And no CI meetings in next two weeks after the summit because of no planned
attendance from main participants.
Ihar
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.opens
Hey all,
We have a couple sessions to start off the week and I wanted to send out
the links to the etherpads [0] [1] [2].
Let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise feel free to catch up or
pre-populate the etherpads with content if you have any.
Thanks!
[0] https://etherpad.openstack.o
as i haven't heard any objections, i went ahead and added them to the list. [1]
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/607,members
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Ryu Ishimoto wrote:
>
> +1 !
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:41 AM Takashi Yamamoto
> wrote:
>>
>> unless anyone objects,
It would be interesting for this to be built in a way where other endpoints
could be added to the list that have extra headers added to them.
For example, we could end up with something quite similar to EC2 IAMS if we
could add headers on the way through for requests to OpenStack endpoints.
Do yo
On 07/05/17 11:59 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2017-05-07 09:49:41 -0400:
On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>> Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
>>
>> * We use
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2017-05-07 09:49:41 -0400:
> On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >
> >> Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
> >>
> >> * We use the meeting to give the final ack on
HTML version:
https://www.openstack.org/blog/2017/05/openstack-developer-mailing-list-digest-20170507/
POST /api-wg/news
=
* Newly Published Guidelines
* Create a set of API interoperability guidelines [1]
* Guidelines Current Under Review
* Microversions: add
On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
* We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
* Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda
On 05/05/17 11:22 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean McGinnis wrote:
[...]
But part of my concern to getting rid of the meeting is that I do find it
valuable. The arguments against having it are some of the same I've heard for
our in-person events. It's hard for some to travel to the PTG. There's
So I noticed today that the release information [0] for Newton appears to have
the wrong date for when Newton transitions to the Legacy Phase. According to
this conversation [1], I think (thought?) we established that rolling over to
each support phase would stay on a 6 month cycle, despite Ocata b
10 matches
Mail list logo
