On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 10:36 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01 2013, Sam Morrison wrote:
>
> > OK so is it that ceilometer just leaves the message on the queue or
> > only consumes certain messages?
>
> Ceilometer uses its own queue. There might be other processes consuming
> this notif
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 07:58 -0600, m...@openstack.org wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.
>
> 1)
> *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as
> "OpenStack Orchestration"?
> Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a done deal a
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 07:40 +, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
> We need to distinguish between (1) adding the modules to the "Core
> OpenStack Project" which requires a recommendation by the TC and
> approval by the Board and (2) adding the modules to an integrated
> release (including Core OpenStack P
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
> >> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> >> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> >> and core.
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 23:06 -0600, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> The current difference in implementation is that to be part of the
> Core OpenStack Project, a module must receive Board approval to be in
> that set. Another intended difference is that the Core OpenStack
> Project definition would be used
