+ ?
On 2/8/12 5:10 AM, "Andiabes" wrote:
If do, maybe you can adapt the API to conform to:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2325.txt
On Feb 7, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Re: [Openstack] [DEVSTACK] officialize it! Ah, toaster as a service. I think
java already did that ;)
If do, maybe you can adapt the API to conform to:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2325.txt
On Feb 7, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Ah, toaster as a service. I think java already did that ;)
>
> On 2/7/12 7:18 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2012 05:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
+1
On 2/7/12 4:49 PM, "Monty Taylor" wrote:
Heh. Of course.
I'm not really advocating puppet or chef. I think juju is pretty cool
too, actually... I think all I'm saying is that I'm VERY concerned that
if we expand the scope of devstack to be a tool people can use to deploy
operational OpenStac
Heh. Of course.
I'm not really advocating puppet or chef. I think juju is pretty cool
too, actually... I think all I'm saying is that I'm VERY concerned that
if we expand the scope of devstack to be a tool people can use to deploy
operational OpenStack if they don't want to use puppet or chef or j
Ah, toaster as a service. I think java already did that ;)
On 2/7/12 7:18 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
On 02/07/2012 05:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Shameless plug: just a few weeks left before the core projects for
> Folsom are decided, so projects in incubation should propose themselves
> soon! Ot
Just one problem.
Some companies may not be wanting to use puppet or chef (at least in the
short-term).
I know of at least one ;)
But maybe this can be worked on...
On 2/7/12 12:37 PM, "Monty Taylor" wrote:
On 02/07/2012 06:44 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Maru Newb
If so, my line of
argument is entirely moot and I apologize.
Cheers,
Maru
On 2012-02-07, at 1:39 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Re: [Openstack] [DEVSTACK] officialize it!
Aren't the problems u just stated really just things that need to be "watched"
and "controlled" by tech
a Chef equivalent written in Python. But is
> the answer to not wanting to officially support a CM tool to write our own?
> No project has unlimited resources, and I'm wondering if it doesn't make more
> sense to just choose between Chef or Puppet.
>
> Cheers,
>
,
Maru
On 2012-02-07, at 12:59 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Re: [Openstack] [DEVSTACK] officialize it!
Hmmm, that seems odd, and I guess I don't understand your reasoning there.
There are other developers that develop on more than just ubuntu X (where X is
the latest ubuntu). Ie yahoo is on
eveloper perspective.
>
> Mind you, I don't think anybody would complain if Redhat et al wanted to
> maintain their own targeted version of devstack.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Maru
>
> On 2012-02-06, at 5:22 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>
> Re: [Openstack] [DEVSTAC
Maintaining
support for an apt-based distribution is much easier than the alternatives from
a developer perspective.
Mind you, I don't think anybody would complain if Redhat et al wanted to
maintain their own targeted version of devstack.
Thanks,
Maru
On 2012-02-06, at 5:22 PM, Jos
On 02/07/2012 06:44 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Maru Newby wrote:
>> -1 on multi-distribution devstack. Being cross-platform is arguably a place
>> where chef/puppet/cfengine automation comes into play, and that's not where
>> devstack's self-declared mission lies.
>
On 02/07/2012 05:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Shameless plug: just a few weeks left before the core projects for
Folsom are decided, so projects in incubation should propose themselves
soon! Other projects that would like to be considered for Folsom core
should probably have been in incubation fo
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Maru Newby wrote:
> -1 on multi-distribution devstack. Being cross-platform is arguably a place
> where chef/puppet/cfengine automation comes into play, and that's not where
> devstack's self-declared mission lies.
In the meantime devstack's mission was expanded t
Monty Taylor wrote:
> I think the thing you are discussing already exists.
>
> devstack is currently part of and managed by all of the normal OpenStack
> development infrastructure. The canonical repository for it is
> https://review.openstack.org/p/openstack-dev/devstack which is mirrored
> to ht
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> + There needs to be a way to install on multiple distributions (without
> saying go figure out the deps yourself).
> I know everyone is ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, but this really needs to be
> fixed (process wise as well).
>
> +1 on supporting m
-1 on multi-distribution devstack. Being cross-platform is arguably a place
where chef/puppet/cfengine automation comes into play, and that's not where
devstack's self-declared mission lies.
+1 to continuing to have Ubuntu be the reference devstack target. Maintaining
support for an apt-based
Agreed. Supporting more than just ubuntu is important!
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> + There needs to be a way to install on multiple distributions (without
> saying go figure out the deps yourself).
>
> I know everyone is ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, but this really needs to
+ There needs to be a way to install on multiple distributions (without saying
go figure out the deps yourself).
I know everyone is ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, but this really needs to be fixed
(process wise as well).
:-/
On 2/6/12 5:12 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
cc'ing Matt Ray from OpsCode, since
cc'ing Matt Ray from OpsCode, since he and I discussed related topics
this past Thursday during the bug squash day...
On 02/06/2012 06:35 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
I think the thing you are discussing already exists.
devstack is currently part of and managed by all of the normal OpenStack
develo
Sure I think CURL commands are the least of the problems though.
Just getting this devstack "python" version running on multiple distributions
is a pain enough (pkg dependencies, conf files are different...)
That's one of the other benefits I see, the current stack.sh would turn pretty
ugly rea
Our team had discussions on python vs. bash at the beginning of devstack.
If we go with python it would be nice to do something similar to
python-novaclient where setting DEBUG lets users see CURL commands
that you can execute to do the same thing.
That said, we are focused on essex until the des
On 02/06/2012 10:37 AM, Jesse Andrews wrote:
> I think having a session on devstack at the summit would be valuable.
++
> I'm still torn on it being python vs. bash because I see
> non-developers using it all the time because they can take snippets of
> the shell script and use it.
I'm simila
I think the thing you are discussing already exists.
devstack is currently part of and managed by all of the normal OpenStack
development infrastructure. The canonical repository for it is
https://review.openstack.org/p/openstack-dev/devstack which is mirrored
to https://github.com/openstack-dev/d
So the part that worries me about what u just said is the part about "it is
already some kind of official project".
When you have to question whether a project is official or not, that seems to
pretty make the whole point for making it official ;)
Overall though I think what u are saying is corr
Hello together.
> I was wondering if the community could elevate devstack to a
> "official" openstack project, instead of being a "unofficial
> project".
I think devstack.org is already some kind of official project (provided
by Rackspace Cloud Builders).
Where is the benefit of becoming a core
Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that.
The "its just a shell script" argument only works when its pretty simple,
setting up all these components is not simple. I think you are dumbing down
your sysops to much :-)
I think that having a well documented python script can be just as easy to
follow, i
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Interesting, what is the non-developer use case or the one u see as
> existing?
>
This is my own personal opinion and not as commiter of devstack.sh,
I found very valuable to point sysops to devstack.sh with the argument
"it's just a shell
Hmm. Sounds like a good idea. I will reach out to the board and ask.
~sean
On Feb 6, 2012, at 10:34 AM, "Joshua Harlow"
mailto:harlo...@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Over the weekend I was thinking (I know a first, haha).
I was wondering if the community could elevate devstack to a "official
Interesting, what is the non-developer use case or the one u see as existing?
Can't they take snippets of python code as well ;)
On 2/6/12 10:37 AM, "Jesse Andrews" wrote:
I think having a session on devstack at the summit would be valuable.
I'm still torn on it being python vs. bash because I
On 06 Feb 2012 - 10:29, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Over the weekend I was thinking (I know a first, haha).
>
> I was wondering if the community could elevate devstack to a
> "official" openstack project, instead of being a "unofficial project".
> Since it seems like pretty much every develo
I think having a session on devstack at the summit would be valuable.
I'm still torn on it being python vs. bash because I see
non-developers using it all the time because they can take snippets of
the shell script and use it.
Jesse
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Hi all
Hi all,
Over the weekend I was thinking (I know a first, haha).
I was wondering if the community could elevate devstack to a "official"
openstack project, instead of being a "unofficial project". Since it seems like
pretty much every developer (and even CI) is either depending on the shell
scr
33 matches
Mail list logo
