We understand. We¹re willing, ready, and able to assist with all of the
upstream items that need to happen in order to get our submission in and
more. We just need to know so we can help.
Best,
‹Randy
On 6/8/16, 6:09 PM, "Matt Riedemann" wrote:
>That blueprint is high priority for a sing
> According to the state of this review:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317689/ the works aren't going to be
> done in this cycle.
This is a procedural -2 waiting for all the following patches to be
reviewed and passing 3rd party CI before we land them. We certainly
expect to get this work int
Hi Alex:
We still hope to land this patch series during this cycle. If you're
referring to the -2 on the patch you mentioned [1], it was just a
procedural -2 until we stopped using the old methods in the driver and
cutover completely to the new methods. I'll ping Dan Smith on IRC
later today, and
On 6/8/2016 7:19 PM, Bias, Randy wrote:
I just want to point out that this appears to imply that open source
storage backends for OpenStack would be prioritized over closed-source
ones and I think that runs counter to the general inclusivity in the
community. I assume it¹s just a turn of phrase,
I just want to point out that this appears to imply that open source
storage backends for OpenStack would be prioritized over closed-source
ones and I think that runs counter to the general inclusivity in the
community. I assume it¹s just a turn of phrase, but I suspect it could be
easily misinter
On 6/8/2016 12:05 PM, Alexandre Levine wrote:
Hi Matt,
According to the state of this review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317689/ the works aren't going to be
done in this cycle.
Do you think it'd be possible for our driver to cut in now?
Feodor participated in reviewing and helped as muc
Hi Matt,
According to the state of this review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317689/ the works aren't going to be
done in this cycle.
Do you think it'd be possible for our driver to cut in now?
Feodor participated in reviewing and helped as much as possible with
current efforts and if n
Thank you Matt.
We'll think how we can help here.
Best regards,
Alex Levine
On 5/10/16 7:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 5/10/2016 11:24 AM, Alexandre Levine wrote:
Hi Matt,
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier - was away.
I'm worrying about ScaleIO ephemeral storage backend
(https://blueprints.l
On 5/10/2016 11:24 AM, Alexandre Levine wrote:
Hi Matt,
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier - was away.
I'm worrying about ScaleIO ephemeral storage backend
(https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/scaleio-ephemeral-storage-backend)
which is not in this list but various clients are very intereste
Hi Matt,
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier - was away.
I'm worrying about ScaleIO ephemeral storage backend
(https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/scaleio-ephemeral-storage-backend)
which is not in this list but various clients are very interested in
having it working along with or instead
On 5/6/2016 1:37 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
Thanks for sending this out Matt. I added a inline comment here.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Matt Riedemann
mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
There are still a few design summit sessions from the summit that
I'll recap but I wanted
Thanks for sending this out Matt. I added a inline comment here.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
> There are still a few design summit sessions from the summit that I'll
> recap but I wanted to get the priorities session recap out as early as
> possible. We held that sessio
There are still a few design summit sessions from the summit that I'll
recap but I wanted to get the priorities session recap out as early as
possible. We held that session in the last slot on Thursday. The full
etherpad is here [1].
The first part of the session was mostly going over schedule
13 matches
Mail list logo
