| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 01:18 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #cloudkitty | 01:41 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 02:12 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 02:24 | |
| openstackgerrit | chenyingnan proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Replace six.iteritems(iter) with iter.items() https://review.openstack.org/409590 | 03:32 |
|---|---|---|
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 04:24 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 04:29 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 05:26 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 05:30 | |
| openstackgerrit | chenyingnan proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Replace six.iteritems(iter) with iter.items() https://review.openstack.org/409590 | 05:49 |
| *** bumblebee has quit IRC | 06:12 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has joined #cloudkitty | 06:23 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has quit IRC | 06:25 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has joined #cloudkitty | 06:26 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has quit IRC | 06:27 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has joined #cloudkitty | 06:34 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has quit IRC | 06:35 | |
| openstackgerrit | chenyingnan proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Replace six.iteritems(iter) with iter.items() https://review.openstack.org/409590 | 06:56 |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has joined #cloudkitty | 06:59 | |
| *** openstackgerrit_ has quit IRC | 07:00 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 07:27 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 07:31 | |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 08:06 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #cloudkitty | 08:07 | |
| *** peschk_l has joined #cloudkitty | 08:28 | |
| *** peschk_l has quit IRC | 08:34 | |
| *** peschk_l has joined #cloudkitty | 08:45 | |
| *** zhangguoqing has joined #cloudkitty | 09:40 | |
| *** gpocentek has joined #cloudkitty | 10:00 | |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 10:02 | |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 10:18 | |
| *** pabardina has joined #cloudkitty | 10:58 | |
| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 11:54 | |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 12:07 | |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 12:19 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #cloudkitty | 12:50 | |
| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 12:53 | |
| *** ivanromanko has joined #cloudkitty | 12:57 | |
| zhangguoqing | hi | 13:03 |
| zhangguoqing | Monday 12th at 13:00 UTC | 13:04 |
| *** jwcroppe has quit IRC | 13:06 | |
| sheeprine | Hi zhangguoqing | 13:07 |
| zhangguoqing | meeting time now. :) | 13:08 |
| sheeprine | yup | 13:08 |
| liujiong | \o | 13:09 |
| zhangguoqing | Hi liujiong. :) | 13:09 |
| liujiong | hi | 13:09 |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 13:11 | |
| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 13:12 | |
| sheeprine | what time is it for you guys? | 13:13 |
| liujiong | 9:00PM | 13:13 |
| huats | Hello ! | 13:13 |
| zhangguoqing | sheeprine: 9:00PM | 13:13 |
| huats | How is everyone going ? ready to start ? | 13:13 |
| liujiong | hi | 13:13 |
| liujiong | \o | 13:13 |
| zhangguoqing | hi huats, OK | 13:14 |
| sheeprine | Do we have any agenda for today? | 13:15 |
| gpocentek | hello | 13:15 |
| zhangguoqing | In email: We'll be discussing the state of the various developments we are doing for Ocata. | 13:16 |
| huats | Exactly | 13:16 |
| huats | I think it is important to do a small wrapup of the various blueprints and devs that are curently ongoing | 13:16 |
| huats | But also some ideas / improvment that will be done soon | 13:17 |
| huats | Ok so let's start then ! | 13:17 |
| huats | First of all | 13:17 |
| huats | Thank you all for being here | 13:17 |
| huats | I know it is always complicated to find a good timeframe due the the various timezone.... | 13:18 |
| aolwas | hi | 13:18 |
| peschk_l | hello | 13:18 |
| huats | I was really looking to have that kind of meeting | 13:18 |
| huats | The main reason is so that everyone have in mind one big idea : The ocata cycle will be really short | 13:18 |
| huats | As you might know ocata cycle will only last 4 months | 13:19 |
| huats | https://releases.openstack.org/ocata/schedule.html | 13:19 |
| liujiong | exactly | 13:19 |
| huats | so it means the client and API are due (well at least freeze) on the 26th of january... | 13:19 |
| huats | That is why we need to have that kind of meetings... | 13:20 |
| huats | In order to have a better development and review experience | 13:20 |
| sheeprine | And we've just entered milestone 2 | 13:20 |
| huats | and I mean for the whole community | 13:21 |
| zhangguoqing | yep, it's urgency. | 13:21 |
| huats | no urgency. just to know it | 13:21 |
| sheeprine | I saw somes patches regarding reno and others modifying API endpoints | 13:21 |
| sheeprine | Do we have referenced this somewhere? | 13:21 |
| huats | sheeprine: let me finish please, we'll have some time to discuss that | 13:22 |
| huats | We have noticed in the past few weeks many reviews that might have been eased with a better workflow / testing environment | 13:22 |
| huats | So I think that we should start to push the experimental test we have to non voting (for a start). It will be a single devstack installation but it would help review... | 13:23 |
| huats | Then Luka will work on the intergation of many 'internal' tests that we have @Objectif Libre to the one in devstack. So taht patches will be more tested before a need for a review | 13:24 |
| huats | (to optimize the time of reviers), allowing developpers to get a feedback (from jenkins) in a better time... | 13:24 |
| liujiong | that would be great | 13:25 |
| huats | sorry when I mean Luka, I meant peschk_l | 13:25 |
| huats | what is your opinion on that ? | 13:25 |
| * gpocentek agrees | 13:26 | |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 13:26 | |
| sheeprine | Just to be sure I understand, you want to add a new job that deploys a devstack, but non-voting to avoid problems? | 13:26 |
| huats | currently it is on expermiental | 13:27 |
| sheeprine | Is the run failing ATM with the current codebase ? | 13:27 |
| huats | so it is just to push it non-voting as a step | 13:27 |
| huats | no it just runs perfectly | 13:27 |
| *** zhurong has joined #cloudkitty | 13:28 | |
| huats | just to do that step by step | 13:28 |
| sheeprine | Do we need to keep it as non-voting? | 13:28 |
| huats | we can clearly discuss that too :) | 13:28 |
| huats | I am not opposed of putting that voting | 13:28 |
| sheeprine | If it's not failing with the current code base, I'll prefer it to be voting | 13:28 |
| peschk_l | sheeprine, maybe going experimental -> gate is not very OpenStack-compliant | 13:29 |
| sheeprine | so that we're sure contributed code is working | 13:29 |
| *** jwcroppe has joined #cloudkitty | 13:29 | |
| sheeprine | peschk_l: We do a lot of things not openstack compliant ;) | 13:29 |
| huats | any other opinions ? | 13:29 |
| sheeprine | This one is not a huge deal I think | 13:29 |
| peschk_l | ok, then it's ok for me if we make it voting | 13:30 |
| sheeprine | We can then have more integration tests and run them against new code | 13:30 |
| gpocentek | lets try with a dummy review | 13:30 |
| gpocentek | if it works OK we can set it voting | 13:30 |
| huats | OK for me | 13:31 |
| sheeprine | Shouldn't experimental and non-voting do the same thing? | 13:32 |
| huats | they are separated AFAIK | 13:32 |
| sheeprine | I thought it was just a naming convention | 13:32 |
| huats | I think it is not a big deal since we just decided to go for voting :) | 13:33 |
| sheeprine | Yup | 13:33 |
| huats | Let's move to the next point I wanted to address which is more "a preambule" :) | 13:33 |
| huats | the release number | 13:33 |
| sheeprine | Just push it voting and forget it | 13:34 |
| huats | So far cloudkitty is one of the only project on the Big Tent umbrella that still ha 0.XX number | 13:34 |
| huats | I would be in favor of jumping to the regular number (like othe project). So it means ocata will be 5.0 | 13:34 |
| huats | what do you think of it ? | 13:34 |
| huats | I really think it would be clearer and it gives a better message | 13:35 |
| sheeprine | You know what I think about this ;) But we're not going to discuss this here again, you're the boss now. | 13:35 |
| huats | (especially in comparison to other projet) | 13:35 |
| huats | nope. I want to have that kind of discussion open | 13:35 |
| huats | openly with everyone | 13:35 |
| huats | I have my opinion for sure, but I don't want to force things | 13:36 |
| sheeprine | 1.0 was supposed to have a defined number of features that are not yet in the code. | 13:36 |
| liujiong | I'm OK with that | 13:36 |
| sheeprine | Mostly because 1.0 would mean that we publish the API as "stable" | 13:36 |
| sheeprine | and if these features are introduced after we'll need to modify the API deeply | 13:37 |
| sheeprine | meaning a new version | 13:37 |
| gpocentek | we never announced the features | 13:37 |
| gpocentek | and it seems more logical to follow the same versionning as other projects | 13:37 |
| sheeprine | It was always anounced in the roadmaps of the previous versions | 13:37 |
| sheeprine | but always postponed | 13:37 |
| gpocentek | I don't think that versions actually mean something in OpenStack | 13:37 |
| sheeprine | and we discussed this internaly too | 13:37 |
| sheeprine | Just shoot a random number then | 13:38 |
| huats | I think that the important thing here is that the API can evolve | 13:39 |
| sheeprine | Yep but if it's stable it should not | 13:40 |
| huats | if it is not broken we can keep on the v1 of the API | 13:40 |
| sheeprine | You can version it but you are creating new problems | 13:40 |
| huats | I think it is important to differentiate versions numbers of the API and the software | 13:40 |
| huats | they can be related but it is not mandatory | 13:41 |
| huats | so that is why I think we should follow the Openstack release number (well lilke other project) | 13:42 |
| sheeprine | I don't mean v1 = API v1 | 13:42 |
| gpocentek | I really think we should follow the openstack model, it's just more logical for end users | 13:42 |
| sheeprine | then it'll just be major number = openstack version | 13:43 |
| sheeprine | which is meaningless | 13:43 |
| gpocentek | the version is meaningless anyway | 13:43 |
| aolwas | If CK releases are the same as Openstack, we may have numbering reflecting this | 13:44 |
| huats | Is it ok that we decide to go as a release number since we entered the big tent ? | 13:45 |
| sheeprine | yeah but for example some of our releases didn't really bring new stuff on the table | 13:45 |
| sheeprine | having a new major number for this is nonsense | 13:45 |
| sheeprine | but if it's the openstack way then go ahead | 13:45 |
| huats | OK then. Let's go on that. | 13:46 |
| huats | Finally before jumping to the current blueprints/patchs | 13:46 |
| aolwas | sheeprine: a lot of compagnies now use the year as release number: 2015-1, 2015-2, 2016-1, etc ... | 13:47 |
| huats | many people asked in the past for a model of a patch (and commit message). We have been discussiing that with aolwas and we thought it would be great to have of kind of model. I think that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/406180/ | 13:47 |
| huats | can be that... | 13:47 |
| sheeprine | aolwas: It was like that for openstack before but go dumped | 13:47 |
| sheeprine | aolwas: go figure | 13:47 |
| huats | Ok let's have a look with blueprints | 13:48 |
| huats | Due to the very short cycle I think it is important to be able to focus on some features | 13:49 |
| huats | Some blueprints have been marked as High in the mprotance are the one which are expected to land in Ocata | 13:49 |
| huats | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cloudkitty | 13:50 |
| huats | some have been superseed by other | 13:50 |
| huats | I am not in favor of going through one by one | 13:50 |
| huats | But I'll be really interested to | 13:51 |
| huats | go on the High one | 13:51 |
| huats | s | 13:51 |
| huats | "get-total-price-by-tenant-and-user" | 13:51 |
| huats | liujiong: you provided quite a lot of work on it, doing many exchanegs with peschk_l. | 13:51 |
| huats | do you have any blocker now ? | 13:52 |
| liujiong | right | 13:52 |
| liujiong | we have some discussion on that. But recently, I have not much time implementing that. | 13:53 |
| huats | That happen, don't worry. Do you think you'll be able to continue on that soon ? | 13:53 |
| *** zhurong has quit IRC | 13:53 | |
| liujiong | yeah | 13:54 |
| liujiong | I think so. | 13:54 |
| sheeprine | Do we have patches conflicting with this one? | 13:54 |
| sheeprine | As it might require quite some refactoring if it's postponed too late | 13:54 |
| sheeprine | And it's a nightmare ;) | 13:54 |
| sheeprine | Is this far from finished? | 13:55 |
| huats | It is quite a big patch, so there are some conflicts yes | 13:56 |
| liujiong | I remember dinghh has a patch related to that. | 13:56 |
| huats | that is why it would be great to merge it soon | 13:56 |
| huats | liujiong: indeed, he will be the next one that we speak of :) | 13:56 |
| liujiong | OK | 13:57 |
| zhangguoqing | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349779/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/393021/ | 13:57 |
| sheeprine | Plus, when you wait too long you need to rebase and merge and with jenkins and all it's easy to have regressions (we've been throught them, painfull) | 13:57 |
| huats | liujiong: do you think you'll be able to finish it let's say in the 2 next weeks ? | 13:58 |
| huats | because with that short cycle it would be really really great... | 13:58 |
| liujiong | 2 weeks should be too short for me. | 13:58 |
| sheeprine | huats: Full freeze is end of Jan 2017, right? | 13:58 |
| huats | 26/01 | 13:58 |
| liujiong | OK, I'm fine if any of you want to take over that BP. Cause I'm really busy with other stuff recently. | 13:59 |
| huats | liujiong: would you accept some help ? | 13:59 |
| huats | I was about to propose you that | 13:59 |
| liujiong | Yep, I'm fine with that. | 14:00 |
| huats | thanks ! | 14:00 |
| peschk_l | liujiong has already done a lot work on this, aolwas and I can look into it | 14:00 |
| huats | may be peschk_l can work a bit on that since he knows it a bit now | 14:00 |
| huats | Great ! | 14:00 |
| aolwas | OK for me | 14:01 |
| liujiong | thanks, peschk_l, aolwas. | 14:01 |
| huats | So the next BP is related like we said : price-groupby-fields | 14:01 |
| huats | dinghh: has been working on that | 14:01 |
| huats | are you around ? | 14:01 |
| zhangguoqing | huats: You may not known that the last month always busy in China. So, liujiong is very greate. | 14:01 |
| liujiong | thanks, guoqing. you really mean it. | 14:02 |
| huats | we are greatfull for your hard work ! | 14:03 |
| huats | Aaron, please wait that the liujiong to be merged before working on that again | 14:03 |
| huats | it would be better :) | 14:03 |
| huats | please ping me if you have some questions... | 14:03 |
| huats | So the next BP is rating-volume-snapshot | 14:04 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: any blocker ? | 14:04 |
| zhangguoqing | dinghh may not here meeting now. | 14:04 |
| zhangguoqing | yep, I thing this BP has been OK, just for review. | 14:04 |
| huats | (zhangguoqing: he is connected so he'll be able to see thoses messages) | 14:04 |
| zhangguoqing | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/399831/ | 14:06 |
| huats | it should be reviewed quite easily | 14:06 |
| huats | and soon | 14:06 |
| zhangguoqing | OK, and now, it's only for ceilometer collector, because the gnocchi has not metring volume.snapshot. | 14:07 |
| huats | we (@objectiflibre) are having a sprint currently on CK. So it will be done during that | 14:07 |
| liujiong | guoqing has done great job in this cycle. | 14:07 |
| zhangguoqing | I will do that in gnocchi. | 14:08 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: great ! | 14:08 |
| aolwas | you need patches in gnocchi for that, right ? | 14:08 |
| zhangguoqing | aolwas: yes. | 14:09 |
| huats | this is something that we need to address : improvment of the gnocchi collector | 14:09 |
| zhangguoqing | It will take more time to do it, a little complex. | 14:09 |
| aolwas | ok | 14:09 |
| zhangguoqing | huats: yes, it's very important. | 14:10 |
| zhangguoqing | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/408518/ | 14:11 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: don't you think we should have a joint meeting with the gnocchi guys for that ? we know them very very well... | 14:11 |
| huats | do you think it would help ? | 14:11 |
| zhangguoqing | No needed now. | 14:12 |
| huats | ok | 14:12 |
| huats | please let me know it is teh case | 14:12 |
| huats | Next BP is "user-experience-improvement" | 14:13 |
| huats | aolwas: do you have any blocker ? any help needed ? | 14:13 |
| aolwas | for API and client, I'm ok | 14:13 |
| aolwas | we just have to look how we improve the horizon dashbard | 14:14 |
| huats | I know pabardina has planned to help you for horizon | 14:14 |
| huats | so it would be OK | 14:14 |
| aolwas | great | 14:14 |
| zhangguoqing | aolwas: Good work. | 14:14 |
| aolwas | thanks ! | 14:14 |
| huats | Next BP is "maintain-releasenote" | 14:15 |
| huats | it is something that has been tackle for every OpenStack projects | 14:15 |
| zhangguoqing | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389669/ | 14:16 |
| huats | any opinion ? ideas ? deepack has not finished it. i would be in favor of contacting him and see with him if he has any issue or if want some help (I would do it then) | 14:17 |
| huats | and opinion ? | 14:17 |
| sheeprine | We need them | 14:17 |
| zhangguoqing | It is just only deal with the releases notes. | 14:17 |
| zhangguoqing | for netwon | 14:18 |
| sheeprine | And with the user experience modifications the API will be modified so we need to at least track this | 14:18 |
| liujiong | agree | 14:18 |
| zhangguoqing | yes, should be merged before the 'user experience'. | 14:19 |
| huats | yep | 14:19 |
| huats | So I will contact him right now | 14:19 |
| huats | (after the meeting) and make sure that we get merged soon | 14:20 |
| huats | I will finish it myself if needed | 14:20 |
| huats | last BP for ocata "rating-for-second-level" | 14:21 |
| zhangguoqing | Great, after that I will finished the python-cloudkittyclient and cloudkitty-dashboard. :) | 14:21 |
| aolwas | zhangguoqing: is your patch ready for review ? it's still marked as WIP | 14:22 |
| zhangguoqing | The core code of "rating-for-second-level" has been finished. | 14:22 |
| zhangguoqing | but the new ceilomieter change, so it's should be updated and tested. | 14:22 |
| zhangguoqing | It will take more time, and hard to review. | 14:23 |
| aolwas | do you think it's reasonable to look at it for ocata ? | 14:23 |
| aolwas | or should we postponed it to pike ? | 14:24 |
| zhangguoqing | Not sure. | 14:24 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: when do you think you'll be able to finish it ? | 14:25 |
| huats | do you have an easy way to test it ? | 14:25 |
| huats | (like peschk_l did with liujiong with a patch we have mentionned earlier) | 14:25 |
| zhangguoqing | I have wrote the unit tests. | 14:26 |
| aolwas | I'll try to look at it next week and provides you early returns | 14:27 |
| zhangguoqing | The test maybe easy, but getting events from ceilometer has some problems. | 14:28 |
| aolwas | we'll see then how we can go on for ocata integration (or not) | 14:28 |
| aolwas | problems on ceilo side or CK ? | 14:28 |
| huats | I think we should take a decision let's say first week of january if we want to push it or not. What do you think ? | 14:28 |
| zhangguoqing | problems on ceilometer. | 14:29 |
| huats | ok | 14:30 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: and aolwas I tihink you should continue that after together | 14:30 |
| huats | so we have finished the blueprints that are noted Hig | 14:30 |
| huats | h | 14:30 |
| huats | any other topic you want to discuss to include during ocata ? | 14:31 |
| sheeprine | Just as a quick reminder, for those of you who wants to contribute new blueprints. There is a new repository for this cloudkitty-specs. It's how it should be done as it helps people review and contribute to them, the openstack way. | 14:31 |
| liujiong | right | 14:31 |
| sheeprine | I hope we'll move on to using this in the future | 14:31 |
| huats | sheeprine: I agree | 14:31 |
| aolwas | me too | 14:31 |
| zhangguoqing | first week of january, I think it's hard to me. I'm busy on thesis proposal for my master degree. | 14:32 |
| liujiong | I have a patch initializing the repo. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/402310/ | 14:32 |
| huats | I really think it was too complicated to move on during ocata with the 4 months duration | 14:32 |
| *** ivanromanko has quit IRC | 14:32 | |
| liujiong | didn't get any response. | 14:32 |
| huats | but YES we should move on there ... | 14:32 |
| sheeprine | liujiong: I've been busy lately as CK is not my main focus anymore. I'll try to have a look at it. | 14:33 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: I meant to have a decision on the integration :) | 14:33 |
| huats | liujiong: sorry for the time to answer | 14:33 |
| aolwas | zhangguoqing: I'll check with you next week and see how I can help | 14:33 |
| huats | I definitly try to go through all pending reviews in the next couple of days | 14:33 |
| zhangguoqing | aolwas: thank you very much. :) | 14:34 |
| huats | I think we are done with the BP. | 14:34 |
| huats | I think we can move to the open discussion. Does anyone has some topipc to adress ? need some help ? | 14:35 |
| liujiong | Will we have a regular meeting time in the future? | 14:35 |
| sheeprine | huats: Got any news from openstack marketing about new logo and material ? | 14:35 |
| sheeprine | liujiong: Slot was removed because it was unused | 14:36 |
| sheeprine | If we keep having regular ones I think we can reclaim one | 14:36 |
| sheeprine | But having meeting in our channel is fine too, except we don't get meetbot | 14:36 |
| huats | liujiong: I was about to propose a next meeting early january | 14:37 |
| liujiong | OK | 14:37 |
| huats | a regular meeting is quite a lot of effort and we ware taking a very demanded time frame. So we agreed to release it | 14:37 |
| liujiong | understood | 14:37 |
| huats | and to have our meetings here | 14:37 |
| zhangguoqing | We need more code review, many of mine are not review. :) | 14:38 |
| huats | I propose that we have out next meeting on january 5th at 13:00 UTC. How does it sound ? | 14:38 |
| *** ivanromanko has joined #cloudkitty | 14:39 | |
| huats | or do you prefer earlier ? | 14:39 |
| liujiong | I'm fine with that. | 14:39 |
| huats | (regarding your question sheeprine, nothing since the draft proposal I have sent on the -dev mailing list) | 14:39 |
| zhangguoqing | huats: agree with you january 5th at 13:00 UTC. | 14:39 |
| gpocentek | huats: works for me | 14:40 |
| huats | ok good ! | 14:40 |
| huats | Thank you everyone for attending it. I'll send a recap on the dev mainling list with a reminder of the next meeting | 14:41 |
| aolwas | ok for me | 14:41 |
| liujiong | thank you, huats. | 14:41 |
| zhangguoqing | another problem: We need more code review, many of mine are not review. :) | 14:42 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: I agree | 14:43 |
| huats | but we are working on that :) | 14:43 |
| huats | I think that openning our work, doing regular IRC meetings like that are key to get more reviewers | 14:43 |
| huats | so let's continue the good job !!! | 14:44 |
| liujiong | yes, we need more communication. | 14:44 |
| * huats has never seen so many people connected on that channel ! | 14:44 | |
| zhangguoqing | I think, cores should review every three days at least. | 14:44 |
| huats | zhangguoqing: I think we might be able to have some strng rules like that once we have many contributors :( | 14:46 |
| liujiong | we got a small group for now and focused. | 14:46 |
| zhangguoqing | Great! | 14:46 |
| liujiong | I believe huats is also desired to do that. | 14:46 |
| huats | lof course | 14:47 |
| zhangguoqing | good night. | 14:50 |
| peschk_l | good night! | 14:51 |
| liujiong | good night, guoqing. | 14:51 |
| *** zhangguoqing has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** ivanromanko has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| openstackgerrit | Christophe Sauthier proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Use keystone v3 instead of keystone v2 in cloudkitty's devstack plugin. https://review.openstack.org/409817 | 14:59 |
| *** zhangguoqing has joined #cloudkitty | 15:01 | |
| *** zhangguoqing has quit IRC | 15:04 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cloudkitty: Pin kombu to < 4.0.0 to fix gate error https://review.openstack.org/409052 | 15:59 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Liu proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Introduce hacking check to Cloudkitty https://review.openstack.org/396933 | 16:05 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Liu proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Remove discover from test-requirements https://review.openstack.org/390553 | 16:07 |
| openstackgerrit | Christophe Sauthier proposed openstack/cloudkitty: Use keystone v3 instead of keystone v2 in cloudkitty's devstack plugin https://review.openstack.org/409817 | 16:14 |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** peschk_l has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 17:06 | |
| *** openstack has joined #cloudkitty | 17:58 | |
| *** sacharya_ has joined #cloudkitty | 18:21 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| *** dinghh has quit IRC | 20:01 | |
| *** jwcroppe has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| *** sacharya_ has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #cloudkitty | 21:12 | |
| *** jwcroppe has joined #cloudkitty | 23:10 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!