Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] fair standards for all hypervisor drivers

On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 09:06 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 08/07/2014 08:06 PM, Michael Still wrote: > > It seems to me that the tension here is that there are groups who > > would really like to use features in newer libvirts that we don't CI > > on in the gate. Is it naive to think that a poss

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] fair standards for all hypervisor drivers

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 15:25 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 09:06 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 08/07/2014 08:06 PM, Michael Still wrote: > > > It

[openstack-dev] [nova] Retrospective veto revert policy

Hey (Terrible name for a policy, I know) >From the version_cap saga here: https://review.openstack.org/110754 I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations like this. Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the procedure to be: https://etherpad

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] so what do i do about libvirt-python if i'm on precise?

On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 15:34 -0700, Clark Boylan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014, at 03:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2014-07-30 13:21:10 -0700 (-0700), Joe Gordon wrote: > > > While forcing people to move to a newer version of libvirt is > > > doable on most environments, do we want to do that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Nominating Jay Pipes for nova-core

On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 14:02 -0700, Michael Still wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to nominate Jay Pipes for the nova-core team. > > Jay has been involved with nova for a long time now. He's previously > been a nova core, as well as a glance core (and PTL). He's been around > so long that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 18:03 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is > facing complex challenges. How we handle those might determine the > ultimate success or failure of OpenStack. > > With this cycle we hit new limits

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities back > into the projects will provide an overall better release, I think it's > going to take a long time before it lightens our load to the point where > we get more breathing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:36 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > Yes. > > > > Additionally, and I think we've been getting better at this in the 2 cycles > > that we've had an all-elected TC, I think we need to learn how to say no on > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 14:26 -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > It seems like this is exactly what the slots give us, though. The core > review > > team picks a number of slots indicating how much work they think they can > > actually do (less than the available number of blueprints), and then > > blu

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 14:12 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > Here is the full nova proposal on "Blueprint in Kilo: Runways and > Project Priorities" > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112733/ > http://docs-draft.openstack.org/33/112733/4/check/gate-nova-docs/5f38603/doc/build/html/devref/runways.h

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] so what do i do about libvirt-python if i'm on precise?

On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 10:26 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:09:52PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 15:34 -0700, Clark Boylan wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014, at 03:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > > > On 20

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] stable branches & failure to handle review backlog

On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 14:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit : > > On 29/07/14 12:15, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> Looking at the current review backlog I think that we have to > >> seriously question whether our stable branch review process in > >> Nova is working to an acc

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] 3rd Party CI vs. Gerrit

On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote: > cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes: > > > Sean Dague writes: > > > >> This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a Grease Monkey > >> script to purge all the 3rd Party CI content out of Jenkins UI. People > >> are w

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Retrospective veto revert policy

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey > > (Terrible name for a policy, I know) > > From the version_cap saga here: > > https://review.openstack.org/110754 > > I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations > like t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Retrospective veto revert policy

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey > > (Terrible name for a policy, I know) > > From the version_cap saga here: > > https://review.openstack.org/110754 > > I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations > like t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 14:23 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Clint Byrum wrote: > > Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: > > > > Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. > > Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. > > Cinder is a set of tools t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [ptls] The Czar system, or how to scale PTLs

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 11:01 -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > I don't see that as something the wider OpenStack community needs to > dictate. We have a heavyweight election process for PTLs once every > cycle because that used to be the process for electing the TC. Now that > it no longer serves this

Re: [openstack-dev] Criteria for giving a -1 in a review

appreciate learning better ways to do things. I've > > definitely become a much better python developer as a result of the > > detailed scrutiny and feedback provided via code reviews. > > > > So while I agree with the general message you seem to be proposing (e.g >

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Launchpad tracking of oslo projects

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 11:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > TL;DR: > Let's create an Oslo projectgroup in Launchpad to track work across all > Oslo libraries. In library projects, let's use milestones connected to > published versions rather than the common milestones. Sounds good to me, Thierry. T

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] usage patterns for oslo.config

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 15:06 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Devananda van der Veen > wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Doug Hellmann > > wrote: > >> > >> That’s right. The preferred approach is to put the register_opt() in > >> *runtime* code somewhere be

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] usage patterns for oslo.config

On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 10:00 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Aug 26, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 15:06 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Devananda van der Veen > >> wrote: > >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging] Request to include AMQP 1.0 support in Juno-3

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:24 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 08/27/2014 03:35 PM, Ken Giusti wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I believe Juno-3 is our last chance to get this feature [1] included > > into olso.messaging. > > > > I honestly believe this patch is about as low risk as possible for a > > c

[openstack-dev] [nova] libvirt version_cap, a postmortem

Hey The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and one perception of the whole thing appears to be: A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red Hat nova-cores and then the same individuals piled on with -2s when a revert was proposed to allow further discuss

Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Zaqar graduation (round 2) [was: Comments on the concerns arose during the TC meeting]

On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 14:51 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Flavio Percoco wrote: > > [...] > > Based on the feedback from the meeting[3], the current main concern is: > > > > - Do we need a messaging service with a feature-set akin to SQS+SNS? > > [...] > > I think we do need, as Samuel puts it,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during the TC meeting

On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:46 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: > > On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > >> The questions now before us are: > >> - should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a > >> messaging-as-a-service component? >

Re: [openstack-dev] Propose "project story wiki" idea

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 10:43 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > On 11/19/2013 09:33 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: > >> The idea of this proposal is that every OpenStack project should have > >> "story" wiki page. It means to publish every week one short message that > >> contains

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution Server, Trusted Messaging

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Russell Bryant wrote: > > [...] > > I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for > > multiple reasons. > > > > - Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having to > > wait for a new project

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Proposal to add Matt Riedemann to nova-core

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 15:53 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to propose adding Matt Riedemann to the nova-core review team. > > Matt has been involved with nova for a long time, taking on a wide range > of tasks. He writes good code. He's very engaged with the developm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Proposal to re-add Dan Prince to nova-core

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 14:32 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to propose that we re-add Dan Prince to the nova-core > review team. > > Dan Prince has been involved with Nova since early in OpenStack's > history (Bexar timeframe). He was a member of the nova-core review t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [QA] Triaging Bugs during Review

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 13:06 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I tend to follow merges and look for valuable havana backports. A few bug > fixes have merged recently where the associated bug is untriaged (i.e. the > severity is listed as 'Unknown'). I assume that reviewers of a bu

Re: [openstack-dev] [all project] Treating recently seen recheck bugs as critical across the board

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > On Nov 26, 2013 8:48 AM, "Dolph Mathews" wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > >> > >> Dolph Mathews wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Collins > >> > mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > Based on the recent discussion that came out about not having enough > > information in the commit message when syncing oslo-incubator modules, > > I was think

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 22 November 2013 14:59, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > One other thought I had was to add the ability to split one Oslo sync up > > into multiple commits, either one per module, or even one per Oslo commit > > for some really large module chang

Re: [openstack-dev] How to best make User Experience a priority in every project

On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:06 -0600, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > However, as was apparent in the Technical Committee meeting discussion > > > about it yesterday, most of us are not convinced that establishing and > > blessing a separate team is t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Improving oslo-incubator update.py

On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 11:50 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 26/11/13 22:54 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >> >1) Store the commit sha from wh

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] rpc concurrency control rfc

Hi, On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:45 +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: > Moving this to the ml as requested, would appreciate > comments/thoughts/feedback. Thanks, I too would appreciate input from others. > So, I recently proposed a small patch to the oslo rpc code (initially in > oslo-incubator then

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup

Hi Jarda, On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:39 +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote: > I think here is the main point where I disagree and which leads to > different approaches. I don't think, that user of TripleO cares *only* > about deploying infrastructure without any knowledge where the things > go. This is

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution Server, Trusted Messaging

Hey Anyone got an update on this? The keystone blueprint for KDS was marked approved on Tuesday: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server and a new keystone review was added on Sunday, but it must be a draft since I can't access it: https://review.openstack.

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make a commitment to API stability. It's often

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:42 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > Hey - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57022/7//COMMIT_MSG - I > strongly suggested here that reusing the Nova object code is the first > step towards an objects library, and that we should be putting it in > olso; there are some reasonable

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

stability. Mark. > On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > > >> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. > > > >It's been reiterated many times, but ag

Re: [openstack-dev] creating a default for oslo config variables within a project?

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 16:23 -0600, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-03 15:56, Sean Dague wrote: > > This cinder patch - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48935/ > > > > Is blocked on failing upgrade because the updated oslo lockutils won't > > function until there is a specific configuration variable

Re: [openstack-dev] When should things get added to Oslo.Incubator

t a thought. > > -Josh > > On 12/3/13 2:39 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > >> Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these > >> types of discussions wouldn't o

Re: [openstack-dev] [Olso][DB] Remove eventlet from oslo.db

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:02 +0200, Victor Sergeyev wrote: > Hi folks! > > At the moment I and Roman Podoliaka are working on splitting of > openstack.common.db code into a separate library. And it would be nice to > drop dependency on eventlet before oslo.db is released. > > Currently, there is o

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] [barbican] Curious about oslo.messaging (from Incubation Request for Barbican)

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 05:01 +, John Wood wrote: > Hello folks, > > I was curious if there is an OpenStack project that would be a good > example to follow as we convert Barbican over to oslo messaging. > > I've been examining existing OpenStack projects such as Ceilometer and > Keystone to s

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] maintenance policy for code graduating from the incubator

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:00 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > I have updated the Oslo wiki page with these details and would appreciate > feedback on the wording used there. > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#Graduation Thanks Doug, that sounds perfect to me. Mark. _

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][TripleO] Nested resources

Hi Kevin, On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 12:39 -0800, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Hi all, > > I just want to run a crazy idea up the flag pole. TripleO has the > concept of an under and over cloud. In starting to experiment with > Docker, I see a pattern start to emerge. > > * As a User, I may want to allocat

Re: [openstack-dev] [UX] Topics Summary

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 09:36 +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote: > Hey OpenStackers, > > based on the latest discussions, it was asked if we can try to post > regular updates of what is happening in our community (mostly on Askbot > forum: http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com). > > In this e-mail, I'd li

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 22:09 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > It looks like the project was moved to its own repo in April. However, I > can¹t seem to find the docs anywhere? The only thing I see is a design doc > here [1]. Are there plans for it to be packaged and put into Pypi? > ... > > [1] https:/

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 17:33 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 05:09 PM, Jarret Raim wrote: ... > >> I'd like to address the use of Celery. > >> > >> WTF > >> > >> Barbican has been around for 9 months, which means that it does not > >> predate the work that has become oslo.messaging. It

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 16:43 +, Jarret Raim wrote: > > The API and developer documentation is at > >http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/ > > This is great, thanks for the link. Would there be any objections to > adding this to the github repo and the openstack wiki pages? I spent

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: > > > >I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so > >much that the project did something different, but rather that choice > >was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine > >for them to i

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

Hi Julien, On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:45 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/messaging-decouple-cfg > > So I've gone through the code and started to write a plan on how I'd do > things: > > https://wiki.open

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:41 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > If the goal is "allow applications to use oslo.messaging without using > > oslo.config", then what's driving this? I'm guessing s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:55 +, Joshua Harlow wrote: > I really have to agree with this. It's especially important if > oslo.messaging is also used in libraries like taskflow. If > oslo.messaging imposes that users of it must use oslo.config then by > using it in taskflow, taskflow then imposes

Re: [openstack-dev] TransportURL and virtualhost/exchnage (was Re: [Oslo] Layering olso.messaging usage of config)

Hi Gordon, On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 18:36 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 11/18/2013 04:44 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> IIRC, one of the concerns when oslo.messaging was split out was > >> maintaining support fo

Re: [openstack-dev] [olso] [cinder] upgrade issues in lock_path in cinder after oslo utils sync

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 11:11 -0600, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-09 10:55, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 12/09/2013 11:38 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2013-12-09 08:17:45 -0800: > >>> On 12/06/2013 05:40 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2013-12-06 16:30, Clint Byrum wr

Re: [openstack-dev] Retiring "reverify no bug"

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:49 -0800, James E. Blair wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday December 11, 2013 we will remove the ability to use > "reverify no bug" to re-trigger gate runs for changes that have failed > tests. > > This was previously discussed[1] on this list. There are a few key > things to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][TripleO] Nested resources

On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 09:40 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 6 December 2013 14:11, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > > I think the security issue can be handled by not actually giving the > > underlying resource to the user in the first place. > > > > So, for example, if I wanted a bare metal node's worth

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Core criteria, review stats vs reality

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:00 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 12/09/2013 07:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Steven Hardy wrote: > >> [...] > >> The issues I have are: > >> - Russell's stats (while very useful) are being used by some projects as > >> the principal metric related to -core membersh

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] First steps towards amqp 1.0

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for > AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers > for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal would be > to add an a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more > focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO > that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a > responsibility, and that has

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Tuskar CLI after architecture changes

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 13:33 +0100, Jiří Stránský wrote: > Hi all, > > TL;DR: I believe that "As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants a > CLI for managing the deployment providing the same fundamental features > as UI." With the planned architecture changes (making tuskar-api thinner > an

Re: [openstack-dev] Announcing Fuel

Hi Mike, On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 18:31 +0400, Mike Scherbakov wrote: > Folks, > > Most of you by now have heard of Fuel, which we’ve been working on as a > related OpenStack project for a period of time - > see https://launchpad.net/fuel and > https://wiki.o

Re: [openstack-dev] Re-initializing or dynamically configuring cinder driver

Hi, On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 10:23 +0530, iKhan wrote: > Hi All, > > At present cinder driver can be only configured with adding entries in conf > file. Once these driver related entries are modified or added in conf file, > we need to restart cinder-volume service to validate the conf entries and >

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

Hi Thierry, On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > TL;DR: > Incubation is getting harder, why not ask efforts to apply for a new > program first to get the visibility they need to grow. > > Long version: > > Last cycle we introduced the concept of "Programs"

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][glance] Oslo.cfg resets not really resetting the CONF

Hi On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:14 +0530, Amala Basha Alungal wrote: > Hi, > > > > I stumbled into a situation today where in I had to write few tests that > modifies the oslo.config.cfg and in turn resets the values back in a tear > down. Acc to the docs, oslo.cfg reset() "*Clears the object state

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][glance] Oslo.cfg resets not really resetting the CONF

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:14 +0530, Amala Basha Alungal wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I stumbled into a situation tod

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 11:25 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > I'm not totally convinced we need such formality around the TC > > expressing its support for an early-stage program/project/effort/team. > > This is a difficult balance. > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 13:44 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > How about if we had an "emerging projects" page where the TC feedback on > > each project would be listed? > > > > That would give visibility to our feedback, without making

Re: [openstack-dev] Less option (was: [oslo.config] Centralized config management)

On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:34 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 09 2014, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > > > > > Hope you don't mind, I'll jump in here :) > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2014-01

Re: [openstack-dev] pep8 gating fails due to tools/config/check_uptodate.sh

On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote: > Hello all, > > It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug reported, > we probably need to mark this as Critical. > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1268614 > > Ivan Melnikov has pushed a patchset waiti

Re: [openstack-dev] pep8 gating fails due to tools/config/check_uptodate.sh

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:19 +0900, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/05/2014 12:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:49 +, Sahid Ferdjaoui wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> It looks 100% of the pep8 gate for nova is failing because of a bug &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Steve Gordon wrote: > >> From: "Anne Gentle" > >> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the > >> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service names > >> at > >> https://wiki.openstack.

Re: [openstack-dev] [PTL] Designating "required use" upstream code

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > (This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one > integrated project) > > The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the > Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each > int

Re: [openstack-dev] why do we put a license in every file?

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:29 +, Greg Hill wrote: > I'm new, so I'm sure there's some history I'm missing, but I find it > bizarre that we have to put the same license into every single file of > source code in our projects. In my past experience, a single LICENSE > file at the root-level of the

Re: [openstack-dev] supported dependency versioning and testing

On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:31 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > Hi All, > > I discussion recently came up inside of nova about what it means > supported version for a dependency means. in libvirt we gate on the > minimal version that we support but for all python dependencies we > gate on the highest vers

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] interesting problem with config filter

Hi Doug, On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 15:58 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > As we’ve discussed a few times, we want to isolate applications from > the configuration options defined by libraries. One way we have of > doing that is the ConfigFilter class in oslo.config. When a regular > ConfigOpts instance i

Re: [openstack-dev] [Oslo] [Ironic] Can we change rpc_thread_pool_size default value?

On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 07:25 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 15:54 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > > Hi! > > > > When a project is using oslo.messaging, how can we change our default > > rpc_thread_pool_size? > > > >

[openstack-dev] [nova] Timestamp formats in the REST API

Hey In this patch: https://review.openstack.org/83681 by Ghanshyam Mann, we encountered an unusual situation where a timestamp in the returned XML looked like this: 2014-04-08 09:00:14.399708+00:00 What appeared to be unusual was that the timestamp had both sub-second time resolution and t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Timestamp formats in the REST API

On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 14:48 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > My conclusions from all that: > > 1) This sucks > > 2) At the very least, we should be clear in our API samples tests > which of the three formats we expect - we should only change the > format us

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Timestamp formats in the REST API

On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 10:39 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey > > > > In this patch: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/83681 > > > > by Ghanshyam Mann, we encountered an unusual situat

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] custom gerrit dashboard - per project review inbox zero

On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 08:20 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > Based on some of my blog posts on gerrit queries, I've built and gotten > integrated a custom inbox zero dashboard which is per project in gerrit. > > ex: > https://review.openstack.org/#/projects/openstack/nova,dashboards/important-changes:re

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] status of quota class

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 10:27 -0600, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 13:47 +0100, Mehdi Abaakouk wrote: > > But 'quota_class' is never set when a nova RequestContext is created. > > When I created quota classes, I envisioned the authentication component > of the WSGI stack setting t

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][infra] Plan for the splitting of Horizon into two repositories

On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 15:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 05/28/2014 08:54 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > > Hello, > > > > we plan to finally do the split in this cycle, and I started some > > preparations for that. I also started to prepare a detailed plan for the > > whole operation, as it see

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][infra] Plan for the splitting of Horizon into two repositories

On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:19 +0200, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > On 06/05/2014 10:59 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > >> If I'm late to the party and the only one that this is news to, that is > >> fine. Sixteen additional repos seems like a lot of additiona

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][TC] Glance Functional API and Cross-project API Consistency

On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 18:22 +, Hemanth Makkapati wrote: > Hello All, > I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance community has > decided to take for doing functional API. Also, I'm writing to > solicit your feedback on this approach in the light of cross-project > API consistency. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] [TC] Program Mission Statement and the Catalog

On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 18:03 -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote: > Hi folks, > > > I'd like to propose the Images program to adopt a mission statement > [1] and then change it to reflect our new aspirations of acting as a > Catalog that works with artifacts beyond just disk images [2]. > > > Since

[openstack-dev] [oslo] Mehdi Abaakouk added to oslo.messaging-core

Mehdi has been making great contributions and reviews on oslo.messaging for months now, so I've added him to oslo.messaging-core. Thank you for all your hard work Mehdi! Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lis

Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified

On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. > We have no process, n

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified

Hi John, On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:59 -0600, John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, John Griffith > wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > >> Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: > >> 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the "certification" > >> to the project level. > >> 2.

Re: [openstack-dev] [marconi] Reconsidering the unified API model

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 19:31 +, Kurt Griffiths wrote: > Lately we have been talking about writing drivers for traditional > message brokers that will not be able to support the message feeds > part of the API. I’ve started to think that having a huge part of the > API that may or may not “work”,

Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 14:06 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 10 June 2014 09:33, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something > > I'm really keen on, and why I think the word "certification" is best > >

Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane > > thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification&q

Re: [openstack-dev] [marconi] Reconsidering the unified API model

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 17:33 +, Janczuk, Tomasz wrote: > From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a > *multi-tenant*, *HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent > of SQS or Azure Storage Queues. > > As far as I know there are no off-the-shelve message brokers

Re: [openstack-dev] [marconi] Reconsidering the unified API model

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 21:59 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 17:33 +, Janczuk, Tomasz wrote: > > From my perspective the key promise of Marconi is to provide a > > *multi-tenant*, *HTTP* based queuing system. Think an OpenStack equivalent > > of SQS or

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] versioning and releases

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > As part of the push to release code from the oslo incubator in > stand-alone libraries, we have had several different discussions about > versioning and release schedules. This is an attempt to collect all of > the decisions we have made in

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo][messaging] Further improvements and refactoring

Hi, On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 15:47 +0400, Dina Belova wrote: > Dims, > > > No problem with creating the specs, we just want to understand if the > community is OK with our suggestions in general :) > If so, I'll create the appropriate specs and we'll discuss them :) Personally, I find it difficult

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder][ceilometer][glance][all] Loading clients from a CONF object

On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 16:57 +1200, Steve Baker wrote: > On 11/06/14 15:07, Jamie Lennox wrote: > > Among the problems cause by the inconsistencies in the clients is that > > all the options that are required to create a client need to go into the > > config file of the service. This is a pain to co

  1   2   3   >