| openstackgerrit | Yuuichi Fujioka proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: (WIP)Implements monitoring-network https://review.openstack.org/60473 | 00:11 |
|---|---|---|
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 00:21 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 01:09 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 01:21 | |
| *** djbkd has quit IRC | 01:34 | |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 02:00 | |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 02:20 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/ceilometer: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/61275 | 02:30 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/python-ceilometerclient: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/60978 | 02:33 |
| *** gordc has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 03:49 | |
| *** gordc has quit IRC | 03:54 | |
| openstackgerrit | Sushil Kumar proposed a change to openstack/python-ceilometerclient: Updates tox.ini to use new features https://review.openstack.org/60818 | 04:16 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 04:27 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/ceilometer: add more test cases to improve the test code coverage #5 https://review.openstack.org/49802 | 04:28 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov is now known as _SergeyLukjanov | 05:09 | |
| *** _SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 05:14 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jenkins proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: Imported Translations from Transifex https://review.openstack.org/60154 | 06:05 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 06:21 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 06:44 | |
| *** ildikov_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 06:46 | |
| *** yfujioka has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 06:59 | |
| *** urulama has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 07:31 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 07:49 | |
| *** ildikov__ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 07:59 | |
| *** Alienyyg has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 08:01 | |
| Alienyyg | hiHi guys: when I use ceilometer alarm-show to list the information about a alarm, I got insuficent data, the alarm and the instance are in the same tenant ,and all be up for a long time, what does the " insuficent data"mean ? | 08:02 |
| *** ildikov_ has quit IRC | 08:02 | |
| Alienyyg | and can anyone tell me how to clear the history of ceilometer ? beacuse I only have on VM now,but when I use ceilometer meter-list , I got many response,It is very hard to figure out the one I need | 08:03 |
| Alienyyg | any help? | 08:06 |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 08:52 | |
| *** Alexei_987 has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 09:50 | |
| *** ildikov__ has quit IRC | 10:05 | |
| *** ildikov_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 10:06 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 10:20 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov is now known as _SergeyLukjanov | 10:23 | |
| openstackgerrit | Thomas Herve proposed a change to openstack/python-ceilometerclient: Improve description of some commands https://review.openstack.org/61365 | 10:28 |
| *** jd__ has quit IRC | 10:48 | |
| *** jd__ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 10:48 | |
| *** sayali has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 10:50 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 10:57 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 11:09 | |
| *** Alexei_987 has quit IRC | 11:20 | |
| openstackgerrit | Mark McLoughlin proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: doc: fix formatting of alarm action types https://review.openstack.org/61387 | 11:40 |
| openstackgerrit | Mark McLoughlin proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: doc: remove note about Nova plugin framework https://review.openstack.org/61390 | 11:51 |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 12:04 | |
| *** Alienyyg has quit IRC | 12:04 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 12:10 | |
| *** yfujioka has quit IRC | 12:12 | |
| *** ildikov_ has quit IRC | 12:15 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 12:21 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 12:26 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 12:42 | |
| *** Alexei_987 has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 12:49 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 12:51 | |
| *** urulama has quit IRC | 12:53 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 13:05 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 13:07 | |
| *** urulama has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 13:13 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 13:17 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 13:20 | |
| *** prad has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 13:23 | |
| *** jdob has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 13:35 | |
| sandywalsh_ | asalkeld, sileht nijaba any chance of a +1 on http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/021675.html ? | 13:39 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: ping | 13:46 |
| *** prad has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 14:11 | |
| *** prad has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 14:12 | |
| *** gordc has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 14:24 | |
| *** terriyu has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 14:40 | |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 14:45 | |
| *** jdob has quit IRC | 15:00 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:03 | |
| *** sayali_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:05 | |
| *** jdob has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:06 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 15:06 | |
| *** sayali has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** sayali_ has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:10 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov_ has quit IRC | 15:12 | |
| *** litong has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:20 | |
| *** sayali_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:21 | |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: ping | 15:28 |
| jd__ | Alexei_987: pong | 15:31 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: Hi do you have some time to chat? | 15:31 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: I'm working on the models refactoring that we discussed recently - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60885/ | 15:32 |
| jd__ | Alexei_987: yes | 15:32 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: Doug blocked this patch but I cannot reach him to ask why :) | 15:32 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: do you have any idea about what validation framework he was talking about? | 15:33 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: cause validation is not the only purpose of this patch and I need it for other stuff as well | 15:33 |
| jd__ | oh I definitely know what he is talking about | 15:34 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__ please share your knowledge with me :) | 15:34 |
| jd__ | you wrote something that already exists in at least 3 places: nova objects, jsonschema and WSME | 15:34 |
| Alexei_987 | no.. | 15:34 |
| Alexei_987 | I'm afraid you don't get the main idea of the patch | 15:34 |
| jd__ | Doug and I keep complaining that we have too many of these validation things in OpenStack | 15:34 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__ nova-objects - we don't have them in ceilometer (and I hope we'll never have) | 15:35 |
| jd__ | Alexei_987: well having "'name': str" covers that from what I understand | 15:35 |
| Alexei_987 | yes but it's not the only purpose | 15:35 |
| Alexei_987 | 1) I need to have static field definition in the class | 15:35 |
| jd__ | I agree it's not the only purpose | 15:35 |
| Alexei_987 | validation is only a side effect | 15:36 |
| Alexei_987 | 2) My IMHO models is where we keep the data | 15:36 |
| Alexei_987 | validation should be near the data | 15:36 |
| Alexei_987 | so it's the correct place to put it | 15:36 |
| Alexei_987 | not WSME | 15:36 |
| jd__ | I think we're not against the idea of the patch, just on the implementation of the data validation that we don't want | 15:36 |
| jd__ | i.e. this patch should only be about writing data schema and that's it, leveraging something else for the validation | 15:37 |
| jd__ | I talk about WSME because WSME does data validation for example | 15:37 |
| Alexei_987 | why leverage it to something else ? | 15:37 |
| Alexei_987 | when object is created it should be valid | 15:37 |
| Alexei_987 | so the right place is __init__ | 15:37 |
| jd__ | I think we're not talking about the same things | 15:37 |
| jd__ | take a step back | 15:37 |
| Alexei_987 | ok | 15:38 |
| Alexei_987 | so what is WSME validation? | 15:38 |
| Alexei_987 | and jsonschema validation :) | 15:38 |
| Alexei_987 | what's the purpose of this stuff? | 15:38 |
| jd__ | if you take a look at ceilometer.api.controllers.v2, you'll see there is a bunch of class | 15:38 |
| Alexei_987 | exactly :) | 15:38 |
| jd__ | like Sample, Meter, etc… with fields | 15:38 |
| Alexei_987 | and I won't to move it out of there | 15:39 |
| Alexei_987 | cause it's crappy | 15:39 |
| jd__ | that's a schema, describing a data structure and the type of the fields | 15:39 |
| Alexei_987 | yes | 15:39 |
| Alexei_987 | but it's not supposed to be in there | 15:39 |
| jd__ | that's used by WSME to validate the data that it receives | 15:39 |
| jd__ | that's not my point Alexei_987 | 15:39 |
| Alexei_987 | ok I get it | 15:39 |
| jd__ | my point is that WSME is doing "oh here's a schema and data, let's validate" | 15:39 |
| jd__ | nova objects is doing the same thing, in a different manner, in a different place | 15:40 |
| Alexei_987 | both are doing it wrong :) | 15:40 |
| jd__ | jsonschema is doing the same thing in a different context | 15:40 |
| Alexei_987 | data is described in storage/models | 15:40 |
| jd__ | and now you are writing something doing it, in a different place, with a different mechanism | 15:40 |
| Alexei_987 | yes :) | 15:40 |
| Alexei_987 | cause I want to remove both WSME validation + storage validation | 15:40 |
| jd__ | I'm not telling that validating data is wrong | 15:40 |
| jd__ | your idea of validating in this part of the code is likely a good idea | 15:41 |
| jd__ | _BUT_ | 15:41 |
| jd__ | we don't want you to write a validation mechanism | 15:41 |
| Alexei_987 | I could reuse existing one :) | 15:41 |
| jd__ | we want you to write the schema in models.py, and use "something" to validate the data against the schema | 15:41 |
| jd__ | the question is what to reuse :-) | 15:41 |
| Alexei_987 | I don't care which one :) | 15:42 |
| Alexei_987 | but it should use the lambdas approach | 15:42 |
| Alexei_987 | it will allow to add business logic validation later | 15:42 |
| Alexei_987 | e.g. that referenced object exists | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | and so on | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | cause we cannot rely on storage to maintain references | 15:43 |
| jd__ | yeah, so what we need to do first is to find the right tool to validate and use it everywhere | 15:43 |
| jd__ | that's on my TODO list | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | :) | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | cool | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | but lambdas patches don't block this search | 15:43 |
| Alexei_987 | so I think that we can add this patch with simple type validation at first | 15:44 |
| jd__ | so I definitely suggest you keep this patch under your elbow for now, but it's unlikely it's going to be doable until we clear that out | 15:44 |
| Alexei_987 | and move proper validation there later | 15:44 |
| jd__ | Alexei_987: not sure you can convince us :) | 15:44 |
| Alexei_987 | well.. I could work on the whole patch series | 15:44 |
| Alexei_987 | and it should result in -1000 lines of ceilometer code | 15:44 |
| Alexei_987 | maybe this should convince you :) | 15:45 |
| openstackgerrit | litong01 proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: test code should be excluded from test coverage summary https://review.openstack.org/60309 | 15:45 |
| Alexei_987 | cause what I like the most is deleting code :) | 15:45 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__: the problem I see is that we have some functionality duplicated in ceilometer - query creation in controllers level + query transformation in storage level | 15:46 |
| Alexei_987 | this stuff should move to common query code in models | 15:47 |
| Alexei_987 | cause it's objects are used on both levels | 15:47 |
| Alexei_987 | jd__ what do you think ^ | 15:47 |
| Alexei_987 | and to simplify query code I need to have 1) static field description in models 2) simple validation that makes sure that object is valid if we created it | 15:48 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:51 | |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: my main issue with the patch is that it reproduces some features of things like WSME, https://pypi.python.org/pypi/colander, and even some parts of the nova object code that another team is trying to move into oslo | 15:52 |
| Alexei_987 | ok 1) WSME - is not the place to validate objects cause they are defined in storage/models and validation should be during this object creation | 15:53 |
| Alexei_987 | this will allow to use it both in WSME layer | 15:53 |
| Alexei_987 | and storage layer | 15:53 |
| Alexei_987 | 2) nova object is a complicated feature and mostly useless for ceilometer. I hope that we'll never have them here | 15:54 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: well, the API layer is doing different types of validation than this might, but the bigger issue is adding a 4th way to declare classes and validators | 15:54 |
| dhellmann | if one of the existing frameworks doesn't do what we need, let's update it instead of making a new one | 15:54 |
| *** urulama has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| *** viktors has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 15:55 | |
| Alexei_987 | dhellmann: I don't care much about what framework we use and I can reuse existing one | 15:55 |
| Alexei_987 | but I care about where and when validation is happening | 15:55 |
| Alexei_987 | and it SHOULD happen only inside model __init__ | 15:55 |
| jd__ | a minute guy and I'm with you | 15:55 |
| Alexei_987 | nowhere else | 15:55 |
| jd__ | +s | 15:55 |
| Alexei_987 | if we'll replace our models with nova objects I will -1 this patch but it's ok afterall | 15:56 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: different layers may want or need to do different validation | 15:56 |
| Alexei_987 | no if they operate with the same object | 15:56 |
| Alexei_987 | we only have 1 object definition | 15:56 |
| Alexei_987 | and it's used in several layers | 15:57 |
| Alexei_987 | object cannot be valid for 1 layer and invalid for the other | 15:57 |
| Alexei_987 | that's just doesn't make sense | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: you're assuming the API data structure and the storage data structures match exactly, but they don't always | 15:58 |
| Alexei_987 | yes.. but they use 1 object to communicate :) | 15:59 |
| Alexei_987 | storage.model.Meter | 15:59 |
| Alexei_987 | and this object should validate itself when created | 15:59 |
| Alexei_987 | if it's created with wrong data on WSME level it doesn't matter what data structure is used in WSME | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | the API layer also needs to enforce permission rules that do not apply in the storage layer | 16:00 |
| Alexei_987 | permissions ok to be in WSME :) | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | ok, I wasn't clear: the data models can be different without one of them being wrong. We may store things differently than we present them to the user. | 16:00 |
| Alexei_987 | yes but why we need to validate such conversion? | 16:01 |
| Alexei_987 | we have 2 usecases: | 16:01 |
| Alexei_987 | 1) data from from the user to the storage | 16:01 |
| Alexei_987 | 2) data comes from storage to user | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | and data from events to the storage | 16:01 |
| Alexei_987 | this can be considered 1) | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | no, it can't | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | that's what I mean by permissions | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | the user can post data to the API that we might reject | 16:01 |
| Alexei_987 | why not? event is the same user | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | the notification stream is already protected, so we accept it as a source of truth | 16:02 |
| Alexei_987 | ok permissions is the other topic | 16:02 |
| Alexei_987 | but in both cases + events we use storage/models to transfer data | 16:02 |
| Alexei_987 | from 1 layer to the other | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | yes, that is correct | 16:03 |
| Alexei_987 | and we should check that it's valid when we create a data object | 16:03 |
| Alexei_987 | there is no point in any other validation | 16:03 |
| Alexei_987 | it will fail anyway | 16:03 |
| jd__ | dhellmann: any reason you came up with colander? | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | jd__: it was discussed as an alternative to having the nova team create their own serialization framework | 16:04 |
| Alexei_987 | lets say that we have 3 validation layers: api, model, storage | 16:04 |
| Alexei_987 | but we use & to pass data | 16:04 |
| Alexei_987 | so true & false & true will fail | 16:04 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: if you can show that we are not doing any validation in the WSME models that shouldn't be moved to the storage models, then that's fine. I am objecting primarily to making up yet another way of declaring those validators. Please look at some existing libraries and pick one. | 16:05 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| Alexei_987 | well the reason I'm using lambdas is because it will allow to add business logic validation later | 16:05 |
| Alexei_987 | and maintain reference integrity for storage layer | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: I don't care about the lambdas. I care about using the __slots__ data structure to define them. | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | jd__: I don't have any particular fondness for colander, except that Christophe pointed it out when I asked about splitting similar functionality out of WSME | 16:08 |
| jd__ | dhellmann: cool, I'm building a list of candidates, I'm going to study all of this in the near future | 16:08 |
| jd__ | you know the future where I have time to do it | 16:09 |
| Alexei_987 | dhellmann: __slots__ is cool | 16:09 |
| Alexei_987 | dhellmann: it allows to define all the fields we can have | 16:09 |
| Alexei_987 | + it makes object smaller | 16:09 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: if there was no prior art to do this, then I would agree. Don't reinvent this wheel. | 16:09 |
| Alexei_987 | yes but currently we don't have a list of object fields in the model | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: and using slots to reduce memory is fine, it's the combination of that with making up a new way to declare fields and validators that I don't like | 16:10 |
| Alexei_987 | again - we don't have any fields declaration in model | 16:10 |
| Alexei_987 | and I NEED it | 16:10 |
| Alexei_987 | __slots__ is the right place to do it | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: have you even looked at the other libraries I mentioned? | 16:11 |
| Alexei_987 | yes :) i'm familiar with nova objects and WSME validators | 16:11 |
| Alexei_987 | they are doing the same thing | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | yes, that's my point | 16:11 |
| Alexei_987 | nova object just uses another variable for this | 16:11 |
| Alexei_987 | and again my reasoning is the same 1) we don't have nova objects | 16:12 |
| Alexei_987 | 2) WSME cannot describe model fields | 16:12 |
| Alexei_987 | cause it's on the other layer | 16:12 |
| dhellmann | I agree that using WSME directly is not the right approach. | 16:12 |
| dhellmann | I'm currently discussing whether nova objects will go into oslo, too, in some form. | 16:13 |
| Alexei_987 | ok let's discuss nova objects | 16:13 |
| Alexei_987 | their main idea is rpc remoting | 16:13 |
| Alexei_987 | we don't have rpc remoting | 16:13 |
| Alexei_987 | + we don't have versioning | 16:13 |
| Alexei_987 | and their implementation is already full of hacks to support this 2 features | 16:13 |
| dhellmann | I have issues with their implementation, too, because they did the same thing -- they built a framework from scratch that we would have to maintain, instead of using an existing library | 16:14 |
| Alexei_987 | we don't need this 2 features - we don't need nova objects | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | Alexei_987: you're missing my point -- these other implementations do more than what yours does, but they also do the things yours does. Why have multiple implementations of the same set of features? | 16:14 |
| Alexei_987 | well feature set is a little different | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | I don't have time right now to carry on this conversation live, I'm afraid. | 16:14 |
| Alexei_987 | :( | 16:15 |
| Alexei_987 | ok... | 16:15 |
| *** prad_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 16:31 | |
| *** prad has quit IRC | 16:31 | |
| *** prad_ is now known as prad | 16:31 | |
| openstackgerrit | litong01 proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: test code should be excluded from test coverage summary https://review.openstack.org/60309 | 16:41 |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 17:02 | |
| openstackgerrit | James E. Blair proposed a change to openstack/python-ceilometerclient: Have tox install via setup.py develop https://review.openstack.org/61499 | 17:03 |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 17:12 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 17:20 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 17:20 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 17:43 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 17:44 | |
| *** Alexei_987 has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| *** sayali_ has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/ceilometer: Add configuration-driven conversion to Events https://review.openstack.org/42713 | 18:28 |
| sandywalsh_ | amazing | 18:29 |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** gordc has quit IRC | 18:55 | |
| *** gordc has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 18:56 | |
| *** prad has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| *** insanidade has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:01 | |
| *** jdob has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| *** jdob has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:03 | |
| *** prad has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:06 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:34 | |
| *** prad has quit IRC | 19:40 | |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:41 | |
| *** prad has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:43 | |
| insanidade | anyone awake ? | 19:47 |
| herndon | any cores around? jd__ eglynn llu dhellmann? This patch has been sitting for a while, would like to get some feedback on it so we can keep working on the subsequent patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57304/ | 19:50 |
| eglynn | herndon: I'm around just about, but have to head off very shortly ... I'll try to get to it this review later evening, otherwise first thing tmrw | 19:51 |
| herndon | thanks! | 19:51 |
| *** eglynn is now known as eglynn-afk | 19:52 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 19:58 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| insanidade | exit | 20:28 |
| *** insanidade has quit IRC | 20:28 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** gordc has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 20:54 | |
| *** DanD has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 21:10 | |
| *** gordc has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 21:13 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 21:25 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 21:30 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| *** eglynn-afk has quit IRC | 21:42 | |
| openstackgerrit | Julien Danjou proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: config: specify a template for mktemp https://review.openstack.org/61577 | 21:50 |
| openstackgerrit | Julien Danjou proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: service: fix service alive checking https://review.openstack.org/61578 | 21:50 |
| *** jdob has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| *** eglynn-afk has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 22:14 | |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 22:28 | |
| openstackgerrit | John Herndon proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: Event Storage Layer https://review.openstack.org/57304 | 22:47 |
| *** eglynn-afk has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| *** litong has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | David Peraza proposed a change to openstack/ceilometer: Oslo sync to recover from db2 server disconnects https://review.openstack.org/61602 | 23:17 |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** gordc has quit IRC | 23:29 | |
| *** terriyu has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 23:35 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 23:36 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-ceilometer | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!