On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-11-22 19:45:09 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
>> Given the persistent risks of downgrade attacks, I think this does
>> actually qualify as a security issue: not that its breaking, but
>> that SSLv3 is advertised and accepted anyw
Hello,
while working on a bug 'Keystone API GET 5000/v3 returns wrong endpoint
URL in response body'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1381961
I found a design solution which I need to understand better to fix this
bug. I'd appreciate the community help.
In service.py
http://git.openstack
On 23 November 2014 at 11:01, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-11-22 19:45:09 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
>> Given the persistent risks of downgrade attacks, I think this does
>> actually qualify as a security issue: not that its breaking, but
>> that SSLv3 is advertised and accepted anywh
Hi,
I'm happy to announce you that I just finished the last piece of the puzzle to
add support for trollius coroutines in Oslo Messaging! See my two changes:
* Add a new aiogreen executor:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136653/
* Add an optional executor callback to dispatcher:
https://rev
On 24 November 2014 at 11:01, victor stinner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm happy to announce you that I just finished the last piece of the puzzle
> to add support for trollius coroutines in Oslo Messaging! See my two changes:
>
> * Add a new aiogreen executor:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136653/
On 11/23/2014 06:13 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 24 November 2014 at 11:01, victor stinner
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm happy to announce you that I just finished the last piece of the puzzle
>> to add support for trollius coroutines in Oslo Messaging! See my two changes:
>>
>> * Add a new aiogree
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:30 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2014 06:13 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 24 November 2014 at 11:01, victor stinner
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm happy to announce you that I just finished the last piece of the puzzle
>>> to add support for trollius coroutines
1. We discussed splitting fuel-web, I think we should do that before
relaxing code freeze rules for it.
2. If there are high or critical priority bugs in a component during soft
code freeze, all developers of that component should be writing, reviewing,
or testing fixes for these bugs.
3. If we d
On 24 November 2014 at 12:35, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> For whatever it’s worth, I find explicit async io to be _way_ easier to
> understand for the same reason I find threaded code to be a rats nest.
>
> The co-routine style of asyncio (or Twisted’s inlineCallbacks) solves
> almost all of the prob
On 24 November 2014 at 12:30, Monty Taylor wrote:
> I'm not going to comment on the pros and cons - I think we all know I'm
> a fan of threads. But I have been around a while, so - for those who
> haven't been:
FWIW we have *threads* today as a programming model. The
implementation is green, but
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
> So - the technical bits of the plan sound fine.
>
> On WSGI - if we're in an asyncio world,
*looks around*, we are? when did that happen?Assuming we’re talking
explicit async. Rewriting all our code as verbose, “inside out
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> For whatever it’s worth, I find explicit async io to be _way_ easier to
> understand for the same reason I find threaded code to be a rats nest.
web applications aren’t explicitly “threaded”. You get a request, load some
data, manipu
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
> Given that, I’ve yet to understand why a system that implicitly defers CPU
> use when a routine encounters IO, deferring to other routines, is relegated
> to the realm of “magic”. Is Python reference counting and garbage
> collection “mag
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>>
>> Glyph wrote a good post that mirrors my opinions on implicit vs explicit
>> here: https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2014/02/unyielding.html.
>
> this is the post that most makes me think about the garbage collector
> analogy, re: “gevent
Hello
I am new with openstack and I would like to use a KMIP server for key
storage and key retieval. I have lloking for different documentation but I
have had difficulties to change the default behavior of barbican.
Right now I am modifying the barbican-api.conf file.
I am replacing enabled_secr
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>>
>> Given that, I’ve yet to understand why a system that implicitly defers CPU
>> use when a routine encounters IO, deferring to other routines, is relegated
>> to the realm of “magic
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that, I’ve yet to understand why a system that implicitly defers CPU
>>> use when a routine encounters IO, defe
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> I don’t really take performance issues that seriously for CPython. If you
> care about performance you should be using PyPy. I like that argument though
> because the same argument is used against the GCs which you like to use as an
> ex
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:09 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>> I don’t really take performance issues that seriously for CPython. If you
>> care about performance you should be using PyPy. I like that argument though
>> because the same argum
Thanks everyone, I've closed the poll. I'm sorry to say that there's no
combination of two timeslots which allows everyone to attend a meeting. Of
the 25 respondents, the best we can do is cater for 24 of you.
Optimising for the maximum number of attendees, the potential meeting times
are 2000 UTC
On 07:27 Tue 18 Nov , Duncan Thomas wrote:
> Is the new driver drop-in compatible with the old one? IF not, can existing
> systems be upgraded to the new driver via some manual steps, or is it
> basically a completely new driver with similar functionality?
>
> On 17 November 2014 07:08, Drew F
Whoops, that should say "assertions" not "exceptions".
- Original Message -
> From: "Solly Ross"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 12:00:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal new hacking rules
>
> Wel
Well, at least the message for exceptions in Nova says "expected" and
"observed".
I suspect that it's part of our custom test case classes.
Best Regards,
Solly Ross
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Treinish"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Brad Topol wrote:
> Angus,
>
> This may sound crazy but what if in addition to having the online meetup
> you denoted two different locations as an optional physical meetup?
That way you would get some of the benefits of having folks meet together
> in person
24 matches
Mail list logo
