On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:04 AM Christian Berendt
wrote:
> It is possible to add a domain as a member, however this is not taken in
> account. It should be mentioned that you can also add non-existing project
> ids as a member.
Yes, you can add any string as an image member. Back when image
s
Hello Operators,
There's a spec-lite up to deprecate the owner_is_tenant option, with
the goal being to eliminate the option so that the owner of an image
is always the project (tenant). Based on a survey of operators in
March 2017, no one is using the option in its non-default
configuration, so
Hello Operators,
The spec for a fix of OSSN-0075, "Deleted Glance image IDs may be
reassigned", has been revised after discussions at the PTG last week
and is ready for your comments. As you may be aware, the spec has
been held up over disagreement about the proper way to fix the issue,
but the G
x27;d prefer this be fixed by disallowing the
functionality completely so that it could not be used by any user
(even an admin) in any cloud: 12.5%
-- end --
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Brian Rosmaita
wrote:
> The Glance spec freeze is coming up soon and we could use operator
> input on a propos
The Glance spec freeze is coming up soon and we could use operator
input on a proposal to govern a currently unrestricted functionality
by policy. The survey is 6 multiple choice questions and closes at
23:59 UTC on Tuesday 3 October 2017, so please fill it out right away.
The purpose of the surv
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
'ga
Hello operators,
The Glance team is conducting another survey about Glance usage.
We could use responses from *all* operators on this one. It's about
using the glance-cache tool, and we are interested in hearing from both
operators who use it and also operators who don't.
The length of the surv
On 4/1/17 2:16 PM, Ignazio Cassano wrote:
> Tested configuration in the cluster. Heat now works as expexted.
> Registry_host address must be the host address not the cluster vip.
> Regards
> Ignazio
Glad you got it working!
cheers,
brian
___
OpenStack
| updated_at | 2017-03-31T19:47:52Z |
> | virtual_size | None |
> | visibility | public |
> +--+--+
>
> It seems
On 3/31/17 10:52 AM, Ignazio Cassano wrote:
> Hi all,
> I just installed openstack newton on centos 7 and enabled glance with v2
> api.
> When I execute a simple heat stack, it returns the following error:
>
> ERROR: Property error: : resources.my_instance.properties.image: :
> HTTPMultipleChoices
On 3/30/17 1:48 AM, Massimo Sgaravatto wrote:
> Thanks a lot
>
> Aren't there problems to change the type of an image (qcow2 --> raw) if
> there are VMs instantiated using that image ?
I missed the image conversion part. Glance doesn't allow you (even an
admin) to change the checksum of an image
Hello operators,
The Glance team is conducting another survey about Glance usage. This
one is about image ownership, as controlled by the configuration option
'owner_is_tenant'. We could use answers from both operators who deploy
using the default value as well as operators who use the non-defau
If you've never deployed, packaged, or used the Artifacts API supplied
by Glance or Glare, you can safely disregard this message.
There's a patch up [0] to remove the legacy EXPERIMENTAL Artifacts API
code from the Glance code repository. (This is an entirely separate
issue from the question of w
org/#/c/422897/
thanks,
brian
On 12/2/16 5:33 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> Hello Operators,
>
> Here are the results of the recent operators' poll concerning the
> upcoming image visibility changes in Glance and the direction we plan to
> take. Thanks to all participants
Hello operators,
The Glance team is conducting another survey about Glance usage. This
one is for operators who are currently using (or contemplating using)
the swift multi-tenant storage backend for Glance, a feature which is
*not* enabled by default.
The survey is only 5 questions long, so it
Hello Operators,
Here are the results of the recent operators' poll concerning the
upcoming image visibility changes in Glance and the direction we plan to
take. Thanks to all participants for helping us come to a data-driven
decision on a contentious issue.
(For background on the operators' pol
UTC on Friday 9 December 2016
On 11/22/16, 4:34 PM, "Brian Rosmaita"
wrote:
> Hello Operators,
>
> Glance has a "multiple image locations" feature that's been a pain point
> for developers and operators.
>
> The original developers have left the proje
Hello Operators,
Glance has a "multiple image locations" feature that's been a pain point
for developers and operators.
The original developers have left the project and we are trying to
determine the use cases people have that involve multiple image locations,
because we'd like to either
(a) dis
the cloud have access. Since members only make sense on shared images, that's
the reason why member operations can only be performed on an image in 'shared'
visibility.
Cheers,
Sam
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Brian Rosmaita
mailto:brian.rosma...@rackspace.com>> wr
On 11/17/16, 1:39 AM, "Sam Morrison"
mailto:sorri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 17 Nov. 2016, at 3:49 pm, Brian Rosmaita
mailto:brian.rosma...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
Ocata workflow: (1) create an image with default visibility, (2) change
its visibility to 'shared'
Hello Operators,
The long-awaited implementation of "community images" in Glance [0] is
just around the corner, but before we can merge it, we need to make a
decision about how the database migration of the image 'visibility' field
will work. We could use your help.
Here's what's at issue:
Up t
21 matches
Mail list logo
