On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 11:41 -0400, James Slagle wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> > On 05/07/2015 07:35 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
>
> On Thu
On 05/08/2015 05:41 PM, James Slagle wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 07:35 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 07:35 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>> on
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 09:10 -0400, Jay Dobies wrote:
>
> On 05/07/2015 06:01 AM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> > On 05/07/2015 11:15 AM, marios wrote:
> >> On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >>> Something like this:
> >>>
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/
> >>
> >> +1 I
On 05/07/2015 07:35 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
[...]
on the other hand, we can very well get rid of the ifs today by
deploying *with* pacema
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I think the change is good, I am assuming we don't want the shared parts
> >> to get duplicated into the two .pp thoug
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 10:42 -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2015 10:32 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> (...)
> >
> > I think this split is a good compromise and would probably even speed up
> > the implementation of the remaining pacemaker features too. And removing
> > all the pacemaker condit
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 10:26 -0400, Jay Dobies wrote:
> >>> Something like this:
> >>>
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/
>
> I'm not convinced this is a good user experience though. You have
> configuration effectively in two places. If you want to enable Galera,
> or enable ceph sto
On 05/07/2015 05:36 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
[...]
and there are quite a lot of similar examples, the change from marios as
well, ended up duplicating lots of code:
https://review.openstack.o
On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
[...]
I think the change is good, I am assuming we don't want the shared parts
to get duplicated into the two .pp though.
So again. Duplicating the puppet class includes doesn't bother me too
On 05/06/2015 10:32 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
(...)
>
> I think this split is a good compromise and would probably even speed up
> the implementation of the remaining pacemaker features too. And removing
> all the pacemaker conditionals we have from the non-pacemaker version
> puts us back in a reas
Something like this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/
I'm not convinced this is a good user experience though. You have
configuration effectively in two places. If you want to enable Galera,
or enable ceph storage, it's a parameter. But not pacemaker. To enable
that, you have to look
On 07/05/15 16:34, Dan Prince wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 12:15 +0300, marios wrote:
>> On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
>>> Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
>>> the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
>>> of the condition
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 12:15 +0300, marios wrote:
> On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
> > Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
> > the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
> > of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overclou
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> hi Dan!
>
> On 05/07/2015 04:32 AM, Dan Prince wrote:
> > Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
> > the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
> > of the conditionals we are add
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:56 +0200, Jiří Stránský wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On 7.5.2015 04:32, Dan Prince wrote:
> > Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
> > the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
> > of the conditionals we are adding to
On 05/07/2015 06:01 AM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 11:15 AM, marios wrote:
On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
[..]
Something like this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/
+1 I like this as an idea. Given we've already got quite a few reviews
in flight making changes to
On 05/07/2015 11:15 AM, marios wrote:
On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
[..]
Something like this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/
+1 I like this as an idea. Given we've already got quite a few reviews
in flight making changes to overcloud_controller.pp (we're still working
out
Hi Dan,
On 7.5.2015 04:32, Dan Prince wrote:
Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp
manifest. Specifically it seems that
hi Dan!
On 05/07/2015 04:32 AM, Dan Prince wrote:
Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp
manifest. Specifically it seems
On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:
> Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
> the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
> of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp
> manifest. Specifically it seems that ev
Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all
the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all
of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp
manifest. Specifically it seems that every service will basically have
its resources
22 matches
Mail list logo
