On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> > On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016
On 03/09/2016 04:35 PM, Fei Long Wang wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday I just found cloudkitty is using the same default port
() which is used by Zaqar now. So I'm wondering if there is any
rule/policy for those new services need to be aware. I googled but
can't find anything about this. The
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
>
>
> On 11 March 2016 at 10:45, Morgan Fainberg
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A simple list is probably enough for a
On 11 March 2016 at 10:45, Morgan Fainberg
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A simple list is probably enough for a quick ref - it's not a massive
>> blocker if two projects slip up and get the same port
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
> Remember that we're talking here about all the projects, not just
> keystone. I can't see that we'll move everything to subpaths at any time
> soon, and until that point we still need to at least make an informal
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
> Remember that we're talking here about all the projects, not just
> keystone. I can't see that we'll move everything to subpaths at any time
> soon, and until that point we still need to at least make an informal
>
List (not for usage questions)"
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> > Date: Thursday 10 March 2016 at 10:04
> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> > <openstack-dev@li
On 10 March 2016 at 10:35, Fei Long Wang wrote:
> The only link I can find is
> http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/config-reference/content/firewalls-default-ports.html.
> So my question is should we document the default ports list on an official
> place given the big
Remember that we're talking here about all the projects, not just
keystone. I can't see that we'll move everything to subpaths at any time
soon, and until that point we still need to at least make an informal
agreement as to which 'default' port to expect services to live on. Even
if that's just
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent
> wrote:
> >>> +many. It would
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>> +many. It would be great if we just got rid of the runnable web
>>> servers in the projects and just
On Thu, Mar 10 2016, Thomas Herve wrote:
> Isn't devstack meant for development? Running the APIs in a WSGI
> container like Apache or uwsgi makes for a terrible debugging
> experience. Just this morning I had to prevent aodh from running in
> Apache to be able to run it standalone.
That
On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
>>
>>> These are HTTP services. They really shoudn't be claiming new ports,
>>> they should be running on a real webserver on 80 or
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> These are HTTP services. They really shoudn't be claiming new ports,
>> they should be running on a real webserver on 80 or 443.
>>
>> There is some legacy there with the
On 10/03/16 13:28 +, Chris Dent wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
These are HTTP services. They really shoudn't be claiming new ports,
they should be running on a real webserver on 80 or 443.
There is some legacy there with the original services that we are
churning through.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
These are HTTP services. They really shoudn't be claiming new ports,
they should be running on a real webserver on 80 or 443.
There is some legacy there with the original services that we are
churning through. It would be nice if new services *started*
ists.openstack.org>>
> Date: Thursday 10 March 2016 at 10:04
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][zaqar
quot;OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][zaqar][cloudkitty] Default ports list
Le 09/03/2016 23:41, Matt Fischer a écrit :
This is not
Le 09/03/2016 23:41, Matt Fischer a écrit :
This is not the first time. Monasca and Murano had a collision too[1].
When this happens the changes trickle down into automation tools also
and complicates things.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1505785
IMHO, all that info has to
This is not the first time. Monasca and Murano had a collision too[1]. When
this happens the changes trickle down into automation tools also and
complicates things.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1505785
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
> From an
>From an ops point of view, this would be extremely helpful information to
share with various teams around an organization. Even a simple wiki page
would be great.
On 10 March 2016 at 10:35, Fei Long Wang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Yesterday I just found cloudkitty is using
21 matches
Mail list logo