Re: [openstack-dev] [RFC] Straw man to start the incubation / graduation requirements discussion

On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > Sean Dague wrote: >> [...] Proposed Incubation requirements >> Once something becomes an >> integrated project, it'

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Proposals for Tempest core

I think responding to this is worth breaking my vacation email embargo. Although I seem to remember a certain PTL whose vacation we waited for the last time we did core proposals... Sean Dague wrote: >It's post summit time, so time to evaluate our current core group for >Tempest. There are a f

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Blueprint -- Floating IP Auto Association

Hi Salvatore! My responses (to your responses) are in-line. I think we could also use some feedback from the rest of the community on this, as well ... would it be a good idea to discuss the implementation further at the next IRC meeting? Good Stuff!! Steven On 11/15/2013 7:39 AM, Salvator

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hypervisor CI requirement and deprecation plan

On 11/16/2013 11:18 AM, Álvaro López García wrote: > On Fri 15 Nov 2013 (07:28), Dan Smith wrote: >> Hi all, > > Hi Dan. > >> As you know, Nova adopted a plan to require CI testing for all our >> in-tree hypervisors by the Icehouse release. At the summit last week, we >> determined the actual pla

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 11/16/2013 01:14 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:37 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 11/15/2013 10:36 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 11/13/2013 11:10 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Neutron Tempest code sprint In the second week of January in Montreal, Quebec, Canadathere will be a Neutron Tempest code

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list

2013/11/16 Sean Dague > On 11/14/2013 02:25 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote:> It seems excessive, I > agree. But if your meeting time bounces on a > > biweekly schedule to accommodate multiple timezones, I think its quite > > necessary. > > And the fact that people forget the times are in UTC > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

Silly me and Saturday emails. I mistakenly sent out the emails to the individual participants from my gmail account not this one. Sorry about that. Thanks, Anita. On 11/16/2013 10:12 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: I have just sent out emails asking for specific details for food and so on to the 31 ema

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 11/16/2013 12:37 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 11/15/2013 10:36 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 11/13/2013 11:10 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Neutron Tempest code sprint In the second week of January in Montreal, Quebec, Canadathere will be a Neutron Tempest code sprint to improve the status of Neutron te

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 11/16/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 11/15/2013 01:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:47 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:34 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:16 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote: On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Dan Smith wrote: T

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list

On 11/14/2013 02:25 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > [...] > > That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure > > that *usage question

Re: [openstack-dev] Openstack + OpenContrail

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Harshad Nakil wrote: > Sean, > We have diff in three repositories. > Nova, Neutron and devstack. Each review is requiring other to happen first. > Do you have recommendation how do we deal with these dependencies? > First off, if you rebase on to a current DevSta

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 11/15/2013 01:13 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 12:47 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: >> On 11/15/2013 12:34 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> On 11/15/2013 12:16 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote: On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Dan Smith wrote: >> Thanks for weighing in, I do

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 11/15/2013 10:36 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 11/13/2013 11:10 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> Neutron Tempest code sprint >> >> In the second week of January in Montreal, Quebec, Canadathere will be a >> Neutron Tempest code sprint to improve the status of Neutron tests in >> Tempest and to add new

Re: [openstack-dev] [RFC] Straw man to start the incubation / graduation requirements discussion

On 11/15/2013 12:57 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 06:57 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: >> (Apologies, this started on the TC list, and really should have started >> on -dev, correctly posting here now for open discussion) >> >> There were a few chats at summit about this, mostly on t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] future fate of nova-network?

That is clearly a step in the right direction, and I have to commend the neutron team for really kicking things into high gear in going after some of these issues. That said, we still have a long way to go. I think a very frank evaluation at icehouse-2 is going to be required to figure out whether

Re: [openstack-dev] Openstack + OpenContrail

Sean, We have diff in three repositories. Nova, Neutron and devstack. Each review is requiring other to happen first. Do you have recommendation how do we deal with these dependencies? Regards -Harshad > On Nov 16, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > For something to go in devstack, it has

Re: [openstack-dev] Openstack + OpenContrail

For something to go in devstack, it has to be included in the base server project. So first step is to work on getting your code upstream into the relevant upstream. We don't preintegrate into devstack, because it's job is not to be a general installer, it's to be an opinionated development se

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hypervisor CI requirement and deprecation plan

On Fri 15 Nov 2013 (07:28), Dan Smith wrote: > Hi all, Hi Dan. > As you know, Nova adopted a plan to require CI testing for all our > in-tree hypervisors by the Icehouse release. At the summit last week, we > determined the actual plan for deprecating non-compliant drivers. I put > together a pag

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)

I am one of those horizontal people (working on docs and basically one of the people responsible at my organization for keeping a handle on what's going on) and I'm totally against a split. Of COURSE we need to maintain the integrated/incubated/proposed spectrum. Saying that we need to keep all tr

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada

I have just sent out emails asking for specific details for food and so on to the 31 emails provided to me, thank you all for indicating your intent. If you would like to attend the code sprint and did not receive an email from this email address anteaya at anteaya dot info (check your spam f

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Summit Session Summaries

Awesome Mark! It's really useful to help us start next works to organize, prioritize and realize icehouse BPs, thanks. Seems here is a good place to continue our discussion around my proposal so I have added some inline replies to "Enhancing Image Locations" section, you know 50 mins is a little t

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)

On 11/16/2013 02:52 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 11/15/2013 05:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Wow, lots of different opinions! let's try to summarize: Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions * Traffic would drop by

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:09:35 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:08 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the point whe

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] rough draft of Heat autoscaling API

On 15/11/13 08:46 -0600, Christopher Armstrong wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 15/11/13 02:48, Christopher Armstrong wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Angus Salkeld mailto:asalk...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 14/11/13 10:19 -0600, Christopher Armstrong wro

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] rough draft of Heat autoscaling API

On 15/11/13 16:32 +0100, Zane Bitter wrote: On 14/11/13 19:53, Christopher Armstrong wrote: Thanks for the comments, Zane. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Zane Bitter mailto:zbit...@redhat.com>> wrote: A few comments... #1 thing is that the launch configuration needs to be somehow r

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Continue discussing multi-region orchestration

On 16/11/13 00:07, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote: Hi, With slight modifications of (2) one can benefit of availability: 1. There should not be a master node. Each heat engine should be able to act as a master if someone asks it to deploy a template. Current master engine will be responsible to con

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)

On 11/15/2013 12:08 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Adrian Otto wrote: >> If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would >> start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the >> point where new projects like mine would simply not come here. We

Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)

On 11/15/2013 05:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Wow, lots of different opinions! let's try to summarize: > > Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev > * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions > * Traffic would drop by about 25% > * Removes confusion as