| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 00:03 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 00:05 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:25 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 01:10 | |
| *** tsuzuki has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:46 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:30 | |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:42 | |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 02:49 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 02:54 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:20 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 03:43 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:50 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 04:23 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:25 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 04:59 | |
| *** jbarratt has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** jbarratt has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:10 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:50 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:10 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 11:13 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 11:20 | |
| *** tsuzuki has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 12:09 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 12:16 | |
| *** murkk has quit IRC | 12:19 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:35 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:41 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:41 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:06 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:14 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:15 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:28 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:06 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:07 | |
| *** murkk has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:10 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:28 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 15:36 | |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:52 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:53 | |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 15:57 | |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:59 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:09 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:13 | |
| *** blakeyeager has quit IRC | 16:25 | |
| *** blakeyeager has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:38 | |
| *** vladimir3p_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:42 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 16:44 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:45 | |
| *** vladimir3p_ has quit IRC | 16:46 | |
| *** vladimir3p_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:47 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:49 | |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:56 | |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 17:03 | |
| *** vladimir3p_ has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:08 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:15 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:12 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 18:30 | |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:48 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:49 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:50 | |
| *** spectorclan_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| *** mrmartin has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:54 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:56 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 19:01 |
|---|---|---|
| mtaylor | hey everybody. anybody around for a CI meeting? | 19:01 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| jeblair | i am | 19:02 |
| dprince | yo | 19:02 |
| dprince | mtaylor: Thanks for the DNS update sir. | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | well - if not, no worries. :) | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 19 19:02:51 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | dprince: you are quite welcome! | 19:03 |
| * jaypipes thinks mtaylor and jeblair doing a good job of creating blueprints in openstack-ci now. nice work. | 19:03 | |
| mtaylor | yay! | 19:03 |
| jeblair | thanks! i updated some this morning | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: but I'll have to point out that we are not to that topic yet. :) | 19:03 |
| jaypipes | very, very useful for folks to see what's up. | 19:03 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ah, sorry mate. pls continue! | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting" | 19:04 | |
| mtaylor | alright -the first two are about machines for bare metal testing. | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | we don't have them yet, so that hasn't been accomplished | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | but - I did talk to folks about getting them, and we should have them in a couple of weeks. yay | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | the next ones are all really items that should be blueprint workitems (and there is no new update on them) | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | in a win for progress - we did get dprince set up with a dns entry! yay! | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | and nati doesn't seem to be here, so we can't ask him about list of existing tests | 19:06 |
| dprince | Yay! | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | any questions on those before we move on? | 19:06 |
| dprince | On the GitHub blueprint. | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #topic Blueprints are up | 19:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Blueprints are up" | 19:07 | |
| dprince | What is the expected date for Nova/Glance conversion to GitHub? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | dprince: I'm guessing we're still probably a couple of weeks out | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: how solid do you want keystone testing to be before we work on migrating glance? | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | dprince: we're wanting to shake out process/code/implementation issues with smaller projects before throwing the mass of nova devs at the thing | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: heh, not sure. tbh, there isn't a huge chorus of glance contribs itching to move to GH ;) | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | hehe | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: other than dprince, that is ;) | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: are you planning on moving then? or staying? | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: we will use whatever system/platform is recommended by your team. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | as I do believe the current policy is "project can decide to use approved environments", yeah? | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: hehe. ok | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: we're not sticklers about tooling. | 19:10 |
| dprince | jaypipes: To be clear I'm not pushing it. Just want to be ahead of the game. Thats all. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: honestly, at the moment, the git/gerrit setup is going to be more robust and better integrated with jenkins | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | dprince: I'm just pulling your chain, mate. no worries :) | 19:11 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: yes, that's what I've seen, and I've been impressed with the gerrit setup so far. | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | the gerrit plugin does essentially everything I wanted the tarmac replacement plugin for launchpad to do - and I didn't have to write it. :) | 19:11 |
| jaypipes | right. | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: I think my favorite thing is that it listens actively to a stream of events - so the INSTANT something happens in gerrit jenkins is testing stuff | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | no waiting for poll cycles | 19:12 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: so... on a practical side of things, Glance could probably move to GH soon. Though it would be good to get through the existing code reviews. About 5 of them outstanding. | 19:12 |
| dprince | mtaylor: One question about your Git pulls. Do you plan on cloning or using the GitHub tarball URLs. | 19:12 |
| dprince | jaypipes: I plan on taking a look at the caching stuff today/tomorrow. | 19:12 |
| dprince | jaypipes: Rick's branch. | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | dprince: I'm not sure what you mean by "your git pulls" ... but I do not believe that github tarball urls provide any value | 19:12 |
| dprince | mtaylor: I just meant each time Gerrit runs does it use a local repo (clone) or a tarball. | 19:13 |
| dprince | mtaylor: I think you answered my question. | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | dprince: :) | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | dprince: so, they way it works is actually this: | 19:13 |
| jaypipes | dprince: yeah, I've already read through it. Looks pretty good, though I wish folks would stick to doing just the feature in a single merge proposal, and not random refactoring and style cleanups, too ;) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | gerrit holds a repo internally for each project | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | code reviews are triggered by pushing to gerrit | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | once it's reviewed and merged, gerrit replicates to github | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | so it's all VERY git-y | 19:15 |
| dprince | great | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: where's that wiki page? | 19:16 |
| jeblair | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow | 19:16 |
| *** Shubhangi has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| mtaylor | yay. thanks | 19:17 |
| jaypipes | docs ++ | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | we're working on more of them - I should have a http://ci.openstack.org up and going soon for us with docs on the whole CI infrastructure | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | well - I mean, that's what WILL go there | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | the site will be up soon, then we can ADD docs on the whole infrastructure to it :) | 19:18 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: excellent. | 19:18 |
| jeblair | i'm working on adding docs on the installation / integration process for gerrit, github, and jenkins | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | also - in case anyone's been following along at home, I think we've got a solution for the problem of needing keys on the jenkins slaves. once that's sorted, we can move the rest of the jobs to all build on slaves | 19:18 |
| jeblair | so how we set up this process will be fully documented and repeatable, and the recipe is out there if others want to do the same thing | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | then we can move jenkins to a new server ... and then I can stop dorking around with that and help jeblair with getting the +2 events and or the openid issue sorted (which I believe are our two main pain points with gerrit right now, yeah?) | 19:19 |
| jaypipes | jeblair: woot. | 19:19 |
| jeblair | that and the launchpadlib sync script | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | I _definitely_ want to figure out the tests-run-after-+2 thing before nova gets brought over. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | oh yes. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | so, in a perfect world, we will solve those three issues before nova migrates | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | everything past that is bunnies, rainbows and gravy | 19:20 |
| jeblair | i'm wondering whether all the keystone devs will register with gerrit before i get around to writing the script that would obviate their need to register ;) | 19:20 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: for us morons in the audience, the run-after-+2 thing is because Gerrit runs tests when a pull request is received, not after approvals, right? | 19:21 |
| * mtaylor is guessing no | 19:21 | |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: that is correct | 19:21 |
| jaypipes | k | 19:21 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor, jeblair: rough timeframe on solving those three issues? | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | and, although that is nice for parallelism ... it's problematic from a "any damn person can now submit code and have that run on our farm of servers" perspective | 19:21 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor, jeblair: is there anything I can do to assist you? | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | well - two of them involve java. the launchpadlib sync script is python and shouldn't be too hard to do - but I'm guessing it would take jim more time to knowledge dump what's needed there | 19:22 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: a week of work? two days? what's your feeling about time needed for that? | 19:23 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: and is there anything we can do to help? | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | I'm going to defer to jeblair there ... what do you think jeblair? | 19:24 |
| jeblair | launchpadlib is probably just a couple of days. i may get to start on it this afternoon | 19:24 |
| jeblair | +2 is really waiting on some changes to the gerrit jenkins plugin -- we may start on it before then, but we shouldn't plan on having something final with that for, what did they say, a few weeks? | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | yeah - although if it's not hard to do, it might be worth having a divergent version of the plugin for a few weeks | 19:25 |
| jaypipes | jeblair: can we deploy gerrit before the +2 thing is fixed? or is that a full blocker? | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | I think if we put the nova guys off for a _few_ weeks (i.e. closer to a month) that they'll get antsy | 19:26 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: right. agreed. | 19:26 |
| jeblair | the openid change is a relatively simple change to gerrit; probably a few days. | 19:26 |
| jeblair | then yeah, we should hack something together. i got the impression that the event refactoring they were doing wasn't the highest priority, so it could slip on their side. | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | the +2 thing will mean a workflow change, and I'd prefer to not introduce the confusion of "here's the new workflow" and then a week later "oh! we changed it" | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: agree | 19:27 |
| heckj | mtaylor: agree | 19:27 |
| jeblair | just to be clear, we can continue with keystone in our current state, as soon as they finish signing up | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | yes. and glance, for that matter | 19:27 |
| jeblair | it's easier to use a temporary workflow with more caveats with a couple of small teams | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | I just don't want to do workflow changes like that for 100 devs | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | (even if the 2nd workflow is easier) | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | so, I'd say actually though - we should do the other two first - openid and launchpad sync script - because those affect the signup/initial process - and that way we give ericsson a brief chance to make their changes before we briefly fork | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | unless folks think I'm nuts | 19:30 |
| jeblair | that was my thinking. | 19:31 |
| jaypipes | fine by me. | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | sweet. should we target launchpadlib script and openid as actions for next week? (jeblair I could probably get the launchpadlib sync script going since I wrote the ssh user one - unless you really want to do it) | 19:32 |
| jeblair | that works for me | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | #action jeblair Fix OpenID support in Gerrit | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor Write script to sync launchpad users/teams to gerrit users/groups | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | and just for completeness | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor finish migrating jenkins jobs from running on master to running on slaves | 19:34 |
| *** blamar_ has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| mtaylor | that's about all I've got... any other discussion on the openstack-ci blueprints? | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | #topic Open Discussion | 19:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion" | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | how about anything that isn't about openstack-ci blueprints? | 19:37 |
| heckj | nothing here | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | sweet. | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | than I'ma gwanna call this bad boy done. early even! | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:38 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 19 19:38:48 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:38 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-19.02.html | 19:38 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-19.02.txt | 19:38 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-19.02.log.html | 19:38 |
| heckj | thanks | 19:39 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| spectorclan_ | johpur: r u there? | 19:52 |
| johnpur | yes i am :) | 19:53 |
| spectorclan_ | get the email | 19:53 |
| johnpur | ok | 19:53 |
| mtaylor | hey! it's johnpur | 19:56 |
| johnpur | hey Monty! | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: how's things? | 19:58 |
| johnpur | doing great, hanging out being cool,.. | 19:59 |
| *** zdeng has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| johnpur | mtaylor: i have a few folks queued up to talk to you and jim re tooling and automation | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: oh great. I'm excited to talk to them | 20:00 |
| johnpur | spectorclan: email received and read | 20:00 |
| jeblair | johnpur: awesome (and hi!) | 20:00 |
| jbryce | we have any ppb members here besides johnpur? | 20:00 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| notmyname | hi | 20:00 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:01 | |
| johnpur | jeblair: how is the new gig? | 20:01 |
| ttx | jaypipes, soren, dendro-afk, eday, vishy, jmckenty: ? | 20:01 |
| ewanmellor | ewanmellor, standing by | 20:02 |
| jeblair | johnpur: having a blast, thanks! | 20:02 |
| jaypipes | ttx: o/ | 20:02 |
| johnpur | jeblair: excellent! | 20:02 |
| vishy | o../ | 20:02 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 19 20:02:45 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:02 |
| jbryce | agenda - http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:02 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: are you around? | 20:03 |
| *** johnmark has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| jbryce | jmckenty added the trademark topic but i'm not sure exactly what he wanted to discuss around it so we'll move on | 20:04 |
| jbryce | #topic Revisit project autonomy / project philosophy discussion | 20:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Revisit project autonomy / project philosophy discussion" | 20:04 | |
| jbryce | i sent an email out after the meeting a few weeks ago about the philosophy vote we had taken | 20:05 |
| jmckenty | hi | 20:05 |
| jmckenty | back, sorry I'm later | 20:05 |
| jbryce | i think the 2 statements we chose between weren't particularly clarifying to come up with an overall philosophy | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | do you have some alternate? | 20:06 |
| johnpur | jbryce: instead of rehashing the topic can we boil it down to the core issue/decision to be made? | 20:06 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think it was great progress to clarify we want a single product rather than a collection of products | 20:07 |
| jmckenty | +1 | 20:07 |
| johnpur | agree | 20:07 |
| ttx | jbryce: that doesn't mean it's the answer to life and everything | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | ttx: 42. | 20:08 |
| jmckenty | wow | 20:08 |
| ttx | so we can further precise what we mean by "single product, made of independant but cooperating subprojects" | 20:08 |
| ttx | if there are areas where clarification is needed | 20:08 |
| ttx | is there ? | 20:08 |
| jmckenty | well, I think there are two related statements | 20:09 |
| jmckenty | the first is that subprojects should use common frameworks, tools, policies and practices whenever possible | 20:09 |
| jmckenty | to support a single cohesive community | 20:09 |
| jbryce | i think the core question is should every openstack project be identical in all aspects (processes, tooling), free to make all decisions on their own, or somewhere in the middle | 20:10 |
| jbryce | my opinion is somewhere in the middle and i feel like our decisions to date have basically been along those lines | 20:10 |
| creiht | what defines "whenever possible"? | 20:10 |
| jbryce | so then the harder thing to specify is what should be shared across projects and where does the latitude come in | 20:10 |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| notmyname | jbryce: I don't think your view of what was decided is the same as jmckenty/ttx | 20:10 |
| *** jbryce_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| jmckenty | can you clarify the difference | 20:10 |
| johnpur | "whenever possible" == "do it the common way unless it is impossible to support the accepted community practices" | 20:11 |
| mtaylor | (for instance - if the community practice is "write in python" but the project is "java openstack api implementation" ... then it would be impossible to fulfill "write in python") | 20:12 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think we need a common set of tools. There can be some freedom of choice amongst a set of vetted options, though | 20:12 |
| vishy | definitely somewhere in the middle | 20:12 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| johnpur | mtaylor: right :) | 20:12 |
| jbryce_ | sorry guys...i'm having some weird internet connection problems | 20:12 |
| ttx | jbryce: to me, independence should be about technical choices in the code, not in the tooling | 20:12 |
| *** sparkycollier has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:12 | |
| jmckenty | right, but I think going forward, the number of "not according to community practice" flags will likely become a gating function on inclusion in openstack | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | for evaluation of incubation, etc | 20:13 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: different people have different ideas of what is "impossible to support the accepted community practices". In any case, the root of the issue is that subprojects want the autonomy to develop, manage and review code the way they wish, regardless of whether the way they want to do it is common to other subprojects. | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | I wouldn't say that all subprojects want that autonomu | 20:13 |
| jbryce_ | i agree with ttx on the importance of common sets of tools. especially for things where the audience is likely to span multiple projects | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | I'd say that it's the topic of discussion | 20:13 |
| ttx | jbryce: each project is free to write the code they feel is the most appropriate | 20:13 |
| ttx | that's where the PTL rules | 20:14 |
| jbryce_ | ttx: i fully agree and i think everyone agrees with that on the code front | 20:14 |
| *** scottsanchez has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:14 | |
| jmckenty | ttx: I disagree | 20:14 |
| jbryce_ | or maybe not | 20:14 |
| * mtaylor would like to toss in that, given the work of maintainng divergent tooling, there should be a pretty good reason for the set of vetted options being above one in most cases - although he does agree that at times a set of more than one is actually appropriate | 20:14 | |
| jbryce_ | = ) | 20:14 |
| ttx | if they decide to drop Carrot for Kombu, that's their choice, not ours to discuss | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | I think there's an openstack-wide expectation of unit tests | 20:14 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| *** jbryce_ is now known as jbryce | 20:14 | |
| ttx | though we /should/ encourage smoe commonality where possible | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | mtaylor: as a follow-on to that, I would like to push a discussion of CI/packaging responsibilities back onto the agenda for a future meeting | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | specifically, relationship between RAX and OpenStack for CI, etc | 20:15 |
| ttx | When the tooling is not appropriate, we can select a set of vetted options, like the GitHub case shows. | 20:15 |
| ttx | Doesn't go as fast as some would like it to go, but it will happen | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | E.g., I'm standing up independent CI environments so that I can do things that I can't do within the current environment | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: perhaps you would come to the next openstack-ci meeting? It's tuesdays from 3pm-4pm EDT on this channel. | 20:16 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:16 | |
| ttx | jmckenty: We also happen to set minimal expectations on code quality, true | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: anyways, for another day... | 20:16 |
| jmckenty | it's tough for me to make that - I have a standing 12-1pm PST lunch meeting on tuesdays | 20:16 |
| jmckenty | anyway | 20:17 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yes- I would love to avoid the need for you to have to do that, and yes, we should talk about it at some point | 20:17 |
| jbryce | after we had the philosophy discussion, we talked about vetted set of options. i like the vetted set (could be a set with only a single option) as the way to have tooling that all ties in but gives latitude to teams to choose something that fits in their workflow. but it seemed like there was debate about the vetted set | 20:17 |
| jmckenty | are there additional resolutions we should consider? | 20:17 |
| jbryce | ewan seemed in favor of a single option to limit the amount of retraining | 20:17 |
| ewanmellor | jbryce: I'm definitely in favour of us choosing a single source control system, whichever it is. | 20:18 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | ++ | 20:18 |
| * jaypipes in favour of a single solution so that the community can enhance a single platform instead of fracturing development time working on support for multiple platforms. | 20:18 | |
| ttx | Also there are areas that fall in the cracks, like versioning. Should we align Swift with the rest of OpenStack, for example | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | versioning is separate from tools, though | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | can we finish on tools first? | 20:19 |
| ttx | I think we can discuss those areas separately when the need arises | 20:19 |
| ttx | jmckenty: sure :) | 20:19 |
| jbryce | ttx: i agree, but i want to make sure we have clarity on the philosophy | 20:19 |
| jbryce | if the philosophy is all projects are identical, then those discussions are basically about making a single decision for every project | 20:19 |
| ttx | jbryce: common tooling, freedom for technical choices, with some commonality/integration sense | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | ttx: I think that freedom needs to be within some reasonable guidelines - e.g., python unless there's no way to do it | 20:21 |
| johnpur | projects should try to align, unless there is a valid reason not to (and "because i want to do it differently is not a valid reason) | 20:21 |
| ttx | with "common" potentially meaning a set of PPB-vetted options. | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | but generally yes | 20:21 |
| ttx | jmckenty: sure, and we might need to more clearly defie those guidelines. | 20:21 |
| ttx | define* | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | my overall objective is to have as few technologies and as few tools involved as possible | 20:22 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | I have only 7 developers, and we're working on everything | 20:22 |
| jbryce | so in terms of autonomy, openstack will have default tooling and processes that may include a vetted set of options that projects should use unless there is a pressing requirement to go outside of the established choices? | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | obviously from a security standpoint, fewer technologies == smaller strike surface | 20:22 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: agree, let's keep it as simple and scalable as possible | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | what is good for OpenStack as a whole? | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | that is the question, no? | 20:23 |
| johnpur | with the understanding that being non-standard is a potential barrier to incubation/core status | 20:24 |
| ttx | jbryce: what do you need to see clarified exactly ? Did he discussion already provide you the answer ? | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I think that is a good summary, yes. | 20:24 |
| ttx | the* | 20:24 |
| jbryce | ttx: the problem is the previous statement gave no direction on if projects have any latitude to be different | 20:24 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think your definition is good. The "pressing requirement" should potentially be challenged by the PPB. | 20:25 |
| ttx | jbryce: as in "you're kidding, right ?" | 20:25 |
| johnpur | ttx: :) | 20:25 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | ttx: can I add a suggestion? | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | that we also suggest that the PTL formalize a bit the mechanism that they're proposing such an exception | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | e.g., do a project-internal vote | 20:26 |
| jbryce | up to this point, ppb exceptions have been the mechanism for non-standard things | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | or a design summit session | 20:26 |
| ttx | i.e. the PPB decides tooling for core projects. If they walk out of the path, they better have a good reason or we'll force them back in ? | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | well, again I'd like to point out that having separate dev teams for swift and nova, while it's the RAX way, is probably going to be the exception in other organizations | 20:27 |
| ttx | jmckenty: so you'd rather have them ask before they differ ? Rather than being different and then challenged ? | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | I think it'll save churn | 20:28 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: lots of RAX devs work on Glance, Nova and Keystone at the same time... | 20:28 |
| ttx | jmckenty: I think the latter is simpler, because projects don't necessarily know when they abuse their relative independence | 20:28 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: and lots of companies have deployed swift independently of nova etc | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: most of those that have, though, have plans to add nova to their roster | 20:29 |
| jmckenty | inap, kt, etc | 20:29 |
| ttx | jmckenty: if they are being different but nobody in the PPB cares enough to raise the issue, it's probably alright to be different | 20:29 |
| jmckenty | fair nuff | 20:29 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:30 |
| ttx | In particular, projects should be free to add new tools in areas where we don't set any standard | 20:30 |
| johnpur | ttx: the issues will be at the tooling, packaging, technology areas... it will be obvious where the ppb will care i think | 20:30 |
| ttx | I don't want them to be limited to our choices | 20:30 |
| ttx | and then, their choice is well set to become the standard | 20:30 |
| jbryce | i think i'm going to try to take points of this discussion and add them to the previous one-line statement to see if we can publish something that clarifies project relationships and the stance on autonomy with projects | 20:30 |
| jmckenty | Can I start a wiki page of things I worry about? | 20:31 |
| creiht | so should the ppb define how "viable options" are vetted? | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | e.g., pinning to Python 3 features, | 20:31 |
| mtaylor | can I also suggest that when the vetted list of tools is made, each list item gets an abstract description as well, so it's clear what a tool is there for? for instance "the project has decided it wants a gate trunk and a patch queue manager" makes the tooling implementing that make more sense? | 20:31 |
| johnpur | ttx: and we need to be open to evolving the openstack set | 20:31 |
| creiht | there has been very little visibility in to the vetting of github for example | 20:31 |
| ttx | johnpur: sure | 20:31 |
| jbryce | github or the tooling around github? | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | I'd also like to look at pushing more of the PPB meetings out to the community blog, etc | 20:31 |
| jbryce | github is probably a little bit of a special case as so many people are already familiar with it and many wanted to move to it | 20:32 |
| creiht | jbryce: both | 20:32 |
| ttx | creiht: I agree -- and popularity contest at design summits may not be the best way | 20:32 |
| spectorclan_ | jmckenty: i can help on blog stuff | 20:32 |
| creiht | since it was just recently announced that it will be github + gerrit | 20:32 |
| creiht | didn't see much in the way of community input there | 20:32 |
| mtaylor | well... a) I agree with creiht | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | Can I propose that we put packaging and CI into the openstack-common project | 20:33 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce to put together a more detailed project autonomy statement and process for vetting options | 20:33 |
| ttx | I also don't think the whole thing was handled particularly well. | 20:33 |
| mtaylor | but b) I think the topic was so contentious from the get go, that most discussions around it quickly became completely useless - but it should be addressed and solved for the future | 20:33 |
| johnpur | maybe i am slow, but when did gerrit come in? | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ++ | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | and then look at core team membership, voting, etc | 20:33 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: well, we've got openstack-ci project ... do you want to move CI? | 20:34 |
| *** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:34 | |
| jmckenty | mtaylor: that way we can isolate it from a whole-community discussion, to relevant and interested parties | 20:34 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: it was identified as a solution to the problem that GitHub's pull requests don't have sufficient statuses to meet existing review policy/process. | 20:34 |
| jbryce | we've kind of transitioned into the next topic | 20:34 |
| jmckenty | I was suggesting including CI, packaging, source control, etc. as a single project | 20:34 |
| jbryce | #topic Review progress on GitHub integration | 20:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Review progress on GitHub integration" | 20:34 | |
| notmyname | we did kinda skip over the versioning issue. (but IMO it's the same as the tooling) | 20:35 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yeah - that's what the ci team meeting is there for - we could certainly add a mailing list (packaging is the only thing that isn't currently officially handled in the ci related stuff) | 20:35 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: and we're doing our best to start rolling out docs and the like to get folks more involved in that effort | 20:35 |
| jmckenty | Is the GitHub stuff being addressed by the -ci team? | 20:35 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: can you give an update on the github progress, please, including blockers. | 20:35 |
| mtaylor | yes | 20:35 |
| jmckenty | ah, k | 20:35 |
| ttx | notmyname: that's my view as well -- but I'd comply if the group decided otherwise. | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | so, currently we've got a gerrit server up and going, have migrated the openstack-ci related code to being managed by it (eating our own dogfood first to make sure it works) and are currently in the process of getting keystone onboarded | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | the tentative rollout plan is - use keystone as initial guinea pigs, then migrate a few other smaller projects (like glance) and sort out showstoppers, etc. | 20:37 |
| mtaylor | once that's happymaking - then we can look at the projects with larger sets of devs, like nova | 20:38 |
| mtaylor | mainly because ... | 20:38 |
| jmckenty | we had 1500 commits last month on nova? | 20:38 |
| jmckenty | :) | 20:38 |
| mtaylor | there are a few issues that jeblair and I are working on fixing/writing code for that will slightly alter workflow, but with the smaller teams of devs re-communicating those workflow changes is less of a pain point | 20:39 |
| ttx | mtaylor: so Glance would migrate from bzr to git, right ? Since LP/bzr is one of the "options", does that mean the Glance PTL decided to move to git ? | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | the current todo list issue that we want to get done before migrating nova is: | 20:39 |
| ttx | (trying to see the process a project must follow to move from one "option" to another) | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | ttx: it does ... and I would at some point like to bring up the continuation of lp/bzr as an option | 20:39 |
| jaypipes | ttx: very few Glance contribs want to move to GitHub/git, but we will follow the recommendations of monty and jim. | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | but I think that's perhaps out of scope for right now | 20:39 |
| jbryce | any questions around gitub progress, tooling? | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | just scope | 20:40 |
| jaypipes | ttx: it's more important to be on a common infrastructure than personal preference for a set of tools. | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | we're moving code and review process, correct? | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | but not issues | 20:40 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yes | 20:40 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yes. | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | cool, thanks | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | Can we backport dashboard as well? | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | it's already on github | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | I'd love to | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | but not with gerrit | 20:41 |
| johnpur | to jmckenty's earlier point, with smaller teams that are cross functional it would be really good if the projects had common repos, workflows, etc. | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | I would really love to get all of the 'smaller' projects and/or things that are already on github looped in | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | We need to get it into the official openstack account | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | right now there's a piston fork, and a 4p fork | 20:41 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I agree that if at one point all core projects happen to be on the same "option", the continuation of the other "option" should be questioned. | 20:42 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: yup. | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | oh - speaking of that ... there's a policy thing I want to bring up regarding the official openstack account ... would now be the right time? | 20:42 |
| jmckenty | yes please | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | so - github does not have an option to remove push access from owners of an org ... but we have a project policy of gated trunks | 20:43 |
| jaypipes | right. | 20:43 |
| jmckenty | who are the org owners? | 20:43 |
| mtaylor | I would like to remove all of the regular dev accounts (mine and jim's included) from the owner list of the org | 20:43 |
| jmckenty | create another team? | 20:43 |
| mtaylor | and have special accounts that can be used if actual org owner bits are needed - mainly to prevent accidental pushing | 20:43 |
| eday | So, not to be a pain, but back after we decided to give this a shot, we were going to put up a demo and let the wider community vote on the choice of gh/lp. it sounds like we're just moving everything without that vote. Did I miss the decision to not do that, or...? | 20:43 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: shouldn't jenkins be the only owner of the trunk repo/branch? | 20:43 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: mtaylor jeblair termie and myself | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | jaypipes: I would add one special admin account | 20:44 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: yes. that's exactly the point I'm making - it's how to implement that | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | in case the whole CI infrastructure is broken | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | and we need to hot fix | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | although I guess we can change the teams at that time | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | eday: a valid point | 20:44 |
| mtaylor | well, we were talking about adding a special admin/owner account for each person who should be allowed to log in to the website and make owner-level changes | 20:45 |
| jmckenty | can we use keystone as that demo? | 20:45 |
| *** Shubhangi has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| mtaylor | the github team structure for repo ownership is actually quite sufficient to model the other things I belive | 20:45 |
| ttx | eday: +1 | 20:45 |
| jbryce | jaypipes, mtaylor: do you have thoughts on eday's question about the gh/lp choice? | 20:46 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ok, so do you have your answer? | 20:46 |
| *** letterj has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:46 | |
| mtaylor | anyhow - I guess the thing is - does anyone have any objections to continuing to model the "jenkins" is the only one who can push approach | 20:46 |
| jmckenty | nope | 20:46 |
| mtaylor | great. | 20:46 |
| ewanmellor | +1 to Jenkins being in charge. | 20:47 |
| jmckenty | that commit gate is the best part about our CI infrastructure | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: about whether to put it to a community vote? | 20:47 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: I hear eday -and I think that what jmckenty said about keystone being the POC is pretty good | 20:47 |
| mtaylor | I wonder if there is really much need in an actual formal community vote at this point though - what _exactly_ they would be voting on, and whether it would just bring up more vitriol or not | 20:48 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: +1 | 20:48 |
| jmckenty | we should probably do subproject-by-subproject votes | 20:48 |
| ttx | mtaylor: the PPB should decide to add (or not add) github+gerrit as an "option" for code hosting | 20:48 |
| heckj | Better to be open and deal with the potential vitriol about the change. | 20:48 |
| mtaylor | ttx: yes. I believe that vote should happen | 20:48 |
| ttx | mtaylor: once the POC proves the benefit of that option. | 20:49 |
| * mtaylor wasn't saying no voting - just wanting to be clear about what was being assessed | 20:49 | |
| jmckenty | ttx: how low for the POC - 5 days? | 20:49 |
| jmckenty | low == long | 20:49 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: why? isn't the point that the subprojects disagree and that this whole discussion is about whether subprojects have the choice to do what they want or not? | 20:49 |
| ttx | jmckenty: I'd like to see a few review activity before making my mind... so if there is sufficient activity in those 5 days, maybe | 20:50 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| mtaylor | can I suggest a slight alteration... | 20:50 |
| jbryce | i think the ppb should vote on adding github+gerrit as a source code option based of a review of keystone as the poc | 20:50 |
| jbryce | at that point, it's up to the individual projects | 20:50 |
| jbryce | if the POC is ready and there's activity, we could add that on the agenda for next week | 20:51 |
| *** jwilmes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| jaypipes | jbryce: fine by me | 20:51 |
| jmckenty | +1 | 20:51 |
| jbryce | 8 minutes left. more discussion on this or do we want to tackle one of jmckenty's other topics? | 20:52 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:52 |
| mtaylor | ok. yes. so it may be ready for a vote next week - or the week after (depending on how the testing actually goes - I'm sure there will be a few hitches we want to address after it gets some usage) | 20:52 |
| ttx | mtaylor: when will keystone be POCed ? | 20:52 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| mtaylor | ttx: as soon as their devs actually sign up for accounts... we're waiting on them right now | 20:52 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: let us know when it's ready to be evaluated | 20:52 |
| jmckenty | The academic discussion we can push to email for now - bascially, several organizations have offered PhD students and potentially money to work on OpenStack R&D | 20:52 |
| mtaylor | we could alternately make jaypipes the test case | 20:52 |
| mtaylor | jbarratt: will do | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | damn completion | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: will do | 20:53 |
| jmckenty | Just wanted to see if it makes sense to divide the "Community" from simply "Companies" to a few classes of participating entities | 20:53 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: that's fine if you want. bcwaldon, dprince, blamar and myself will give feedback to you on a Glance move to github. | 20:53 |
| jmckenty | and if the PPB as a whole is the right group to coordinate that, | 20:53 |
| *** KnuckleSangwich has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| jbryce | #topic openstack trademark | 20:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "openstack trademark" | 20:53 | |
| ttx | jmckenty: which asks the question of the setup of an independent body financed by a set of contributor companies | 20:53 |
| jmckenty | wasn't going there yet | 20:54 |
| jbryce | ha | 20:54 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: ok. I'll chat with jeblair about that - you guys might actually be a better source of feedback from a POC perspective | 20:54 |
| ttx | jmckenty: if they offer money, that money needs to go somewhere. | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | in fact, I still think we should use the OCC for that if necessary | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | it's already running OpenStack, and already a 501(c)3 dedicated to cloud computing | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | plus, they're friends | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | and NASA is already a member | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | which is VERY hard to do | 20:55 |
| *** mattt has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jmckenty | with a non-profit | 20:55 |
| creiht | OCC = Orange County Choppers? | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | Open Cloud Consortium | 20:55 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: can you put something together in an email on it? | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | yes | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | The Qatar Foundation is interested | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | as a first org | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | but obviously the USC guys have been very active | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | K, trademark | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | in 4 minutes | 20:56 |
| jbryce | on the trademark, summary is the ppb doesn't have authority over the trademark but we can certainly make recommendations | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | 1. We need something akin to the Xen "FITs" definition to gate the use of "Built on OpenStack" | 20:56 |
| johnpur | my understanding is that the OpenStack Advisory Board is being set up (prior to the Essex DS) and that body will adrees these sorts of issues (not the ppb). | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | that advisory board has been "real soon now" for 6 months | 20:56 |
| jbryce | i think the area that really needs help is technical definition around requirements to be called openstack | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | I don't believe in it anymore | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: exactly | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | that's FITS | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | Faithful Implementation | 20:56 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: i still believe! | 20:56 |
| jbryce | right | 20:56 |
| spectorclan_ | jbryce: this team should write the specs on FIT | 20:57 |
| jbryce | i'd agree with that | 20:57 |
| jmckenty | 2. We need some legal protection that the trademark policy can't be changed ad-hoc | 20:57 |
| johnpur | jbryce: we should get some guidance here from the powers that be | 20:57 |
| jmckenty | I'm building my business on the right to say "Built On OpenStack" | 20:57 |
| spectorclan_ | jmckenty: I can bring in RACK lawyers on this if you need to have a discussion | 20:58 |
| jmckenty | I don't think that has to be as violent as granting the trademark to a third-party | 20:58 |
| jmckenty | Let's have a proposal first | 20:58 |
| jmckenty | lawyers slow everything down | 20:58 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: i think that's a good piece of feedback | 20:58 |
| jbryce | i will follow up on that one | 20:58 |
| johnpur | also, next week i would like to bring up a topic of setting up working groups within OpenStack, one of which will be a legal working group to help with these sorts of issues | 20:58 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| jbryce | 1 minute left. does anyone want to volunteer to lead up an openstack FITs effort? | 20:58 |
| jmckenty | I'll lead the charge on that | 20:59 |
| jmckenty | Ewan, wanna play in? | 20:59 |
| jmckenty | sorry, ewanmellor | 20:59 |
| jbryce | #action jmckenty to send email on academic involvement and the occ | 20:59 |
| jbryce | #action jmckenty to lead an openstack faithful implementation standard effort | 20:59 |
| jbryce | thanks for the time everyone | 20:59 |
| ttx | jbryce: great time management :) | 21:00 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 21:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 19 21:00:12 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-20.02.html | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-20.02.txt | 21:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-20.02.log.html | 21:00 |
| creiht | jbryce: is it a conflict of interest for jmckenty to lead that group? | 21:00 |
| *** spectorclan_ has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| ttx | woohoo ! Who's here for the OpenStack team meeting ? | 21:00 |
| jmckenty | creiht: No less than if it was a racker | 21:00 |
| jmckenty | actually, probably LESS than if it was a racker | 21:00 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 21:00 |
| creiht | jmckenty: did I suggest that it should be a racker? | 21:01 |
| heckj | 0/ | 21:01 |
| _0x44 | I'm probably here too | 21:01 |
| jmckenty | actually, by definition it's an *interest*, without conflict, for most community members | 21:01 |
| ttx | notmyname, vishy: still around ? | 21:01 |
| jbryce | creiht: i think josh will need to put together a team that represents several organizations | 21:01 |
| *** asomya_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| notmyname | yes | 21:01 |
| glenc | \o | 21:01 |
| * Vek waves | 21:01 | |
| jmckenty | agreed - I was going to include the 6 orgs I know that are working on derived products | 21:01 |
| devcamcar | jbryce, jmckenty: affects us too, so i'd be happy to help | 21:01 |
| vishy | aye | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| jmckenty | piston, cloudscaling, citrix, 4p, rPath and Stackops | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 19 21:02:09 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:02 |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly team meeting... | 21:02 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | Today's agenda: | 21:02 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:02 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| ttx | hrm, just a sec | 21:03 |
| *** asomya_ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| * ttx has some connection problems with that page | 21:04 | |
| ttx | #topic Actions from last week | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last week" | 21:04 | |
| ttx | Could someone paste the actions from last week from http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting ? | 21:04 |
| Vek | Actions from previous meeting | 21:05 |
| notmyname | ttx: http://paste.openstack.org/show/1910/ | 21:05 |
| Vek | * notmyname and soren get together on Swift packaging needs | 21:05 |
| Vek | * jaypipes to update Glance D3/D4 blueprints | 21:05 |
| ttx | Thanks. I'm on a crappy wifi that blocks some addresses | 21:05 |
| ttx | notmyname: did you sync with soren already ? Or that's still a TODO ? | 21:06 |
| *** jamesurquhart has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| notmyname | ttx: soren and gholt talked about this at length. I think this is resolved. soren? | 21:06 |
| *** whitt has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| mtaylor | (soren is on vacation today, no?) | 21:06 |
| ttx | soren is in vacation, so we'll assume yes | 21:06 |
| notmyname | ok | 21:06 |
| ttx | jaypipes: BP updates ? | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | ttx: gah, still working on it, sorry :( | 21:07 |
| ttx | jaypipes: do you regret your new job already ? | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | ttx: heh | 21:07 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:08 | |
| ttx | notmyname: So for 1.4.2 we should branch on July 25 and release on Jul 27 ? | 21:08 |
| notmyname | correct | 21:08 |
| ttx | Looking at https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.2 -- the feature plan looks complete | 21:08 |
| ttx | notmyname: You also have two 1.4.2-targeted bugs: those should be addressed before release ? | 21:08 |
| notmyname | ya, I think one has been done. I'll need to check. I added them this morning and expect them to be done this week | 21:09 |
| ttx | cool. | 21:09 |
| ttx | notmyname: Other announcements/comments ? | 21:09 |
| notmyname | ya, just one outstanding bug | 21:09 |
| notmyname | no | 21:09 |
| ttx | Questions for the Swift PTL ? | 21:09 |
| whitt | I have a stats q: stats was removed from Swift 1.4.2 - what is it's future? | 21:09 |
| notmyname | I sent a reply to the mailing list | 21:10 |
| *** asomya_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| *** jtran has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| notmyname | stats are separate and will no longer be tracked with swift | 21:10 |
| notmyname | links and details are on the mailing list reply | 21:10 |
| whitt | is there a repo? | 21:10 |
| notmyname | https://github.com/notmyname/slogging | 21:10 |
| notmyname | and https://github.com/notmyname/slogging-debian | 21:11 |
| whitt | thanks - was looking all over for it | 21:11 |
| *** mrmartin has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| ttx | other questions ? | 21:11 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:11 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: Hi! | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | slow. :) | 21:12 |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-3 | 21:12 |
| ttx | So it's not up to date, IIUC :) | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | we've got a bunch of reviews to do. | 21:12 |
| *** asomya_ has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: could you update the status by tomorrow ? | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | and I've got to get the blueprints updated. the URI bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/771849) is a top priority and we have a fix proposed, but it breaks on Python 2.6's urlparse lib. So, I need to get a dev env on 2.6 up and fix that. | 21:13 |
| uvirtbot` | Launchpad bug 771849 in glance "Port not parsed correctly in Swift URI" [High,In progress] | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, I will. | 21:13 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:13 | |
| * jaypipes hangs head | 21:13 | |
| ttx | #action jaypipes to update D3/D4 plans for Glance before EOD Jul 20 | 21:14 |
| *** agarwalla has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:14 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: Other announcements, comments ? | 21:14 |
| ttx | Note that we'll branch Glance for D3 milestone release at EOD Monday. | 21:15 |
| jaypipes | ttx: no. | 21:15 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have a question for jaypipes on Glance | 21:15 |
| * Vek does | 21:16 | |
| ttx | Vek: shoot. | 21:16 |
| *** sparkycollier has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| Vek | just checking that jaypipes saw my email from this morning and that it didn't get lost in the pipes or clutter somewhere. | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | Vek: did you see my PM in IRC? ;) | 21:16 |
| * Vek didn't intend to make a "pipes" pun, but it works... | 21:16 | |
| Vek | no, 'fraid I didn't; I don't log PMs, either, unfortunately, sorry :/ | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | Vek: yes, didn't lose it. :) | 21:17 |
| Vek | 'k, thanks :) | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | Vek: I'll email you about the ideas. | 21:17 |
| Vek | 'k, thanks :) | 21:17 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:17 | |
| ttx | vishy: yo! | 21:17 |
| vishy | hai | 21:18 |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-3 | 21:18 |
| ttx | A lot of merges should be proposed this week, so the priority is in getting those reviewed -- keep the review loop tight | 21:19 |
| ttx | If you already know you won't be able to propose your code for merging this week, your feature should be deferred to D4 | 21:19 |
| ttx | So please let me or vishy know if that's the case. | 21:19 |
| ttx | Note that we already deferred quite a bit today | 21:19 |
| ttx | Also if you have any bug that *needs* to be fixed before diablo-3 release... | 21:19 |
| ttx | ...you can set the milestone target to diablo-3 (or ask me to do that for you) | 21:20 |
| ttx | we still need someone to be assigned to https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/803654 | 21:20 |
| uvirtbot` | Launchpad bug 803654 in nova "availability zone ignored when creating volume" [High,Confirmed] | 21:20 |
| ttx | anyone feeling like fixing this one ? | 21:21 |
| ttx | vishy: otherwise we'll have to untarget it from D3 | 21:21 |
| ttx | no point in listing bugs nobody will fix anyway. | 21:21 |
| vishy | it is a nice feature :) | 21:21 |
| ttx | heh | 21:22 |
| ttx | apparently we didn't trigger mass-interest for that bug | 21:22 |
| ttx | or everyone sleeps already. | 21:23 |
| ttx | vishy: more comments ? | 21:23 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| vishy | ha-net and block-migration need to get in | 21:23 |
| vishy | they are close | 21:23 |
| ttx | vishy: is there an issue with the review days lately ? I've seen a bit of stale reviews lately | 21:24 |
| ttx | hm, looks like https://code.launchpad.net/~usc-isi/nova/extra_specs_sched/+merge/65980 should just have the approved bit set | 21:25 |
| ttx | we shouldn't block on a non-reset "needs fixing" when what needs to be fixed obviously was. | 21:26 |
| vishy | reviews have been a bit sparse for the past week or two | 21:27 |
| vishy | i think a lot of people are going on vacation and such | 21:27 |
| ttx | vishy: what an idea. | 21:27 |
| ttx | Questions for Nova PTL ? | 21:27 |
| Tushar | I have added one blueprint add-options-network-create-os-apis | 21:27 |
| Tushar | URL: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-options-network-create-os-apis | 21:28 |
| Tushar | I am waiting for approval from Vishy | 21:28 |
| Tushar | This is targeted for D3 milestone | 21:28 |
| Tushar | I have already finished implementation and have proposed it for merging (https://code.launchpad.net/~tpatil/nova/add-options-network-create-os-apis/+merge/68292) | 21:28 |
| ttx | Tushar: ok | 21:29 |
| ttx | Tushar: would that be proposed potentially in time for D3 ? | 21:29 |
| *** asomya_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:29 | |
| vishy | if you already have proposed it i don't know that it needs a blueprint approval | 21:29 |
| vishy | they aren't required | 21:29 |
| Tushar | Yes, I am working on review comments and will finish that up today | 21:29 |
| Tushar | vishy: OK | 21:29 |
| *** ryu25 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:30 | |
| jtran | can anyone do reviews? I haven't done any but would like to start | 21:30 |
| ttx | vishy: someone needs to set priority though, but I can do that for late specs. | 21:30 |
| ttx | jtran: anyone can. Only core members count towards the 2 approvals. Doing reviews is a good way to become a core member. | 21:30 |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:31 | |
| jtran | understood. | 21:31 |
| tr3buchet | vishy: can you clarify what you're saying about the blueprints? | 21:31 |
| vishy | blueprints aren't required to get a branch merged | 21:31 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:32 | |
| *** blakeyeager has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| tr3buchet | sounds scary | 21:33 |
| Vek | question about https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/794705 -- Have we decided which of the two competing approaches are going to be used? There haven't been that many "votes" so far, though there does seem to be a trend... | 21:33 |
| uvirtbot` | Launchpad bug 794705 in nova "need a real argparser for the bin/nova-manage commands" [Wishlist,Confirmed] | 21:33 |
| * ttx looks | 21:34 | |
| *** jtran has left #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 21:36 | |
| * tr3buchet chirp chirp | 21:37 | |
| Vek | there's a lot of comments on the two merge-props in question :) | 21:37 |
| ttx | Vek, vishy: looks like the OptionParser approach gets more votes | 21:39 |
| Vek | *nod* that's kinda what I was expecting. Oh, well... | 21:39 |
| *** asomya_ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:39 | |
| vishy | Vek: ttx | 21:39 |
| ttx | fwiw I prefer that we don't reinvent an option parser | 21:39 |
| vishy | yes | 21:39 |
| vishy | i think the explicit approach is best | 21:39 |
| Vek | indeed :) | 21:39 |
| vishy | but some parts of the other branch could be incorporated after | 21:40 |
| ttx | would be good if that would land in D3 and we stop breaking nova-manage-using docs :) | 21:40 |
| * annegentle seconds that | 21:40 | |
| Vek | vishy: Which parts did you have in mind? The subcommand parsing, as opposed to the other argument parsing? | 21:41 |
| *** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:41 | |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 21:41 | |
| * ttx waits for the final words before closing the meeting | 21:42 | |
| vishy | Vek: i think kevin had an idea for some stuff he wanted to add | 21:42 |
| ttx | vishy: can you comment on both so that the good one gets merged ? | 21:42 |
| Vek | vishy: I am Kevin | 21:42 |
| ttx | ahah | 21:43 |
| blamar | ttx: Late to party, but was pinged on extra_specs_sched... fixing my stale review now | 21:43 |
| ttx | blamar: cool | 21:43 |
| blamar | also, is there a standard on the copyright header? | 21:43 |
| blamar | 2011 <Anyone>? | 21:43 |
| blamar | can't it just be OpenStack, LLC or what have you? | 21:44 |
| Vek | blamar: I keep c&p'ing the wrong one, but I think it's supposed to be the "Openstack, LLC" one. | 21:44 |
| annegentle | it can be OpenStack LLC, yes. | 21:44 |
| ttx | I think the default one is the Openstack LLC one, if you have no lawyer. | 21:44 |
| annegentle | http://swift.openstack.org/_sources/index.txt | 21:44 |
| blamar | ttx: Oh dea, what do lawyers have to do with this | 21:44 |
| blamar | oh dear* | 21:44 |
| ttx | blamar: they hate copyright assignment ? | 21:45 |
| blamar | :0 | 21:45 |
| Vek | they like to keep themselves employed? | 21:45 |
| blamar | :) | 21:45 |
| ttx | ok guys, let's close it then | 21:45 |
| annegentle | :) | 21:45 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:45 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 19 21:45:25 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:45 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-21.02.html | 21:45 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-21.02.txt | 21:45 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-21.02.log.html | 21:45 |
| vishy | Vek: oops got you confused | 21:45 |
| * ttx disappears to get some sleep. | 21:46 | |
| vishy | Vek: let me relook at them | 21:46 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 21:46 | |
| Vek | vishy: Yeah, confused is my usual state, particularly when I'm this sleep-deprived :) | 21:46 |
| *** alandman has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| * Vek fades slowly into the background | 21:49 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** eperdomo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:57 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:57 | |
| *** clayg has left #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| *** letterj has left #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| danwent | hello netstackers.... | 22:00 |
| troytoman | howdy | 22:01 |
| bhall | hey | 22:01 |
| ryu25 | heya | 22:01 |
| asomya | hi | 22:01 |
| salv | hello people of the network | 22:01 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| danwent | i like that :) | 22:01 |
| Jamey_ | hi | 22:01 |
| danwent | POTN | 22:01 |
| jamesurquhart | hi | 22:01 |
| somik | o/ | 22:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Hello | 22:01 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| danwent | mark or tyler around? | 22:02 |
| asomya | I'm substituting for Mark.. he couldn't make it | 22:02 |
| danwent | otherwise, i think we have all agenda items covered by their owner. | 22:02 |
| danwent | asomya: great | 22:02 |
| danwent | let's get started | 22:02 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 19 22:02:35 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:02 |
| danwent | #topic quantum status | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum status" | 22:02 | |
| danwent | agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:03 |
| danwent | salvatore, you're up first to talk about the awesome testing work you've done :) | 22:03 |
| danwent | that's ready for merge? | 22:03 |
| salv | proposed yesterday | 22:03 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| *** nati_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| danwent | k, I think you'll get two reviews from our end. | 22:04 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| salv | I think the test case for the API covers pretty much most of the code. For each operation there's one unit test for success, plus a unit test for each expected fault | 22:04 |
| danwent | anyone else planning on reviewing? | 22:04 |
| *** nati_ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| somik | salv: I am few comments but great exhaustive list of tests! | 22:04 |
| salv | Somik claimed a review | 22:04 |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| danwent | yup, and brad said he'd take a look too, i think. | 22:04 |
| bhall | yep, I approved the review and have some comments written down somewhere | 22:05 |
| danwent | let's get that reviewed and in, as I believe we're queuing up all other merges behind that, correct? | 22:05 |
| bhall | I'll post them later today | 22:05 |
| salv | danwent: right | 22:05 |
| salv | do we have a taker for functional test? | 22:05 |
| danwent | salv: is there a blueprint out there for this? | 22:06 |
| danwent | or is it still to be defined? | 22:06 |
| salv | yep (fetching link...) | 22:06 |
| *** flint has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| salv | blueprint for functional tests: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-functional-tests | 22:07 |
| danwent | salv: so by functional tests do you include testing particular plugins and their ability to pass traffic, or are you thinking more along just testing the daemon? | 22:07 |
| danwent | seems like mostly still API? | 22:08 |
| *** zns has left #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| salv | danwent: more the second. | 22:08 |
| salv | System tests will address the first issue | 22:08 |
| danwent | salv: ok, will take a look at this more this week... | 22:09 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else on this topic? | 22:10 |
| troytoman | couple of notes on quantum | 22:10 |
| salv | danwent: good. Still on test, if I'm not wrong Rick was going to look into something for Jenkins integration | 22:10 |
| salv | sorry troyman, please go ahead | 22:10 |
| troytoman | no worries. we should have an updated merge prop on extensions in the next couple of days to resolve some of the comments around extensions | 22:11 |
| danwent | salv: yes, I think the idea was to try and have folks setup a parallel jenkins infrastructure if we couldn't use the "official" one yet. | 22:11 |
| danwent | troy: thanks. we'll be talking about extensions a bit later on the agenda. | 22:11 |
| troytoman | also, i will be proposing a blueprint on notifications for quantum and melange soon as well. | 22:11 |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 22:12 | |
| danwent | action: dendrobates provide update on jenkins | 22:12 |
| danwent | #action: dendrobates provide update on jenkins | 22:12 |
| danwent | action fail :) | 22:12 |
| danwent | anything else on testing? | 22:12 |
| danwent | Ok, other fairly urgent task we have is nova refactoring. | 22:13 |
| danwent | Ryu and I are working to get the vif-plugging basics into D3... it will be tight :) | 22:13 |
| danwent | Ryu, any other updates? | 22:13 |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:13 | |
| ryu25 | Yup, thanks to Dan's help, we should be able to have VIF plugin go in for D3 | 22:13 |
| danwent | ryu: from openstack meeting, it seems like this basically has to be proposed this week. | 22:14 |
| ryu25 | we are pretty much done with libvirt but need to finish up the remaining virt | 22:14 |
| danwent | yeah... I'm working on XS today. | 22:14 |
| salv | ryu25: I can help with xenapi | 22:14 |
| danwent | I don't really have a setup for vmware | 22:14 |
| salv | danwent: I can find somebody to help with vmware | 22:15 |
| danwent | salv: that's great. I'll do my first pass at the xapi stuff, then ask you for a review. | 22:15 |
| ryu25 | salv: that would be really helpful | 22:15 |
| danwent | salv: please do take a great at vmware :) | 22:15 |
| salv | oh now that I recall, I can find somebody for Hyper-V as well :-) | 22:15 |
| danwent | salv :) | 22:15 |
| danwent | great... our odds of making D3 are improving by the minute | 22:16 |
| salv | on refactoring, I was wondering what's the difference between midokura's and cisco's branches for L2-refactoring. I had a look at the code, but cannot find any relevatn difference. | 22:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: we haven't made changes yet | 22:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are working on it | 22:16 |
| danwent | salv: yes, we're all working off of ryu's change set | 22:17 |
| salv | ok | 22:17 |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| danwent | Ok, good on nova refactoring? | 22:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we branched off ryu's network-refactoring-l2 branch | 22:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so its identical for now | 22:17 |
| danwent | Ok, Extensions | 22:17 |
| ryu25 | it's lp:~midokura/nova/network-refactoring-l2 which only deals with integration of Quantum, and for now mainly VIF driver implementation | 22:17 |
| ryu25 | yup that's it | 22:17 |
| danwent | Troy already mentioned that they are going to respond to comments on the list. | 22:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah thats one | 22:18 |
| danwent | Ying mentioned that she was going to be sending mail to the list as well. | 22:18 |
| ying | oh, yes. I have checked in the code | 22:18 |
| ying | https://code.launchpad.net/~cisco-openstack/quantum/plugin-framework | 22:18 |
| danwent | I believe the goals Ying mentioned in her last email are inline with where the extension framework is going, but I'll leave it to Troy to respond in detail. | 22:18 |
| somik | ying: I looked at this code a bit | 22:19 |
| somik | I believe this not using the extension framework being developed by troy's team | 22:19 |
| ying | danwent: yes, | 22:19 |
| somik | It seems like this extension is hardcoding the cisco extension instead of using the framework | 22:20 |
| somik | was that the intention? | 22:20 |
| ying | somik: no, as I mentioned in my earlier email, I think our use case is different | 22:20 |
| ying | we have tightly coupled API extension and plugin, since we just have 1 plugin framework | 22:20 |
| danwent | ying: when I read your email, it struck me that what you were describing was what we would generally want from an extension framework. | 22:20 |
| somik | ying: I think for we should have one plugin framework that handles all use cases or work on an extension within that framework. | 22:21 |
| danwent | ying: i definitely think many extensions will be tightly coupled, so whatever comes out of the existing extensions framework work should handle that. | 22:21 |
| danwent | danwent: sorry to overwhelm :0 | 22:22 |
| ying | np ;-) I'm talking with Rajaram earlier | 22:22 |
| bhall | ok.. talking to himself again | 22:22 |
| somik | ying: looking at the branch it seems this will be a piece of code that will be need to in the trunk for servicing cisco extensions, extensions though can be configured and need not stay in the trunk | 22:22 |
| somik | maybe I am mistaken, I guess you guys will port the current extension to rajaram's extension framework then | 22:23 |
| danwent | Ok, sounds like there's good discussion to be had here, and I'd like to hear what troy and team have to say as well. Perhaps move this to netstack list? | 22:23 |
| salv | danwent: good idea | 22:23 |
| somik | danwent: that sounds good. | 22:23 |
| ying | somik: what i'm thinking is that that extension should be with plugin, as it exposes plugin's extended functionalties | 22:24 |
| danwent | ying: yup, I agree... let's keep talking about this on list. | 22:24 |
| troytoman | i would need for rajaram to engage directly. so we should use the list for further discussion | 22:24 |
| somik | ying: agreed | 22:24 |
| danwent | great. | 22:24 |
| ying | ok, we can have further discussion on the list | 22:25 |
| danwent | Ok, on to the client lib + GUI | 22:25 |
| danwent | asomya? | 22:25 |
| danwent | can you provide a quick update? I believe tyler has proposed this for merge and is processing feedback? | 22:25 |
| asomya | Tyler's finished the client lib refactor and pushed it for a merge but he had a few collissions with Salvatore's commit i think.. he's fixing it now and expects around the 22nd to work everything out | 22:26 |
| danwent | ok, great. | 22:26 |
| danwent | I had a couple people asking about the GUI | 22:26 |
| danwent | are there any screenshots or mock-ups that can easily be shared? | 22:26 |
| asomya | I'm working on integrating quantum with the dashboard.. just starting out with a separate project 'django-quantum' that the openstack dashboard can inherit | 22:26 |
| somik | asomya: if we can have some screenshots/mockups on the blue print, it owuld be a great tool to provide feedback before doing much implementation | 22:27 |
| asomya | I pushed a muck up branch to junk about 2 weeks ago, based on the older dashboard .. fetching link... | 22:27 |
| asomya | *mock up | 22:27 |
| danwent | :) | 22:27 |
| asomya | https://code.launchpad.net/~asomya/+junk/dashboard-quantum-mockup | 22:28 |
| somik | asomya: are the mock ups images in some directory? I think wiki would be really great for this | 22:28 |
| asomya | somik: it's a working mock up with some hard coded values.. no images :) | 22:28 |
| asomya | i can take some screen shots and stick it in the wiki | 22:28 |
| danwent | asomya: that would be great. | 22:28 |
| danwent | just give people a sense of how it will function | 22:29 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:29 | |
| asomya | danwent: agreed | 22:29 |
| somik | asomya: that would be helpful since everybody hasn't developed the dashboard stuff, adding the screenshots should help with the review effort. | 22:29 |
| somik | asomya: thanks! | 22:30 |
| danwent | Ok, and last topic is API Auth. Thanks to salvatore for sending out a great summary email to the list. | 22:30 |
| asomya | quick question | 22:30 |
| danwent | whoops, go ahead asomya | 22:30 |
| asomya | The dashboard folks have already ported their authentication to keystone.. are there any plans to do the same for quantum too? | 22:30 |
| danwent | asomya: yup, we'll be using keystone | 22:31 |
| danwent | in fact, that was the next topic :) | 22:31 |
| asomya | danwent: ah ok :) | 22:31 |
| danwent | salvatore is lead on that | 22:31 |
| danwent | salvatore, I saw the email to the main list. | 22:31 |
| salv | danwent: what do you think of Vish's idea? | 22:31 |
| danwent | salv: it seems inline with what I was originally thinking. Ownership always boils down to actions anyway. Really this are just very fine-grained roles (i.e., the role allowed to plug in this single vif) | 22:32 |
| danwent | your toughts? | 22:33 |
| danwent | thoughts? | 22:33 |
| salv | danwent: agreed. My only concerns is that quantum does not own the VIF. It is owned by nova. If the authz middleware is part of quantum we need some form of interaction with nova; unless we decide to store predicates for VIFs in Quantum. But IMHO it does not sound right. | 22:33 |
| salv | note: by "own" I mean that it is managed by nova :-) | 22:34 |
| danwent | salv: agreed. I think of it as nova would say what users have the right to plug a particular vif | 22:34 |
| danwent | and it would be quantum that enforces that the only vifs it plugs are those that are permitted. | 22:34 |
| salv | danwent: yep. Do you think that is something we can somehow do within the framework of nova-refactoring? | 22:35 |
| danwent | salv: same thought that's going through my head right now :) | 22:35 |
| jamesurquhart | salv: Would seem necessary, to me. | 22:35 |
| danwent | salv: I think its a natural fit. | 22:35 |
| danwent | salv: did we get a sense from the keystone folks if such a use case (i.e., many many roles) was "in scope" from their perspective? | 22:36 |
| salv | jamesurquhart, danwent: agreed. | 22:36 |
| salv | danwent: no answer yet from Ziad, Khaled and the other Keystone people. But I guess it is out of scope at the moment | 22:36 |
| danwent | ok, l'll try poking them about this as well: #action danwent contact keystone folks about vif-plugging. | 22:37 |
| danwent | definitely seems like an attractive approach. | 22:37 |
| danwent | ok, anything else on quantum? | 22:37 |
| danwent | #topic melange | 22:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange" | 22:38 | |
| danwent | troy, you still around? | 22:38 |
| troytoman | yes | 22:38 |
| danwent | any update on melange? I know there's been a lot of work around nova integration. | 22:38 |
| troytoman | we are writing up a proposal for creating melange and a folder inside of nova | 22:39 |
| troytoman | hopefully that goes to the list late this week or early next | 22:39 |
| danwent | ok, sounds good. | 22:39 |
| troytoman | we have also been working with ryu on how to refactor Nova to use Melange and are making progress | 22:39 |
| troytoman | should have a blueprint in the next week or two on that also | 22:39 |
| danwent | great. | 22:39 |
| danwent | ok, anything else on melange? | 22:40 |
| troytoman | no. i don't think so | 22:40 |
| danwent | #topic donabe | 22:40 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe" | 22:40 | |
| danwent | anyone around for an update? | 22:40 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:41 | |
| danwent | funny as it sounds, the next design summit is not too far away.... | 22:41 |
| salv | time flies | 22:41 |
| pvo | < 3 months? | 22:41 |
| danwent | I'm starting to think about exactly what we should target for netstack deliverables, and what large areas exist for blueprints. | 22:41 |
| danwent | just a remind to start thinking about this :0 | 22:41 |
| danwent | remind -> reminder | 22:42 |
| danwent | pvo: yes, and august usually flies by :) | 22:42 |
| salv | Well, I had a though about it in the last few days | 22:42 |
| danwent | Extensions is something I'd really like to get nailed down. As well as basic auth. | 22:42 |
| salv | On the service side there are three things we must absolutely complete, IMHO: | 22:43 |
| Jamey_ | extensions and federation | 22:43 |
| danwent | as well as multiple plugins. | 22:43 |
| salv | 1) extensions, auth, and improve the API | 22:43 |
| danwent | salv: can you provide more detail on the "improve the API"? | 22:43 |
| somik | we should definitely stabilize the API to tag it "1.0" | 22:44 |
| danwent | somik: agreed. | 22:44 |
| salv | By improving I mean fixing all the bugs I found while developing the unit test :-) | 22:44 |
| danwent | or maybe 0.9, to be less confident :) | 22:44 |
| salv | not a lot of them, but enough to keep me busy for a week. | 22:44 |
| *** zdeng has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| danwent | Ok, yes, we need to make sure everyone pitches in... you've been doing an enormous amount of work there | 22:45 |
| salv | On the plugin side, I think you guys did a great job with the Open vSwitch plugin. Although I'm not sure whether it is "production ready" it is good enough for dev/test environments | 22:45 |
| *** shwetaap has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| salv | However, I think that for the success of the project we need also a plugin which can be employed across all the hypervisor platforms, including ESX and Hyper-V | 22:46 |
| danwent | salv: yes, it definitely still needs work. right now my focus is on nova, but it will hopefully swing back there soon. | 22:46 |
| danwent | salv: agreed. | 22:46 |
| danwent | Ok, I think there are all good points. | 22:47 |
| salv | danwent: I created theis blueprint a few weeks ago for this: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-vlan-plugin | 22:47 |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:47 | |
| salv | The idea is to "port" the Layer-2 part of nova's VLAN network manager to Quantum | 22:47 |
| danwent | salv: yeah, I think supporting vmware (at least) should be a pretty straight-forward port of the existing VLAN code. | 22:47 |
| danwent | salv: I haven't looked at the hyper-v code, but I suspect it will be similar | 22:48 |
| salv | danwent: I have a suspect vlans are not supported in hyper-v at the moment | 22:48 |
| somik | does VLANManager support Hyper-V? | 22:48 |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:49 | |
| salv | somik: I don't think so (at least I don't see code for setting up VLANs in hyper-v anywhere in nova trunk) | 22:49 |
| danwent | if nothing else, I'd like to port something over for both vmware and hyper-v to demonstrate that the platform is sufficiently general. | 22:49 |
| somik | salv: thanks thats good to know, what current state of nova networking is. | 22:50 |
| danwent | Ok, so sometime in the next few weeks I'd like to create a milestone that we're targeting.... so let's keep this discussion going as to what the relative priorities should be. | 22:50 |
| danwent | anything else? | 22:51 |
| salv | danwent: sounds like a good plan. | 22:51 |
| danwent | ok... have a good one folks. | 22:51 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:51 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 19 22:51:41 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:51 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-22.02.html | 22:51 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-22.02.txt | 22:51 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-22.02.log.html | 22:51 |
| salv | bye bye! | 22:51 |
| somik | have a good one everybody! | 22:51 |
| danwent | salv: sorry, I should have created action items around the hyper-v + vmware stuff. | 22:51 |
| danwent | for the nova refactoring | 22:52 |
| salv | no prob, I've noted them down on my laptop | 22:52 |
| *** asomya has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| danwent | salv: thx | 22:52 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 22:52 | |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:53 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:02 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 23:03 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** jamesurquhart has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:09 | |
| *** alandman has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** eperdomo has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** agarwalla has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** salv has quit IRC | 23:15 | |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| medberry | #startmeeting | 23:17 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 19 23:17:14 2011 UTC. The chair is medberry. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 23:17 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 23:17 |
| medberry | [#action] test | 23:17 |
| medberry | #action test | 23:17 |
| medberry | #endmeeting | 23:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 23:17 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 19 23:17:34 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 23:17 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-23.17.html | 23:17 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-23.17.txt | 23:17 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-07-19-23.17.log.html | 23:17 |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 23:23 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 23:25 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!