On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:40 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/10/11 Mark McLoughlin :
> > 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?
>
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:
wik
Hi James,
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:58 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin writes:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I've posted a proposal for how the stable branch could work here:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
> >
> >
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, and migration going
> > back to June:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net/msg00176.html
> > https
Hi Sharif,
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 14:55 -0400, Sharif Islam wrote:
> As Jorge was pointing out last week
> (https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg04596.html), the problem seems
> to be iptables related. When I added these two rules, I was able to ping
> google.com with 10.0.1.1 as the nameserver
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:16 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
> Chris Wright writes:
>
> > * Mark McLoughlin (mar...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:58 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
> >> > Mark McLoughlin writes:
> >> > > Anyone ca
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:27 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:47 +, Chris Behrens wrote:
> >> On Sep 7, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >
> >> > S
Hi James,
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 12:43 -0400, James E. Blair wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin 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
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:
https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:opens
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/Stabl
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
> Reply-to: Fedora Cloud SIG
> To: test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org,
> cl...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Cloud Te
Hey,
I just noticed a few things when reviewing the Fedora packaging of
keystone:
- There's no diablo release tarball on https://launchpad.net/keystone
like other projects
- The 2011.3 tag in git has version=1.0 in setup.py. Which versioning
scheme is keystone going to follow?
-
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 codeba
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
on
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 wonderin
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 branc
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 abou
; For bug patch, it should be discussed case-by-case.
> Some large refactoring have done already for Essex,then some bugs are
> fixed on the refactoring.
>
> We are struggling with very tight schedule. X(
> If our contribution is rejected to the stable/diablo, to maintain our
> own branc
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
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin 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:
> >
>
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:
>
> >
> > > But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
> > >
> > > https://review.openstack.org/328
> > >
> > > James, help a poor confused soul out here,
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 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 i
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
> >
> > - Diabl
(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 con
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 writes:
> > > Only folks that understand the stable branch policy[1] should be
> > > allowed to +2 on the stable branc
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 branc
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: https://launchpad.
Hi Thierry,
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 16:30 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
> > [...]
> > I do have a couple of serious concerns:
> > [...]
> > Every sentence in the first paragraph is dripping with negativity
> > - "will not give prior notice to their employer"
> > - "not about get
Hey,
I've just posted this blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-common/+spec/common-config
http://wiki.openstack.org/CommonConfigModule
The idea is to unify option handling across projects with this new API.
The module would eventually (soon?) live in openstack-common.
Code
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/c
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 - whaddy
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 d
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 tes
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:32 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/11/29 Vishvananda Ishaya :
> > 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 reviews count tow
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
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 pr
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 a
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 fea
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 wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:47 +, Chris Behrens wrote:
> >
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 :
> > 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, Oct 4 2011,
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,
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 ena
Hey,
I'm not sure whether this has been discussed recently, but do we really
need a CLA?
I had a long discussion with Richard Fontana about the Apache CLA in the
context of another project and I came away from that convinced that the
Apache CLA is fairly pointless.
Compare the CLA to the Apache
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 in
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 t
hat one for Richard too :-)
Cheers,
Mark.
> Cheers,
>
> Rick
>
> On 01/03/2012 06:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'm not sure whether this has been discussed recently, but do we really
> > need a CLA?
> >
> > I had a
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 wrote:
> >
> > The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
> > Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
> >
> > That conc
Hi Soren,
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 10:44 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Jim Curry :
> > 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, specific country ex
Hi Richard,
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 14:11 -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:49:29PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 09:02 -0600, Rick Clark wrote:
> > > Hey Mark,
> > >
> > > Firs
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 reque
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
Hey,
We're hoping to do Nova and Glance 2011.3.1 releases Thursday (Jan 19):
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranchRelease
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2011.3.1
https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/2011.3.1
That's roughly 90 b
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 wit
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 general
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:
http://wiki.
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, t
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 t
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 09:58 -0500, andi abes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> > Mark McLoughlin writes:
> >
> > > I wrote this some time ago:
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/rhevm-api/wiki/Email_Guidelines
> > > If
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
>
Hey,
The original cfg design[1] assumed certain usage patterns that I hoped
would be adopted by all projects using it. In gerrit, we're debating a
set of patch to make keystone use these patterns:
https://review.openstack.org/4547
I thought it was best to move some of that discussion here sinc
Hey,
We're hoping to publish Nova, Glance, Keystone, Quantum, Cinder and
Horizon 2012.2.1 next week (Nov 29).
The list of issues fixed so far can be seen here:
https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2012.2.1
https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/2012.2.1
https://launchpad.net/keystone/+mi
Nova.
* Please add stuff to the release notes as it occurs to you:
http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/2012.2.1
Cheers,
Mark.
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 21:50 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We're hoping to publish Nova, Glance, Keystone, Quantum, Cinder and
> H
Hey,
In the time since the Folsom release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/folsom branch according to our "safe
source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
We're happy to announce the 2012.2.1 release, the firs
Hey,
In the time since the Folsom release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/folsom branch according to our "safe
source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
We're now announcing the 2012.2.2 release of Nova, a s
Hey,
In the time since the Folsom release, we have been busy selectively
back-porting bugfixes to the stable/folsom branch according to our "safe
source of high-impact fixes" criteria documented here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch
We're happy to announce the 2012.2.3 release, the late
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 19:50 +, Jason Smith wrote:
> Hello,
> I understand why we had to give up Quantum code name but rather than
> just refer to it as networking let's come up with a new code name!
Yes, this was discussed at the summit:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/ProjectsReNaming
The
101 - 176 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
