Hi all,
thank you all for your replies.
AFAIU the consensus is leaning towards option 1, so I've proposed a patch
to governance that adds networking-generic-switch under ironic:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521894/
(not actually sure how that works / being decided on from TC side, but will
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Shivanand Tendulker
wrote:
> Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Shiv
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L <
> john.l.villalo...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sending this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would vote for Opti
Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'.
Thanks and Regards
Shiv
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L <
john.l.villalo...@intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks for sending this out.
>
>
>
> I would vote for Option 1.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshche
Thanks for sending this out.
I would vote for Option 1.
Thanks,
John
From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of
openst
Hi!
Thanks for raising this.
On 11/14/2017 05:16 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote:
Hi all,
as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like to
start a discussion on the subject.
A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of
necessity to do
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
wrote:
> As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really
> fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much
> IMHO.
Personally, I'm happy with 1 or 2. I personally think we might as well
lean
