[openstack-dev] [heat]no meeting is week

Hi all As OpenStack summit happening this week, let’s skip Heat meeting today. -- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, *Rico Lin*irc: ricolin __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: o

[openstack-dev] [cyborg]no meeting today

Enjoy the water view folks :) -- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang Standard Engineer IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen (Previous) Research Assistant Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2 Universit

[openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

Hi, Looking at [1], I am thinking about the price we paid for not branching tripleo-quickstart. Can we discuss the options to prevent the issues such as [1]? Thank you in advance. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/569830/4 -- Best Regards, Sergii Golovatiuk _

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

On 5/23/18 2:43 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote: Hi, Looking at [1], I am thinking about the price we paid for not branching tripleo-quickstart. Can we discuss the options to prevent the issues such as [1]? Thank you in advance. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/569830/4 That was only a half

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

On 05/20/2018 04:45 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: Greetings everyone! I would like to propose Mark Goddard to ironic-core. I am aware he recently joined kolla-core, but his contributions in ironic have been insightful and valuable. The kind of value that comes from operative use. I also make this

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] Reusing Cinder drivers' code directly without running Cinder: In our applications, from Ansible, and for Containers

Hi, During the last OpenStack PTG, I announced in the Cinder room the development of cinderlib, and explained how this library allowed any Python application to use Cinder storage drivers (there are over 80) without running any services. This takes the standalone effort one step further. Now you

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

Hi, Sergii thanks for the question. It's not first time that this topic is raised and from first view it could seem that branching would help to that sort of issues. Although it's not the case. Tripleo-quickstart(-extras) is part of CI code, as well as tripleo-ci repo which have never been branch

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

++. Great suggestion! --ruby On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Julia Kreger wrote: > Greetings everyone! > > I would like to propose Mark Goddard to ironic-core. I am aware he > recently joined kolla-core, but his contributions in ironic have been > insightful and valuable. The kind of value th

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] no meeting today

Just a reminder there is no meeting because ofthe summit today. Jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openst

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > Hi, Sergii > > thanks for the question. It's not first time that this topic is raised and > from first view it could seem that branching would help to that sort of > issues. > > Although it's not the case. Tripleo-quickstart(-extras) is part

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

Alex, the problem is that you're working and focusing mostly on release specific code like featuresets and some scripts. But tripleo-quickstart(-extras) and tripleo-ci is much *much* more than set of featuresets. Only 10% of the code may be related to releases and branches, while other 90% is comp

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at > https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org > infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate. Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list I

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 5/23/2018 9:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list I see Mirantis, Debian, Ubuntu, and RedHat, who all have (or had until recently) significant parts of their distros hosted on openstack.org infrastructure and are/were even official OpenStack projects go

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > Alex, > > the problem is that you're working and focusing mostly on release specific > code like featuresets and some scripts. But tripleo-quickstart(-extras) and > tripleo-ci is much *much* more than set of featuresets. Only 10% of the cod

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 18:49:16 +0200 (+0200), Colleen Murphy wrote: [...] > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting > something on openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an > official capacity. StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion > the code hosting is not the proble

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 05/23/2018 12:49 PM, Colleen Murphy wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate. Hang on,

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [trim] > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I

[openstack-dev] [neutron] Failing fullstack and ovsfw jobs

Hi, Yesterday we had issue [1] with compiling openvswitch kernel module during fullstack and ovsfw scenario jobs. This is now fixed by [2] so if You have a patch and those jobs are failing for You, please rebase it to have included this fix and it should works fine. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.n

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: [...] > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I don't see how a project would > prioriti

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 13:48:56 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: [...] > I believe you may be confusing packages (or package specs) with > distributions? > > Mirantis OpenStack was never hosted on an openstack > infrastructure. Fuel is, as are deb spec files and Puppet > manifests, etc. But the distribution

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on > openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity. > StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion the code hosting is not the > problem here

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

> to reduce the impact of a change. From my original reply: > > > If there's a high maintenance cost, we haven't properly identified the > optimal way to separate functionality between tripleo/quickstart. > > IMHO this is a side effect of having a whole bunch of roles in a > single repo. oooq-extr

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 5/23/2018 11:00 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: I have yet to see anyone suggest it should be prioritized over other work. I expect the extracted and proposed changes/specs corresponding to the divergence would be viewed on their own merits just like any other change and ignored, reviewed, rejected,

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: > There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a > different point of view that might not have been able to play out in Ironic is a bit different in this regard to the released code since there _is_ overlap with the STX

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Rather than literally making this a priority, I expect most of the feeling > is that because of the politics and pressure of competition with a fork in > another foundation is driving the defensiveness about feeling pressured to > prioritize

[openstack-dev] [edge][glance]: Wiki of the possible architectures for image synchronisation

Hi, Here I send the wiki page [1] where I summarize what I understood from the Forum session about image synchronisation in edge environment [2], [3]. Please check and correct/comment. Thanks, Gerg0 [1]: https://wiki.openst

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 8:07 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: > > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on > > openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity. > > StarlingX is seeking both

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: [...] I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should have been done (i.e. upstream first), and

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 15:20:28 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > > [...] > > > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > > > StarlingX into upstream repos. That se

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > Even doing that is work - going through changes, finding nuggets, proposing > new specs I don't think we can expect a project to even go there, it has > to be driven by someone already involved in StarlingX, IMHO. In the beginning at least

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci][infra] Quickstart Branching

Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > >> >> to reduce the impact of a change. From my original reply: >> >> > If there's a high maintenance cost, we haven't properly identified the >> > optimal way to separate functionality between tripleo/quickstart. >> >> IMHO this is a s

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

I think a good start would be a concrete list of the places you felt you needed to change upstream and the specific reasons for each that it wasn't done as part of the community. For example, I look at your nova fork and it has a "don't allow this call during an upgrade" decorator on many API call

[openstack-dev] Fwd: Follow Up: Private Enterprise Cloud Issues

There was a great turnout at the Private Enterprise Cloud Issues session here in Vancouver. I'll propose a follow-on discussion for Denver PTG as well as trying to sift the data a bit and pre-populate. Look for that sifted data soon. For folks unable to participate locally, the etherpad is here:

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 23/05/18 11:25, Dean Troyer wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a different point of view that might not have been able to play out in Ironic is a bit different in this regard to the released code

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Julia Kreger [mailto:juliaashleykre...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:46 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core > > Greetings everyone! > > I wo

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

+1 from me. On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: > Greetings everyone! > > I would like to propose Mark Goddard to ironic-core. I am aware he > recently joined kolla-core, but his contributions in ironic have been > insightful and valuable. The kind of value that comes from ope

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposing Mark Goddard to ironic-core

+1 .. his reviews have always been helpful to me On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Shivanand Tendulker wrote: > +1 from me. > > > > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Julia Kreger > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone! >> >> I would like to propose Mark Goddard to ironic-core. I am aware he >> recently