[Openstack-operators] [upgrades][skip-level][leapfrog] - RFC - Skipping releases when upgrading

Hello Stackers, As I'm sure many of you know there was a talk about doing "skip-level"[0] upgrades at the OpenStack Summit which quite a few folks were interested in. Today many of the interested parties got together and talked about doing more of this in a formalized capacity. Essentially we're

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][cinder][glance][neutron][horizon][policy] defining admin-ness

I think a option 2 is better. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) From: Lance Bragstad [lbrags...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 May 2017 3:47 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re:

[Openstack-operators] [glance] comments requested on spec to fix security issue

Hello Operators, There's a Glance spec up for fixing OSSN-0075. It would be really helpful to know how operators feel about the impact of the proposal and the alternatives described in the spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468179/ (Something you may not know is that if you click on the

Re: [Openstack-operators] preferred option to fix long-standing user-visible bug in nova?

On 05/25/2017 01:53 PM, Marc Heckmann wrote: On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:46 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: What do operators think we should do? I see two options, neither of which is really ideal: 1) Decide that the "new" behaviour has been out in the wild long enough to become the defacto

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][cinder][glance][neutron][horizon][policy] defining admin-ness

See below. On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 15:49 -0500, Lance Bragstad wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Marc Heckmann > wrote: First of all @Lance, thanks for taking the time to write and summarize this for us. It's much appreciated.

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][cinder][glance][neutron][horizon][policy] defining admin-ness

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Marc Heckmann wrote: > First of all @Lance, thanks for taking the time to write and summarize > this for us. It's much appreciated. > Absolutely! it helps me think about it, too. > > While I'm not aware of all the nuances, based on

Re: [Openstack-operators] preferred option to fix long-standing user-visible bug in nova?

Sorry for the late reply, but see below. On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:46 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Hi, > > In Mitaka nova introduced the "cpu_thread_policy" which can be > specified in  > flavor extra-specs.  In the original spec, and in the original > implementation,  > not specifying the