - SR-IOV pinning DPDK was decided to be experimental in Community Release -- Best Regards, Ksenia Demina

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

- Original Message - > From: "Hongbin Lu" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > > -Original Message- > > From: Keith Bray [mailto:keith.b...@rackspace.com] > > Sent: April-20-16 6:13 PM

Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Magnum supports 2 Nova flavor to provision minion nodes

Hi Eli, This is exactly what I want. If you guys think this requirement is reasonable, I’d like to commit a design spec so that we could discuss it in details. Regards, Gary Duan From: Eli Qiao [mailto:liyong.q...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 5:08 PM To:

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] api-ref content verification phase doc push

On 04/21/2016 09:54 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > How about an etherpad where they are listed and people can assign > themselves per file? I guess that gets messy when you have some changes > doing step 1 on multiple files... The giant etherpads become a mess to keep track of source of truth, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][keystone] Getting Auth Token from Horizon when using Federation

On 04/18/2016 12:34 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: (** ECP is a new feature, not supported by all IdP's, that at (second) best requires reconfiguration of core authentication services at each customer, and at worst requires customers to change IdP software completely. This is a varying degree of

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] api-ref content verification phase doc push

On 4/20/2016 6:25 PM, Sean Dague wrote: This morning we finally cleaned up the last warnings in api-ref, so now we can enforce errors on warnings. Woot! That went much faster than I anticipated, and puts us at a really good place for summit. The next phase is the content verification phase.

[openstack-dev] JavaScript RoadMap for OpenStack Newton

This post contains the current working draft of the JavaScript roadmap which myself and Beth Elwell will be working on in Newton. It’s a big list, and we need help - Overall themes for this cycle are Consistency, Interoperability, and engaging with the JavaScript community at large. Our end goal

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

FWIW, we were using retrying in oslo.concurrency at one point: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130872 It looks like that got removed somewhere in the move to fasteners though. On 04/20/2016 04:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-04-20 22:16:10 +0100: >> >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [networking-sfc] A standards-compliant SFC API

Hi Igor, Thanks for understanding. Let's continue the discussion over the submitted spec. Thanks Vikram On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Duarte Cardoso, Igor < igor.duarte.card...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Vikram, > > > > Thanks for the response. I’m happy to provide enhancements instead of >

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Adrian Otto wrote: >>> This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container >>> APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. The >>> lowest common

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][keystone] Getting Auth Token from Horizon when using Federation

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:22:46AM -0400, John Dennis wrote: > On 04/18/2016 12:34 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: > >(** ECP is a new feature, not supported by all IdP's, that at (second) > >best requires reconfiguration of core authentication services at each > >customer, and at worst requires

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova][oslo] Common backoff & timeout utils

On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we > need minor modifications, before we create something new. We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirements). It lacks a few things we need, but those can be

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Fuel 9.0 is released

Dear all, I am glad to announce Mitaka release of Fuel (a.k.a Fuel 9.0) - deployment and lifecycle management tool for OpenStack. This release introduces support for OpenStack Mitaka and adds a number of new features and enhancements. Some highlights: - Support lifecycle management operations

Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

> -Original Message- > From: Steve Gordon [mailto:sgor...@redhat.com] > Sent: April-21-16 9:39 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified > abstraction for all COEs > > - Original

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Leadership training dates - please confirm attendance

> > > >> Colette Alexander wrote: > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> > >>> Quick summary of where we're at with leadership training: dates are > >>> confirmed as available with ZingTrain, and we're finalizing trainers > >>> with them right now. *June 28/29th in Ann Arbor, Michigan.* > >>> > >>>

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Launchpad cleanups for Newton

Hi all, So I've been attempting to beat our launchpad project into shape today, and have made a few changes with a view to making the tool more useful for tracking things during the Newton cycle: 1. New "TripleO Drivers" team I created https://launchpad.net/~tripleo-drivers which is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] One plugin - one Launchpad project

On 19/04/16 16:52, Irina Povolotskaya wrote: > Hi to everyone, > > as you possibly know (at least, those dev. teams working on their Fuel > plugins) we have a fuel-plugins Launchpad project [1] which serves as > all-in-one entry point for filing bugs, related > to plugin-specific problems. > >

[openstack-dev] [sahara] IRC meetings for 28 Apr and 5 May SKIPPED

Hello folks. As we agreed at the last meeting [0], the next two meetings are skipped (28 Apr and 5 May) [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/sahara/2016/sahara.2016-04-21-14.00.log.html#l-126 -- Best Regards, Vitaly Gridnev Mirantis, Inc

  1   2   >