Hi Tim,
Firstly, thank-you for reading the logs and following up - it's great
to have further discussion generated!
On 2 June 2016 at 03:07, Tim Randles wrote:
> Sorry I wasn't able to make yesterday's Scientific Working Group IRC
> meeting. The discussion looked very interesting. I would like
Hello all,
Thank you very much to the dozen of you who participated in our second
meeting. We had some fantastic discussion, summarised below (the meeting
overview can be found at [3] and the full log at [4]).
==Next Meeting==
Unless there is further discussion, this the next meeting is at:
Hey Mike,
I have updated our patch for this
https://github.com/NeCTAR-RC/nova/commit/debd88652bd9f32f91ab68dd1a3979a7cdc9ec80
Is that what you’re doing too?
Cheers,
Sam
> On 20 May 2016, at 9:26 AM, Sam Morrison wrote:
>
> Ha, yeah have come across this too in our tempest runs. Haven’t had
Great feedback Anita - thank you :)
On 1 June 2016 at 20:42, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 03:29 PM, David Medberry wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis <
> matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from
I'll second David's comments, and second the fact that the Manchester
layout seemed to work well. The facility in Manchester provided a couple
secondary rooms plus a few much smaller rooms which I think generally
worked well. Having a tertiary area for meals/"networking" type engagements
should al
On 06/01/2016 03:29 PM, David Medberry wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
>> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
>> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum s
Good feedback David. I think we'd all agree that the Austin room layout for
that session was totally wrong for what we were trying to do :) The overall
maximum numbers have a pretty big impact on secondary room sizes, depending
on how many tracks you try to have, which is one of the reasons why we'
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis
wrote:
>
> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
>
Two comments, points
1) The last day of the Aus
+1
On 1 June 2016 at 16:54, Edgar Magana wrote:
> I totally second Thierry. That was an excellent description of the
> importance of having the Ops sessions in these events.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgar
>
> On 6/1/16, 2:49 AM, "Thierry Carrez" wrote:
>
> >Sam Morrison wrote:
> >> As an operator what s
I totally second Thierry. That was an excellent description of the importance
of having the Ops sessions in these events.
Cheers,
Edgar
On 6/1/16, 2:49 AM, "Thierry Carrez" wrote:
>Sam Morrison wrote:
>> As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing,
>> the thing for
view the agenda here. [1] If
> you have anything that you think the Operators community can help with,
> please come join the conversation.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe
>
>
> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osops-irc-meeting-20160601
>
___
> On 01 Jun 2016, at 14:49, Saverio Proto wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> reading this documentation page:
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/migration-neutron-database.html
>
> I dont get what means having two parallel migration branches.
>
> Do you have to choose one of the branch
Hello,
reading this documentation page:
http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/migration-neutron-database.html
I dont get what means having two parallel migration branches.
Do you have to choose one of the branches ? If yes how ?
Or it just means that some operations can be safely
community can help with,
please come join the conversation.
Thanks
Joe
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osops-irc-meeting-20160601
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-b
Hi,
thanks Nikhil.
My availability considering what was proposed:
2000 UTC - OK
1100 UTC - OK
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Nikhil Komawar
wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> Thanks for your interest.
>
> Sorry about the confusion. Please consider the same time for Thursday
> June 9th.
>
>
> Thur June 9th p
Sam Morrison wrote:
As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing,
the thing formally known as the summit or the ops mid cycle?
Will there be operator sessions at the summit still?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but still not 100% sure how
operators fit into
As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing, the
thing formally known as the summit or the ops mid cycle?
Will there be operator sessions at the summit still?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but still not 100% sure how operators
fit into the new model.
Chee
Hi All
As part of the work we've been doing on the Ops Meetups Team working group,
we've recently had some discussion on the ideal attendee numbers for future
Ops Mid Cycles which we'd like as much feedback as possible on from the
wider community.
The general consensus in the discussions we've ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
