Hi Soren,
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 22:11 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/8/24 Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com:
- Lack of RPM support. Turns out RPM distros are still kind of popular,
and at least one of our major contributors (hi, NTT) rolls out on
RHEL/CentOS, and one of our partners who
Hi,
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 22:38 -0500, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
After the mailing list discussion around APIs a few weeks back,
several community members asked the Project Policy Board to come up
with a position on APIs. The conclusion of the PPB was that each
project's PTL will own the
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 23:34 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Now that we've cut the Diablo release, we are moving Nova code hosting
over to Github and reviews to Gerrit. Gerrit is new for those of you
who haven't been contributing to the other projects that have already
Hi Vish,
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 10:04 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
2) Sorry about the review spam earlier. I was trying to bring in an
old branch and keep the commit history. It seems that in the new
world of gerrit, we're going to end up squashing everything in to one
commit anyway so
Hi Kiall,
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 22:41 +0100, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
Hiya,
I'm looking to find out if there is any way to access an instance via its
public (floating ip) from within the same instance.
The docs mention that this is not possible here:
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 12:58 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 12:29 +0100, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
Hi Mark,
That part I understand :) Consider these rules (nabbed from forum posting
herehttp://www.zeroshell.net/eng/forum/viewtopic.php?p=655sid
Hi Brian,
I think the versioning rules below are fine, but there are some other
things to think about:
- As others raised, what version (if any) should be in the URIs?
We could put the full version number in the URIs so long as we
maintain support for the older, compatible versions i.e.
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
+1 (sorry for the lag, been travelling).
I'd like to start two wiki pages; one collecting goals for the APIs,
one for collecting common patterns of use in the APIs (not rules, not
even guidelines).
Yeah, it'd be awesome to have the
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:17 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 19/09/2011, at 4:03 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
OTOH, POST to update the object's metadata doesn't make much sense. We
don't accept the entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate.
PATCH[1] would probably have
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:40 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/10/11 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com:
I think the versioning rules below are fine, but there are some other
things to think about:
- As others raised, what version (if any) should be in the URIs?
We could put the full
Hey,
I've posted a proposal for how the stable branch could work here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
and a proposed diablo branch for nova:
http://github.com/markmc/nova/tree/diablo
The wiki page seems to be 404 for folks for some bizarre reason, but you
can get to it from:
Hi James,
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:58 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Hey,
I've posted a proposal for how the stable branch could work here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
and a proposed diablo branch for nova:
http
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:16 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
Chris Wright chr...@sous-sol.org writes:
* Mark McLoughlin (mar...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:58 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Anyone can propose a cherry-pick
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:27 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:47 +, Chris Behrens wrote:
On Sep 7, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Some conversations about GitHub, project autonomy
Hi James,
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 12:43 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Each project will have a branch named after the previous release. For
example, the stable branch for the diablo release will be simply
called 'diablo'.
Sounds good. I'll
Hey,
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 14:22 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Lets get this going asap. We don't really have a place to point
people who are deploying diablo and running into bugs.
I've pushed the first small batch of commits:
Hey Dave,
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 09:18 +0100, Dave Walker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
I've posted a proposal for how the stable branch could work here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
SNIP
Hi Mark,
Firstly, apologies
Hey,
FWIW - we're going to be doing a bunch of Fedora 16 OpenStack testing on
#fedora-test-day today
Cheers,
Mark.
Forwarded Message
From: Tim Flink tfl...@redhat.com
Reply-to: Fedora Cloud SIG cl...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To: test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org,
Hi Dolph,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 14:35 +, Dolph Mathews wrote:
We definitely need to publish a tarball for diablo.
Cool. Will the version be 1.0 or 2011.3, though? :)
I recently refactored/centralized our versioning (we were reporting
different versions in different places in the
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 15:20 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
[snip]
What do people think of the linked approach to versioning and extensibility?
I like it. With the exception of the media types, it's very similar to
the approach we took with the RHEV API[1] and it works really well. We
Hi,
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 20:18 -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if there was a reason that openstack is not using
libguestfs more frequently than not.
Was there a technical reason for that, or a lack of packages in
distributions (or other reasons?).
Just wondering
Hi Nati
(Restarting our offline discussion here ...)
I see you've proposed a stack of changes to Nova. Nice work! Kudos!
https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/diablo+owner:nati,n,z
However, they shouldn't be submitted against the stable/diablo
Hey,
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:50 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
Since there seems to be some confusion around master vs. stable/diablo
vs. core reviewers, I think it warrants a small thread.
When at the Design Summit we discussed setting up stable branches, I
warned about the
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 09:02 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
https://review.openstack.org/328
I don't mind losing my powers over stable/diablo.
On a related note
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Only folks that understand the stable branch policy[1] should be
allowed to +2 on the stable branch.
Basically, a stable branch reviewer should only +2 if:
- It fixes a significant
Hi Dave,
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 17:33 +, Dave Walker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:02:23AM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
SNIP
But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
https://review.openstack.org/328
James, help a poor confused soul out here, would you? :)
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:11 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
and archaeologists can easily find both related changes in master and all
backports of specific change.
Hi Dolph,
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 13:58 -0600, Dolph Mathews wrote:
Keystone needs your help testing!
The goal of this branch is to be completely compatible with diablo,
while including as many improvements as possible. Pending your
satisfaction, we'd like to tag this branch in the coming
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 08:57 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:11 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
We still have a problem with versioning, though.
- Essex keystone will be 2012.1
- Diablo keystone was tagged as 2011.3
- Diablo keystone was actually versioned as 1.0 (see setup.py) even
(Removing libvirt-list from cc)
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:39 +0100, Doude wrote:
Hi Kei,
I use the Diablo release of openStack and I didn't change anything in
the libvirt XML template.
I can saw a difference for the console file.
The trunk version of Nova use a file for the logging console
Hi James,
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:03 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Only folks that understand the stable branch policy[1] should be
allowed to +2 on the stable branch.
Basically
Hi Yuriy,
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 11:38 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
Since we're clear about how changes should be included in stable branches,
are there any expectations on how often packages (e.g. Ubuntu ones) should
be updated?
I've pushed out a Fedora 16 update with the latest stable branch
Hey,
Just a heads up - I've started proposing backports to glance's stable
branch. See here:
https://review.openstack.org/#q,branch:stable/diablo+project:openstack/glance+owner:markmc+status:open,n,z
Cheers,
Mark.
___
Mailing list:
Hi Monty,
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 08:06 -0800, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey Mark!
On 11/28/2011 07:09 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
I've just posted this blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-common/+spec/common-config
http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonConfigModule
Hi Jason,
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 10:24 -0600, Jason Kölker wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 08:06 -0800, Monty Taylor wrote:
The idea is to unify option handling across projects with this new API.
The module would eventually (soon?) live in openstack-common.
Awesome. So - whaddya think
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:20 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
It seems I've talked myself into preferring option e). It's too much
work to do on my own, though, and it's going to be disruptive, so we
need to do it real soon. I think it'll be worth it, though.
(e) sounds right to me. But hopefully
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 10:32 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
TL;DR summary:
The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and
doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll
either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development
release. If
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:07 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
I think there are two distinct use cases here.
Totally agree. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to test
upstream git branches and releases.
To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to
help test
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:32 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/11/29 Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com:
Mark is maintaining openstack for Fedora and has made some excellent
contributions to nova. He has also been very prolific with reviews lately.
Lets add him to core and make his
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 15:36 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Just read through the description and the code. I don't have any
issues with the way it is implemented, although others may have some
suggestions/tweaks. I think it is most important to get the common
code established, so I'm up
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 15:32 -0800, Andy Smith wrote:
Took a look over the wiki for this. The approach is very similar to one
I've used recently so I wanted to bring up something that looks like it may
have been overlooked.
In testing it is frequent practice that you want to ensure global
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch.
The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:11 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should not provide such
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 19:54 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Hello Everyone,
The Nova subteams have now been active for a month and a half. Some
things are going very well, and others could use a little improvement.
To keep things moving forward, I'd like to make the following changes:
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 14:12 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
There are still a number of issues involved in turning this on for
trunk, not only related to stability and determinism, but also to
coordinating simultaneous changes to multiple projects. However, I
think this is reasonably stable and
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:27 -0500, Mark Washenberger wrote:
Does code specific to Trusted Computing belong in Nova? It seems like
it should be supported through Scheduler plugins and API plugins (if
necessary).
Just a general thought on this - it's all very well deciding to not
support a
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 11:26 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:27 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:47 +, Chris Behrens wrote:
On Sep 7, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jay Pipes
Hi Brian,
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:35 -0500, Brian Waldon wrote:
So there obviously isn't one clear way to version a RESTful API. Not
every API is created equal, and therefore doesn't need the same
capabilities in its versioning mechanism. At this point, it is
important to determine what
On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 12:50 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
2011/12/30 John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.com:
Oops, sorry about that. Forgot to check it in the venv, which reveals the
issue:
% tools/with_venv.sh
jdg@grumpy ~/Projects/OpenStack/nova
% python
Python 2.7.2+ (default,
Hi James,
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 14:51 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
Having said that, the Jenkins job has been running in silent mode on
master for several days with few false errors. My feeling from the
design summit was that it was generally understood there would be a
shakedown period, and
On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 09:41 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
In short, the process for new developers will be:
1) Sign CLA via Echosign
2) Record signature in wiki
3) Apply for membership in openstack-cla
4) Contribute!
With only step 3 being added by this change.
I'd like to enable this
Hey,
As Jason says - another year, another openstack-common thread! :-)
I've just written up the plan Jason and I have for openstack-common:
http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary
(also pasted below to make it easier to reply to)
I guess what we're trying to do is quickly get this thing
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 19:54 +, Ewan Mellor wrote:
I'd love to see openstack-common get off the ground, so I'm all in
favor of this.
One question: why do you feel that you need such strong backwards
compatibility? If someone makes a change in openstack-common and
makes simultaneous
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:04 -0800, Monty Taylor wrote:
Operationally they'll need to be able to make the change in a way that
it can be sequenced. We don't have a concept of simultaneous tied
changes. So a the change you describe would need to look like:
Land change to openstack-common to
the document,
openstack is potentially left open to a lawsuit, if an employee
unspecified in the CLA, contributes something they consider IP. I
seriously hate all this legal stuff.
I'll leave that one for Richard too :-)
Cheers,
Mark.
Cheers,
Rick
On 01/03/2012 06:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:16 -0500, m...@openstack.org wrote:
As Jim mentioned, I'm going to focus on establishing the foundation
this year and am really excited to be able to dedicate the time and
attention it deserves, alongside Jonathan, Stef, and many others.
I've found myself
Hi Todd,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:29 -0500, Todd Willey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
That concerns me for two reasons
Hi Soren,
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 10:44 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
2012/1/5 Jim Curry jim.cu...@rackspace.com:
We are basing this initial proposal on a lot of input received from the
community and beyond — developers, users, companies, other open source
projects and foundations, lawyers,
Hi Richard,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 14:11 -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:49:29PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Rick,
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 09:02 -0600, Rick Clark wrote:
Hey Mark,
First of all, orthogonally, we are very lucky to not have Copyright
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 10:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
This change is in place; membership in openstack-cla is required in
order to submit changes to Gerrit.
All of the -core groups have been made administrators of that group. If
core members could watch for new membership requests,
On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 10:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
This change is in place; membership in openstack-cla is required in
order to submit changes to Gerrit.
All of the -core groups have been made administrators of that group
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 11:20 -0800, Joshua Harlow wrote:
My goals were/are/(may continue to be, haha) the following:
...
3. Have the ability to have pkg/pip installation (and definition
separate from the main code, already starting to be done), in more
than 1 distro.
* This allows
Hey,
In the months since the Diablo release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/diablo branches of Nova and Glance.
Well, those fixes are now available as 2011.3.1 releases!
These releases are bugfix updates to Diablo and are intended to be
relatively risk free
Hey,
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 16:57 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
The openstack-common project intends to produce a python library containing
infrastructure code shared by OpenStack projects. The APIs provided by the
project should be high quality, stable, consistent and generally useful.
Jason
Hey,
Wishlist (I want a pony) bugs that have sat in launchpad for an
extended period with no progress contribute to the general noise in
launchpad - for developers trying to fix stuff that matter to people,
they're not a very good source of information.
So, how about we do this:
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 22:48 +, Matt Dietz wrote:
Hey guys,
Dragon has really stepped up lately on reviewing patches into Nova,
and has a ton of knowledge around Nova proper, so I propose he be
added to Nova core. I think he'd be a great addition to the team.
Seeing some very nice,
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:08 -0500, andi abes wrote:
I've seen a few folks apologizing for top-posts and a few pokes in some
threads about folks with less than intelligent email clients.
Which leads me to ask: are there any pointers to best practices on the
mailing list?
(replying to the right
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 09:58 -0500, andi abes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@openstack.orgwrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
I wrote this some time ago:
https://fedorahosted.org/rhevm-api/wiki/Email_Guidelines
If it's helpful, I'm
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:04 -0600, Dean Troyer wrote:
I have proposed a DevStack branch that supports Fedora 16 at
https://review.openstack.org/4364.
Not everything is working yet, as outlined below. I am proposing now
anyway to get feedback on the direction and some of the decisions I
made
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:50 -0800, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
In my view the price tag for the sponsorship and the ultimate means
for raising the money is not what drives OpenStack’s vendor
independence principles. What matters the most is the degree of
decoupling between the front-end,
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 17:57 -0500, Josh Kearney wrote:
Is this is really a problem that needs solving? I'd like to believe that no
member of Nova Core would approve something that they aren't familiar with.
I think the issue is more a case of allowing some time for other
reviewers to come along
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 11:18 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote:
1) I can back out my new style-guide from openstack-common
openstack-common still needs a HACKING file for itself :)
Cheers,
Mark.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 22:00 -0700, Andy Smith wrote:
It is something pulled from the google style guide.
You know what else is in the Google style guide? Avoid global
variables :-)
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/pyguide.html?showone=Global_variables#Global_variables
Mark.
Hey Russell,
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 16:26 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
There was a thread on this list a little while ago about moving the
notification drivers that are in nova and glance into openstack.common
since they provide very similar functionality, but have implementations
%)
Johannes Erdfelt 146 (4.2%)
Vishvananda Ishaya 116 (3.3%)
Dolph Mathews 98 (2.8%)
Dan Prince 84 (2.4%)
Ziad Sawalha80 (2.3%)
Jason Kölker 77 (2.2%)
Mark McLoughlin 73 (2.1%)
Jake Dahn
Hi,
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:13 -0700, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
I've updated http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch to put Diablo in
the past, and Essex as the current stable release.
I'm delighted to see that Mark McLoughlin already has Stable Branch
on the agenda for the Summit,
http
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 16:23 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
One new addition in 2.3 is draft changes. The idea behind a draft
change in Gerrit is that it is a change that is not ready for merging,
or even general code review, but you would like to share it with some
people to get early
Hi Ghe,
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 12:15 +0200, Ghe Rivero wrote:
Hi Everyone,
i've been looking through wsgi code, and i have found a lot of
duplicated code between all the projects.
Thanks for looking into this. It sounds quite daunting.
I wonder could we do this iteratively by extract the
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 13:26 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
23. apr. 2012 17.15 skrev Justin Santa Barbara jus...@fathomdb.com:
With one native API, we can focus all our energies on making sure that API
works. Then, knowing that the native API works, we can build other APIs on
top through
Definite +1
Mark.
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 11:09 -0400, Dan Prince wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote the Nova Qpid rpc implementation and is a member of the
Nova security team. He has been helping chipping away at reviews and
contributing to discussions for some time now.
I'd like to seem him
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
To prepare for the next meeting ( thursday 3rd, may 2012
http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/MeteringAgenda ) I cleaned up and
reorganized the Metering blueprint so that it ( hopefully )
incorporates all the information
Hey,
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:05 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
On 05/01/2012 06:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
- I agree that we don't want to go too far with aggregation and lose
useful data like which instances have
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:05 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
On 05/01/2012 06:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Loic,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:15 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
To prepare for the next meeting ( thursday 3rd, may 2012
http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/MeteringAgenda ) I cleaned
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 10:08 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
My impression is that the notifications system is intended to cover
all
billable usage in at least Nova and Glance.
It's also my understanding. Regarding swift, how would you suggest we
approach the problem ? I see two possible courses:
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 14:37 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
I recently submitted a few fixes to the test suite in various components
of openstack.
Thanks for that!
These fixes are being merged in master, but the code remains broken in
the stable/essex branch. Review requests for
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 10:51 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
Hi Mark, thanks for your answer.
On 05/03/2012 10:25 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 14:37 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
I recently submitted a few fixes to the test suite in various components
of openstack
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
so many of us involved and we all were either wanting to discuss
slightly different things or had a slightly different understanding of
what we were
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 14:24 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Ok, what are subsystem branches and how would they work?
[...]
- It would be up to the project dictators to help drive patches
through the right subsystem branches - e.g. they might object
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 16:46 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 14:24 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
And how about feature branches?
- Feature branches are relatively short-lived (i.e. weeks or months
rather than years) branches
://review.openstack.org/#/c/6774/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7048/
Cheers,
Mark.
Vish
On May 3, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:41 -0400, Yun Mao wrote:
Hi,
I've uploaded some code as work in progress towards what we discussed
at the Folsom summit, nova orchestration session. Where I'm going is
more or less described in this blueprint.
Hey,
I just realised there's a thread on the openstack-poc list about how
OpenStack should view implementations of APIs other than the OpenStack
API:
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack-poc/msg00448.html
(PPB members - please note that other folks can't subscribe to the POC
list. If you
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:34 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I rarely -2, because I see it as a strong veto which blocks the patch or
later revisions of the patch until I remove the -2. Maybe it's just the
fact that I know I'm likely to be slow to come back and review later
revisions of a patch
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 19:58 +, Matt Dietz wrote:
The problem here is there are two opposing points: the idea that there are
too many core reviewers, and the idea that patches aren't being reviewed
fast enough.
*Drags a yak into the room* Beyond that, what makes 20 better than 25, or
Hey,
cdub sent on these interesting links:
http://lwn.net/Articles/328438/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/489
tl;dr on those is that you're likely to be flamed as a f*cking moron by
Linus unless you manage to understand every little nuance about how he
thinks git should be used :-)
It's
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 17:11 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
* Mark McLoughlin (mar...@redhat.com) wrote:
- Subsystem branches would not rebase unless the project dictator
outright rejects a merge request from the subsystem branch (i.e.
I'm not merging commit abcdef0! Fix
Hi James,
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 14:03 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com writes:
Hey,
We discussed this during the baking area for features design summit
session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there were
so many of us involved and we
Hey,
So, one thing came really stuck out to me when comparing our process to
the kernel process:
In the kernel process, maintainers are responsible for running
'git-merge' and they see it as their job to resolve conflicts.
In our process, Jenkins runs 'git-merge' and runs away screaming
Hey,
Hi On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 14:51 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
James E. Blair wrote:
Vish, Thierry, and I spent some time together this week at UDS trying to
reconcile their needs and your suggestions. I believe Thierry is going
to write that up and send it to the list soon.
While at
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
