Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

;t imagine glance-core folks welcoming a patch to adopt a global config object. it seems like a completely backwards move. Maybe that's just me? > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > The original cfg design[1] assumed certai

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

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, marke

Re: [Openstack] Gerrit minimum review time frame

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 alon

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

Hi Joe, On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 17:42 -0700, Joseph Heck wrote: > I personally don't have a huge preference one way or the other. I've > used a global object for configuration in applications, and find it > immensely convenient, and the methods that Mark (and others) have put > into the openstack/co

Re: [Openstack] Please stop the devstack non-sense!

Hi Thomas, On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:40 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I'm again and again always told that I should use Devstack. I don't > agree, and I'd like to share why. I'd summarize your points as: - devstack is only tested for a specific version of Ubuntu - you're working on making

Re: [Openstack] sqlalchemy version dependencies

On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:48 +, Pádraig Brady wrote: > There are a few inconsistencies currently with > the sqlalchemy version specifications in nova and glance. > > tl;dr SQLAlchemy>=0.6.3 should be fine for Essex? Ok, I read your summary of this several times and got confused every time. Le

Re: [Openstack] Being pedantic about pedanticism: HACKING styleguide

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

Re: [Openstack] Being pedantic about pedanticism: HACKING styleguide

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.

Re: [Openstack] Moving nova.rpc into openstack.common

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 implementat

Re: [Openstack] Moving nova.rpc into openstack.common

On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 11:00 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 04/03/2012 10:38 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey Russell, > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 16:26 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> > >> There was a thread

[Openstack] Who wrote Essex?

on 195 (5.6%) 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

Re: [Openstack] Stable Branch, alt title: What happens to Diablo

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" > o

Re: [Openstack] New Gerrit version (and server)

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 ear

Re: [Openstack] wsgi code duplication

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

Re: [Openstack] Canonical AWSOME

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 13:26 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote: > 23. apr. 2012 17.15 skrev Justin Santa Barbara : > > 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 simple translatio

Re: [Openstack] proposal for Russell Bryant to be added to Nova Core

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

Re: [Openstack] [Metering] schema and counter definitions

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 tempor

Re: [Openstack] [Metering] schema and counter definitions

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

Re: [Openstack] [Metering] schema and counter definitions

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 >

Re: [Openstack] [Metering] schema and counter definitions

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 co

Re: [Openstack] Backporting test fixes

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 stabl

Re: [Openstack] Backporting test fixes

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

[Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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 dis

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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 (

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

Starting with Vek :) https://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&quo

Re: [Openstack] [orchestration] feature branch of a work in progress on orchestration

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. > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/ta

Re: [Openstack] 3rd Party APIs

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 want

Re: [Openstack] Nova Core Cleanup

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:44 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > The -2 issue is a good point. I personally treat a -1 (or +1) from the > author of a given piece of code quite strongly when I do reviews, but > you're right that the -1 could be more trivially overridden. Coincidentally, dprince and

Re: [Openstack] Nova Core Cleanup

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 lat

Re: [Openstack] Nova Core Cleanup

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,

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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 re

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

Hi James, On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 14:03 -0700, James E. Blair wrote: > Mark McLoughlin writes: > > > Hey, > > > > We discussed this during the "baking area for features" design summit > > session. I found that discussion fairly frustrating because there we

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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 a

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:40 -0700, James E. Blair wrote: > Mark McLoughlin writes: > > > Hey, > > > > So, one thing came really stuck out to me when comparing our process to > > the kernel process: > > > > In the kernel process, maintainers are resp

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:57 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 12:37 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > - Our history is far from "clean history", it's pretty disgusting > > really. The ratio of interesting commits to merge commits is > &

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:44 -0700, James E. Blair wrote: > On 05/11/2012 02:04 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:57 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > >> On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 12:37 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>>- Our history is far fro

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:22 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > On May 11, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > > I'm guessing we could easily flick a switch in gerrit to cause it to > > rebase instead of merge. > > > > I don't remember any d

Re: [Openstack] Nova subsystem branches and feature branches

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. > >

Re: [Openstack] RFC: Plugin framework draft

Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 15:32 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote: > I would appreciate comments on the nascent Nova plugin framework > that I'm working on. My Nova code is in a fairly modern forked branch here: > > https://github.com/andrewbogott/nova/tree/plugin > > I've also written tw

[Openstack] Unused code in Nova [was Re: Quota classes]

On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:40 -0500, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 08:31 -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > A couple of quick questions on how this quota class mechanism is > > intended to work ... > > > > - how is the mapping between project and quota-class established? > > I was e

[Openstack] Process for new dependencies [was Re: Nodejs in horizon]

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:22 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote: > -1 to introducing formal processes around this. This will happen from > time to time. Development may be briefly impacted on other platforms > but hindering innovation and telling developers that they are > responsible for package availabil

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

#x27;ve posted patches to openstack-common, Nova, Glance and Keystone: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:bp/cfg-global-object,n,z Cheers, Mark. On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 10:10 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey, > > The original cfg design[1] assumed certain usage patte

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

Hi Mark, On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:48 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > "Jay Pipes" said: > > On 05/29/2012 04:04 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >> Adopting this pattern across all projects will actually help > >> openstack-common more generally. For exam

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 08:58 -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > * let the consumer code decide when to ack a message > >(although maybe the concept of acking doesn't exist for all > implementations?) > > My XenAPI idempotency branch delays ACKs until after it's done > processing the message to

Re: [Openstack] openstack.common inside swiftclient and RPM

Hi Pete, On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 17:48 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > Hi, Monty: > > The python-swiftclient has something that I believe you added: > > [zaitcev@lembas python-swiftclient-tip]$ git log > swiftclient/openstack/__init__.py > commit 7df012329f0b22e19f878cee2602407cb23042ef > Author: M

Re: [Openstack] the right way to deprecate a config option?

Hi Sean, On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 16:15 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > I'm reworking the virt driver loading so that it's using importutils > (and thus looking more like the other driver interfaces), which means > eventually connection_type parameter in nova.conf goes away, and > computer_driver is us

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Please forgive the top-posting! I always get way too wordy with > inline replies. > > Regarding configuration, I think there is another option I'd like us > to adopt. We should implement the code as in your option #1, but

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:21 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary#Incubation > > Once an api is in incubation, if you make a change to it, you are > expected to update all the other openstack projects (not just core > projects?) to make them work with the new

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:48 -0400, Duncan McGreggor wrote: > +1 :-) In all seriousness - Mark made two separate points. Which one are you top-posting a +1 to? > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Mark Washenberger > wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > Please forgive the top-posting! I always get way too w

Re: [Openstack] Forking an OpenStack project to remotely save changes

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 14:43 -0600, Everett Toews wrote: > Hi All, > > If you have a relatively long-lived topic branch, what's the best way to > remotely save changes? > > If you wanted to fork an OpenStack project on github, it would work > something like: > > 1. Fork the project on github.com

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 17:25 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > "Mark McLoughlin" said: > > > On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:21 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >> > http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary#Incubation > >> > >> Once an ap

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 12:05 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Ceilometer is currently importing bits we need either directly from nova or > openstack-common (by "importing" I mean literally using the "import" > statement in our code, not copying the required modules into the ceilometer > code base). I

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:41 -0400, Mark Washenberger wrote: > Sorry if this has already been posted somewhere and I just can't find it, > but is there an openstack common weekly meeting where you guys talk about > your blueprints and determine what is going into common and in what form? > I think

[Openstack] Call for testing : nova, glance, keystone and horizon 2012.1.1 tarballs

Hey, We're hoping to do Nova, Glance, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.1 releases Thursday (Jun 21). I've add a bunch of details here: http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranchRelease The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.1 https://launchp

Re: [Openstack] Thoughts on client library releasing

Hi Monty, Thanks for sending. For reference, this was the link you posted last week: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/LibraryProjectDefinition One question I had on that is re: the ability to release a client library outside of the core project release cycle (requests have

Re: [Openstack] Thoughts on client library releasing

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:25 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > One question I had on that is re: > > > > the ability to release a client library outside of the core project > > release cycle (requests have been coming in to our rel

Re: [Openstack] Thoughts on client library releasing

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: [..] > >> However they also inherited the release scheme of the server project > >> (new version every 6 months), which was (or was not) synced to PyPI > >> depending of who was

Re: [Openstack] Thoughts on client library releasing

Hey, Does the PPB vote last night mean that the all-mighty PPB, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed that nothing useful can come from further discussion? :-) I certainly hope not ... On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:07 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote: > It is terrible for the public cloud implementations who

Re: [Openstack] [Nova] How to improve our bug triaging ?

Hey, On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 16:29 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: [..] > Having people report bugs for our software is a chance, and we should > not discourage anyone by not giving the resulting reports the minimal > attention they deserve. [..] Totally! > So how do we, Nova developers, collectively

Re: [Openstack] Need stable/essex review for Horizon

Hey, On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:21 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote: > Hey all, > > > We've had a number of stable/essex reviews up that were abandoned due > to lack of reviews. We have re-enabled them and are hoping to get > some eyes on these so we can release 2012.1.1: > > https://review.openstack.or

Re: [Openstack] Need stable/essex review for Horizon

On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:21 -0700, Devin Carlen wrote: > Hey all, > > > We've had a number of stable/essex reviews up that were abandoned due > to lack of reviews. We have re-enabled them and are hoping to get > some eyes on these so we can release 2012.1.1: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7

[Openstack] [ANNOUNCE] OpenStack Nova, Glance, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.1 released

Hey, In the time since the Essex release, we have been busy selectively back-porting bugfixes to the stable/essex branch according to our "safe source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here: http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Well, those fixes are now available as 2011.3.1 releases

Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

(Sorry, was away for a couple of weeks) On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 15:26 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 07/02/2012 03:16 PM, Andrew Bogott wrote: > > Background: > > > > The openstack-common project is subject to a standard code-review > > process (and, soon, will also have Jenkins testing gate

Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 18:59 +, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > The notion that copying code is any protection against APIs that may > change is a red herring. It's the exact same effect as pegging a > version of a dependency (whether it's a commit hash or a real version > number), except now you have c

Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 14:47 -0500, Andrew Bogott wrote: > Like most people in this thread, I too long for an end to the weird > double-commit process that we're using now. So I'm happy to set aside > my original Best Practices proposal until there's some consensus > regarding how much longer w

Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:57 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: > > However, with a versioned library model, the projects can consume things > > pinned to specific versions, and then they can submit a change that > > updates the version depend and the code which needs to be updated t

Re: [Openstack] [nova] Proposal to add Padraig Brady to nova-core

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:09 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hello Everyone! > > Padraig has been contributing a lot of code to all parts of nova, and > has been contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he would make a > great addition to nova-core. Big +1, Pádraig has been consistently doing

Re: [Openstack] [nova] Proposal to add Yun Mao to nova-core

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:10 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hello Everyone! > > Yun has been putting a lot of effort into cleaning up our state > management, and has been contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he > would make a great addition to nova-core. +1, Yun has been doing great work

Re: [Openstack] [nova] Proposal to add Michael Still to nova-core

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:13 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hello Everyone! > > Michael wrote the image cache management code, did all of the > remaining conversions of instance_id -> instance_uuid, and has been > contributing a lot to reviews[1]. I think he would make a great > addition to nov

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Nominations for Foundation Board of Directors

Hi Rick, On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:37 -0500, Rick Clark wrote: > Who is the election official, running this election. Nomination should > be an open process, similar to the core dev process. It is currently > closed and subject to manipulation. > > I would also suggest that if you are a candidat

Re: [Openstack] RFC: Removing iscsitarget from nova/cinder.

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:36 -0400, Chuck Short wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if there is an aversion to remove ietadm support > from folsom. > > I have checked the iscsitarget sourceforge site and there > hasn't been a new version of iscsitarget in about 2 years. The kernel > module doesn't co

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

Hi Atul, On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote: > We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that > hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for > the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands > for, and we do not

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 11:43 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi Atul, > > On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote: > > > We are also working on process improvements for nominations and > > elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please &g

Re: [Openstack] Suspend/Stop VM

On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 10:50 -0500, George Reese wrote: > I must be missing something, but I can't find any docs on how to suspend or > stop a VM via API. > > Any pointers, please? :) Try 'nova --debug pause $instance' Shows e.g. POST /v2/$tenant/servers/$instance/action HTTP/1.1 Host: $hos

Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:47 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Eric Windisch wrote: > > > The scope of common is expanding. I believe it is time to seriously > > consider a proper PTL. Preferably, before the PTL elections. > > +1 So, I guess I've been doing this unof

[Openstack] Call for testing : nova, glance and keystone 2012.1.2 tarballs

Hey, We're hoping to do Nova, Glance and Keystone 2012.1.2 releases this Friday (Aug 10). I've add a bunch of details here: http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranchRelease The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.2 https://launchpad.net

[Openstack] [ANNOUNCE] OpenStack Nova, Glance and Keystone 2012.1.2 released

Hey, In the time since the Essex release, we have been busy selectively back-porting bugfixes to the stable/essex branch according to our "safe source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here: http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch We made a first round of those fixes available in the 20

Re: [Openstack] Nova ignores nova.conf

On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 00:23 -0900, Simon Walter wrote: > Nova does not respect the options set in the /etc/nova/nova.conf file. > I've seen some examples with "--" prefixing the flags, as if they are > command line arguments. I've also seen examples without. > > I've tried removing the "--", tha

[Openstack] openstack-common PTL candidacy

Hi, I'd like to put my name forward as a candidate for openstack-common PTL. I helped start the project with Jason Kölker in January and wrote the plan we've been following: http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary Since then, I've been doing reviews, triaging bugs and organizing the blueprint

Re: [Openstack] “Unrecognized Content-Type provided in request”Nova

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 16:36 +0900, Tomokazu Hirai wrote: > Hi, > > I installed essex on sepalated nodes and used Ubuntu Server 12.04 > LTS. I used this installation manual. > > > http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/starter/os-compute-starterguide-trunk.pdf > > I could install al

[Openstack] Who wrote Folsom

s found A total of 350046 lines added, 275491 removed (delta 74555) Developers with the most changesets Russell Bryant 160 (5.1%) Brian Waldon 160 (5.1%) Dan Prince 154 (5.0%) Gabriel Hurley 124 (4.0%) Mark McLoughlin118 (

Re: [Openstack] Who wrote Folsom

On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 08:14 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > As I did for Folsom, Doh, I meant "As I did for Essex" i.e. this: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg09650.html Oops :) Cheers, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://

Re: [Openstack] Call for testing : nova, glance and keystone 2012.1.3 tarballs

On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 22:53 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey, > > We're hoping to publish Nova, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.3 releases > this Thursday (Oct 11). Doh, I only noticed the incorrect subject line after sending

[Openstack] Call for testing : nova, glance and keystone 2012.1.2 tarballs

Hey, We're hoping to publish Nova, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.3 releases this Thursday (Oct 11). The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.1.3 https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/2012.1.3 https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/201

[Openstack] [ANNOUNCE] OpenStack Nova, Keystone and Horizon 2012.1.3 released

Hey, In the time since the Essex release, we have been busy selectively back-porting bugfixes to the stable/essex branch according to our "safe source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here: http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch We're happy to announce the 2012.1.3 release, the latest

Re: [Openstack] CLA Contributor list is missing from the wiki?

On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 10:02 -0700, Michael Still wrote: > On 10/17/2012 09:41 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > I tried to approve a few new CLA signers and noticed > > that the http://wiki.openstack.org/Contributors page is missing. > > Trying to restore a previous version resulted in an error. > > Cou

Re: [Openstack] Issues with Packaging and a Proposal

Hi Soren, On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 22:11 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote: > 2011/8/24 Monty Taylor : > > - 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 is going to be

Re: [Openstack] [Nova] [Glance] "diablo-4" milestone is out

Hi Thierry, On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 09:47 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The last milestone of the Diablo cycle for OpenStack Cloud Compute > (Nova) and OpenStack Image Registry and Delivery Service (Glance) was > just released. Cool stuff! > This was a very busy milestone, wh

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

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 defin

Re: [Openstack] Nova Gerrit Move

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 >

Re: [Openstack] Review Spam

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

Re: [Openstack] git tag/branch for diablo nova?

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:33 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jesse Andrews wrote: > > Is there / will there be a git tag/branch for diablo in the > > github.com/openstack/nova repository? > > That's a good question... Release tags were only appearing in the > milestone-proposed branch in Launchpad.

Re: [Openstack] Access an instance via its public (floating ip) from within the same instance

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: > http://docs.openstack.org/diablo/

Re: [Openstack] Access an instance via its public (floating ip) from within the same instance

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 > here > ): > > iptables -t nat -A prerouting_rule -d

Re: [Openstack] Access an instance via its public (floating ip) from within the same instance

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 > > here<http://www.zeroshell.net/eng

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API Versioning Conventions

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. t

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

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 t

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

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

  1   2   >