[openstack-dev] [ironic] weekly subteam report

Hi, Here is this week's subteam report for Ironic. As usual, this is pulled directly from the Ironic whiteboard[0] and formatted. Bugs (dtantsur) === - Stats (diff between 22 Aug 2016 and 29 Aug 2016) - Ironic: 234 bugs (+11) + 214 wishlist items (+3). 33 new (+7), 170 in progress

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

Hi, Thanks for everyone's comments. Dean's were very useful, I'm going to file those away for future commands. In this case, I think we'll go with 'passthru' since I do want to make life easier for the operators :) --ruby On 2016-08-29, 12:00 PM, "Jay Faulkner"

[openstack-dev] [new][documentation] openstack-doc-tools 1.0.1 release

We are delighted to announce the release of: openstack-doc-tools 1.0.1: Tools for OpenStack Documentation With source available at: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-doc-tools Please report issues through launchpad: http://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals For more

[openstack-dev] [Infra] Meeting Tuesday August 30th at 19:00 UTC

Hi everyone, The OpenStack Infrastructure (Infra) team is having our next weekly meeting on Tuesday August 30th, at 19:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting Meeting agenda available here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_meeting Anyone is welcome to to add agenda

[openstack-dev] [new] ironic-staging-drivers 0.3.0 release

We are glowing to announce the release of: ironic-staging-drivers 0.3.0: A project used to hold out-of-tree ironic drivers With source available at: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-staging-drivers Please report issues through launchpad:

[openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] deprecated commands (was Re: Upcoming OpenStackClient 3.0 Release (Monday))

Hi, On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > We're excited to pre-announce the release of OSC 3.0.0. The release is > expected to be approved by the release team during their working hours on > Monday 22 Aug 2016. > > This is a **huge** release, and we shuffled

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] deprecated commands (was Re: Upcoming OpenStackClient 3.0 Release (Monday))

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Ruby Loo wrote: > For the deprecated commands -- will they be supported forever, or is there > some deprecation policy that OSC follows? In ironic, we have three OSC > commands that we've deprecated, but we don't know when/if we can ever >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing? let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000 different answers if you ask 1000 different people.* * actually you'll get 100

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Requesting FFE for improved Swift deployments

Hello, kindly asking for a FFE for a required setting to improve Swift-based TripleO deployments: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/358643/ This is required to land the last patch in a series of TripleO-doc patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/293311/

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:29:57AM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 09:06 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng > > wrote: > >> Hi, all > >> > >> Currently we have customer demands about adding

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung wrote: > just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you > to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing? > let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000 different

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][barbican][cinder][cloudkitty][ironic][magnum][monasca][searchlight][senlin][solum][swift][tripleo][watcher][winstackers] tags needed to be considered part of Newton

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:50:27AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > We have several projects using the cycle-with-intermediary release > model for which we have not had any releases yet this cycle. Please > consider a release this week, and be aware that we need a release > by the final deadline in

[openstack-dev] [nova] Next steps for resource providers work

I've been out for a week and not very involved in the resource providers work, but after talking about the various changes up in the air at the moment a bunch of us thought it would be helpful to lay out next steps for the work we want to get done this week. Keep in mind feature freeze is

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Curtis wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung wrote: just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing? let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000

[openstack-dev] OSIC cluster ready with CentOS

Hi Kollagues, Scenario # 11 (fio_many_osd) ended successfully. Daviey and I installed CentOS on all the 130 target nodes in the OSIC cluster today. We also: 1. Deleted all the Ubuntu images and volumes on the deploy node (729494-comp-s3500-002). 2. Cleaned up /var/lib/docker on the deploy

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Barcelona summit space requirements and session planning etherpad

Just a friendly reminder that I will be sending the final summit planning request for slots for Glance first thing tomorrow. So, please cast your vote if haven't already. Thanks! >From the looks of it, the current winner looks to be FB: 2, WR: 2, CM: 1 (Friday afternoon) -- but this could

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Gluon; was Coordination between actions/WGs

On 29 August 2016 at 03:48, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote: > >> So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of OpenStack. >> Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE Cloud, Mobile >> Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next steps for resource providers work

On 08/29/2016 03:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > I've been out for a week and not very involved in the resource providers > work, but after talking about the various changes up in the air at the > moment a bunch of us thought it would be helpful to lay out next steps > for the work we want to get

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] stable/newton branching schedule

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-08-26 10:29:19 -0400: > I plan to create the stable/newton branches for non-client libraries on > Monday based on the most recently tagged versions according to > the deliverable files in openstack/releases. If you *know* you are going > to need a bug

Re: [openstack-dev] [release] stable/newton branching schedule

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-08-29 16:49:20 -0400: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-08-26 10:29:19 -0400: > > I plan to create the stable/newton branches for non-client libraries on > > Monday based on the most recently tagged versions according to > > the

[openstack-dev] [kolla][osic] OSIC cluster ready with CentOS

Hi Kollagues, Scenario # 11 (fio_many_osd) ended successfully. Daviey and I installed CentOS on all the 130 target nodes in the OSIC cluster today. We also: 1. Deleted all the Ubuntu images and volumes on the deploy node (729494-comp-s3500-002). 2. Cleaned up /var/lib/docker on the deploy

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Curtis wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung wrote: >>> >>> just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable >>> you >>> to build on top of OpenStack. what are

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next steps for resource providers work

On 8/29/2016 3:46 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 08/29/2016 03:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: I've been out for a week and not very involved in the resource providers work, but after talking about the various changes up in the air at the moment a bunch of us thought it would be helpful to lay out next

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Hello, Jay, Sorry, I don't know why my mail-agent(Microsoft Outlook Web App) did not carry the thread message-id information in the reply. I'll check and avoid to create a new thread for reply in existing thread. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang ( joehuang)

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Hello, Jay, > The Telco vCPE and Mobile "Edge cloud" (hint: not a cloud) use cases Do you mean Mobile Edge Computing for Mobile "Edge cloud"? If so, it's cloud. The introduction slides [1] can help you to learn the use cases quickly, there are lots of material in ETSI website[2]. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][Meeting time] Possible meeting time change: feedback appreciated

OK, folks, new time chosen: 15:30 UTC (30 minutes earlier than usually, it looks like most of the people are ok with it). Starting with tomorrow (Tuesday, Aug 30th) we're running this time :) Cheers, Dina On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Dina Belova wrote: > Ok, let's

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources

Patch work in progress [1] but local test fails [2]. It seems to be caused by the mock_sync. I'm still looking into it. Any help would be appreciated. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/362525 [2] http://pastebin.com/iepqxUAP On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM Yujun Zhang

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] FFE request for Manila CephFS Native backend integration

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm still working on getting all pieces together for the Manila CephFS > driver integration and realizing that we have about a week of busy > gating left 'till FF and the changes are not reviewed yet, I'd like

Re: [openstack-dev] [watcher] Mascot final choice

When will we know about the mascot as well as what the design looks like? Susanne On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Joe Cropper wrote: > +2 to Jellyfish! > > > On Jul 28, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Antoine Cabot > wrote: > > > > Hi Watcher team, > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

From a brief look, it seems like vCPE is more along the lines of the customer having a "thin" device on their premise and their (now virtual) network functions, eg. firewall, live in the providers data center over a private link created by that thin device. So having a hypervisor on a

[openstack-dev] [Openstack/Designate] [DNAAS] Help required in getting the sample pools.yaml for infoblox

Hi All, Currently I am trying to configuring the infoblox as backend dns server in the designate for the DNS , I looked the upstream document and it is quite outdated. Could you please give me sample pools.yaml for the infoblox server configuration so that I can update the pool and continue

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] neutronclient check queue is broken

Assaf Muller wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Akihiro Motoki wrote: In the neutronclient check queue, gate-neutronclient-test-dsvm-functional is broken now [1]. Please avoid issuing 'recheck'. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] Plans re newton-3 release and feature freeze exceptions

On 26 August 2016 at 19:04, James Slagle wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: >> >> 1. Mistral API >> >> We've made good progress on this over recent weeks, but several patches >> remain - this is the umbrella BP, and it links

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] Plans re newton-3 release and feature freeze exceptions

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > Hi all, > > There have been some discussions on $subject recently, so I wanted to give > a status update. > > Next week we will tag our newton-3 release, and we're currently working to > either land or defer the remaining

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

Hi, The works in Magnum api-ref can be reviewed at [1]. Please take a look and get these to be merged ASAP. [1]. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-doc-rest-api Thanks, Hieu LE. From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 8:20 AM

[openstack-dev] [nova] Live-migration subteam meeting

Hello, Next meeting will be on August 30, 14:00 UTC as usual. Agenda is available here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NovaLiveMigration#Agenda_for_next_meeting If you have topics to discuss, please update it accordingly. Timofey.

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing up all theinterfaces

Hi, Goyal. What version about your OpenWRT image? You can get OpenWRT image from this: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-ruQ8Tx46wSMktKV3JLRWhnLTA Thanks Zhi Chang -- Original -- From: "Abhilash Goyal"; Date: Mon, Aug 29,

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing up all theinterfaces

Hi Chang, I am using https://downloads.openwrt.org/chaos_calmer/15.05/x86/kvm_guest/openwrt-15.05-x86-kvm_guest-combined-ext4.img.gz image of openWRT. This feature is not working for Cirros either. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Zhi Chang wrote: > Hi, Goyal. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing up alltheinterfaces

OpenWRT image should be enabled first nic's DHCP. -- Original -- From: "Abhilash Goyal"; Date: Mon, Aug 29, 2016 05:35 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)";

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Driver removal policies - should we make it softer?

Hi, I overall agree with the proposed plan. I like the idea of having a "supported" flag (or another name as per Kurt's email) that makes it easy mark a driver as "unsupported" indicating it might be removed soon. About point #3 I'm indifferent, it's a common approach in the project to log a

[openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing up all the interfaces

[Tacker] Hello team, I am trying to make an OpenWRT VNF through tacker using this vnf-d . VNF is spawning successfully, but expected VNF should have 3 connecting points with first one in

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources

Thanks, Alexey. Point 1 and 3 are pretty clear. As for point 2, if I understand it correctly, you are suggesting to modify the static_physical.yaml as following entities: - type: switch name: switch-1 id: switch-1 # should be same as name state: available relationships: - type:

[openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

Hi, all Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to --block-device to provide the support of specified storage backend to boot instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint that aiming to address the same feature:

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][yaql] Deep merge map of lists?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:07:09AM +0200, Thomas Herve wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a need to merge a list of maps of lists: > > > > heat_template_version: 2016-10-14 > > > > outputs: > > debug: > > value: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griffi...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:21 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Ed Leafe

[openstack-dev] [Horizon][FFE]Support a param to specify subnet or fixed IP when creating port

Hi, horizoners I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the feature. (This is a bug ticket, but the contents written in this ticket is a new feature.) https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1588663 This is implemented by the following patch. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/325104/

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [cinder] [api] [doc] API status report

On 2016-08-28 21:57, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:46:48PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> On 08/26/2016 11:33 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: >>> Hi cinder block storage peeps: >>> >>> I haven't heard from you on your comfort level with publishing so I went >>> ahead and made the

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing up alltheinterfaces

Hello Chang, thanks a lot, this image worked. Could you guide me the same for cirros image. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Zhi Chang wrote: > OpenWRT image should be enabled first nic's DHCP. > > > -- Original -- > *From: * "Abhilash

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/28/2016 09:02 PM, joehuang wrote: Hello, Bin, Understand your expectation. In Tricircle big-tent application: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/, a proposal was also given to add plugin mechnism in Nova/Cinder API layer, just like Neutron support plugin mechanism in API layer,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local disk is used it does not constrain volume size at all. So a user can specify an ephemeral/swap disk <= to what

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [os-vif] [neutron] Race in setting up linux bridge

On 08/26/2016 05:23 PM, Armando M. wrote: > Folks, > > Today I spotted [1]. It turns out Neutron and Nova might be racing > trying to set up the bridge to provide VM with connectivity/dhcp. In the > observed failure mode, os-vif fails in [2]. > > I suppose we might need to protect the bridge

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote: The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack. No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack. That's like saying the challenge for gasoline is how to enable the innovation of a jet engine. So telco use cases is

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Non-priority feature freeze and FFEs

Hi Matt, Dan, Andrew, @Matt: Hope you had a nice vacation. For the feature Nova serial console support for Ironic [1][2], there are some good update from Ironic side. All our Ironic-side works [3][4][5] have been done, currently there is only the nova patch that needs to review. Last week, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

Le 26/08/2016 12:33, Chris Dent a écrit : On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Of course, long-term, we could try to see how to have composite flavors for helping users to not create a whole handful of flavors for quite the same user requests, but that would still be flavors (or the

[openstack-dev] [kolla] Regarding footer blocks

Kolla, There seems to be a lot of confusion and thrashing on the customisation patches regarding the footer blocks. To help this I have documented the scheme at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253/2/doc/CONTRIBUTING.rst. Please review this and respond with questions if it doesn't make

Re: [openstack-dev] [tacker] Proposing Yong Sheng Gong for Tacker core team

+1. Congrats yong. Thanks & Regards Kanagaraj M On Aug 27, 2016 2:12 AM, "Sridhar Ramaswamy" wrote: We have enough votes to proceed. Yong - welcome to the Tacker core team! - Sridhar On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Stephen Wong wrote: > +1

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing upalltheinterfaces

My cirros image works ok. What version about your cirros image? -- Original -- From: "Abhilash Goyal"; Date: Mon, Aug 29, 2016 06:43 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage

[openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

Hi, In ironic, we have these ironic CLI commands: - ironic node-vendor-passthru (calls the specified passthru method) - ironic node-get-vendor-passthru-methods (lists the available passthru methods) For their corresponding openstackclient plugin commands, we (I, I guess) have proposed [1]: -

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On 08/29/2016 05:53 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: Personally I believe the cat is out of the bag on bdms overriding flavors and we should just commit to that path and make it work well. And for deployers who rely on flavors being the source of truth maybe we provide them a policy check or some other

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Non-priority feature freeze and FFEs

On 8/29/2016 6:27 AM, tie...@vn.fujitsu.com wrote: Hi Matt, Dan, Andrew, @Matt: Hope you had a nice vacation. For the feature Nova serial console support for Ironic [1][2], there are some good update from Ironic side. All our Ironic-side works [3][4][5] have been done, currently there is

[openstack-dev] [release][barbican][cinder][cloudkitty][ironic][magnum][monasca][searchlight][senlin][solum][swift][tripleo][watcher][winstackers] tags needed to be considered part of Newton

We have several projects using the cycle-with-intermediary release model for which we have not had any releases yet this cycle. Please consider a release this week, and be aware that we need a release by the final deadline in order to consider these projects as part of Newton (see [1] for

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Loo, Ruby wrote: > Hi, > > In ironic, we have these ironic CLI commands: > - ironic node-vendor-passthru (calls the specified passthru method) > - ironic node-get-vendor-passthru-methods (lists the available passthru > methods) > > For their

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

> On 29 Aug 2016, at 16:41, Loo, Ruby wrote: > > Hi, > > In ironic, we have these ironic CLI commands: > - ironic node-vendor-passthru (calls the specified passthru method) > - ironic node-get-vendor-passthru-methods (lists the available passthru > methods) > > For their

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On 24/08/16 20:37, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/24/2016 04:26 AM, Peter Willis wrote: Colleagues, I'd like to confirm that scalability and multi-site operations are key to BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][barbican][cinder][cloudkitty][ironic][magnum][monasca][searchlight][senlin][solum][swift][tripleo][watcher][winstackers] tags needed to be considered part of Newton

Thanks, Doug. We are planning to tag Searchlight and Searchlight-UI later this week. -Travis On 8/29/16, 8:50 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: We have several projects using the cycle-with-intermediary release model for which we have not had any releases yet this

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][barbican][cinder][cloudkitty][ironic][magnum][monasca][searchlight][senlin][solum][swift][tripleo][watcher][winstackers] tags needed to be considered part of Newton

Same for Magnum. We can have a tag release of magnum and magnum-ui later this week, and we might do another release (possibly the final release) before the final RCs deadline (Sep 26-30). Best regards, Hongbin > -Original Message- > From: Tripp, Travis S [mailto:travis.tr...@hpe.com] >

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Loo, Ruby wrote: > I did this because 'passthrough' is more English than 'passthru' and I > thought that was the 'way to go' in osc. But some folks wanted it to be > 'passthru' because in ironic, we've been calling them 'passthru' since day >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][barbican][cinder][cloudkitty][ironic][magnum][monasca][searchlight][senlin][solum][swift][tripleo][watcher][winstackers] tags needed to be considered part of Newton

Excerpts from Tripp, Travis S's message of 2016-08-29 15:29:25 +: > Thanks, Doug. > > We are planning to tag Searchlight and Searchlight-UI later this week. The item I was expecting to see a release for already is searchlight's client library. The deadline for that update is also this week.

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][OpenStackClient] two openstack commands for the same operation?

On Aug 29, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Dean Troyer > wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Loo, Ruby > wrote: I did this because 'passthrough' is more English than 'passthru' and I thought that was the 'way to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Nova] Neutron mid-cycle summary report

Not a bother. Great to have the Neutrinos in Cork ! :-) From: "Armando M." To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Cc: Martin Hickey/Ireland/IBM@IBMIE Date: 27/08/2016 01:14 Subject:

[openstack-dev] [ironic] should we provide 'ironic node-list --chassis' and 'ironic port-list --node' commands?

Hi, While working on the openstackclient plugin commands for ironic, I was thinking about the equivalents for 'ironic chassis-node-list' (nodes that are part of specified chassis) and 'ironic-node-port-list' (ports that are part of specified node). It didn't make sense to me to have an

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][yaql] Deep merge map of lists?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:07:09AM +0200, Thomas Herve wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a need to merge a list of maps of lists: > > > > heat_template_version: 2016-10-14 > > > > outputs: > > debug: > > value: > >

[openstack-dev] [mistral] No meeting today - 08/29/2016

Hi, we are cancelling meeting today. Some people are on vacation, some a too busy. Renat __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

29-Aug-16 09:50, Zhenyu Zheng пишет: Hi, all Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to --block-device to provide the support of specified storage backend to boot instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint that aiming to address the same feature:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

Le 29/08/2016 14:20, Jay Pipes a écrit : On 08/29/2016 05:11 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: One other thing to note is that while a flavor

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

Le 29/08/2016 14:43, Andrew Laski a écrit : On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 08:20 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/29/2016 05:11 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

On 8/29/2016 8:29 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: I completely agree with this. However I have some memory of us saying(in Austin?) that adding volume_type would be acceptable since it's a clear oversight in the list of parameters for specifying a block device. So while I greatly dislike Nova creating

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 09:06 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng > wrote: >> Hi, all >> >> Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter >> "volume_type" to --block-device to provide the support of specified >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

> -Original Message- > From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:43 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) d...@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device > mappings

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][yaql] Deep merge map of lists?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:07:09AM +0200, Thomas Herve wrote: >> dict($.groupBy($.keys().toList()[0], $.values().toList()[0][0])) >> >> ought to work, I believe? > > So, as it turns out, my example above was bad, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][release] Plans re newton-3 release and feature freeze exceptions

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18:17PM +0300, Juan Antonio Osorio wrote: >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > There have been some discussions on $subject recently, so I wanted to > give > a status update. > > Next

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] Barcelona Design Summit space needs

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Cody Herriges wrote: > > On August 18, 2016 at 05:12:56, Emilien Macchi (emil...@redhat.com) wrote: > > >> >> Note: >> - Ops summit on Tuesday morning until 4pm >> - Cross-project workshops from Tuesday 4pm to Wednesday 4pm >> >> As a reminder,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On 08/29/2016 05:11 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local disk is used it does not

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] Propose Denis Egorenko for fuel-library core

Although today is not the 31 Aug and we have a lack of core-reviewers in the fuel-library I would like to speed up the process a little. And as there are no objections so, please welcome Denis as he's just joined fuel-library Core Team! On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov <

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] Propose Denis Egorenko for fuel-library core

Thank you all! I will do my best! :) 2016-08-29 15:21 GMT+03:00 Maksim Malchuk : > Although today is not the 31 Aug and we have a lack of core-reviewers in > the fuel-library I would like to speed up the process a little. > > And as there are no objections so, please

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 07:25 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > >> One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local > >> disk is used it does not constrain volume

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Support specified volume_type when boot instance, do we like it?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: > Hi, all > > Currently we have customer demands about adding parameter "volume_type" to > --block-device to provide the support of specified storage backend to boot > instance. And I find one newly drafted Blueprint

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local disk is used it does not constrain volume size at all. So a user

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] Propose Denis Egorenko for fuel-library core

Although I am not a core in fuel-library, I am voting +1. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy wrote: > +1, great job! > > 2016-08-26 10:33 GMT+03:00 Bogdan Dobrelya : > >> +1 >> >> On 25.08.2016 21:08,

Re: [openstack-dev] tacker vnf-create is not bringing upalltheinterfaces

Default cirros that is added at the time of installation. On 29 Aug 2016 16:25, "Zhi Chang" wrote: > My cirros image works ok. What version about your cirros image? > > > -- Original -- > *From: * "Abhilash

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [os-vif] [neutron] Race in setting up linux bridge

Sort of. The neutron agent code doesn't use os-vif because the os-vif devs indicated that neutron's vif plugging code wasn't a use case they cared about [1]. So if we did generalize os-vif to work with the neutron agents then it would be two calling the same locked code. But at this point it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [os-vif] [neutron] Race in setting up linux bridge

On 08/29/2016 08:29 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > Sort of. The neutron agent code doesn't use os-vif because the os-vif > devs indicated that neutron's vif plugging code wasn't a use case they > cared about [1]. > > So if we did generalize os-vif to work with the neutron agents then it > would be two

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 08:20 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/29/2016 05:11 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > > Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : > >> On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > >>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > >>> > One other thing to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 08:42 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > > > Le 29/08/2016 14:20, Jay Pipes a écrit : > > On 08/29/2016 05:11 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > >> Le 29/08/2016 13:25, Jay Pipes a écrit : > >>> On 08/26/2016 09:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [os-vif] [neutron] Race in setting up linux bridge

Right, I was just pointing out that solving this in os-vif isn't enough in this particular case since neutron can't use it so it's slightly different than the os-brick situation. We have to reason about what two different code paths will do. On Aug 29, 2016 6:41 AM, "Sean Dague"

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Please see inline [BH526R]. -Original Message- From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/27/2016

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Requesting FFE for DPDK and SR-IOV Automation

Hello, We are working on DPDK and SR-IOV Automation in TripleO. We are at the last leg of the set of patches pending to be merged: DPDK (waiting for ovb ha and noha CI): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361238/ (THT) with +2 and +1s https://review.openstack.org/#/c/327705/ (THT) lost workflow

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qos]

Ofer Ben-Yacov wrote: Hi. I was asked to look for a solution / develop traffic control component. The idea is that provider / tenant will be able to enforce rate limit, do traffic shaping and prioritize traffic from several VMs (policy) - not like the qos in

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] weekly meeting #91

Hi, If you have any topic to add for this week, please use the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-openstack-weekly-meeting-20160830 See you tomorrow, On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Iury Gregory wrote: > No topic/discussion in our agenda, we cancelled the