[openstack-dev] [ironic] [nova] traits discussion call - moved to Tue!!

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Thu Nov 2 09:17:47 UTC 2017


Hi all,

The recording of the call is https://bluejeans.com/s/K3wZZ

On 10/30/2017 03:32 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> It seems that the new time works for the most of key people, so let's move it to 
> tomorrow (Tue), the same time, the same bluejeans.
> 
> Apologies to those who won't be able to attend, and sorry for the late notice.
> 
> On 10/30/2017 03:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> I'd prefer to have you on the call, Dima. How about we push it back to 
>> tomorrow at the same time?
>>
>> Can everyone make it then?
>>
>> -jay
>>
>> On 10/30/2017 10:11 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>> Aaaand sorry again, but due to sudden errands I won't be able to attend. 
>>> Please feel free to use my bluejeans room anyway. I think my position on 
>>> traits is more or less clear from previous discussions with John, Sam and Eric.
>>>
>>> 2017-10-24 18:07 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com 
>>> <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>:
>>>
>>>     Sigh, sorry. I forgot that we're moving back to winter time this
>>>     weekend. I *think* the time is 3pm UTC then. It seems to be 11am
>>>     eastern US:
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20171030T150000&p1=37&p2=tz_et 
>>>
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20171030T150000&p1=37&p2=tz_et>. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 10/24/2017 06:00 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>>
>>>         And the winner is Mon, 30 Oct, 2pm UTC!
>>>
>>>         The bluejeans ID is https://bluejeans.com/757528759
>>>         <https://bluejeans.com/757528759>
>>>         (works without plugins in recent FF and Chrome; if it asks to
>>>         install an app, ignore it and look for a link saying "join with
>>>         browser")
>>>
>>>         On 10/23/2017 05:02 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi all!
>>>
>>>             I'd like to invite you to the discussion of the way to
>>>             implement traits in
>>>             ironic and the ironic virt driver. Please vote for the time at
>>>             https://doodle.com/poll/ts43k98kkvniv8uz
>>>             <https://doodle.com/poll/ts43k98kkvniv8uz>. Please vote by
>>>             EOD tomorrow.
>>>
>>>             Note that it's going to be a technical discussion - please
>>>             make sure you
>>>             understand what traits are and why ironic cares about them.
>>>             See below for more
>>>             context.
>>>
>>>             We'll probably use my bluejeans account, as it works without
>>>             plugins in modern
>>>             browsers. I'll post a meeting ID when we pick the date.
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 10/23/2017 04:09 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
>>>
>>>                 We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1]. 
>>>                 We're all in
>>>                 agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of
>>>                 points:
>>>
>>>                 * We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the
>>>                 "trait" that
>>>                 represents it in placement.  For the sake of this
>>>                 discussion, a
>>>                 "feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a
>>>                 "trait" can either be
>>>                 present or absent on a RP.
>>>                 * It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
>>>                      * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it
>>>                 makes sense to have
>>>                 the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature
>>>                 on/off via a
>>>                 separate extra_spec.
>>>                      * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has
>>>                 no control, then the
>>>                 trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*,
>>>                 and *removed*
>>>                 whenever the feature is *off*.
>>>
>>>                 [1]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13 
>>>
>>> <http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                 On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                     On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried
>>>                     <openstack at fried.cc
>>>                     <mailto:openstack at fried.cc
>>>                     <mailto:openstack at fried.cc>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                            I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
>>>
>>>                            * A resource provider should be marked with a
>>>                     trait if that feature
>>>                              * Can be turned on or off (whether it's
>>>                     currently on or not); or
>>>                              * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
>>>
>>>
>>>                     No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider
>>>                     stops providing a
>>>                     capability, then the existing related trait should
>>>                     just be removed,
>>>                     that's it.
>>>                     If you see a trait, that's just means that the
>>>                     related capability for
>>>                     the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
>>>
>>>                     MHO.
>>>
>>>                     -Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                            * A consumer wanting that feature present
>>>                     (doesn't matter whether it's
>>>                            on or off) should specify it as a required
>>>                     *trait*.
>>>                            * A consumer wanting that feature present and
>>>                     turned on should
>>>                              * Specify it as a required trait; AND
>>>                              * Indicate that it be turned on via some
>>>                     other mechanism (e.g. a
>>>                            separate extra_spec).
>>>
>>>                            I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's)
>>>                     needs, but also Jay's drive
>>>                            for placement purity.
>>>
>>>                            Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
>>>
>>>                            Thanks,
>>>                            Eric
>>>
>>>                            On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>>>                            <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>]
>>>                            > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
>>>                            > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>>                            <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>                     <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>                            <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>                     <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>>
>>>                            > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic]
>>>                     ironic and traits
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > Writing from my phone... May I ask that
>>>                     before you proceed with any plan
>>>                            > that uses traits for state information that
>>>                     we have a hangout or
>>>                            > videoconference to discuss this?
>>>                     Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm
>>>                            > not able to do a hangout but I can do one
>>>                     on Wednesday any time of the day.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I
>>>                     did bring up at the
>>>                            ptg that
>>>                            > we wanted to standardizes tratis for
>>>                     “verified boot” /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */that included a trait for uefi secure
>>>                     boot enabled and to
>>>                            indicated a
>>>                            > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot
>>>                     guard or similar/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag
>>>                     nova compute hosts with those
>>>                            > new traits so we could require that vms
>>>                     that request/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and
>>>                     a hardware root of
>>>                            trust are
>>>                            > scheduled only to those nodes. /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */ /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */There are many other examples that effect
>>>                     both vms and bare
>>>                            metal such
>>>                            > as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */l3 cache code and data prioritization,
>>>                     vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
>>>                            > threading, power states … all of these
>>>                     feature may be present on the
>>>                            > platform/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */but I also need to know if they are
>>>                     turned on. Ruling out state in
>>>                            > traits means all of this logic will
>>>                     eventually get pushed to scheduler
>>>                            > filters/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */which will be suboptimal long term as
>>>                     more state is tracked.
>>>                            Software
>>>                            > defined infrastructure may be the future
>>>                     but hardware defined
>>>                            software/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */is sadly the present…/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */ /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */I do however think there should be a
>>>                     sperateion between asking for a
>>>                            > host that provides x with a trait and 
>>>                     asking for x to be
>>>                            configure via/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */A trait. The trait secure_boot_enabled
>>>                     should never result in the
>>>                            > feature being enabled It should just find a
>>>                     host with it on. If
>>>                            you want/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */To request it to be turned on you would
>>>                     request a host with
>>>                            > secure_boot_capable as a trait and have a
>>>                     flavor extra spec or image
>>>                            > property to request/*
>>>                            >
>>>                            > */Ironic to enabled it.  these are two very
>>>                     different request and
>>>                            should
>>>                            > not be treated the same. /*
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > Lemme know!
>>>                            >
>>>                            > -jay
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur"
>>>                     <dtantsur at redhat.com <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>
>>>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>>>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>
>>>                            > <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>>>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>
>>>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>>>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     Hi Jay!
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     I appreciate your comments, but I think
>>>                     you're approaching the
>>>                            >     problem from purely VM point of view.
>>>                     Things simply don't work the
>>>                            >     same way in bare metal, at least not if
>>>                     we want to provide the same
>>>                            >     user experience.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay
>>>                     Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>
>>>                            >     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         Sorry for delay, took a week off
>>>                     before starting a new job.
>>>                            >         Comments inline.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry
>>>                     Tantsur wrote:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             Hi all,
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             I promised John to dump my
>>>                     thoughts on traits to the
>>>                            ML, so
>>>                            >             here we go :)
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             I see two roles of traits (or
>>>                     kinds of traits) for
>>>                            bare metal:
>>>                            >             1. traits that say what the
>>>                     node can do already (e.g. "the
>>>                            >             node is
>>>                            >             doing UEFI boot")
>>>                            >             2. traits that say what the
>>>                     node can be *configured* to do
>>>                            >             (e.g. "the node can
>>>                            >             boot in UEFI mode")
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         There's only one role for traits.
>>>                     #2 above. #1 is state
>>>                            >         information. Traits are not for
>>>                     state information. Traits are
>>>                            >         only for communicating capabilities
>>>                     of a resource provider
>>>                            >         (baremetal node).
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     These are not different, that's what
>>>                     I'm talking about here. No
>>>                            >     users care about the difference between
>>>                     "this node was put in UEFI
>>>                            >     mode by an operator in advance", "this
>>>                     node was put in UEFI
>>>                            mode by
>>>                            >     an ironic driver on demand" and "this
>>>                     node is always in UEFI mode,
>>>                            >     because it's AARCH64 and it does not
>>>                     have BIOS". These situation
>>>                            >     produce the same result (the node is
>>>                     booted in UEFI mode), and
>>>                            thus
>>>                            >     it's up to ironic to hide this difference.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     My suggestion with traits is one way to
>>>                     do it, I'm not sure
>>>                            what you
>>>                            >     suggest though.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         For example, let's say we add the
>>>                     following to the os-traits
>>>                            >         library [1]
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_0
>>>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_1
>>>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_5
>>>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_6
>>>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_10
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         The Ironic administrator would add
>>>                     all RAID-related traits to
>>>                            >         the baremetal nodes that had the
>>>                     *capability* of
>>>                            supporting that
>>>                            >         particular RAID setup [2]
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         When provisioned, the baremetal
>>>                     node would either have RAID
>>>                            >         configured in a certain level or
>>>                     not configured at all.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         A very important note: the
>>>                     Placement API and Nova
>>>                            scheduler (or
>>>                            >         future Ironic scheduler) doesn't
>>>                     care about this. At all.
>>>                            I know
>>>                            >         it sounds like I'm being callous,
>>>                     but I'm not. Placement and
>>>                            >         scheduling doesn't care about the
>>>                     state of things. It only
>>>                            cares
>>>                            >         about the capabilities of target
>>>                     destinations. That's it.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     Yes, because VMs always start with a
>>>                     clean state, and
>>>                            hypervisor is
>>>                            >     there to ensure that. We don't have
>>>                     this luxury in ironic :) E.g.
>>>                            >     our SNMP driver is not even aware of
>>>                     boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS
>>>                            >     configuration), which does not mean
>>>                     that a node using it cannot be
>>>                            >     in UEFI mode (have a RAID or BIOS
>>>                     pre-configured, etc, etc).
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             This seems confusing, but it's
>>>                     actually very useful.
>>>                            Say, I
>>>                            >             have a flavor that
>>>                            >             requests UEFI boot via a trait.
>>>                     It will match both the
>>>                            nodes
>>>                            >             that are already in
>>>                            >             UEFI mode, as well as nodes
>>>                     that can be put in UEFI mode.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         No :) It will only match nodes that
>>>                     have the UEFI capability.
>>>                            >         The set of providers that have the
>>>                     ability to be booted
>>>                            via UEFI
>>>                            >         is *always* a superset of the set
>>>                     of providers that *have been
>>>                            >         booted via UEFI*. Placement and
>>>                     scheduling decisions only care
>>>                            >         about that superset -- the
>>>                     providers with a particular
>>>                            capability.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely
>>>                     basing on the VM idea,
>>>                            where
>>>                            >     a VM is always *put* in UEFI mode, no
>>>                     matter how the hypervisor
>>>                            >     looks like. It is simply not the case
>>>                     for us. You have to care
>>>                            what
>>>                            >     state the node is, because many drivers
>>>                     cannot change this state.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             This idea goes further with
>>>                     deploy templates (new concept
>>>                            >             we've been thinking
>>>                            >             about). A flavor can request
>>>                     something like CUSTOM_RAID_5,
>>>                            >             and it will match the
>>>                            >             nodes that already have RAID 5,
>>>                     or, more
>>>                            interestingly, the
>>>                            >             nodes on which we
>>>                            >             can build RAID 5 before
>>>                     deployment. The UEFI example above
>>>                            >             can be treated in a
>>>                            >             similar way.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             This ends up with two sources
>>>                     of knowledge about traits in
>>>                            >             ironic:
>>>                            >             1. Operators setting something
>>>                     they know about hardware
>>>                            >             ("this node is in UEFI
>>>                            >             mode"),
>>>                            >             2. Ironic drivers reporting
>>>                     something they
>>>                            >                2.1. know about hardware
>>>                     ("this node is in UEFI mode" -
>>>                            >             again)
>>>                            >                2.2. can do about hardware
>>>                     ("I can put this node in
>>>                            UEFI
>>>                            >             mode")
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         You're correct that both pieces of
>>>                     information are important.
>>>                            >         However, only the "can do about
>>>                     hardware" part is relevant to
>>>                            >         Placement and Nova.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             For case #1 we are planning on
>>>                     a new CRUD API to set/unset
>>>                            >             traits for a node.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         I would *strongly* advise against
>>>                     this. Traits are not for
>>>                            state
>>>                            >         information.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         Instead, consider having a DB (or
>>>                     JSON) schema that lists
>>>                            state
>>>                            >         information in fields that are
>>>                     explicitly for that state
>>>                            >         information.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         For example, a schema that looks
>>>                     like this:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         {
>>>                            >           "boot": {
>>>                            >             "mode": <one of 'bios' or 'uefi'>,
>>>                            >             "params": <dict>
>>>                            >           },
>>>                            >           "disk": {
>>>                            >             "raid": {
>>>                            >               "level": <int>,
>>>                            >               "controller": <one of 'sw' or
>>>                     'hw'>,
>>>                            >               "driver": <string>,
>>>                            >               "params": <dict>
>>>                            >             },  ...
>>>                            >           },
>>>                            >           "network": {
>>>                            >             ...
>>>                            >           }
>>>                            >         }
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         etc, etc.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         Don't use trait strings to
>>>                     represent state information.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >     I don't see an alternative proposal
>>>                     that will satisfy what we have
>>>                            >     to solve.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         Best,
>>>                            >         -jay
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             Case #2 is more interesting. We
>>>                     have two options, I think:
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             a) Operators still set traits
>>>                     on nodes, drivers are simply
>>>                            >             validating them. E.g.
>>>                            >             an operators sets
>>>                     CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID
>>>                            >             interface checks if it is
>>>                            >             possible to do. The downside is
>>>                     obvious - with a lot of
>>>                            >             deploy templates
>>>                            >             available it can be a lot of
>>>                     manual work.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             b) Drivers report the traits,
>>>                     and they get somehow
>>>                            added to
>>>                            >             the traits provided
>>>                            >             by an operator. Technically,
>>>                     there are sub-cases again:
>>>                            >                b.1) The new traits API
>>>                     returns a union of
>>>                            >             operator-provided and
>>>                            >             driver-provided traits
>>>                            >                b.2) The new traits API
>>>                     returns only operator-provided
>>>                            >             traits; driver-provided
>>>                            >             traits are returned e.g. via a
>>>                     new field
>>>                            >             (node.driver_traits). Then nova
>>>                     will
>>>                            >             have to merge the lists itself.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             My personal favorite is the
>>>                     last option: I'd like a clear
>>>                            >             distinction between
>>>                            >             different "sources" of traits,
>>>                     but I'd also like to reduce
>>>                            >             manual work for
>>>                            >             operators.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             A valid counter-argument is:
>>>                     what if an operator wants to
>>>                            >             override a
>>>                            >             driver-provided trait? E.g. a
>>>                     node can do RAID 5, but I
>>>                            >             don't want this
>>>                            >             particular node to do it for
>>>                     any reason. I'm not sure if
>>>                            >             it's a valid case, and
>>>                            >             what to do about it.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             Let me know what you think.
>>>                            >
>>>                            >             Dmitry
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >         [1]
>>>                     http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
>>>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/>
>>>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
>>>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/>>
>>>                            >         [2] Based on how many attached
>>>                     disks the node had, the
>>>                            presence
>>>                            >         and abilities of a hardware RAID
>>>                     controller, etc
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                            >         OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>>                     (not for usage questions)
>>>                            >         Unsubscribe:
>>>                            >
>>>                     
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>>>                            >
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>>
>>>                            >
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            > 
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                            >     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
>>>                     for usage questions)
>>>                            >     Unsubscribe:
>>>                            >
>>>                     
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>>>                            >
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>>
>>>                            >
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>>                            >
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                            > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
>>>                     usage questions)
>>>                            > Unsubscribe:
>>>                     
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>>>                            >
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>>>                            >
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                            OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
>>>                     usage questions)
>>>                            Unsubscribe:
>>>                     
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>                     questions)
>>>                     Unsubscribe:
>>>                     
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>                 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>                 Unsubscribe:
>>>                 OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>>                 
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     __________________________________________________________________________
>>>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>     Unsubscribe:
>>>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -- 
>>> -- Dmitry Tantsur
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list