Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] composable roles team

That's an exciting news, please find a couple of comments bellow. On 04/29/2016 08:27 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hi, > > One of the most urgent tasks we need to achieve in TripleO during > Newton cycle is the composable roles support. > So we decided to build a team that would focus on it

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] composable roles team

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Tristan Cacqueray wrote: > That's an exciting news, please find a couple of comments bellow. > > On 04/29/2016 08:27 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> One of the most urgent tasks we need to achieve in TripleO during >> Newton cycle is the

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Steve, Thanks for bringing up this decision-making to the open forum. This is a tough decision. "us vs them" i am hoping will not happen this time around as we'll watch out for that. since there has been talk about ansible getting split out eventually, splitting k8s into a separate repo would be

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

-1 to not having a separate kolla-kubernetes repo. > The kubernetes codebase will be maintained in the > https://github.com/openstack/kolla repository under the kubernees top level > directory. I don't agree here. This needs to be its own repo. > I feel we made a couple errors with the

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed that we start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we either merge or not merge. I'm for separate repo. On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" wrote: > Ryan had rightly pointed

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][release] freeze timelines for horizon in newton

From: Rob Cresswell (rcresswe) [mailto:rcres...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 4:28 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][release] freeze timelines for horizon in newton This has

[openstack-dev] [nova] Austin summit scheduler session recap

On Wednesday morning Jay Pipes led a double session on the work going on in the Nova scheduler. The session etherpad is here [1]. Jay started off by taking us through a high-level overview of what was completed for the quantitative changes: 1. Resource classes 2. Resource providers 3.

[openstack-dev] [kolla] rax-ord misbehaving in the gate

Hey folks, We really need to solve rax-ord in the gate. For awhile it was removed because consistently across openstack this gate jobs were failing. Does anyone have any idea why it is failing in the Kolla case? Thanks -steve

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

On 5/1/16, 1:23 PM, "Ryan Hallisey" wrote: >snip >Trust isn't the issue here. The spec that people signed up for says >"Create kolla-kubernetes repo". > >In this thread there seems to be two votes. One is the split repo >discussion Kolla had at summit. The second is to

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

From: Michał Jastrzębski > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] restarting SR-IOV/PCI Passthrough meeting

Small correction, the biweekly meetings will start from May 3rd. -Original Message- From: Moshe Levi [mailto:mosh...@mellanox.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 8:13 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] restarting SR-IOV/PCI Passthrough

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

On 5/1/16, 4:22 PM, "Ryan Hallisey" wrote: >I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a >stable repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets >going. Yes, we will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into >the main

[openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate repository. I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a stable repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets going. Yes, we will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into the main repo. It's not a guarantee. If this were to go into the main repo, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

I agree to with the described benefits of separating the repos and my +1 for a separated repo. On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ryan Hallisey wrote: > I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a > stable repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

+1 Cheers, Alicja -Original Message- From: Hui Kang [mailto:hkang.sun...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 12:40 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra]

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Interest in contributing to OpenStack

Hello, My name is Djimeli Konrad a second year computer science student from the University of Buea Cameroon, Africa. I am GSoC 2015 participant, and I have also worked on some open-source projects on github (http://github.com/djkonro) and sourceforge

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Interest in contributing to OpenStack

Hello, With respect to my previous mail. I would just like to add that I am aware the GSoC2016 and Outreachy2016 application periods are over and I have always been interested in making contribution to these projects, regardless of GSoC or Outreachy. I have also successfully gone through the

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > Fellow core reviewers, > > We had a fantastic turnout at our fishbowl kubernetes as an underlay for > Kolla session. The etherpad documents the folks interested and discussion > at summit[1]. > > This proposal is

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

Please add me too to the list! Regards, Vikram Hosakote IRC: vhosakot From: Michał Jastrzębski > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > Date:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tricircle] Requirements for becoming approved official project

Thx shinobu, This is a great checklist ! Re PTL election, could we use community tools for that ? On May 2, 2016 1:09 PM, "Shinobu Kinjo" wrote: Hi Team, According to Documentation team, the Tricircle project seems to close to be official (but not really official kind of)

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][release] freeze timelines for horizon in newton

Thanks Amrith. I'm referring to the release timeline when I said expectation; previously every plugin had been on an independent release, rather than being the same as Horizon. Several plugins have changed this without any communication; it would've been better to let us know at the time so we

[openstack-dev] [nova][newton] Austin summit nova/newton cross-project session recap

On Wednesday morning the Nova and Neutron teams got together for a design summit session. The full etherpad is here [1]. We talked through three major items. 1. Neutron routed networks. Carl Baldwin gave a quick recap that we're on track with the Nova spec [2] and had pushed a new revision

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] OSC transition

Hi Richard, So what is the conclusion of where to put *aas CLI? Regards, Juno Zhu IBM China Development Labs (CDL) Cloud IaaS Lab Email: na...@cn.ibm.com 5F, Building 10, 399 Keyuan Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Pudong New District, Shanghai, China (201203) From: Richard Theis

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

I think merging 2 repos is possible with keeping a history. Tonyb also said that there will not be any issues with releasing z-streams. I recall we kinda made a decision on summit that we keep ansible in kolla tree as long as it's only stable deployment orchiestration tool, and when second one

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser) wrote: > Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo. > > From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][newton] Austin summit nova/newton cross-project session recap

Matt just a quick top-post to say thank you very much for this status report as well as the scheduler session status report. Really appreciate the help. Best, -jay On 05/01/2016 09:01 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On Wednesday morning the Nova and Neutron teams got together for a design summit

[openstack-dev] [nova] Austin summit performance VMs CI and technical debt session recap

On Wednesday morning we discussed the state of performance VMs CI and technical debt. Performance VMs are more commonly known as those taking advantage of network function virtualization (NFV) features, like SR-IOV, PCI, NUMA, CPU pinning and huge pages. The full etherpad is here [1]. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

A separate repo will land us in the same spot as we had with kolla-mesos originally. We had all kinds of variance in the implementation. I’m in favor of a single repo. +1 for the single repo. Regards, Vikram Hosakote IRC: vhosakot From: Vikram Hosakote

[openstack-dev] [Nova] Libvirt version requirement

Hi Nova cores, There is a spec[1] submitted to Telemetry project for Newton release, mentioned that a new feature requires libvirt >= 1.3.4 , I'm not sure if this will have bad impact to Nova service, so I open this thread and wait for your opinions. [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311655/

[openstack-dev] [tricircle] Requirements for becoming approved official project

Hi Team, According to Documentation team, the Tricircle project seems to close to be official (but not really official kind of) since we have standard directory structure. [1] What we need to do from here is to submit a project-config patch to publish the documentation to [2]. Once we finish

[openstack-dev] [tacker] No IRC weekly meeting this week

Tackers - Heads up. As decided in last meeting [1] we are skipping the weekly meeting this week on Tuesday, May 3rd. We will resume the meeting starting next week. There was a request in the design summit to move the meeting one hour ahead to compensate for the daylight savings time. I'll send an

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] Place kolla-mesos in openstack-attic

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > Fellow Core Reviewers, > > Since many of the engineers working on the kolla-mesos repository are moving > on to other things[1], possibly including implementing Kubernetes as an > underlay for OpenStack containers, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Austin summit scheduler session recap

On 5/1/2016 6:46 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On Wednesday morning Jay Pipes led a double session on the work going on in the Nova scheduler. The session etherpad is here [1]. Jay started off by taking us through a high-level overview of what was completed for the quantitative changes: 1.

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo. From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes repository management proposal up for vote

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot) wrote: > A separate repo will land us in the same spot as we had with kolla-mesos > originally. We had all kinds of variance in the implementation. > > I’m in favor of a single repo. > > +1 for the single repo. > I