Difference between revisions of "Meetings/NovaNotification"
< Meetings
(→Agenda) |
(→Agenda) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
** https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1761405 impossible to disable notifications | ** https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1761405 impossible to disable notifications | ||
* Other | * Other | ||
| + | ** https://review.openstack.org/#/c/486204/ adds new compute REST API request and response fields for servers but doesn't touch instance payloads, not even for create and rebuild actions - should we require those in a follow up patch and spec amendment? | ||
=== Previous meetings === | === Previous meetings === | ||
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_notification/ | http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_notification/ | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 16 April 2018
Contents
Mission
The mission of the team is transform nova notifications API to a first class nova API which is stable, well documented and easy to consume.
Tasks
- Review of notification related blueprints / nova-specs
- Triage incoming notification related bug reports
- Tracking of progress / resolving roadblocks in development / reviews
Contact info
- Email: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org (tag with [nova][notification])
- IRC: #openstack-nova on freenode
Meetings
- Meeting Time: every Tuesday 17:00 UTC
- IRC channel: #openstack-meeting-4 on freenode
- Chaired by: Balazs Gibizer (gibi)
Next Meeting
2018-01-30 Tuesday 17:00 UTC on #openstack-meeting-4 on freenode https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20180130T170000
Agenda
Add your topics to the list
- Status of the outstanding specs and code reviews
- Bugs
- https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1763051 Need to audit when notifications are sent during live migration
- https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1761405 impossible to disable notifications
- Other
- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/486204/ adds new compute REST API request and response fields for servers but doesn't touch instance payloads, not even for create and rebuild actions - should we require those in a follow up patch and spec amendment?
