Hi Ryu,
I appreciate your feedbacks to my design.
And we welcome your contributes to this project.
I created a new LaunchPad team ~nova-network-poc and invited your team
~midokura to it. Please approve this invitation, then you can commit to
lp:~nova-network-poc/nova/network-service, which is
Gabe Westmaas wrote:
Given this, what makes the most sense to me is to focus on stability for
version 1.0 API excluding XML support. The bindings that are out there have
strong support for the JSON data formats in v1.0. As suggested, I think we
call the current mostly implemented 1.1 API
Hi Hisaharu,
Ah, sorry we actually already created our own branch: lp:
~midokura/nova/network-servicehttps://code.launchpad.net/~midokura/nova/network-service.
We'll be committing our stuff there.
Thanks!
Ryu
2011/4/1 石井 久治 ishii.hisah...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Hi Ryu,
I appreciate your feedbacks
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:02:34 +0200
Soren Hansen so...@openstack.org wrote:
2011/3/31 FUJITA Tomonori fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Sounds like the importance of blueprints is overrated. If you look at
Linux kernel development (more than ten times developers and
development speed, I
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:41 AM, FUJITA Tomonori
fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I bet that we'll face more serious shortage of reviewing with
developers increasing. In genera, developers prefer to write own code
rather than reviewing. We can't change the nature.
Yes, this is certainly
I've uploaded a family of related of blueprints that the USC-ISI team is hoping
to integrate into the Diablo release:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/heterogeneous-instance-types
http://wiki.openstack.org/HeterogeneousInstanceTypes
They could use some reviews in advance of the
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:19 AM, FUJITA Tomonori
fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Yeah, but discussion on the mailing list before the summit is useful
(developers who can't attend the summit are able to discuss, I might
not be able to make it too).
True enough :) Didn't mean to suggest the
I was stewing on the suggestion of subject/verb/object tuples. There's a gotcha
in the federated AuthZ situation: mapping Public and Private Objects in the
tuples. Essentially, who owns the rights over the object if the object is
externally managed (by, let's say, a service provider).
My
Brian Schott wrote:
I've uploaded a family of related of blueprints that the USC-ISI team is
hoping to integrate into the Diablo release:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/heterogeneous-instance-types
http://wiki.openstack.org/HeterogeneousInstanceTypes
Hey Brian, interesting
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Brian Schott wrote:
I've uploaded a family of related of blueprints that the USC-ISI team is
hoping to integrate into the Diablo release:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/heterogeneous-instance-types
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:55:36 +0200
Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Brian Schott wrote:
I've uploaded a family of related of blueprints that the USC-ISI
team is hoping to integrate into the Diablo release:
That is a good idea if the networking service supports it. One of the things
we've been thinking about is how to best to make the virt subsystem more
modular. It really needs a better driver-style interface with plugins for
non-libvirt virts, I think.
Mikyung actually had to build a bare
Made a few notes on thoughts at the bottom. I won't replicate the notes here
because it kind of requires reading through the link you supplied first. In
short, I think we have some options for keeping AuthZ isolated to a given
deployment and even a given service. I like this approach,
For those of you following along at home ... there was a big IRC discussion
around this:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/1075/
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or
2011/4/1 FUJITA Tomonori fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:02:34 +0200
Soren Hansen so...@openstack.org wrote:
2011/3/31 FUJITA Tomonori fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Sounds like the importance of blueprints is overrated. If you look at
Linux kernel development (more
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:02:02 +0200
Soren Hansen so...@openstack.org wrote:
I already saw
the shortage of reviewing (and I even saw that a half-baked feature
without enough reviewed was merged and reverted).
Yes! EXACTLY! Because people who ought to be reviewing aren't.
I think that we
Brian, nice spec! It's a great example of why I appreciate detailed
blueprints.
Although I think it's very interesting to store more information about
instance types, I'd be more cautious in creating new columns if it's not
strictly necessary. I'd prefer a metadata table, something similar to the
17 matches
Mail list logo
