On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:27 PM, ZhiQiang Fan wrote:
> Hi Nova cores,
>
> There is a spec[1] submitted to Telemetry project for Newton release,
> mentioned that a new feature requires libvirt >= 1.3.4 , I'm not sure if
> this will have bad impact to Nova service, so I open this thread and wait
>
I guess, it's usable. [1] [2] [3], probably and more...
The reason why still I can just guess is that there is a bunch of
documentations!!
It's one of great works but too much.
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Guide
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Project_Teams
[3] https://wiki.opensta
I think several of the people who have expressed support of split repo have
given the caveat that they want it integrated once it matures. I know that
merging repos at a future date without losing history is a major drawback to
this approach. What if instead of separate repo, we just had a "k8
Thanks Amrith. I'm referring to the release timeline when I said expectation;
previously every plugin had been on an independent release, rather than being
the same as Horizon. Several plugins have changed this without any
communication; it would've been better to let us know at the time so we
Thx shinobu,
This is a great checklist ! Re PTL election, could we use community tools
for that ?
On May 2, 2016 1:09 PM, "Shinobu Kinjo" wrote:
Hi Team,
According to Documentation team, the Tricircle project seems to close
to be official (but not really official kind of) since we have
standard
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
wrote:
> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)"
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
> To: "OpenSt
Hi Team,
According to Documentation team, the Tricircle project seems to close
to be official (but not really official kind of) since we have
standard directory structure. [1]
What we need to do from here is to submit a project-config patch to
publish the documentation to [2]. Once we finish this
Tackers -
Heads up. As decided in last meeting [1] we are skipping the weekly meeting
this week on Tuesday, May 3rd. We will resume the meeting starting next
week. There was a request in the design summit to move the meeting one hour
ahead to compensate for the daylight savings time. I'll send an
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
wrote:
> A separate repo will land us in the same spot as we had with kolla-mesos
> originally. We had all kinds of variance in the implementation.
>
> I’m in favor of a single repo.
>
> +1 for the single repo.
>
I agree with you Vikram
A separate repo will land us in the same spot as we had with kolla-mesos
originally. We had all kinds of variance in the implementation.
I’m in favor of a single repo.
+1 for the single repo.
Regards,
Vikram Hosakote
IRC: vhosakot
From: Vikram Hosakote mailto:vhosa...@cisco.com>>
Date: Sunday,
Please add me too to the list!
Regards,
Vikram Hosakote
IRC: vhosakot
From: Michał Jastrzębski mailto:inc...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:58 AM
To: "OpenStack De
Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Deve
Hi Nova cores,
There is a spec[1] submitted to Telemetry project for Newton release,
mentioned that a new feature requires libvirt >= 1.3.4 , I'm not sure if
this will have bad impact to Nova service, so I open this thread and wait
for your opinions.
[1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311655/
On 5/1/2016 6:46 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On Wednesday morning Jay Pipes led a double session on the work going on
in the Nova scheduler. The session etherpad is here [1].
Jay started off by taking us through a high-level overview of what was
completed for the quantitative changes:
1. Resource
On Wednesday morning we discussed the state of performance VMs CI and
technical debt. Performance VMs are more commonly known as those taking
advantage of network function virtualization (NFV) features, like
SR-IOV, PCI, NUMA, CPU pinning and huge pages. The full etherpad is here
[1].
The ses
Hi Richard,
So what is the conclusion of where to put *aas CLI?
Regards,
Juno Zhu
IBM China Development Labs (CDL) Cloud IaaS Lab
Email: na...@cn.ibm.com
5F, Building 10, 399 Keyuan Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Pudong New
District, Shanghai, China (201203)
From: Richard Theis
To:
I think merging 2 repos is possible with keeping a history. Tonyb also
said that there will not be any issues with releasing z-streams. I
recall we kinda made a decision on summit that we keep ansible in
kolla tree as long as it's only stable deployment orchiestration tool,
and when second one appe
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Fellow core reviewers,
>
> We had a fantastic turnout at our fishbowl kubernetes as an underlay for
> Kolla session. The etherpad documents the folks interested and discussion
> at summit[1].
>
> This proposal is mostly based upon a c
Matt just a quick top-post to say thank you very much for this status
report as well as the scheduler session status report. Really appreciate
the help.
Best,
-jay
On 05/01/2016 09:01 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On Wednesday morning the Nova and Neutron teams got together for a
design summit se
On Wednesday morning the Nova and Neutron teams got together for a
design summit session. The full etherpad is here [1].
We talked through three major items.
1. Neutron routed networks.
Carl Baldwin gave a quick recap that we're on track with the Nova spec
[2] and had pushed a new revision wh
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Fellow Core Reviewers,
>
> Since many of the engineers working on the kolla-mesos repository are moving
> on to other things[1], possibly including implementing Kubernetes as an
> underlay for OpenStack containers, I propose we move th
Steve,
Thanks for bringing up this decision-making to the open forum.
This is a tough decision. "us vs them" i am hoping will not happen
this time around as we'll watch out for that. since there has been
talk about ansible getting split out eventually, splitting k8s into a
separate repo would be
Hey folks,
We really need to solve rax-ord in the gate. For awhile it was removed because
consistently across openstack this gate jobs were failing. Does anyone have
any idea why it is failing in the Kolla case?
Thanks
-steve
__
On 5/1/16, 4:22 PM, "Ryan Hallisey" wrote:
>I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a
>stable repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets
>going. Yes, we will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into
>the main repo. It's not a guarante
I agree to with the described benefits of separating the repos and my +1
for a separated repo.
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ryan Hallisey wrote:
> I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a
> stable repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets goin
On Wednesday morning Jay Pipes led a double session on the work going on
in the Nova scheduler. The session etherpad is here [1].
Jay started off by taking us through a high-level overview of what was
completed for the quantitative changes:
1. Resource classes
2. Resource providers
3. Onlin
Small correction, the biweekly meetings will start from May 3rd.
-Original Message-
From: Moshe Levi [mailto:mosh...@mellanox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 8:13 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] restarting SR-IOV/PCI Passthrough
meetin
I'm voting for separate repo. I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a stable
repo. I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets going. Yes, we
will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into the main repo. It's
not a guarantee.
If this were to go into the main repo, I thi
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
> That's an exciting news, please find a couple of comments bellow.
>
> On 04/29/2016 08:27 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of the most urgent tasks we need to achieve in TripleO during
>> Newton cycle is the composable roles supp
From: Michał Jastrzębski mailto:inc...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lis
From: Rob Cresswell (rcresswe) [mailto:rcres...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 4:28 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][release] freeze timelines for horizon in
newton
This has been discussed (just now) in the relea
While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed
that we start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we
either merge or not merge.
I'm for separate repo.
On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" wrote:
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we mad
On 5/1/16, 1:23 PM, "Ryan Hallisey" wrote:
>snip
>Trust isn't the issue here. The spec that people signed up for says
>"Create kolla-kubernetes repo".
>
>In this thread there seems to be two votes. One is the split repo
>discussion Kolla had at summit. The second is to create kolla-kubernetes.
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
repository.
I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off
private conversations with folks at summit. Many people fro
That's an exciting news, please find a couple of comments bellow.
On 04/29/2016 08:27 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the most urgent tasks we need to achieve in TripleO during
> Newton cycle is the composable roles support.
> So we decided to build a team that would focus on it during
-1 to not having a separate kolla-kubernetes repo.
> The kubernetes codebase will be maintained in the
> https://github.com/openstack/kolla repository under the kubernees top level
> directory.
I don't agree here. This needs to be its own repo.
> I feel we made a couple errors with the creati
+1
Cheers,
Alicja
-Original Message-
From: Hui Kang [mailto:hkang.sun...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 12:40 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote][kubernetes][infra] kolla-kubernetes
repository management
Hello,
With respect to my previous mail. I would just like to add that I am
aware the GSoC2016 and Outreachy2016 application periods are over and
I have always been interested in making contribution to these
projects, regardless of GSoC or Outreachy. I have also successfully
gone through the OpenS
Hello,
My name is Djimeli Konrad a second year computer science student from
the University of Buea Cameroon, Africa. I am GSoC 2015 participant,
and I have also worked on some open-source projects on github
(http://github.com/djkonro) and sourceforge
(https://sourceforge.net/u/konrado/profile/).
39 matches
Mail list logo
