Tom,
Do you know if the Forum sessions will be video’d?
Tim
On 13.04.17, 05:52, "Tom Fifield" wrote:
Hello all,
The schedule for our the Forum is online:
https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/#track=146
==> Session moderators, please s
Hello all,
The schedule for our the Forum is online:
https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/#track=146
==> Session moderators, please start advertising your sessions &
starting pre-discussions, to get the best, most well-informed people
there possible!
==> Anyone els
Good idea. I just tried again with the "shebang". Didn't help. But I
will be sure to include it in the future at all times.
"Edmund Rhudy (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK)" writes:
> Are you starting the file with "#cloud-config"? AFAIK, cloud-init uses
> the first line to decide how to process the file (e.
Are you starting the file with "#cloud-config"? AFAIK, cloud-init uses the
first line to decide how to process the file (e.g. if it starts with a shell
shebang it will treat it as a shell script, #cloud-config will cause it to
process it as cloud-init YAML, and so forth). I am not sure if it wil
It does look funny at first. But that's actually two separate
users. This cloud.cfg has been verified in an enterprise cloud. Apart
from the passwd stuff (which I will remove) I am certain it should
work. It specifies that the default user should be created as normal,
and it adds a second ckonstans
The only thing I can think of is that the default user should just be
"default", not qualified with "name". Perhaps that is clobbering your next
entry or just creating a syntax error.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Carlos Konstanski <
ckonstan...@pippiandcarlos.com> wrote:
> I cannot get a sim
I cannot get a simple cloud.cfg to be applied to a newly created
instance. This is the cloud.cfg: (sensitive info removed)
users:
- name: default
- name: ckonstanski
groups: sudo
shell: /bin/bash
sudo: ['ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL']
passwd:
lock_passwd: False
ssh-authorize
The previous discussion for LTS [1] was proposed by vendors as well as a
few large operators who willing to assign developers for the work (not sure
if the case might change?)
One key concern (as per last discussion) is the Infra CI constraints for
LTS.
If there are more interest in this topic, we
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan D. Proulx
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:01:00PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> :Right, but the distros aren't interested in funding developers for LTS
> :upstream work, much less a lot of the stable branch support upstream. It
> :shouldn't be sur
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:01:00PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
:Right, but the distros aren't interested in funding developers for LTS
:upstream work, much less a lot of the stable branch support upstream. It
:shouldn't be surprising why, that's where they can make money.
No doubt that's their t
Hi all -
We have a Scientific WG IRC meeting later today at 0900 UTC in channel
#openstack-meeting. Everyone is welcome.
The agenda[1] is a round-up of some of the Forum planning that has been going
on in the last couple of weeks. We also have a round-up of the OpenStack angle
at the HPC Ad
11 matches
Mail list logo
