What about 'teapot' (as in the idiom 'tempest in a teapot'[1])
-Drew
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot
On 08/15/2014 01:14 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
Hi Everyone,
So as part of splitting out common functionality from tempest into a library [1]
we need to create a new repo
On 11/17/14 10:27 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> Is the new driver drop-in compatible with the old one? IF not, can
> existing systems be upgraded to the new driver via some manual steps, or
> is it basically a completely new driver with similar functionality?
The driver in san/solaris.py focuses en
spec/oracle-zfssa-cinder-driver
> [2]
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/oracle-zfssa-nfs-cinder-driver
>
>
> On 11/24/2014 11:53 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 10:14 AM, Drew Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/14 10:27 PM, Duncan Thoma
On 12/18/14 6:58 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> revisiting the package management for the Horizon's static files again,
> I would like to propose a particular solution. Hopefully it will allow
> us to both simplify the whole setup, and use the popular tools for the
> job, without lo
On 1/13/15 7:59 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-01-13 08:50:28 +0100 (+0100), Matthias Runge wrote:
> [...]
>> But, as far as I understand, node.js will become a development
>> requirement (and most probably a requirement for testing), but not for
>> deployment.
> [...]
>
> A requirement for
On 1/14/15 6:25 AM, Anton Zemlyanov wrote:
> Solaris is supported by node.js:
x86 is certainly supported. Always has been. That's not the issue in
question. My point was that SPARC is not supported.
>
> Solaris 32-bit Binary:
> http://nodejs.org/dist/v0.10.35/node-v0.10.35-sunos-x86.tar.gz
On 1/14/15 11:49 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> > Solaris is supported by node.js:
>
> x86 is certainly supported. Always has been. That's not the issue in
> question. My point was that SPARC is not supported.
>
>
> I think Oracle's got enough money to support Node.js on SPARC.
On 1/16/15 9:08 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> We are, and as this conversation has veered off in a destructive
> direction, I think we should back up and look at the compromise Radomir
> posted [1] to see if that solves the original technical problem we all have.
>
> Does having the requirements spec
On 10/27/14 9:35 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I have no problem with supporting FreeBSD as a hypervisor operating system,
>> especially if there is a solid team on the FreeBSD side that will commit to
>> maintaining the changes required and adding the necessary CI (especially
>> ensuring that
On 10/27/14, 5:57 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 08:51 AM, Drew Fisher wrote:
>> If devstack itself (not CI, but devstack) is a hard requirement for
>> integration we need to probably start up a different thread on what the
>> best way for other OSes like FreeBS
We (here at Oracle) have a replacement for this driver which includes
local ZFS, iSCSI and FC drivers all with ZFS as the underlying driver.
We're in the process of getting CI set up so we can contribute the
driver upstream along with our ZFSSA driver (which is already in the tree).
If anybody has
ed to do to get these new flags to nova boot from novaclient
into nova-api and ultimately my compute driver?
Thanks for any help!
-Drew Fisher
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
api/poenstack/compute/servers.py code for "scheduler_hints" (e.g.
> _extract_scheduler_hints() ) then that should point you in the
> right direction.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Phil
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Drew Fisher [mailto:drew
I hate to be that guy but I have to bump this thread to try to get answer.
Can anybody help me out?
On 10/28/13 4:06 PM, Drew Fisher wrote:
> Chris and Phil,
>
> Thanks for the clue on using scheduler_hints as a template. I've
> implemented a V2 API version of my extension to
This email is meant to be the ML discussion of a question I brought up
during the TC meeting on April 25th.; [1]
The TL;DR version is:
Reading the user survey [2], I see the same issues time and time again.
Pages 18-19 of the survey are especially common points.
Things move too fast, no LTS rele
On 6/7/17 4:47 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Team,
>
> Here's the update to the base services resolution from the TC:
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/base-services.html
>
> First request is to Distros, Packagers, Deployers, anyone who
> installs/configures OpenStack:
> Please ma
16 matches
Mail list logo
