Awesome! Thanks for the clarification! I was ready to have a heart attack! ☺
Edgar
From: on behalf of David Medberry
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 12:17 PM
To: "Logan V."
Cc: Edgar Magana ,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Y.Rahulan wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
First, a couple house keeping items. You probably just want to join
the operators list, and you probably want to write an email with a
good subject line, and not to reply to a digest email. :)
Now, with that out
Am I understanding correctly that in Ocata release, the policy.json file for
NOVA is blank?
What does that mean for us (operators)? Everything will be open for everybody
for the other way around?
In any case, that sounds like an awful approach because know if we upgrade we
will need to be sure
I think this actually started in Newton. Yes it ships blank, however
there is still a default policy implemented as before with similar
defaults separating the admin and user roles. The default policy is
implemented in the nova code base
Yep what Logan said. I'm pretty sure Sean Dague talked about this at the
last Operator's mid-cycle. The "blank" policy.json just means you get the
default policies. You set a value to override the defaults.
I don't see it in the Ocata relnotes but git indicates this is where it
happened:
On 23/02/17 03:12, Gonzalez Mendoza, Hector Isaac wrote:
Here the notes from our last Meeting on 02/16:
* Eddie presented MySql Database proposal and the relation between
data from Launchpad and OpenStack exceptions.
* Shashank & Nish proposed clustering approach to analyze data.
*
Thanks for the reminder Leong! Edgar I provided comments as requested; they
are on the document itself.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> UC Members,
>
>
>
> Do not forget to prepare your feedback on the Product WG proposal for the
> Forum. We need
and the 'nova-policy' command was introduced at the same time finally
found the right release notes:
ref: https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/nova/newton.html
The nova-policy command line is implemented as a tool to experience the
under-development feature policy discovery. User can
UC Members,
Do not forget to prepare your feedback on the Product WG proposal for the
Forum. We need to internally approve it before we move it to the next phase.
Thanks,
Edgar
From: "Yih Leong, Sun."
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:34 AM
To: Edgar Magana
Extending the details to the UC & Ops Mailing Lists.
Edgar
On 2/23/17, 8:34 AM, "Thierry Carrez" wrote:
Here are some logistical details on the Board + TC meeting (and TC
vision facilitation day) that will happen in Boston in two weeks. Let me
know if you
Thanks for confirming I'm not fully insane. We only have one cluster left to
upgrade now (naturally the oldest, biggest and most dangerous one). Hopefully
it doesn't repeat there, but if it does, you've given me a few more things to
look at.
From: j...@topjian.net
Subject: Re:
Hi,
As discussed in previous UC meeting, can I also ask UC members to review
the proposal [1] on how Product WG can help to facilitate the Forum?
[1]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jTlO4UdNjc5cOKboeCNhLDEdttazWWlDgNxxulUrPNg/edit
Thanks!
Leong.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM,
Dear UC Community,
Our next UC IRC meeting is scheduled for this Monday Feb 27th at 1900 UTC in
(freenode) #openstack-meeting.
Agenda:
- Welcome UC elected members: Shamail and Melvin
- Review previous action items
- Board + TC + UC meeting in Boston (March 8-9, 2017)
- Open agenda
Thanks,
Nova no longer ships with a fleshed-out skeleton of all policy.json. It
ships blank.
Discussion in here on how to help operators select specific settings to
include in their policy.json via documentation.
You (as an op) may want to review and comment on this. This model is being
proposed for all
14 matches
Mail list logo