Talking to ttx, it seems like openstack itself may be splitting into
separate "users" and "dev" lists, so with the goal of not making people
shift lists too many times, I'm fine if people stick to using the netstack
list until that is sorted out (should be within the week). However, we
still defin
I think we're having a bit of a terminology clash here, at least according
to what I intended by the definitions posted on the etherpad:
http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-folsom . The existing definitions
for "IPAM" and "L3 Forwarding" are below.
I believe that at the end of Sumit's presentat
On 04/24/2012 10:12 AM, Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for your feedback on the L3 (forwarding) proposal during the
> summit and also prior to that. The action item coming out of the summit
> session was to further discuss this with the Melange/IPAM team to
> identify point
Hi All,
Thanks for your feedback on the L3 (forwarding) proposal during the
summit and also prior to that. The action item coming out of the summit
session was to further discuss this with the Melange/IPAM team to
identify points of overlap and/or what are the additional requirements.
Accordingly,
One of the original purposes of the Netstack mailing list was not to clutter
the Openstack mailing list with design and development discussions.
Now that Quantum is going into core for Folsom it makes sense to merge with the
main mailing list. Having two separate mailing lists started to become s
I meant to comment on this during one of the Quantum sessions. I'm not sure the
discussion should be centered around lists as much as the ability to tag the
subject so it can be filtered. Assuming the mailer can support this, you could
retain project specific email ids as aliases to the main ope
6 matches
Mail list logo
