multithreading via -T (or —threads) parameter.
We could also use pbzip2 instead of regular bzip to cut some time on multi-core
OpenStack-dev mailing list
On 02/10/2015 03:24 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote:
We are currently redesigning our apporach to upstream distributions and
obviusly we will need some cache system for packages on master node. It
should work for deb and rpm packages, and be able to serve up to 200 nodes.
I know we had bad
On 01/13/2015 11:16 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote:
On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote:
All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security patches,
On 01/12/2015 03:55 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
as it was planned and then announced at the OpenStack summit OpenStack services
deprecated Python-2.6 support. At the moment several services and libraries are
already only compatible with Python=2.7. And there is no common sense in
On 03/09/2015 06:21 PM, Ryan Moe wrote:
I've noticed a few times recently where reviews have been abandoned by
people who were not the original authors. These reviews were only days
old and there was no prior notice or discussion. This is both rude and
discouraging to contributors.
my sense of aesthetics was slightly disturbed when I saw that the mounts
fact is implemented by joining mount points using a comma.
It turns out that what Alex did is completely right as Puppet up to 3.8
release has enabled stringify_facts by default. TLDR of that setting is
On 2015-12-16 15:42, Alex Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
> <bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>> with the switch to CentOS 7, we also started using Puppet 3.8 in place
>> of 3.4. Is there any reason to run
On 2015-12-14 13:12, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> My opinion here is that I don't like that we're going to build and
> maintain one more custom package (just take a look at this patch 
> if you don't believe me), but I'd like to hear more opinion here.
On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who
> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements.
That will be way too late for that, as it will make
On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
>> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
>> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who
>> already rely on 9.3 for some
On 2015-12-15 18:16, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
> thank you for the clarification, it makes sense to me now.
> In my opinion our current approach is not flexible at all and very outdated.
After splitting fuel-web to smaller components we realized that some of
them may be
with the switch to CentOS 7, we also started using Puppet 3.8 in place
of 3.4. Is there any reason to run entire range of
I suppose we could leave only 3.8 and 4.0 there (at least for master).
For stable branches we could keep just
Mail list logo