| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:01 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:28 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 01:57 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 02:13 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:13 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:06 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:13 | |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 03:20 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 03:31 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:32 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:42 | |
| *** jbarratt has quit IRC | 04:44 | |
| *** jbarratt has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:47 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 04:47 | |
| *** bhall_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:10 | |
| *** bhall has quit IRC | 05:11 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 05:41 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:09 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:52 | |
| *** vishy has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:28 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 09:45 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:07 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:09 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 11:38 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:44 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has quit IRC | 11:48 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:07 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 12:12 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:31 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:44 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:11 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:13 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:29 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:37 | |
| *** blakeyeager has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:52 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:52 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:53 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 14:08 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:12 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:36 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:56 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:18 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:25 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:26 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:28 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 15:29 | |
| *** edconzel_ is now known as edconzel | 15:29 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:29 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:34 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 15:34 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:37 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:11 | |
| *** deshantm_laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 16:22 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:26 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 16:27 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:27 | |
| *** Tv_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:29 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:55 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:57 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 16:58 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:11 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:14 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:19 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:36 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:38 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 18:04 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:06 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:21 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:39 | |
| *** mrmartin has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:47 | |
| _0x44 | Is there a ci-meeting today? | 18:52 |
|---|---|---|
| soren | mtaylor: ^ | 19:00 |
| mtaylor | morning! | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | and yes | 19:01 |
| soren | It's 9 PM. | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | it's noon | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | :) | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 6 19:01:32 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | how's everybody doing today? | 19:01 |
| *** bengrue2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | I was not here last week - did we have a meeting? the wiki page doesn't seem to have been updated with any info | 19:02 |
| bengrue2 | There was no meeting. | 19:02 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 19:02 |
| jeblair | hi | 19:03 |
| bengrue2 | Congrats on your position on the PPB, mtaylor. | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: thanks! | 19:03 |
| jeblair | yes indeed! | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | ah. so - there's one action item from two weeks ago | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting" | 19:04 | |
| mtaylor | "mtaylor Add how to contribute section to ci.openstack.org" | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | yup. didn't do that. I'm going to blame burningman | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor Add how to contribute section to ci.openstack.org | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | I believe there was an additional piece of docs that we were looking at adding to ci.openstack.org too ... | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: do you remember what it was - I'd love to add it here | 19:05 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: packaging? | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | probably | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor add packaging docs to ci.openstack.org | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | great | 19:06 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: I asked todd to put a CNAME in for infrastructure.openstack.org. Please follow up with him on that... | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | yes. I saw the email about that | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:07 | |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: and we'll point ci.openstack.org -> infrastructure.openstack.org and have all CI/packaging/QA stuff in one place... | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | we really weren't on last time's items anymore | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | yes. I think we should be able to get that up and going rsn | 19:07 |
| * jaypipes would like to get a quick update from jeblair about the progress of openstack-deploy-rax for the benefit of bengrue and others... | 19:07 | |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor infrastructure.openstack.org web config | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #topic update on openstack-deploy-rax | 19:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "update on openstack-deploy-rax" | 19:08 | |
| jeblair | hi | 19:08 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: jeblair has been working with Anso folks on getting a deployment cluster using real deployment modules to run functional tests. | 19:08 |
| jeblair | the openstack-deploy-rax job is running, but it seems to fail or hang periodically | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: the openstack-deploy-rax is the job on Jenkins: https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/openstack-deploy-rax/ | 19:09 |
| jeblair | i suspect that there are still problems in the puppet config that need to be ironed out | 19:09 |
| jeblair | sleepsonthefloor is working on that | 19:09 |
| bengrue2 | cool. | 19:10 |
| jeblair | that jobs triggers the openstack-test-rax job which will run a test suite (right now, it just runs one simple test) | 19:10 |
| jeblair | soren is working on that | 19:10 |
| soren | Right. | 19:11 |
| jeblair | i've set up the deployment job to run the puppet modules from openstack/openstack-puppet | 19:11 |
| jeblair | a new github repo integrated with gerrit, and the idea is that it will be community maintained | 19:11 |
| jeblair | currently there are some local-only changes to try to get to a working state, but in the future, anyone will be able to propose a change to that repo, the openstack-deploy-core group can approve changes, and they will automatically be used by the deploy job | 19:13 |
| jeblair | and there is a parallel setup for openstack-chef. dan prince has an immediate interest in that | 19:14 |
| jeblair | we aren't using that repo or configuring openstack-deploy-rax with chef at the moment, but that's on the roadmap | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: are we triggering any deployments using openstack-chef? | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | oh - heh. :) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: is dprince using openstack-chef as part of openstack_vpc? | 19:15 |
| jeblair | same group has code review privs for that repo | 19:15 |
| jeblair | i don't know | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | awesome. | 19:15 |
| jeblair | dprince: are you around? | 19:15 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: yes, AFAIK, he is doing so from the openstack-chef cookbooks... | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | yeah. I thought that was happening ... so even though it's not bare-metal - there may be some testing of things there | 19:16 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: emprically, it looks like the answer to your question is no | 19:17 |
| jeblair | in that https://github.com/dprince/openstack_cookbooks | 19:17 |
| * mtaylor thinks we're going to have a fun combinations game to play in the future- needing to test latest openstack-chef against known-good nova/swift/glance to test chef changes, and then using known good chef to test nova/swift/glance deploy :) | 19:17 | |
| jeblair | has been updated more recently than https://github.com/openstack/openstack-chef | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | great | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | well - perhaps we can get him to switch over to using openstack-chef :) | 19:17 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: yes, we will need something like that | 19:17 |
| *** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:17 | |
| carlp | It was my intention to try and put some effort into those issues as I move along with our deployment at DreamHost | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | carlp: the combinations issues? | 19:18 |
| carlp | mtaylor: yes | 19:18 |
| * mtaylor hugs carlp | 19:18 | |
| jeblair | mtaylor: considering he asked for the repo and i let him know it was ready, i would hope that wouldn't take _too_ much convincing on our part. | 19:18 |
| * mtaylor just got back from burningman and may be hugging people a lot for a while | 19:19 | |
| jaypipes | jeblair, mtaylor: Jim and I had a conversation with dprince about using openstack-chef instead of his own private repo last Wednesday... | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: sweet | 19:20 |
| bengrue2 | how'd that go? | 19:20 |
| * mtaylor is going to action him | 19:20 | |
| bengrue2 | was there resolution, or was it just exploration? | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | #action dprince make openstack_vpc use openstack/openstack-chef instead of dprince/openstack_cookbooks | 19:20 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: the resolution was that he would start using openstack-chef instead of his own personal repo, IIRC | 19:21 |
| bengrue2 | okay. | 19:21 |
| jeblair | that was certainly the impression i had | 19:21 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: if we have to tie in everyone's random personal GH forks, that will get tiring ;) | 19:21 |
| bengrue2 | Sure. Was just looking for clarity. | 19:22 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: and AFAIK, openstack-chef was actually constructed *from* Dan's openstack-cookbooks repo, right jeblair ? | 19:22 |
| jeblair | yep. | 19:22 |
| jaypipes | k, cool. | 19:22 |
| bengrue2 | So he's turning his repo from upstream to downstream? | 19:22 |
| bengrue2 | (Don't cross the streams, Ray.) | 19:23 |
| jeblair | that's been happening a lot lately. | 19:23 |
| bengrue2 | A sign of success, I'd say | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | ok. any other topics that folks would like to discuss? | 19:24 |
| jaypipes | indeed | 19:24 |
| bengrue2 | None here at this time. | 19:25 |
| carlp | One quick thing... | 19:25 |
| carlp | Who can I work with to get the NetStack CI stuff setup? | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | carlp: me. and I've actually got bandwidth for you this week | 19:26 |
| carlp | mtaylor: sweet. Let me know what times work best for you, I believe you have my email | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | carlp: well... I say that - do you just mean jenkins stuff, or are we talking about git/gerrit as well | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | ? | 19:26 |
| jeblair | cc me as well, monty and i back each other up | 19:27 |
| carlp | mtaylor: Little bit of both | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | k. cool. then the three of us should totally chat | 19:28 |
| carlp | it's a plan | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | love it. | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | anybody got anything else? | 19:30 |
| bengrue2 | (no.) | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | ok. well - thanks everybody! | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:32 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 6 19:32:09 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:32 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-19.01.html | 19:32 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-19.01.txt | 19:32 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-19.01.log.html | 19:32 |
| *** bengrue2 has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| *** mrmartin has left #openstack-meeting | 19:38 | |
| *** mrmartin has quit IRC | 19:38 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:44 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 19:50 | |
| *** jorgew has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:57 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:00 |
| jbryce | hello | 20:00 |
| soren | \o | 20:00 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| jorgew | Hey guys | 20:00 |
| notmyname | hi | 20:00 |
| vishy | o hai! | 20:01 |
| ttx | \o | 20:01 |
| johnpur | o/ | 20:01 |
| jk0 | o/ | 20:01 |
| johnpur | congrats to Ewan and the new ppb members! | 20:01 |
| ttx | jbryce: do they start today ? | 20:01 |
| blakeyeager | Yeah, congrats guys! | 20:02 |
| jbryce | ttx: that's how we did it with the spring election | 20:02 |
| ttx | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance was not updated | 20:02 |
| soren | I was wondering that too. Are the results of the election effective today? | 20:02 |
| soren | Ok. | 20:02 |
| jbryce | i'm actually editing the Governance page right now. edited the PPB page a little while ago. | 20:02 |
| soren | Someone should update http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance :) | 20:02 |
| soren | jbryce: \o/ | 20:02 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 6 20:03:02 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:03 |
| soren | Wait, what? http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB?action=diff&rev2=58&rev1=57 | 20:03 |
| soren | Oh, Keystone and Dashboard. Duh. | 20:03 |
| jbryce | yes | 20:04 |
| notmyname | this means we have a larger quorum now? | 20:04 |
| jbryce | soren are you interested in staying on the lists? | 20:04 |
| soren | jbryce: Interested, yes, but take me off anyway. | 20:04 |
| jbryce | notmyname: probably something we should determine. quorums aren't always a majority but that was what we had used from the beginning | 20:05 |
| johnpur | 14 members now? | 20:05 |
| jbryce | soren: i don't have a problem with leaving previous members on as "emeritus" members. you're all likely to have good input (like creiht) even if you're not actively voting | 20:06 |
| jbryce | johnpur: correct | 20:06 |
| johnpur | sounds like 8 for a quorum | 20:06 |
| soren | Can we update the PPB page to denote how people are members? ("PTL for X", "Elected (expires XX)" "appointed") | 20:06 |
| johnpur | soren: +1 | 20:06 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:06 |
| jbryce | i'll just copy the governance version | 20:06 |
| jbryce | once i finish it. = ) | 20:07 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: no! copy it before you finish it! | 20:07 |
| soren | I think it's really confusing to have the openstack-poc team have members who aren't on the PPB. | 20:08 |
| pvo | o/ sorry. got pulled away for a sec | 20:08 |
| johnpur | should we tell pvo the penalty for being late? | 20:09 |
| *** ecarlin has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:09 | |
| pvo | I buy the next round? | 20:09 |
| * jk0 hopes it has to do with buying rounds of drinks at the next summit | 20:09 | |
| jk0 | :P | 20:09 |
| jaypipes | ok, nine minutes in... shall we get to the agenda? | 20:09 |
| jbryce | #topic API proposal | 20:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "API proposal" | 20:10 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/APIManagement | 20:10 |
| jbryce | jorgew updated it based off the meeting last week | 20:11 |
| vishy | jbryce: weren't we going to do a vote on who owns apis first? | 20:11 |
| vishy | as in 1) project owns apis and guidelines. 2) project owns apis and ppb owns guidelines. 3) ppb owns apis and guidelines | 20:12 |
| jbryce | i think it's kind of encompassed in this. ppb owns basic overall guidelines (whatever we determine those to be) and projects own all the details of the api for their software | 20:12 |
| vishy | jbryce: can we vote on that first, before we address jorge's specific breakdown? | 20:13 |
| jorgew | That's already discussed here: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Model | 20:13 |
| jbryce | sure | 20:13 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: Pick one: 1) project owns apis and guidelines. 2) project owns apis and ppb owns guidelines. 3) ppb owns apis and guidelines | 20:13 |
| *** letterj has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:13 | |
| ttx | 2 | 20:14 |
| jbryce | #2 | 20:14 |
| mtaylor | 2 | 20:14 |
| notmyname | 1 | 20:14 |
| jaypipes | 2 | 20:14 |
| pvo | #2 | 20:14 |
| jk0 | #3 | 20:14 |
| jk0 | #2, sorry | 20:14 |
| creiht | jk0: newb :) | 20:14 |
| johnpur | 2 | 20:14 |
| vishy | 2 | 20:15 |
| jaypipes | to be clear, "guidelines" refers to the recommendations about the API structure only, right? jmckenty last week alluded to style guidelines being the purview of the PPB, which I do NOT agree with... | 20:15 |
| vishy | are we missing jmckenty and anotherjesse? | 20:15 |
| jbryce | #agreed Projects own their own API, PPB owns guidlines; 8 in favor, 1 in favor of project owning api + guidelines completely | 20:15 |
| jbryce | vishy: looks like it | 20:16 |
| vishy | jaypipes: defining the guidelines is the next discussion, but I agree that they should be very light guidelines | 20:16 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: i think we can define what that means | 20:16 |
| vishy | and ewan as well :( | 20:16 |
| johnpur | i thought it sounded a bit quiet today... | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: k | 20:16 |
| * jaypipes goes back in hole. | 20:16 | |
| jbryce | ok | 20:17 |
| jbryce | so...now that we agree on #2, how do people feel about the proposal as a more detailed explanation of #2? | 20:17 |
| pvo | seems the sticking point last week was the role of the api guide | 20:18 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: do we get to nitpick language here - or are we just approaching the overall idea? | 20:18 |
| pvo | the 'api coordinator' | 20:18 |
| vishy | i'm not totally sold on the idea of an api coordinator, but I don't think we want the ppb to be debating every api guideline individually | 20:19 |
| jorgew | pvo: Moved api-gudline/draft stuff of the proposal | 20:19 |
| johnpur | i may have issues with the following: When a release enters the QA/soft feature freeze stage, the API Coordinator will verify that the API Guidelines have been followed. If they have not, and cannot be corrected before the release is branched, the non-conformant portions of the API will be placed into a separate namespace (to be determined by the API Coordinator), and the following warning will be prepended to its document | 20:19 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I'd like more detail on the expectations of when the PTLs are required to liaise with the coordinator on proposed new API additions/changes | 20:19 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: i don't mind nitpicking but i like to start with the broad ideas generally | 20:19 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: great | 20:19 |
| johnpur | my concern is that we don't want to be jerking the consumers of the API around, particularly at the late stages of a release cycle. | 20:20 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: ++ | 20:20 |
| jorgew | jodnpur: That deals with handling the problem of a timed release before the coordinator has had time to ensure the guidelines are followed — this can be avoided | 20:20 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I withdraw my last comment... failed to read the penultimate paragraph fully... | 20:20 |
| johnpur | it makes more sense to be proactive, in that an API is not made "available" until it is in "compliance" | 20:21 |
| jorgew | johnpur: I agree, but not sure how to handle that with time releases | 20:22 |
| jbryce | some of it comes down to what the role of the api coordinator is? enforcer or advisor? | 20:22 |
| jorgew | end of the day the PTL may decide not to ship the API | 20:22 |
| jorgew | and avoid the message | 20:22 |
| ttx | jorgew: we could have an API freeze at some milestone | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | jorgew: the issue is whether other projects have coded against that API or not... | 20:22 |
| johnpur | and screw anyone who has developed against the interim api | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | ttx: +++ | 20:23 |
| jorgew | jbryce: PPB is the enforcer end of the day. | 20:23 |
| jorgew | ttx: I like that idea | 20:23 |
| johnpur | ttx: sounds like that is a good idea | 20:23 |
| mtaylor | ttx++ | 20:23 |
| ttx | jorgew: note that all freezes can get exceptions | 20:24 |
| ttx | but that's what they are then -- exceptions. | 20:24 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: I think that's a good point. We need to distinguished between an API that's done and one that isn't | 20:24 |
| jbryce | i'd almost rather just leave it up to the ptl. like notmyname says...if we just mention this and discuss issues as they come up it will usually work out. | 20:24 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: so if somene integrates with an API that's not done then beware — that's the point of the message anyway | 20:25 |
| ttx | then we can have projects consumed (think Glance or Keystone) freeze APi sooner than consumers (Nova, Swift) | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: but if Swift changes its API halfway through the release series, I code something to that API, then the PTL decides to drop that new API stuff, that presents issues... (just using Swift as an example, notmyname, nothing personal!) | 20:26 |
| * creiht notes that jaypipes always uses swift for bad examples ;P | 20:26 | |
| jaypipes | creiht: :P | 20:26 |
| johnpur | like we mentioned last week, it is not reasonable to assume that folks are coding against the latest official release... there probably isn't any serious work being done against a cactus platform right now | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | creiht: and good examples, too, btw :) | 20:26 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: I would encourage projects to integrate on full releases — rather than inteurm ones — that was in my old proposal. | 20:26 |
| ttx | johnpur: I agree that paragraph sounds a bit like "if we discover too late we fucked up, we just change the API at the very last minute" | 20:27 |
| johnpur | jorgew: then no-one would be using Keystone right now, right? | 20:27 |
| jaypipes | jorgew: the problem lies in when core projects need to integrate with incubated ones (think: Keystone). That integration must occur prior to integration freeze, otherwise all the functionality involved in the integration of the incubated project will be experimental.. | 20:27 |
| jbryce | the way that gets fixed is the same without or without ppb override though. we have to talk where we integrate. | 20:27 |
| jorgew | johnpur: We've never had a full releaso of compute. Consider that when we get 1.1 out all of Rackspace will be using it — so that makes it a good target for devs even if we're working on 2.0 | 20:27 |
| soren | jorgew: Er.. What? | 20:28 |
| ttx | soren: I think he means "compte API" | 20:29 |
| mtaylor | if the guidelines are published though - an API being in non-compliance by release time should be a pretty weird abberation ... I mean, I don't expect vish to just completely ignore the API guidelines and then scramble to fix it all at the end | 20:29 |
| ttx | compute* | 20:29 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: I agree there need to be extceptions, but eventually you get to a stable API and you can integrate to that | 20:29 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: ++ | 20:29 |
| jorgew | soren: yea I mean compute | 20:29 |
| soren | ttx: We've not had a release of openstack that offers the full openstack compute api 1.1. | 20:29 |
| jbryce | if we publish guidelines (which again are probably going to be pretty broad) i'm not too worried about rogue ptls ignoring it all | 20:30 |
| vishy | mtaylor: have you been reading my ToDo list? | 20:30 |
| soren | We *have* released an Openstack compute api 1.1 | 20:30 |
| soren | And we *have* release openstack compute. | 20:30 |
| jaypipes | OK, let me throw out a situation that is going to happen in the first few months of the Essex release series as an example... | 20:30 |
| creiht | we have rogue ptls? | 20:30 |
| soren | Just sayin'. | 20:30 |
| jaypipes | We are splitting the unified API endpoint into a segregated registry and image mover API in Glance. This is a backwards-incompatible change. | 20:30 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: Not sure I understand? | 20:31 |
| devcamcar | beating an old horse, but the openstack api was dropped on us with little regard for what capabilities actually existed in nova | 20:31 |
| jaypipes | When should we "finalize" such a backwards incompatible change with the API coordinator? Also, when should the cutoff for reversing such a decision be? | 20:31 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:32 | |
| johnpur | jaypipes: isn't this an argument for versioning? | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | jorgew: trying to discuss these things with a concrete example of something I *know* is coming shortly... | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: we already have versioning. | 20:32 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: what is in or not in the api is up to the ptl. the guidelines and adherence to them is probably not going to deal with individual features that may not be backwards compatible | 20:32 |
| johnpur | the new incompatible API needs to be versioned up, and the old api needs to be supported | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: but we need to discuss after what point in the release series that backwards incomptaible changes to an API can be made.. | 20:32 |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 20:32 | |
| jbryce | following versioning might be | 20:33 |
| jorgew | jbryce: +1 the coordinator doesn't deal with individual features | 20:33 |
| jorgew | in the API | 20:33 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: got it | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | that's really not what I'm asking :) | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | I'm asking what that cutoff date/point should be! | 20:33 |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| jbryce | jaypipes: if you follow the guidelines to version and support the old version, you can cutoff whenever you want | 20:33 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I'm not sure we need to encode the freezes in the Api coordinator job description | 20:33 |
| jorgew | jaypipes: I think that's up to the coordinator, PTL to nagotiate — probably with some input from the PPB. I don't think we can come up with a rule that fits all cases | 20:34 |
| ttx | jaypipes: it's definitely something to discuss, for example at the summit | 20:34 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: and a good question that is! i would expect that the changes would be finalized and complete by ttx's api freeze at the latest | 20:34 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: OK, but Nova will be consuming *some* version of the Glance API, and when should we cut off changes to a dependent API to allow Nova to stabilize on something... I guess that is what I am asking. | 20:34 |
| ecarlin | the reality is, until an api contract version is final and stable (which should happen at a release), it is subject to change. there is a level of risk when integrating with non-release apis. services that leverage each other and want to take advantage of new functionality may want to do that, but they need to coordinate with the consumed service PTL closely. | 20:35 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: or is the decision "decide among PTLs with advice from the API coordinator"? | 20:35 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: that's what i'd prefer | 20:35 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: k, thx. | 20:35 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: but only an issue if nova is dependent on new functionality, else they can use the downlevel version | 20:35 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: sorry, just wanted some clarification on that | 20:35 |
| ecarlin | versioning provides a stable contract even when non-backwards compatible features are introduced | 20:35 |
| johnpur | if they rely on the new version, the pyls have to coordinate | 20:36 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| johnpur | s/pyls/ptls | 20:36 |
| jorgew | jonhnpur: right! | 20:36 |
| jaypipes | OK, I think I have a good understanding of the proposal now. Thanks for the clarifications. | 20:36 |
| jbryce | so...circling back around...where does that leave us with johnpur's question about this point? | 20:37 |
| jorgew | sorry, which point? | 20:37 |
| johnpur | jbryce: combining mtaylors and ttx's responses may answer the point | 20:37 |
| notmyname | so the PTLs coordinate how their respective project work together. and the devs are the ones actually doing the coding. so what problem is the API coordinator solving that makes it worth the extra complexity, bureaucracy, and overhead? | 20:38 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think that end of paragraph should be removed | 20:38 |
| johnpur | having an api freeze in the cycle, along with PTL's that are not rogue, we shouldn't get into the situation that is described | 20:38 |
| ttx | notmyname: if I understand correctly, the API coordinator is there to bitch about Api guidelines and consistency, a bit like the Release Manager is tehre to bitch about release dates. | 20:39 |
| johnpur | agree with ttx. | 20:39 |
| ecarlin | shouldn't when to freeze the api contract be up to the PTL? | 20:39 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 20:39 | |
| jorgew | ttx: Right! | 20:39 |
| notmyname | ttx: about which we've had many "discussions". and probably more and this coming summit :-) | 20:39 |
| johnpur | ecarlin: i think the ptls can use some guidance | 20:39 |
| * mtaylor looks forward to that | 20:39 | |
| ttx | notmyname: indeed -- that's why I wouldn't encode anything in te API coordinator job description | 20:40 |
| jorgew | ecarlin: Yes, but they should coordinate with the API guy | 20:40 |
| ttx | notmyname: as the process / dates / etc. should be discussed at every summit. | 20:40 |
| ttx | s/discussed/revised/ | 20:40 |
| ecarlin | sure, but it seems like each service may move at different paces and we should embrace that. the only requirement is to have a stable contract at the release | 20:40 |
| jorgew | ttx: Right and they should be open, documented, and testable | 20:40 |
| ecarlin | it might behoove a service to freeze earlier (e.g. keystone) but the ptl would know when that makes sense | 20:41 |
| jorgew | at least the processes and guidlines, goals | 20:41 |
| johnpur | ecarlin: don't make me slap you with a trout! we just went over that! | 20:41 |
| ecarlin | i like fish :-) | 20:41 |
| jbryce | if we remove this section from the last paragraph, is this a proposal that we want to vote on: | 20:42 |
| jbryce | "When a release enters the QA/soft feature freeze stage, the API Coordinator will verify that the API Guidelines have been followed. If they have not, and cannot be corrected before the release is branched, the non-conformant portions of the API will be placed into a separate namespace (to be determined by the API Coordinator), and the following warning will be prepended to its documentation: | 20:42 |
| jbryce | This is a work in progress; the API this specification describes is not stable, and may disappear or change in incompatible ways in future releases." | 20:42 |
| jbryce | or does anyone have more to discuss about it? | 20:42 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I am ready to vote on it as-is. | 20:42 |
| johnpur | i still have problems with that | 20:43 |
| ttx | johnpur: even when it's removed ? | 20:43 |
| jbryce | johnpur: MORE problems? = ) | 20:43 |
| notmyname | ttx: so we are adding another gatekeeper? | 20:43 |
| jorgew | jbryce: I wouldn't remove it all together. Need to make sure that guidlines are adhered to at some point in time for relarase. And that there's a process to handel stuff when they are not | 20:44 |
| ttx | notmyname: I'd rather say "advisor" | 20:44 |
| notmyname | like the release manager (who has control over when stuff gets released) this adds another gatekeeper over what gets released | 20:44 |
| johnpur | it needs to be clear that the apis have a defined freeze point in the release cycle, at which point other services and developers can count on the api for the release | 20:44 |
| devcamcar | so who exactly will be the API coordinator? | 20:44 |
| notmyname | ttx: can the advice be ignored? | 20:44 |
| johnpur | and it won;t be randomly changed or removed | 20:44 |
| creiht | do we need a gatekeeper for the gatekeepers? | 20:44 |
| jbryce | devcamcar: we'd decide that after we decide to have one or not | 20:44 |
| notmyname | devcamcar: and how chosen and recalled and for what term? | 20:44 |
| ttx | notmyname: "The design and specification of a project's API is controlled by its Project Technical Lead" | 20:44 |
| jorgew | johnpur: I live that idea | 20:45 |
| ttx | notmyname: I guess if the PTL repeatedly ignores the guidelines, he exposes his project to the wrath of the PPb | 20:45 |
| jbryce | johnpur: to me that sounds like a guideline to be added to the set of guidelines rather than something for the overall proposal of having guidelines | 20:45 |
| jorgew | jbryce: Like that even better :-) | 20:46 |
| * jbryce wonders if creiht used to watch a lot of mystery science theater 3000 | 20:46 | |
| johnpur | jbryce: ummm, ok | 20:46 |
| ttx | notmyname: that said, I'm not sure the proposal will pass :) | 20:46 |
| * vishy nominates creiht to be the api coordinator | 20:46 | |
| johnpur | but we need to removed the offending language, right? | 20:46 |
| creiht | awww | 20:46 |
| creiht | :/ | 20:46 |
| creiht | I was hoping johnpur would get nominated, he seems pretty passionate about it :) | 20:47 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:47 | |
| notmyname | I was hoping we wouldn't have one ;-) | 20:47 |
| creiht | well that too :) | 20:47 |
| johnpur | i totally bequeath my api role to creiht, he will be awesome! | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I would say "advisor", too. PTLs are responsible for their projects only. The API coordinator should be thinking about consistency and integration across ALL OpenStack projects. | 20:47 |
| jbryce | johnpur: i removed that section from the last paragraph | 20:48 |
| johnpur | jbryce: thx | 20:48 |
| notmyname | jaypipes: but can they be ignored? because if not, then it's not really and advisor | 20:48 |
| jaypipes | huh? | 20:48 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| jaypipes | an advisor is an advisor. they advise. they don't dictate. | 20:48 |
| *** jrouault has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| jorgew | notmyname: It's the PPB that has the power over api-consistency at the end of the day | 20:49 |
| pvo | jaypipes: ++ | 20:49 |
| ttx | jorgew: over "consistency" in general. | 20:49 |
| notmyname | if it's only advisory, why does there need to be a role for an appointed person? | 20:49 |
| jorgew | ttx: right | 20:49 |
| notmyname | jorgew: I disagree. I don't think the PPB has power over the API | 20:50 |
| notmyname | it's not a power that we should vote for ourselves to have | 20:50 |
| johnpur | maybe the role should not be "appointed" by taken on by a community member that is passionate about this? | 20:50 |
| jorgew | notmyname: It needs to be someones job…just like we have release managers and doc coordinators ect. | 20:50 |
| soren | notmyname: If the PPB can delegate it, it must hold it to begin with. | 20:50 |
| jbryce | you don't think there's any value in having some consistency between projects? | 20:50 |
| notmyname | I think there is value in consistency | 20:51 |
| creiht | the ppb doesn't designate who the release manager or doc coordinators are | 20:51 |
| johnpur | jbryce, you just sent us into recursion from last week's meeting! | 20:51 |
| devcamcar | i guess the question is - do we think we're inconsistent now? is this role being created to "fix" something? | 20:51 |
| devcamcar | trying to understand scope | 20:51 |
| notmyname | but I think that is achieved by people talking to one another, not an official role | 20:51 |
| soren | creiht: Indeed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't, though. | 20:51 |
| creiht | so why should it then? | 20:52 |
| soren | creiht: Who else should? | 20:52 |
| jbryce | notmyname: i think there's value in writing down what the people talking to one another agree to and making it available to new projects and the developers across projects | 20:52 |
| notmyname | jbryce: that certainly doesn't rise to the level of someone's job | 20:52 |
| jbryce | and users who have these apis as their main contact point with the software | 20:53 |
| johnpur | jbryce: we should vote, and also schedule time at the DS for further discussion | 20:53 |
| *** ameade has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| creiht | soren: I dunno, but these types of positions seem to magically appear periodically :) | 20:53 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: Should we approve that API process proposal: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/APIManagement | 20:53 |
| notmyname | johnpur: further discussion after a vote? | 20:53 |
| soren | creiht: Yes. I think that's a problem. | 20:53 |
| ttx | creiht: or predate the PPB itself | 20:54 |
| johnpur | notmyname: there are a lot of details to work out | 20:54 |
| creiht | how can you vote on something that is lacking a lot of details? | 20:54 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| johnpur | creiht: you get Erik's trout slap! | 20:54 |
| jaypipes | what details need to be worked out? :( | 20:55 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: the actual guidelines | 20:55 |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| devcamcar | maybe we should vote on whether the API coordinator should be nominated by PPB or a community member like release management? | 20:55 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: yes, but that's not what we're voting on... | 20:55 |
| devcamcar | seems that there is a lot of debate around that | 20:55 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jorgew | The guidlines should be developed seperately | 20:55 |
| jbryce | creiht: i'd love to know every detail before making every decision, but it doesn't seem like it works out that way usually. | 20:55 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: we're voting on whether to proceed with a process whereby the PPB votes on guidelines for API development/maintenance and whether someone should have the role of being the API coordinator. | 20:56 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: correct | 20:56 |
| johnpur | we are setting policy, not deciding every detail | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: ok. I stand by my earlier statement that I am ready to vote on that. :) | 20:56 |
| notmyname | johnpur: no, the PPB seems to be in the business of implementation, not guidelines | 20:56 |
| pvo | notmyname: I don't see that | 20:57 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: i like your summary | 20:57 |
| jorgew | notmyname: That's not the intent | 20:57 |
| jorgew | PTL owns inmplementation | 20:57 |
| notmyname | release dates, workflow, tools, now apis? | 20:57 |
| johnpur | a separate discussion/vote can be taken on whether the API coordinator is "appointed" or a community member with a desire | 20:57 |
| ttx | 3min left | 20:57 |
| devcamcar | jorgew: but not design? | 20:57 |
| jbryce | let's try this one more time | 20:58 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: how has Swift followed the "release date implementation" that the PPB has supposedly "enforced"? | 20:58 |
| jorgew | devcamcar: And design — coordinator only ensures inter-projcet consistency | 20:58 |
| ttx | tbh, usually the work starts first, the person gets influence and then uses that influence to get traction from PTLs | 20:58 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: should the PPB set basic guidelines for APIs across projects | 20:58 |
| jorgew | and overall guidlines | 20:58 |
| jaypipes | yes. | 20:58 |
| creiht | jaypipes: they tried not to, then were told to stop by the chair of the ppb | 20:58 |
| *** pem has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| creiht | err tried to follow | 20:58 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:58 |
| devcamcar | +1 | 20:58 |
| ttx | here we are talking about nominating someone, rather than let random API-concerned community members gather influence on the subject | 20:58 |
| mtaylor | +1 | 20:59 |
| *** pem is now known as Guest30377 | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:59 |
| jaypipes | +1 | 20:59 |
| jk0 | +1 | 20:59 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:59 |
| pvo | +1 | 20:59 |
| notmyname | -1 | 20:59 |
| jaypipes | creiht: really? seems to me that Swift has set their own release schedule. | 20:59 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| * creiht sighs | 20:59 | |
| notmyname | jaypipes: really | 20:59 |
| creiht | jaypipes: after the autonomoy discussion they did, and were told not to | 20:59 |
| *** dweimer has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jbryce | #agreed PPB should set basic guidelines for APIs across projects. 8 +1, 1 -1 | 21:00 |
| creiht | ask ttx | 21:00 |
| ttx | creiht: I haven't seen change in that area yet. | 21:00 |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jbryce | we're out of time | 21:00 |
| *** hsaputra has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| creiht | ttx: you and notmyname were in discussions to do that, then were told not to by jbryce | 21:00 |
| creiht | with the whole autonomby | 21:00 |
| creiht | thing | 21:00 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 21:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 6 21:01:05 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:01 |
| ttx | creiht: in that case it was PPB asking for more consistency across projects | 21:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-20.03.html | 21:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-20.03.txt | 21:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-20.03.log.html | 21:01 |
| ttx | creiht: and so far it hasn't changed. | 21:01 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| * creiht is so confused | 21:01 | |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| notmyname | ttx: I expect it to be raised at the next summit | 21:01 |
| creiht | but ohewell | 21:01 |
| jbryce | creiht: i asked notmyname to wait until we had clarified what the autonomy pseudo-vote meant and where things were actually going to end up | 21:01 |
| notmyname | ttx: and yes, we were told not to change it | 21:01 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| * jaypipes offers creiht an anti-confusion cookie. | 21:01 | |
| *** ecarlin has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| jbryce | anyway...we're cutting into the regular meeting. happy to discuss this later or at the summit | 21:02 |
| ttx | ok, everyone ready for the next hour of fun ? | 21:02 |
| creiht | jbryce: I'm just trying to make the point that the swift team tried to do what they wanted | 21:02 |
| notmyname | ttx: and, in the beginning, our different schedule was granted on an evaluatory basis anyway | 21:02 |
| creiht | they as in the ppb | 21:02 |
| *** tcampbell has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| creiht | but I digress, and let you guys continue to bash the swift team | 21:02 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| ttx | vishy, jaypipes: still around ? | 21:03 |
| vishy | y | 21:03 |
| jaypipes | ttx: y | 21:03 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 6 21:03:26 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:03 |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly team meeting... Today's agenda is at: | 21:03 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:03 |
| ttx | quite a lot to go through today | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | * vishy to email the list about the other critical bug and request help on reviews and bug fixing | 21:04 |
| vishy | did that | 21:04 |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:04 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| notmyname | swift moved to gerrit today | 21:04 |
| ttx | notmyname: you confirm we'll delay 1.4.3 for a couple days ? | 21:04 |
| notmyname | and the 1.4.3 release is pushed back until friday/monday | 21:04 |
| *** bcwaldon_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.3 -- looks pretty ready to me | 21:05 |
| ttx | notmyname: anything else ? | 21:05 |
| notmyname | nope | 21:05 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have questions on Swift... | 21:06 |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:07 | |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:07 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: o/ | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-rbp | 21:07 |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| ttx | On the features side, looks like you still need to land 3 blueprints ? | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | lots of bug fixing to do. most features OK. | 21:08 |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| ttx | * support-ssl (test fails) | 21:08 |
| ttx | * pluggable-auth (needs fixing) | 21:08 |
| ttx | * protected-properties (blocked by pluggable-auth) | 21:08 |
| ttx | ? | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | the user- and system-controlled properties should now be unblocked. need to get with Vek to discuss who should handle that... | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | ttx: or at least, unblocked when pluggable-auth is fixe.d | 21:08 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: there is some talk of API extensions needed, but I'm pretty sure that will not be done in Diablo. | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: and will be done early in Essex, with the main split of the API endpoint into a registry and mover API... | 21:09 |
| ttx | jaypipes: those features need to land now... any ETA ? | 21:09 |
| Vek | jaypipes: I'm committed this sprint, so I don't think I'll be getting to it... | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: give me a day to talk with pvo and westmaas about bandwidth for the user- and system-properties one. other ones should be OK. | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | ttx: for the features. | 21:10 |
| glenc | jaypipes, we have the system proprerties scheduled for our sprint that starts next week | 21:10 |
| ttx | glenc: that's a bit late for me | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | glenc: might be too late. | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | glenc: we would need to get started on it earlier than that | 21:11 |
| ttx | Last stop for features is RBP | 21:11 |
| ttx | you're already on borrowed time | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | glenc: which means done by 8th... :( | 21:11 |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| *** jorgew has left #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: I will get with glenc offline on that. | 21:12 |
| ttx | ok | 21:12 |
| glenc | please | 21:12 |
| ttx | jaypipes: On the bugs side, you have 10 targeted bugs | 21:12 |
| ttx | I guess I'll just push them to "2011.3" if they don't get fixed in time for RBP ? | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | ttx: the critical and High I really want in. Medium to Low may get pushed. | 21:13 |
| ttx | ok, noted | 21:13 |
| ttx | Note that starting at RBP only bugs that are targeted to release will get backported to the release branch | 21:13 |
| ttx | So don't hesitate to ping the PTL or me to make sure essential bugs are covered. | 21:13 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Other announcements/comments ? | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, understood. | 21:14 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have a question on Glance. | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, will do. thx. last week was a bit of a complete loss for jeblair and myself :( | 21:15 |
| ttx | jaypipes: yes, I saw that :/ | 21:15 |
| ttx | bad timing | 21:15 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:15 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:15 |
| vishy | yo | 21:15 |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-rbp | 21:15 |
| ttx | 3 "features" still on the roadmap: | 21:16 |
| ttx | * implement-network-api (needs review) | 21:16 |
| danwent | two approves | 21:16 |
| ttx | Apparently all comments have been addressed -- _cerberus_, _0x44: could you doublecheck ? | 21:16 |
| vishy | dan should be good | 21:16 |
| danwent | I believe the feedback for the other two reviews have been incorporated, but waiting on confirmation from the reviewers | 21:16 |
| ttx | * aws-api-validation (needs fixing) | 21:16 |
| ttx | * hyper-v-update (in progress) | 21:16 |
| ttx | vishy: I propose to convert those last two to bugs, as they are not really "features" -- would that work for you ? | 21:16 |
| vishy | hyperv we push (havent' heard anything from jordan) | 21:16 |
| _0x44 | ttx: I just responded again to aws-api-validation | 21:17 |
| vishy | validation is a bug for sure | 21:17 |
| ttx | hyperv's description is a bit scary in corners | 21:17 |
| ttx | ...changes to nova-compute and service.py... | 21:18 |
| ttx | but without code linked it's a bit hard to know | 21:18 |
| ttx | if it really makes changes to service.py I'd like it to land before RBP (or never) | 21:18 |
| vishy | yeah i don't think it is coming in | 21:19 |
| vishy | so i think essex is probably fine | 21:19 |
| _cerberus_ | ttx: yeah, i can check again | 21:19 |
| ttx | vishy: will refurbish as bug | 21:19 |
| vishy | k thx | 21:19 |
| ttx | #action ttx to refurbish aws-api-validation and hyper-v-update as bugs and untarget them | 21:20 |
| vishy | stool don't have a person to do: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834189 | 21:20 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 834189 in nova "XenServer and KVM handle local storage differently" [Critical,Triaged] | 21:20 |
| ttx | yes, you've 6 targeted bugs, and 4 of them are unassigned | 21:20 |
| _0x44 | ttx: I'll look at it also | 21:21 |
| vishy | I think allowing an option for kvm to do the resize like xen is good enough | 21:21 |
| ttx | vishy: lower Importance, maybe ? | 21:21 |
| vishy | i guess we could go down to high. I really think that should be in for release though | 21:21 |
| ttx | We also need assignees for: | 21:21 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/833331 | 21:22 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 833331 in nova "OSAPI v1.1 needs to document config-drive as an extension" [Medium,Confirmed] | 21:22 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/827807 | 21:22 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 827807 in nova "in multi_host nova-network mode, nova-network doesn't reassociate reassociate the floating ips on reboot" [Medium,Triaged] | 21:22 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/838386 | 21:22 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 838386 in nova "Test suite requires kombu and carrot to be installed" [Low,Triaged] | 21:22 |
| ttx | Any takers ? | 21:22 |
| _0x44 | ttx: 833331 should be me, probably. When is RBP due by? | 21:22 |
| soren | I could take that last one. | 21:22 |
| vishy | i thought cbehrens had a fix in for that last one | 21:23 |
| comstud | ttx: i think Daviey was working on that somewhat (838386) | 21:23 |
| ttx | _0x44: Thursday. that can be fixed after RBP though | 21:23 |
| vishy | he was definitely discussing it with Daviey in the channel | 21:23 |
| comstud | i gave him a fix.. | 21:23 |
| vishy | ah there you are forgot u were comstud here | 21:23 |
| ttx | _0x44: will just require a backport to the release branch. | 21:23 |
| comstud | doesn't appear he's linked a branch or claimed the bug | 21:23 |
| comstud | vishy :) | 21:23 |
| ttx | _0x44, soren: please assign yourselves | 21:23 |
| soren | ttx: Will do and will talk to Daviey tomorrow. | 21:24 |
| ttx | vishy: anything else ? | 21:24 |
| vishy | nope | 21:24 |
| ttx | Questions for Nova PTL ? | 21:24 |
| * Vek has known comstud as comstud for a decade or two... | 21:24 | |
| nati | Hi PLZ review https://code.launchpad.net/~ntt-pf-lab/nova/single-default-gateway/+merge/74159 | 21:24 |
| nati | We fixed some bugs | 21:24 |
| ttx | vishy: do we really want that in Diablo ^ ? | 21:25 |
| nati | it is in RDP milestone | 21:25 |
| nati | It was added last meeting | 21:25 |
| ttx | oh | 21:25 |
| ttx | I see :) | 21:25 |
| nati | And also it is important bug fix when we use multi nic | 21:26 |
| ttx | then yes: ^ review early please | 21:26 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects news | 21:26 |
| nati | so please review it :D | 21:26 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news" | 21:26 | |
| ttx | devcamcar, danwent: o/ | 21:26 |
| danwent | quantum is focusing on rbp…. adding more unit tests | 21:26 |
| ttx | anyone from keystone around ? | 21:26 |
| devcamcar | ttx: dashboard isn't incubated anymore :) | 21:26 |
| ttx | devcamcar: in fact, it is. | 21:27 |
| danwent | no major features are outstanding | 21:27 |
| ttx | devcamcar: we are still in Diablo :P | 21:27 |
| devcamcar | ttx: touche! | 21:27 |
| devcamcar | we are building a presentation for essex summit to outline what we'll be up to | 21:27 |
| danwent | quantum: keystone integration is also being added during rbp | 21:27 |
| ttx | devcamcar: had a question for you btw -- does Dashboard support more than Nova and Quantum at this point ? | 21:28 |
| danwent | if people are planning network related blueprints for essex summit, please keep us in the loop | 21:28 |
| devcamcar | we'll be focusing on our approach to user interaction and the revamps both visually and in flows for dashboard | 21:28 |
| annegentle | devcamcar: how is work going on the doc updates noted in https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/813072? | 21:28 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 813072 in openstack-dashboard "Dashboard documentation needs to be updated for changes in configuration relating to Keystone integration." [Critical,In progress] | 21:28 |
| devcamcar | ttx: we have support for swift as well (and glance implicitly) | 21:28 |
| devcamcar | we'll be adding some features that are glance specific soon, for uploading images, etc. | 21:29 |
| ttx | devcamcar: great! | 21:29 |
| devcamcar | annegentle: starting next week we're going to throw some resources at that | 21:29 |
| *** edconzel_ has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| annegentle | devcamcar: great, throw them with good aim :) | 21:29 |
| ttx | devcamcar, danwent: anything else ? | 21:29 |
| devcamcar | ttx: nope | 21:29 |
| danwent | we'll be working on docs too…. let me know if you want to help :) | 21:29 |
| danwent | nothing else | 21:29 |
| ttx | #topic Proposing sessions for the Design Summit | 21:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Proposing sessions for the Design Summit" | 21:29 | |
| ttx | First, if you haven't registered for the summit yet, the waiting list is still open but will close sometime this week | 21:30 |
| ttx | or next week | 21:30 |
| ttx | So please make sure you register at http://summit.openstack.org -- we try to prioritize known contributors | 21:30 |
| ttx | For registered attendees, now it's time to propose sessions ! | 21:30 |
| ttx | For the main tracks, we'll have 3 different session types: | 21:30 |
| ttx | * Brainstorm sessions (55 min.) - used to discuss and come up with a solution for complex issues | 21:30 |
| ttx | * Rubberstamp sessions (25 min.) - used to present and review an already-designed plan | 21:31 |
| ttx | * Discovery sessions (25 min.) - where experts go into deep detail into a section of code or feature | 21:31 |
| *** hsaputra has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| ttx | that last type is new ^ | 21:31 |
| blamar | /me wonders which is the 'brawling' session | 21:31 |
| blamar | :) | 21:31 |
| ttx | Anyone can go to http://summit.openstack.org to propose session topics (click on "Proposed Sessions") | 21:31 |
| *** jdag has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:31 | |
| ttx | Note that we no longer *require* the creation of a blueprint for every session | 21:32 |
| ttx | This is only useful if the session talks about a specific feature / code drop and you already have a plan | 21:32 |
| ttx | So blueprints should be filed in support of "Rubberstamp" sessions (you can link to them from the session proposal) | 21:32 |
| vishy | ttx: sorry, lost internet for a minute | 21:32 |
| ttx | Sessions will be reviewed by PTLs for each track and myself, check back the site to see status and comments. | 21:32 |
| ttx | vishy: you didn't miss that much | 21:33 |
| ttx | Details at: http://wiki.openstack.org/Summit | 21:33 |
| ttx | Questions ? | 21:33 |
| vishy | ttx: in regards to that branch, I would love comments from pvo / tr3buchet as they are using multinic quite a bit. I haven't needed it yet | 21:33 |
| blamar | ttx: deadline for submission and is there a deadline for approval? | 21:34 |
| vishy | I don't see a problem pushing it to essex unless it is really causing issues for people that will be stuck on diablo for a long time | 21:34 |
| ttx | blamar: let me check the timeline | 21:34 |
| vishy | ttx: although it could be considered a bug fix, although it is perhaps a bit risky | 21:34 |
| *** dweimer has quit IRC | 21:34 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| ttx | Propose sessions (Sep 6 - Sep 27), Review sessions (Sep 12 - Sep 29), Schedule sessions (Sep 27 - Oct 2) | 21:35 |
| blamar | ttx: ty | 21:35 |
| ttx | blamar: so at least until Sep 27... | 21:35 |
| ttx | blamar: but to increase your chances you should submit early | 21:36 |
| pvo | vishy: sorry,which branch? | 21:36 |
| ttx | no other questions ? | 21:36 |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| ttx | #topic Discuss creating an OpenStack Common package | 21:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Discuss creating an OpenStack Common package" | 21:37 | |
| ttx | blamar: floor is yours. | 21:37 |
| blamar | Basically just wanted to talk about OpenStack common, and what needed to be done to get a package made for it in PyPi and Ubuntu | 21:37 |
| blamar | Not something I just wanted to "do" without at least bringing it up, and seeing if it was something that needed to go through the PPB | 21:38 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 21:38 | |
| vishy | pvo: the single_default gateway above | 21:38 |
| blamar | The level of code duplicate across Glance, Nova, and Keystone is pretty bad. | 21:38 |
| * Vek thinks we need something like this | 21:38 | |
| jk0 | the melange merge is already starting to use it | 21:38 |
| Vek | yeah, lot of DRY violations... | 21:38 |
| jk0 | or at least, what's available at the moment in openstack-skel | 21:39 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:39 | |
| blamar | jk0: That's true, but the other part of it is that I *don't* want openstack common to just be copy/paste from Nova | 21:39 |
| blamar | jk0: it should be tested, and re-thought-out | 21:39 |
| jk0 | right, I'm just saying | 21:39 |
| jk0 | melnage would be a good place to test it | 21:39 |
| jk0 | they are willing/already trying to do this | 21:39 |
| blamar | jk0: I'd really like it to be difficult to get code into OpenStack Common..because it would need to be tested and be the pristine copy | 21:40 |
| *** jwilmes has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:40 | |
| Vek | makes sense... | 21:40 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:41 | |
| soren | I'm very much in favour of an openstack-common sort of thing as well. | 21:41 |
| blamar | Anyway, I'm not sure really where to go from here. I have a branch which is bare-bones based off Jay Pipes common | 21:41 |
| blamar | https://code.launchpad.net/~blamar/openstack-common/my-common | 21:41 |
| blamar | It's basically nothing but some SQLAlchemy common code, but I'd like to start working with openstack-common as soon as Essex opens | 21:42 |
| blamar | So maybe I can throw some emails/review requests out to the list and gather feedback on guidelines for including stuff in Common? | 21:43 |
| ttx | blamar: sure -- it's not the first time that was pushed though -- the issue has always been resources to commit to it | 21:43 |
| soren | It would be good to gauge PTL buy-in to this. | 21:43 |
| soren | No point in building it if noone wants to change their respective projects to use it. | 21:44 |
| ttx | #action blamar to discuss openstack-common on the ML | 21:44 |
| blamar | ttx: Absolutely, at this point I truly believe we're wasting more resources on code duplication than we would on diverting effort to openstack-common | 21:44 |
| soren | (which IIRC is why it didn't go anywhere last time somone tried to push it) | 21:44 |
| * glenc thinks someone should take the PTLs out back and "explain" it to them | 21:44 | |
| * Vek knows a couple of black belts... | 21:44 | |
| ttx | blamar: anything else ? | 21:44 |
| jk0 | I don't think we had PTLs the last time this was seriously considered | 21:45 |
| blamar | ttx: done, thanks! | 21:45 |
| * vishy is bought-in | 21:45 | |
| ttx | #topic Discuss creating API doc repos | 21:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Discuss creating API doc repos" | 21:45 | |
| ttx | annegentle: shoot! | 21:45 |
| soren | jk0: Not formally, perhaps. | 21:45 |
| annegentle | bang! | 21:45 |
| ttx | aw | 21:45 |
| annegentle | just wanted to circle back here on my proposal to the mailing list today | 21:45 |
| soren | Texans. | 21:45 |
| soren | :) | 21:45 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| annegentle | I think I'm understanding the review process better, thanks to notmyname et al | 21:46 |
| annegentle | hee | 21:46 |
| annegentle | it appears that we could have a openstack-doc-core team for reviews, which I think is nice | 21:46 |
| annegentle | and, separating out the API docs makes the main manuals project much less "build heavy" | 21:47 |
| annegentle | so I hope y'all (that's Texan, right?) are okay with the move to Github and separation. | 21:47 |
| blamar | annegentle: I'm not sure on the delineation between using the project code name and the ...other...name? Why name it openstack/nova-api and not openstack/compute-api? | 21:47 |
| annegentle | blamar: ah, good point! Especially for the api, compute-api makes perfect sense | 21:47 |
| annegentle | identity-api? storage-api? | 21:48 |
| blamar | annegentle: I feel like we use the codename too much, but I might be alone on that. | 21:48 |
| blamar | auth-api, image-api, storage-api? | 21:48 |
| annegentle | blamar: no, you're onto something | 21:48 |
| annegentle | and image-api | 21:48 |
| annegentle | #action annegentle to email the mailing list with new naming possibilities | 21:48 |
| *** pvo has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| ttx | annegentle: anything else ? | 21:49 |
| annegentle | anything else? | 21:49 |
| annegentle | ha beat me to it :) | 21:49 |
| annegentle | just wanted to make sure I've covered the bases. Or some other Texas metaphor. | 21:49 |
| glenc | that dog'll hunt | 21:50 |
| Vek | haha :) | 21:50 |
| annegentle | LOL | 21:50 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:50 | |
| ttx | So I heard temperature finally dropped in Texas ? | 21:51 |
| Vek | sure, it's 91 today. | 21:51 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 21:51 | |
| cynb | I had a goosebump this morning | 21:51 |
| annegentle | yes! | 21:51 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:51 | |
| *** salv has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| ttx | anything, anyone ? | 21:52 |
| Vek | hope everyone had a good labor day/equivalent holiday, if they had one... | 21:52 |
| *** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** pvo has left #openstack-meeting | 21:53 | |
| ttx | ok then. That's all for today | 21:54 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:54 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 6 21:54:13 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:54 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-21.03.html | 21:54 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-21.03.txt | 21:54 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-21.03.log.html | 21:54 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** johan_-_ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** ameade has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| *** tcampbell has left #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| *** bcwaldon_ has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| *** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| danwent | hello netstackers! | 22:00 |
| debo_os | howdy | 22:00 |
| dendrobates | hi | 22:00 |
| somik | hello folks! | 22:00 |
| asomya | Hello | 22:00 |
| markvoelker | o/ | 22:01 |
| danwent | ok, let's get this show on the road…. | 22:01 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 6 22:01:12 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:01 |
| salv-orlando | Hello! | 22:01 |
| danwent | where's salv? | 22:01 |
| danwent | ah… just in time :) | 22:01 |
| danwent | agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:01 |
| danwent | #topic general topics | 22:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "general topics" | 22:01 | |
| danwent | salv had a good question about pep8 versions: https://answers.launchpad.net/quantum/+question/169676 | 22:02 |
| danwent | different pep8 versions give different errors. | 22:02 |
| danwent | nova uses 0.6.1, but many distros ship with 0.5.0 | 22:02 |
| danwent | our thinking was to use 0.6.1, and enforce this by having run_tests.sh check what version you're running with. any concerns? | 22:02 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| bhall_ | danwent: sounds fine to me | 22:03 |
| salv-orlando | I'm ok with 0.6.1 | 22:03 |
| dendrobates | danwent: what ships with 0.6.1? | 22:03 |
| danwent | should be a simple pip install if your system doesn't have it already… we'll put that command in the output of run_tests.sh | 22:03 |
| danwent | dendrobates: not much is my understanding…. but i view nova as the project we should be following | 22:04 |
| danwent | do people want to explore if pep8 0.6.1 is problematic on their platforms | 22:04 |
| danwent | and then email the list, otherwise we'll make the shift? | 22:04 |
| danwent | should be pip install pep8==0.6.1, i believe | 22:04 |
| dendrobates | I say we follow nova | 22:04 |
| danwent | great. | 22:05 |
| dendrobates | by nova you mean the jenkins server, tight? | 22:05 |
| dendrobates | er right? | 22:05 |
| danwent | i'm basing this on what salv looked at. | 22:05 |
| danwent | salv? | 22:05 |
| danwent | I assume it is what is enforced by jenkins | 22:05 |
| dendrobates | mtaylor: ??? | 22:05 |
| salv-orlando | nova has pep8 = 0.6.1 in pip-requires | 22:05 |
| dendrobates | ok | 22:06 |
| salv-orlando | I guess the Jenkins slave runs the same version of pep8 | 22:06 |
| salv-orlando | but cannot confirm that | 22:06 |
| danwent | ok, well anyone with concerns should try this out and see if its a problem for them… otherwise we'll plan in shifting sometime this week. | 22:06 |
| danwent | ok, another other general topics? | 22:06 |
| danwent | #topic melange | 22:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange" | 22:07 | |
| danwent | Troy is out today, but he let me know that he had no major updates other than that the team continues to work on feedback from the nova reviews | 22:07 |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| danwent | for those that are curious, the latest melange code should be pulled from their branch of nova: https://code.launchpad.net/~raxnetworking/nova/melange | 22:07 |
| danwent | any comments/questions on melange? | 22:08 |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| danwent | #topic donabe | 22:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe" | 22:08 | |
| debo_os | Donabe updates - thoughts on donabe model at http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~netstack-core/donabe/diablo/view/head:/doc/donabe-update-090611.pdf | 22:08 |
| danwent | debo/dendrobates? | 22:08 |
| dendrobates | hi | 22:08 |
| dendrobates | we have started putting docs in lp:donabe | 22:08 |
| dendrobates | I would like to have a public donabe planning meeting next week to discuss ideas | 22:09 |
| danwent | great | 22:09 |
| dendrobates | would this same time be good on a different day? | 22:09 |
| dendrobates | any objections? | 22:10 |
| salv-orlando | would work for me as long as it is not a friday | 22:10 |
| debo_os | I am ok on Wed | 22:10 |
| markvoelker | East coast would like an earlier time, but I can make this time. =) | 22:10 |
| danwent | fine for me | 22:10 |
| dendrobates | markvoelker: :) | 22:10 |
| *** Guest30377 has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| dendrobates | ok, next wed at this time | 22:10 |
| dendrobates | I'll send out an invite and agenda | 22:10 |
| danwent | thx | 22:11 |
| danwent | anything else on donate? | 22:11 |
| danwent | donabe | 22:11 |
| dendrobates | that's aa | 22:11 |
| dendrobates | all | 22:11 |
| danwent | stupid auto-correct in my new IRC client | 22:11 |
| danwent | #topic quantum | 22:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum" | 22:11 | |
| salv-orlando | danwent: if you want to donate I can give you mi account number | 22:11 |
| danwent | :) | 22:11 |
| debo_os | :) | 22:12 |
| bhall_ | salv-orlando: acct number and address please.. I'll send a check for a larger amount and you just need to send the rest back | 22:12 |
| danwent | please send me an email about how you got a large sum of money..... | 22:12 |
| danwent | damn…. I was the second one to make the scammer joke | 22:12 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 22:13 | |
| danwent | Ok, we have a good number of reviews outstanding | 22:13 |
| danwent | thankfully many of them are pretty small. | 22:13 |
| danwent | I want to go over the outstanding bp/bugs targeted to diablo-rbp and determine if we need them in or not. | 22:13 |
| danwent | will go in order: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/diablo-rbp | 22:13 |
| danwent | let's try to keep this quick :) | 22:13 |
| danwent | Quantum Manager is reviewed in Nova… should be getting in soon. | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/api-doc-in-trunk | 22:14 |
| *** jrouault has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| salv-orlando | it#s approved now! | 22:14 |
| salv-orlando | well done Dan | 22:14 |
| danwent | haha…. I always need to check my inbox right before providing a status :) | 22:14 |
| danwent | thx | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv: still expecting to propose a branch for the API spec, correct? | 22:15 |
| salv-orlando | I'm working on it and struggling a bit with docbbok | 22:15 |
| danwent | yeah… db is definitely a pain. | 22:15 |
| salv-orlando | no major hassles, just boring | 22:15 |
| danwent | thankfully, this is something that could probably go in after "freeze" | 22:16 |
| danwent | as it is not a code change. | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | I was goign to ask you that | 22:16 |
| danwent | definitely | 22:16 |
| danwent | next up: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-api-auth | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | ok, so we agree to have it done by release date | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | I think we can merge it. | 22:16 |
| danwent | #agreed api doc in source repo can wait until after freeze | 22:17 |
| salv-orlando | It has 3 approve votes. I just wanted to make sure everybody is all right with it. | 22:17 |
| danwent | salv: I think its good to go. great work. | 22:17 |
| danwent | salv: client changes still need review, but seem pretty straightforward. should be a quick review. | 22:17 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:18 | |
| danwent | Mark: anything we're tracking for the dashboard work, or is that all in? | 22:18 |
| asomya | One final commit to fix some PEP 8 compliance and a few tests | 22:18 |
| salv-orlando | I think the Dashboard uses quantum client library, is that correct? | 22:18 |
| danwent | very cool. | 22:18 |
| * markvoelker thinks asomya types faster than me today | 22:19 | |
| asomya | salv: that is correct | 22:19 |
| asomya | and I refitted it for the API changes | 22:19 |
| salv-orlando | we will probably need to do a slight update to pass the Keystone token to the Client object constructor | 22:19 |
| salv-orlando | I guess from the dashboard you can retrieve the Auth token of the currently connected user... | 22:20 |
| asomya | salv: yeah the keystone auth token is already available in the dashboard | 22:20 |
| salv-orlando | good, we'll just need to pass it to the client library. We can discuss the details offline. | 22:20 |
| danwent | Ok, with respect to quantum packaging we decided to bump that to essex…. we still needed to finalize a few things and the change was just too big to try and slide in at the last minute. | 22:20 |
| danwent | Two pylint bugs: salvatore, is your bug the one we're currently using? | 22:21 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/822813 | 22:21 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 822813 in quantum "Improve pylint score" [Low,In progress] | 22:21 |
| *** letterj has left #openstack-meeting | 22:21 | |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/829011 | 22:21 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 829011 in quantum "Pylint errors caused by the ext framework" [Medium,New] | 22:21 |
| salv-orlando | wow... uvirtbot! | 22:21 |
| danwent | Salv: do you want to get these in for diablo? | 22:21 |
| salv-orlando | I've untargeted this | 22:21 |
| salv-orlando | the last one. | 22:22 |
| danwent | ok, great. just wanted to confirm. | 22:22 |
| salv-orlando | The previous one are minor fixes, altough it resulted in a large diff | 22:22 |
| salv-orlando | but if we don't have enough spare cycle for review, we can defer it to essex | 22:22 |
| salv-orlando | maybe we can start the essex development cycle with a good pylint cleanup:) | 22:22 |
| danwent | yeah, at this point review bandwidth is my primary concern | 22:22 |
| danwent | sounds like a plan | 22:23 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834017 | 22:23 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 834017 in quantum "Client library should leverage "detail" actions" [Medium,New] | 22:23 |
| salv-orlando | okay let's untarget the both of them | 22:23 |
| salv-orlando | I don't see this as a priority. Opinions? | 22:23 |
| danwent | seems like this one is not critical.... | 22:23 |
| danwent | my bias is always to untarget to minimize risk if it doesn't fix anything that is broken or improve test coverage | 22:24 |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:24 | |
| salv-orlando | Agreed | 22:24 |
| danwent | ok, sounds good. | 22:24 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/837752 | 22:24 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 837752 in quantum "Multi-nic support not functioning (for Cisco Plugin)" [Critical,In progress] | 22:24 |
| danwent | sumit? | 22:24 |
| danwent | this one sounds important :) | 22:24 |
| ying | Sumit is not here today | 22:24 |
| salv-orlando | looks quite Critical for the cisco plugin | 22:25 |
| ying | we will take care of this bug. | 22:25 |
| salv-orlando | I'm booked for reviewing it, will do that tomorrow | 22:25 |
| danwent | ok, but I assume this one should go in…. will keep it targeted. | 22:25 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/838006 | 22:25 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 838006 in quantum "Keystone support in Client library" [High,In progress] | 22:25 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| danwent | think we're keeping this one. | 22:25 |
| *** RamD has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834013 | 22:25 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 834013 in quantum "API: create operations should return 202" [Low,In progress] | 22:25 |
| salv-orlando | yeah we already have good reviews, should be a straight one | 22:25 |
| danwent | seems pretty simple and since it is an API alignment thing, I'm in favor of keeping it. | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | diff is small | 22:26 |
| danwent | doesn't seem to pose a risk of breaking plugins. | 22:26 |
| danwent | ok, let's keep it | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | definitely not | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | change is confined into API layer | 22:26 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/841982 | 22:26 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 841982 in quantum "API: list ports op apparently succeeds even if network does not exist" [Low,In progress] | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | completely covered by unit tests | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | I'll follow your advice and fix it in dblayer | 22:26 |
| danwent | this is is already reviewed… i had a small suggestion, but I think we can keep it targeted. | 22:26 |
| danwent | great. | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | it's a one-liner after all | 22:27 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834008 | 22:27 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 834008 in quantum "Remove weak pattern in API" [Undecided,In progress] | 22:27 |
| danwent | :) | 22:27 |
| danwent | i think this is already committed | 22:27 |
| danwent | just need to update bug | 22:27 |
| salv-orlando | right | 22:27 |
| danwent | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/842190 | 22:27 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 842190 in quantum "CLI: get rid of cheetah for output generation" [Undecided,In progress] | 22:27 |
| salv-orlando | This is the unexpected one | 22:27 |
| danwent | my thinking is that is should stay targeted for diablo-rbp | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | I have a bad feeling about adding this dependency for somethign where cheetah is not really needed | 22:28 |
| danwent | though it will take some cycles to review and test | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | we already had issues with jenkins | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | Change is confined into CLI, and covered by unit tests | 22:28 |
| danwent | ok, my vote is to keep it targeted so our diablo deliverable doesn't have to depend on cheetah | 22:28 |
| danwent | any other thoughts? | 22:28 |
| danwent | ok, sounds like we'll keep it targeted. | 22:29 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| salv-orlando | is that all? | 22:29 |
| danwent | we also have some unit tests commits from rohit that do not have a bug. I'd like to see them go in to improve our coverage. | 22:29 |
| danwent | but those reviews should be best effort. | 22:29 |
| salv-orlando | agreed. | 22:30 |
| danwent | I think there may be another cisco branch with cisco plugin tests as well. | 22:30 |
| danwent | ah, looks like that isn't targeting lp:quantum yet though | 22:30 |
| danwent | rather another cisco branch. my mistake. | 22:30 |
| danwent | ok, anyone aware of anything else? | 22:30 |
| dendrobates | danwent: which branch? | 22:30 |
| danwent | https://code.launchpad.net/~tylesmit/quantum/unit_tests/+merge/74274 | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando | https://code.launchpad.net/~tylesmit/quantum/unit_tests/+merge/74274 | 22:31 |
| danwent | :) | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando | sorry | 22:31 |
| danwent | pretty much any other changes being pushed to lp:quantum should be serious bug fixes if they weren't mentioned today. | 22:31 |
| danwent | we'll open up essex once we release diablo-rbp | 22:31 |
| danwent | any questions/concerns with the diablo release process? | 22:32 |
| RamD | danwent: I think this for a bug fix coverage.. | 22:32 |
| danwent | RamD: Ok, so you take is that this is needed for diablo? | 22:33 |
| RamD | danwent: yes | 22:33 |
| danwent | is this handling the multi-nic issue, or is it another bug? | 22:33 |
| RamD | yes, multi-nic issue | 22:33 |
| danwent | if its another bug, let's get it filed and targeted for diablo-rbp | 22:33 |
| danwent | ah, ok. | 22:33 |
| dendrobates | this needs to be finished and proposed asap | 22:34 |
| RamD | yep I'll verify with tyler and will do | 22:34 |
| dendrobates | or maybe it was mistakenly targeted | 22:34 |
| danwent | ok, let's get this cleared up and correct on launchpad if anything is mistaken. | 22:34 |
| danwent | https://code.launchpad.net/~cisco-openstack/quantum/lp837752 | 22:35 |
| danwent | is the branch associated with the multi-nic bug | 22:35 |
| dendrobates | naming your branches the bug number they are addressing is very helpful | 22:35 |
| RamD | ok will discuss here and take care of that | 22:35 |
| *** dweimer has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:35 | |
| danwent | Ok, just wanted to give a quick update on documentation. | 22:35 |
| danwent | I'm hoping to have a blueprint proposing an outline for docs by next week. | 22:36 |
| danwent | hopefully we can finish reviews this week, and have some doc writing cycles in the weeks after that :) | 22:36 |
| danwent | Also, on the design summit: http://summit.openstack.org/ | 22:36 |
| danwent | the gates our open now for propels. | 22:36 |
| danwent | auto-correct | 22:37 |
| danwent | proposals | 22:37 |
| salv-orlando | I love your auto-correct | 22:37 |
| danwent | hopefully it doesn't know my bank account number :) | 22:37 |
| danwent | please use the netstack list to socialize proposals for summit sessions and blueprints, so we don't have multiple people working on the same thing in isolation | 22:37 |
| salv-orlando | We are discussing internally what should be our priorities for Essex, and then will submit some blueprints for Quantum | 22:37 |
| danwent | salv: great. | 22:38 |
| salv-orlando | on netstack in general, are we thing about adding some more services to the suite? | 22:38 |
| salv-orlando | IE: anybody coming with proposal for firewall, NAT, DC bridging, etc. | 22:38 |
| salv-orlando | ? | 22:38 |
| danwent | salv: I suspect that will be a topic of much discussion :) | 22:38 |
| danwent | everyone is likely to approach this from a slightly different angle, so i'd like to get cross pollination prior to the summit if possible. | 22:39 |
| debo_os | +1 | 22:39 |
| RamD | salv: absolutely. few more ideas here as well | 22:39 |
| salv-orlando | Well... let's get it started! | 22:39 |
| salv-orlando | (on the ML of course) | 22:39 |
| danwent | one note. talked to TTX. for quantum summit proposals, we should select the tracker "incubated" | 22:40 |
| danwent | but make sure that "quantum" is in the title of the session. | 22:40 |
| danwent | if we have enough, they will create a track for it | 22:40 |
| salv-orlando | what does that mean? what is a tracker? (Apologies for ignorance) | 22:40 |
| danwent | its one of the things you have to select when submitting your proposal | 22:40 |
| danwent | tracker would be "glance" | 22:40 |
| danwent | "nova", "swift", "dashboard", etc. | 22:41 |
| RamD | danwent: How about netstack...not all the BP will fall under quantum, right | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | I think the same applies to the whole of netstack | 22:42 |
| danwent | RamD: that's fine as well…. I had asked ttx about quantum specifically. | 22:42 |
| danwent | in the end, there will be an intelligent eye grouping things, so netstack should work as well. | 22:42 |
| RamD | Oh cool..Its better to have all the network and network services related in a seperate track Netstack..just a thought | 22:42 |
| danwent | yeah, ttx said that the current trackers are just "suggestions" and that they will group intelligently based on what emerges. | 22:43 |
| danwent | container stuff may be tricky though, as it may have broader applicability | 22:43 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else on summit? | 22:43 |
| salv-orlando | who's coming :) ? | 22:44 |
| danwent | anybody who is anybody :P | 22:44 |
| danwent | I will be there | 22:44 |
| RamD | salv: will be there as well | 22:44 |
| salv-orlando | I'll meet you there, then | 22:44 |
| mtaylor | danwent, dendrobates: sorry - stepped out for a sec | 22:44 |
| somik | salv-orlando: hope you double checked that passport of yours ;) | 22:45 |
| mtaylor | danwent, dendrobates: jenkins does not install anything via pip | 22:45 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| danwent | ah, so someone manually installed pep8 version 0.6.1? | 22:45 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| mtaylor | danwent: we have a deb package of pep8 | 22:46 |
| mtaylor | danwent: and the puppet modules for the jenkins slaves install pep8 via apt | 22:46 |
| danwent | and its not specifically pep8 v0.6.1? what OS are they running? | 22:46 |
| danwent | I think natty at least defaults to 0.5.0 | 22:46 |
| mtaylor | danwent: do we need a different version of pep8? | 22:46 |
| mtaylor | danwent: they're all running natty | 22:47 |
| mtaylor | one sec... looking | 22:47 |
| danwent | we're trying to conform with nova, which seems to use 0.6.1 based on the pip-requires. | 22:47 |
| danwent | also, mtaylor, while you are here, I wanted to pick your brain about moving quantum to github/gerrit. Any blockers? | 22:48 |
| mtaylor | we're running pep8 v0.5.0 on the nova builders | 22:48 |
| mtaylor | BUT - I can totally backport 0.6.1 and have it installed on all of the build slaves if that's important | 22:48 |
| danwent | interesting… maybe all of the 0.6.1 errors are caught by reviewers :) | 22:48 |
| salv-orlando | I don't think we're dying to have it running :) | 22:48 |
| salv-orlando | running pep8 0.6.1 I meant | 22:48 |
| danwent | mtaylor: don't worry about it for now. | 22:48 |
| mtaylor | danwent: ok. | 22:49 |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| mtaylor | danwent: re: git/gerrit - there are no blockers -it's just a matter of coordinating with jeblair | 22:49 |
| *** RamD has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| mtaylor | danwent: we may also want to make sure that the launchpad teams are all set up the way we want... | 22:49 |
| danwent | #action: #danwent contact #jeblair about move to github | 22:49 |
| danwent | mtaylor: ok great. Just let me know what i need to do :) | 22:50 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:50 | |
| danwent | anything? | 22:50 |
| salv-orlando | Not from me. | 22:51 |
| danwent | sounds good. | 22:51 |
| danwent | happy reviewing 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 Sep 6 22:51:28 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.2011-09-06-22.01.html | 22:51 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-22.01.txt | 22:51 |
| *** asomya has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-06-22.01.log.html | 22:51 |
| salv-orlando | Bye!!! | 22:51 |
| somik | have a good one everybody! | 22:51 |
| danwent | bye | 22:51 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: we did not discuss packaging at all. Do you have any update? | 22:54 |
| *** deshantm_laptop has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** hisaharu has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:55 | |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:55 | |
| danwent | salv: mentioned it quickly above | 22:56 |
| danwent | see email on ML | 22:56 |
| danwent | tyler said it was probably too much change to push for diablo, so we're just pushing it to essex | 22:56 |
| *** hisaharu has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| salv-orlando | danwent: thanks, I must have missed it | 22:56 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| salv-orlando | sounds reasonable to me | 22:56 |
| danwent | np :) | 22:57 |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:59 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 23:04 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** jwilmes has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** jwilmes has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:16 | |
| *** jwilmes has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:29 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 23:36 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:55 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!