Personally, I prefer IRC for general meeting stuff, with separate
breakouts to voice for topics that warrant it.
Doug
On 8/7/14, 2:28 AM, Stephen Balukoff sbaluk...@bluebox.net wrote:
Hi Brandon,
I don't think we've set a specific date to make the transition to IRC
meetings. Is there a
I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional
review.)
Doug
On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com
wrote:
So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending
reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions
Hi all,
Validations such as ³timeout delay² should be performed on the API
level before it reaches the driver.
For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be one
provider.
You¹re right, but I think the point of Vijay¹s example was to highlight
the combo error problem
Hi Susanne,
While there are a few operators involved with LBaaS that would have good
input, you might want to also ask this on the non-dev mailing list, for a
larger sample size.
Thanks,
doug
On 8/11/14, 3:05 AM, Susanne Balle sleipnir...@gmail.com wrote:
Gang,
I was asked the following
-
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:55 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on Calling
driver interface on every API request
Hi all,
Validations such as ³timeout
From the looks of your error, you at least have a problem with more than
one commit in your topic branch.
Here¹s the process that I use. I¹m not claiming it¹s the best, but it
works without rewriting Brandon¹s commits. Watch the git log at the end,
and make sure the dependent hashes match
a) Most members in favor of keeping the webex meetings for the time being
Correction: most of the people that like to talk over each other in a
large voice conference voiced their approval of voice. Those that prefer
to wait for pauses to speak were unsurprisingly silent, or tried and
failed to
I agree almost completely with Brandon¹s comments on the incubator.
For Octavia, I think we need to not stress neutron vs incubator vs
spin-out, and just focus on writing some load-balancing code. We¹ve spent
far too much time in Juno working on processes, glue, and APIs, and
precious little on
bootstrapping this project). But I did point out that asking the people
who joined the video meeting whether they
wanted to keep doing video meetings might simply be a form of
confirmation bias. ;)
Thanks,
Stephen
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Doug Wiegley
do...@a10networks.com wrote:
I
Hi all,
We made the voice/IRC decision in the very format that favors voice. So
in the interest of putting the discussion to bed, voice your opinions here
in a non-voice way:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116042/
Thanks,
Doug
On 8/18/14, 3:06 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com
That’s testr’s friendly way of telling you that you have an import error.
Run it with the py26 environment and you’ll get a useful error.
No, don’t ask me why.
Doug
On 8/23/14, 2:33 PM, Alex Leonhardt aleonhardt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
after some fighting with installing all the bits
Hi all,
May I suggest putting your feedback into this review, which is on the same
subject?
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118623/
Thanks,
doug
On 9/3/14, 8:57 PM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com
trinath.soman...@freescale.com wrote:
This is a Good option to go with.
To trigger a specific
Hi all,
As the resident non-octavia-VM person, here are my two pennies.
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection”
That’s all the driver layer is.
1. We will only support one driver per controller, e.g. if you upgrade
a driver you deploy a new
Hi Jorge,
That was totally my bad. Since we had lukewarm to *no* consensus on the
original list, I had a late inspiration to see if people liked the idea of
using a Roman container name, given our project has a Roman name.
Everyone on IRC was in favor, though that could’ve also just been
Hi Eugene,
Just my take, but I assumed that we’d re-sequence the migrations at merge time,
if needed. Feature branches aren’t meant to be optional add-on components (I
think), nor are they meant to live that long. Just a place to collaborate and
work on a large chunk of code until it’s ready
nobody is calling Barbican a database. It is a place to store
Š did you at least feel a heavy sense of irony as you typed those two
statements? ³It¹s not a database, it just stores things!² :-)
The real irony here is that in this rather firm stand of keeping the user
in control of their
Hi Clint,
Comments below.
On 6/16/14, 3:06 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2014-06-16 13:22:26 -0700:
nobody is calling Barbican a database. It is a place to store
Š did you at least feel a heavy sense of irony as you typed those two
Look, I'm talking a lot and not showing up with code, so I'm squelching
myself.
Noted, and ditto. Thanks for the dialog.
Doug
On 6/16/14, 5:54 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2014-06-16 16:10:51 -0700:
Hi Clint,
Comments below.
On
Meetup webex:
https://a10networks.webex.com/a10networks/e.php?MTID=m3351a8eb388c2ade866bac44cc272c5b
From: Susanne Balle sleipnir...@gmail.commailto:sleipnir...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Put me down for being in favor of option 1.
A single attribute in a 1:1 relationship? Putting that in a new table sounds
like premature optimization to me; design the database change for the future
feature when you can see the spec for it.
Thanks,
Doug
From: Stephen Balukoff
Hi Brandon,
I think just one status is overloading too much onto the LB object (which
is perhaps something that a UI should do for a user, but not something an
API should be doing.)
1) If an entity exists without a link to a load balancer it is purely
just a database entry, so it would always
...@rackspace.commailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 18:53 +, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Hi Brandon,
I think just one status is overloading too much onto the LB object (which
is perhaps something that a UI should do for a user, but not something an
API should be doing
Hi Sam,
Anything else?
I assume you mean for Juno. Under “In addition”:
* Contact current driver owners, to update to new driver interface (some
things will break with the shim, e.g. when the drivers are reaching around the
plugin to the neutron db.) Also let them know about the
Have the IRC meetings been time constrained or unproductive? Having a
pre-meeting before the IRC meeting risks being exclusionary to the folks that
can’t make it for that timezone, and I haven’t seen that the IRC meetings are
having communication/decision issues, beyond it being bloody dang
Modified slightly, my read on the decision was:
* Create a v2 agent, and make the ref haproxy driver use the v2 agent and
v2 obj model.
* At a lower priority, work on a shim for non-agent older drivers. This is
de-coupled from the haproxy ref driver, and could happen in parallel if we
(not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Shim vs Agent Refactor
New/updated v2 driver could be done without an agent (same as was possible in
v1).
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com
One mechanism for this for Neutron advanced services, that’s being discussed
right now, is here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102723/
Thanks,
doug
From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
On 7/16/14, 2:43 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mike Spreitzer's message of 2014-07-16 10:50:42 -0700:
Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote on 07/02/2014 01:54:49 PM:
Excerpts from Qiming Teng's message of 2014-07-02 00:02:14 -0700:
Just some random thoughts below
Do we want any driver interface changes for this? At one level, with the
current interface, conforming drivers could just reference
listener.sni_containers, with no changes. But, do we want something in
place so that the API can return an unsupported error for non-TLS v2
drivers? Or must all v2
: I think if the drivers see the TERMINATED_HTTPS protocol then
they can throw an exception. I don't think a driver interface change is
needed.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 17:02 +, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Do we want any driver interface changes for this? At one level
: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 1:27 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] health maintenance in autoscaling groups
Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] health maintenance in autoscaling groups
Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com wrote on
07/23/2014 03:43:02 PM:
From: Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com
Hi Mike,
and listed the possible values of the status field, including INACTIVE.
Other sources are telling me that status=INACTIVE when the health monitor
thinks the member is unhealthy, status!=INACTIVE when the health monitor
thinks the member is healthy. What's going on here?
Indeed,
some kind of hook there to get event
notifications when individual member statuses change. But this is really a
discussion that needs to happen once the current code drive is near fruition
(ie. for Kilo).
Stephen
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Doug Wiegley
do...@a10networks.commailto:do
Hi mike,
Awesome, thanks for chasing that down. Now I need to close the loop and figure
out where that linkage is, so I don't go crazy.
Thanks,
Doug
On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Mike Spreitzer
mspre...@us.ibm.commailto:mspre...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for bringing this up. If you¹re going to call me out by name, I
guess I have to respond to the Horizon thing. Yes, I don¹t like it, from
a user perspective. We promise a bunch of new features, new driversŠ and
none of them are visible. Or the horizon support does land, and
and I don't think anyone expected it to be a full-fledged
product by Juno, but we are getting closer!
Cheers,
--Jorge
On 7/28/14 8:02 AM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote:
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for bringing this up. If you¹re going to call me out by name, I
guess I have to respond
Hi Evgeny,
I’m not sure I’m doing it in the most efficient way, so I’d love to hear
pointers, but what I’ve been doing:
First, to setup the dependent commit, the command is “git review –d”. I’ve
been using this guide:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Advanced_usage#Create_a_dependency
that many users will be able to use. Also, to
get people's opinions on what they think is high priority.
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 18:11 +, Doug Wiegley wrote:
I don’t think the lbaas roadmap has changed (including octavia), just
the
delivery timeline. Nor am I debating making the ref driver
I'd have to look at the Neutron code, but I suspect that a simple
strategy of issuing the UPDATE SQL statement with a WHERE condition that
I¹m assuming the locking is for serializing code, whereas for what you
describe above, is there some reason we wouldn¹t just use a transaction?
Thanks,
Can we just have meeting-bot post the minutes, if we want a summary of
each meeting? Or perhaps send that to a different DL, so it doesn¹t hit
-dev?
Doug
On 7/30/14, 2:13 PM, Ryan Moats rmo...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I had occasion to walk through all of the archives of the openstack-dev
mailing
Additions:
- Change to move handling of ACTIVE/ERROR/DEFERRED and db deletes out of
drivers.
- Don¹t let gerrit overwrite dependent commits.
Thanks,
Doug
On 7/30/14, 3:30 PM, Jorge Miramontes jorge.miramon...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Hey LBaaS folks,
This is you friendly reminder to provide any
If it helps as a reference, these three reviews by Brandon Logan are
adding exactly what you're talking about for the new LBaaS api. Models,
migration, extension, plugin, unit tests:
* New extension for version 2 of LBaaS API -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331
* Plugin/DB additions for
You should be able to, if logged into launchpad. I edited it for you.
Doug
On 8/6/14, 6:07 PM, Vijay Venkatachalam vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com
wrote:
I couldn't edit the wiki. Want to add 2 items
1. Separating deployment and operational status.
2. Can driver interface be called for every
Thanks, Brandon. My opinion, reproduced from an IRC conversation that we
had earlier today:
I don't have a strong objection, just an implementation shudder. Of the
two backends that I'm familiar with, they support 1:N, not N:N So, we
fake it by duping listeners on the fly. But, consider the
Hi Stephen,
Doug: What do you think of the idea of having both IPv4 and IPv6 attributes
on a 'load balancer' object? One doesn't need to have a single appliance
serving both types of addresses for the listener, but there's certainly a
chance (albeit small) to hit an async scenario if
on a Barbican delete isn't
really an option, so this is the best fallback I can think of.
--Adam
https://keybase.io/rm_you
From: Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev
to include a policy enforcement engine). The shadow-copy strategy is
the best alternative I can think of given the current project/political
landscape. :(
--Adam
https://keybase.io/rm_you
From: Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development
From: Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:10 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
There are other fundamental things about secrets, like relying on their
presence, and not encouraging a proliferation of a dozen
mini-secret-stores everywhere to get around that fact, which makes it less
secret. Have you considered a ³force² delete flag, required if some
service is using the
Hi all,
Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us
answer the questions of:
1. Are we spinning out?
2. When?
3. With or without the rest of advanced services?
4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have
had the Paris summit
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Hi all,
Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see
us
answer the questions of:
1. Are we spinning out?
2. When?
3. With or without the rest of advanced services?
4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal
the
proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the
API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API.
Best,
-jay
On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com
wrote:
Hi Brandon,
4. I brought this up now so
Hi all,
In trying to find some alternate times for the Neutron LBaaS meeting, all
of the slots that fall roughly in business-ish hours for the US/Europe are
jam packed (at least on the days that aren’t risking long weekends.) I’d
like to propose adding #openstack-meeting-4 to alleviate this.
Hi LBaaS (and others),
We’ve been talking about possibly re-schedulng the LBaaS meeting to a time
to is less crazy early for those in the US. Alternately, we could also
start alternating times. For now, let’s see if we can find a slot that
works every week. Please respond with any time slots
I will be there.
doug
On Nov 6, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Armando M.
arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com wrote:
I have just realized that I should have cross-reference this mail on both ML's.
Same message for the dev mailing list.
Thanks,
Armando
On 6 November 2014 00:32, Armando M.
Hi all,
Neutron LBaaS meetings are now going to be Tuesdays at 16:00 UTC.
Safe travels.
Thanks,
Doug
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
#openstack-meeting-4
On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote:
Thanks,
Evg
-Original Message-
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:04 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack
Congratulations!!
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Since most folks are either freshly back from traveling, in the midst
of returning, or perhaps even with a new baby, we'll be skipping this
week's meeting. We'll resume next week at
On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Mathieu Rohon mathieu.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I
, Doug Wiegley
do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Mathieu Rohon
mathieu.ro...@gmail.commailto:mathieu.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M.
arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Last Friday I recall
Hi,
so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities
and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad
projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is
On 11/19/14, 5:02 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com
wrote:
Hi,
so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo
cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different
Hi lbaas,
Just a reminder that the spec submission deadline is Dec 8th (this Monday.) If
you are working on lbaas v2 features or drivers, and had a spec in Juno, it
must be re-submitted for Kilo.
LBaaS v2 specs that are currently submitted for Kilo:
LBaaS V2 API and object model definition -
Hi all,
The neutron advanced services split is starting today at 9am PDT, as
described here:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136835/
.. The remove change from neutron can be seen here:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/139901/
.. While the new repos are being sorted out, advanced services
To all neutron cores,
Please do not approve any gerrit reviews for advanced services code for
the next few days. We will post again when those reviews can resume.
Thanks,
Doug
On 12/8/14, 8:49 AM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote:
Hi all,
The neutron advanced services split
Hi all,
Most of the Neutron third-party Cis are failing at the moment, and it’s
because of the ongoing services split. The patch to get devstack working
again will likely merge tomorrow. We will send another ML message when
the split is “finished”.
Thanks,
Doug
Hi all,
I’d like to echo the thanks to all involved, and thanks for the patience during
this period of transition.
And a logistical note: if you have any outstanding reviews against the now
missing files/directories (db/{loadbalancer,firewall,vpn}, services/, or
tests/unit/services), you must
Hi all,
Neutron grenade jobs have been failing since late afternoon Thursday, due to
split fallout. Armando has a fix, and it’s working it’s way through the gate:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141256/
Get your rechecks ready!
Thanks,
Doug
From: Douglas Wiegley
Unless someone has an urgent agenda item, and due to the mid-cycle for
Octavia, which has a bunch of overlap with the lbaas team, let’s cancel
this week. If you have post-split lbaas v2 questions, please find me in
#openstack-lbaas.
The only announcement was going to be: If you are waiting to
to
incompatibility between neutron main and neutron-*aas code resulted
EXACTLY because multiple parts of the same process use different
versions of the same module.
That said, Doug Wiegley (lbaas core) seems to be in favour of option
3. due to lower coupling that is achieved in that way. I know that
lbaas team
On 12/15/14, 8:20 AM, Kobi Samoray ksamo...@vmware.com wrote:
Hi,
Some files in neutron are common infrastructure to the VMWare neutron
L2/L3 plugin, and the services plugins.
These files wrap VMWare NSX and provide a python API to some NSX services.
This code is common to:
- VMWare L2/L3
Hi all,
Ihar and I discussed this on IRC, and are going forward with option 2
unless someone has a big problem with it.
Thanks,
Doug
On 12/15/14, 8:22 AM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote:
Hi Ihar,
I’m actually in favor of option 2, but it implies a few things about your
time, and I
Adding tags for [neutron][lbaas]
Juno lbaas (v1) has pool as the root model, with VIP.
Kilo lbaas (v2), you are correct, vip is splitting into loadbalancer and
listener, and loadbalancer is the root object. And yes, the new objects get new
URIs.
Both v1 and v2 plugins will be available in
Hi all,
Anyone have big agenda items for the 12/23 or 12/30 meeting? If not, I’d
suggest we cancel those two meetings, and bring up anything small during
the on-demand portion of the neutron meetings.
If I don’t hear anything by Monday, we will cancel those two meetings.
Thanks,
Doug
Canceled. The next lbaas meeting will be 1/6. Happy holidays.
Thanks,
doug
On 12/19/14, 11:33 AM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote:
Hi all,
Anyone have big agenda items for the 12/23 or 12/30 meeting? If not, I’d
suggest we cancel those two meetings, and bring up anything small during
Get ready to vomit.
The lbaasv2 code you’re pulling is a non-agent driver. Meaning, it runs
haproxy on the *neutron controller* node, and only the controller node.
It’s meant to be a POC for single node systems, not something you can
deploy.
In the upcoming mid-cycle, the driver will be
. Is that right?
Thanks,
Vijay V.
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com
mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 10:03 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Can
I’d recommend taking a look at Brandon’s review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144834/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144834/
which aims to simplify exactly what you’re describing. Please leave feedback
there.
Thanks,
doug
On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam
I’d recommend taking a look at Brandon’s review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144834/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144834/
which aims to simplify exactly what you’re describing. Please leave feedback
there.
Thanks,
doug
On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam
I’d recommend taking a look at Brandon’s review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144834/
which aims to simplify exactly what you’re describing. Please leave
feedback there.
Thanks,
doug
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam
vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi:
In
It’s not pretty, but if the topic has been set correctly, this finds everything
open with a Kilo-2 blueprint:
There's no need for additional neutron packaging. The real trick is that the
neutron-*aas packages need to have a package dependency of neutron, and
whichever release of openstack they're all cut with, they just have to match.
Put another way, use your existing neutron package from the same
Hi all,
I requested a session for future lbaas features and prioritizing (and attaching
contributors to those features.) Assuming that happens, I started an etherpad
here, starting with Sam’s info:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/lbaas-vancouver-planning
Since most of us will be at the lbaas mid-cycle, next week’s meeting is
canceled.
Thanks,
Doug
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
Same project, shiny new repo.
doug
On Feb 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Sławek Kapłoński sla...@kaplonski.pl wrote:
Hello,
Thx for tips. I have one more question. You point me fo neutron-fwaas project
which for me looks like different project then neutron. I saw fwaas service
plugin directly
Hi lbaas'ers,
Now that lbaasv2 has shipped, the need for a regular weekly meeting is
greatly reduced. I propose that we cancel the regular meeting, and discuss
neutron-y things during the neutron on-demand agenda, and octavia things in the
already existing octavia meetings.
Any
Tempest tests fail when not using namespaces, so I'm not sure how well we're
even testing that codepath anymore.
doug
On Mar 20, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Brian Haley brian.ha...@hp.com wrote:
On 03/20/2015 02:57 PM, Assaf Muller wrote:
Hello everyone,
The use_namespaces option in the L3 and
A few reasons, I’m sure there are others:
- Broken tests that hardcode something about the ref implementation. The test
needs to be fixed, of course, but in the meantime, a constantly failing CI is
worthless (hello, lbaas scenario test.)
- Test relies on some “optional” feature, like
On Mar 31, 2015, at 6:24 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead of
writing the same thing twice, you
On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:52 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
mailto:dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
Stefano branched this thread from an older one to talk about
auto-abandon. In the previous thread, I believe I explained my
concerns, but since the topic split, perhaps it would be good to
summarize why this is an
On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com writes:
Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1
week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see the value. A
change-set that has been
+1
On Mar 4, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that we add Ihar Hrachyshka to the Neutron core reviewer
team. Ihar has been doing a great job reviewing in Neutron as evidence by his
stats [1]. Ihar is the Oslo liaison for Neutron, he's been
Hi Gary,
First I’m seeing these, but I don’t see that they’re required on input, unless
I’m mis-reading those reviews. Additional of new output fields to a json
object, or adding optional inputs, is not generally considered to be backwards
incompatible behavior in an API. Does OpenStack have
Hi Vijay,
That works because we pin the version of tempest that we run against, via
tox. If you're using devstack-gate in your CI, note the two hooks found
here:
https://github.com/openstack/neutron-lbaas/blob/master/neutron_lbaas/tests/contrib/
If not, you need to mimic the behavior of the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Doug Wiegley
doug...@parksidesoftware.com wrote:
Hi lbaas'ers,
Now that lbaasv2 has shipped, the need for a regular weekly
meeting is greatly reduced. I propose that we cancel the
regular meeting, and discuss neutron-y
Hi all,
I'd like to nominate Philip Toohill as a neutron-lbaas core. Good guy, did a
bunch of work on the ref impl for lbaasv2, and and I'll let the numbers[1]
speak for themselves.
Existing lbaas cores, please vote. All three of us. :-)
[1]
On Apr 13, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com
wrote:
I'm of the opinion, which may not be the popular opinion, that barbican is
the secret store for openstack. It is in openstack, it is meant to be used
by other openstack services. v1 lives in the same code
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32,
1 - 100 of 261 matches
Mail list logo
