| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:01 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:04 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 00:17 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 00:22 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:32 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 00:38 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 00:39 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 00:56 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 01:07 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** jakedahn_ has quit IRC | 01:21 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 01:58 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:13 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 02:20 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 02:42 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 02:55 | |
| *** pvo has quit IRC | 02:56 | |
| *** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:00 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 03:02 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 03:04 | |
| *** bmcconne_ has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** bmcconne has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:27 | |
| *** Arminder has left #openstack-meeting | 03:51 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:01 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 05:11 | |
| *** chmouel has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 05:20 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 05:29 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:35 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 05:40 | |
| *** chmouel has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:31 | |
| *** mmetheny_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:12 | |
| *** mmetheny has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** mmetheny_ is now known as mmetheny | 07:12 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 07:23 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:43 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:50 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:19 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 09:24 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:24 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 10:12 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 10:51 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:56 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:02 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:10 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:10 | |
| *** blakeyeager has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:59 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 13:08 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:24 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:32 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 13:36 | |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 14:05 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:06 | |
| *** vishy has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| *** vishy has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:07 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:35 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:39 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:42 | |
| *** Binbin has quit IRC | 14:43 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:54 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:00 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:19 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 15:23 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 15:31 | |
| *** DuncanT has quit IRC | 15:34 | |
| *** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:42 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:05 | |
| *** martines_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:08 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:15 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 16:15 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:16 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:24 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 16:39 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 16:40 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** bhall has quit IRC | 16:41 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:51 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:54 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 17:01 | |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:08 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:09 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 17:09 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:12 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:17 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:17 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:22 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:25 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:26 | |
| *** ohnoimdead_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:29 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 17:29 | |
| *** ohnoimdead_ is now known as ohnoimdead | 17:29 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:36 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:39 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:42 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:53 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:54 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| heckj | o/ for keystone meeting | 17:58 |
|---|---|---|
| joesavak | #startmeeting Keystone Team Meeting | 17:59 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Oct 25 17:59:08 2011 UTC. The chair is joesavak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:59 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 17:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 17:59 | |
| joesavak | #topic Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints | 17:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 17:59 | |
| joesavak | Agenda is located at http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting | 17:59 |
| joesavak | welcome y'all. Who is here? | 17:59 |
| heckj | me :-) | 18:00 |
| joesavak | hi joseph! | 18:00 |
| heckj | ola! | 18:00 |
| joesavak | i'll give it a couple more mins | 18:00 |
| heckj | np | 18:00 |
| anotherjesse | here | 18:00 |
| joesavak | hi jesse | 18:01 |
| joesavak | ok - blueprints. Joseph - i saw you contributed a lot of doc for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-documentation | 18:01 |
| heckj | And another pull request to finish that out: https://review.openstack.org/#change,1089 | 18:01 |
| heckj | I was hoping for feedback from the keystone team, never got anything other than "merge it", so I'm assuming I'm not lying anywhere. Wasn't 100% sure though :-) | 18:02 |
| joesavak | ok - i'll review that but will need a 2nd. Jesse, can you review too? | 18:02 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| joesavak | Joseph - i'll take a look. The keystone team (dolph & yogi) have been pretty busy recently. | 18:02 |
| heckj | the original was what needed reviewing - and I have some questions I wanted to ask when appropriate - things that didn't make much sense while I was trying to document the work | 18:03 |
| joesavak | ok. Feel free to send those questions to the mailing list | 18:03 |
| heckj | Ok - will do | 18:04 |
| anotherjesse | joesavak: not to beat a dead horse but I am really confused about how to review doc changes | 18:04 |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| anotherjesse | if this is going to run against diablo components (eg, e0 is for diablo+) or is this for essex? | 18:04 |
| anotherjesse | what is it documenting, what is the protocol, ... | 18:04 |
| joesavak | joseph, you were doing this for diablo, right? | 18:05 |
| heckj | I was writing those to catch it up - I'm presuming we're documenting whatever is in trunk, since the (developer) docs get branched with the code. | 18:05 |
| anotherjesse | ya - the merges are against master | 18:05 |
| anotherjesse | master is currently 45 commits different than stable/diablo | 18:05 |
| heckj | I honestly don't know if it's entirely accurate for trunk - hence the desire for someone who intimately knows Keystone to give a looksee. | 18:05 |
| anotherjesse | is master supposed to become e0 and e0 becomes what we recommend instead of stable/diablo? | 18:05 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| anotherjesse | zns: maybe you know: is master supposed to become e0 and e0 becomes what we recommend instead of stable/diablo? | 18:06 |
| joesavak | e0 will probably not exist due to timeframes. In talking with Yogi, I think we're shooting for e1 | 18:06 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| anotherjesse | for people wanting to run diablo do will we recommend stable/diablo even once e1 exists then? | 18:07 |
| *** jdag has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| zns | If master has only bug fixes and is stable by e0 then we should propose it as a backport for Diablo. My understanding is that it does not contain new functionality. Same API. Same schema. Thoughts? | 18:07 |
| anotherjesse | https://github.com/openstack/keystone/compare/stable%2Fdiablo...master <- we are at +2743 -1372 lines already -- many docs :) but ... | 18:07 |
| joesavak | probably. It depends if the customer was affected by a bug that'll be fixed in e-1 | 18:07 |
| anotherjesse | we have already changed schema | 18:07 |
| anotherjesse | in master | 18:08 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:09 | |
| joesavak | is the removing of the default tenant id the only schema change? (https://review.openstack.org/#change,1068) | 18:09 |
| sleepsonthefloor | there is a table rename as well | 18:10 |
| joesavak | if so, then maybe this is more suited for essex and not a diablo back-port | 18:10 |
| anotherjesse | zns: so your goal is that all of | 18:10 |
| anotherjesse | https://github.com/openstack/keystone/compare/stable%2Fdiablo...master + whatever else happens up to e0 or e1 becomes the new stable/diablo? | 18:11 |
| joesavak | #topic Essex e-0 release possibility | 18:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Essex e-0 release possibility (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:12 | |
| anotherjesse | I just need to know what the plans / goals are for diablo - as our team hasn't been able to switch to helping with essex due to working on keystone integration still | 18:12 |
| joesavak | there are 2 paths that I see: 1 - leave stable diablo as it is and focus on e1 release that will not backport to diablo | 18:13 |
| anotherjesse | perhaps it is more: | 18:13 |
| joesavak | 2 - rush to get e-0 done quickly which is the bugs & doc for diablo then back-port it to stable-diablo, then focus on e1 | 18:13 |
| anotherjesse | 1) have a stable/diablo that has cherrypicked backports to fix specific issues - rather than just taking master | 18:14 |
| joesavak | Jesse - what is your preference and why? | 18:14 |
| anotherjesse | unfortunately we are kinda damned either way - since cherrypicking backports from master to stable/diablo is hard due to commits not being atomic - we | 18:15 |
| anotherjesse | 've spent time trying to identify them but end up having to rewrite since the commits aren't logically separated | 18:15 |
| anotherjesse | and we don't have tags on bugs / commits to say it should be backported | 18:16 |
| joesavak | yup | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | ignoring implementation - thinking only of the api (contracts) in stable/diablo | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | do we know what the issues that would need to be addressed for your team to feel happy doing a release? | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | stable/diablo release that is | 18:16 |
| joesavak | ignoring impl, i think it's good. The doc updates just need to be verified and merged | 18:17 |
| joesavak | but then people will try to get it to work and see that the impl is missing for calls or broken on others | 18:17 |
| anotherjesse | zns: or why do you feel that we should switch to e0 / e1? | 18:18 |
| anotherjesse | I know jaypipes et al are still working on integration with keystone as it exists now - but he can speak more to that | 18:19 |
| anotherjesse | I just think we need to have a target that lets us finish diablo - and I can't find a document / bug list / blueprint / … that says what that is | 18:19 |
| joesavak | ok. I'll get jay's opinion too. I'm leaning to just e-1 with no backporting though | 18:19 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 18:20 | |
| anotherjesse | something like https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=diablo-backport | 18:20 |
| joesavak | ok - i'll create a bug so there's more visibility | 18:20 |
| joesavak | good catch | 18:20 |
| heckj | somewhat related, I'd really like to see the keystone team at least doing peer reviews - I'm still seeing checkins from someone being self-approved | 18:21 |
| joesavak | anything else on e-0? Right now: no e-0 and i'll talk to Jay Pipes | 18:21 |
| joesavak | joseph - i agree. I'll bring that up | 18:21 |
| anotherjesse | pushing through commits in a day by the author minimizes the chance of peer review | 18:22 |
| joesavak | yup. I think these are symptomatic of the keystone growing pains. | 18:22 |
| joesavak | back to blueprints - | 18:23 |
| joesavak | #topic Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints | 18:23 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:23 | |
| joesavak | there is an RBAC blueprint we are drafting and are planning to do an RBAC prototype for e-1 | 18:23 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:23 | |
| joesavak | that blueprint is here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone | 18:23 |
| joesavak | and the full specification has proposed API changes. RBAC will be developed as a Keystone Extension | 18:24 |
| joesavak | Any feedback on this will be helpful. I'll schedule a time for a review as well probably for the next meeting. | 18:25 |
| heckj | I'll make sure to pass it around the folks working on dash here in Seattle | 18:25 |
| joesavak | HP is working on 2-way SSL (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/2-way-ssl) and keystone domains right now (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-domains) | 18:26 |
| joesavak | joseph - thanks! | 18:26 |
| anotherjesse | joesavak: can we get an estimated on when the decision on what is the plan for keystone in diablo? after talking with jay/... | 18:26 |
| anotherjesse | I need to set expectations for our team and people who are deploying diablo | 18:26 |
| anotherjesse | seems like it is really a ptl question but zns doesn't appear to be here | 18:27 |
| joesavak | anotherjesse: let me talk it over with zns. My thoughts is that e-1 with no backporting will be decided | 18:27 |
| joesavak | so by COB tomorrow? | 18:27 |
| joesavak | #topic Open bugs | 18:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open bugs (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:28 | |
| anotherjesse | k - i have questions about the rbac but don't really have time to think about it until diablo is done | 18:28 |
| joesavak | Yogi has been working on bug fixes against trunk. He's focusing on the high and critical ones | 18:28 |
| joesavak | Jesse - we will start work on the prototype next week - FYI | 18:28 |
| heckj | I'm working on the doc bug - and I think I've identified more, but wasn't sure - will be asking questions about the functionality on the mailing list | 18:29 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| anotherjesse | joesavak: does high and critical mean by the importance in launchpad? | 18:29 |
| joesavak | joseph: thanks | 18:29 |
| joesavak | jesse: yes | 18:29 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 18:29 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| joesavak | if there are any bugs you feel should be addressed soon, let me know. | 18:30 |
| anotherjesse | joesavak: there are lots of bugs with "undecided" importance with "fix commited" - seems like a weird state for so many bugs to be in | 18:30 |
| joesavak | yeah. Triage has been an issue and we're working on that too. | 18:30 |
| joesavak | Many of them are old or may have been fixed already. Yogi is going through as he's fixing to update the bugs where appropriate | 18:31 |
| joesavak | If you own any of these bugs and see that the importance is missing or not what you'd expect - let me know that too. | 18:31 |
| joesavak | #topic Open Discussion | 18:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:32 | |
| joesavak | Ok - what questions do y'all have? | 18:32 |
| anotherjesse | I really feel like we have lots of technical debt we need to fix - things like processes and bugs and docs | 18:32 |
| anotherjesse | before spending too much time on new stuff | 18:32 |
| anotherjesse | feels like adding on top of a shaky foundation | 18:32 |
| joesavak | jesse: i agree. It's difficult for keystone since it is really part of essex core (not diablo), was forced to grow up quick, and has really only 2 contributing devs on it. | 18:33 |
| anotherjesse | joesavak: any chance you can have your developers slow down, take a deep breath and approach things with a slow and steady wins the race attitude? | 18:34 |
| anotherjesse | not trying to push e0 / e1 out with lots of additions | 18:34 |
| joesavak | jesse: yes - and we're potentially looking at resources as well. The issue is that keystone needs to freeze early on in essex with RBAC for services to start coding against that functionality | 18:35 |
| heckj | if we coordinated the tasks and made them a bit more available for other developers to add in, we might be able to get some external resources contributing here too | 18:36 |
| heckj | We don't need to have the "only 2 devs, so push everything through as fast as possible" | 18:36 |
| joesavak | joseph - i agree. Thanks for that. :) | 18:36 |
| heckj | But structure is needed to enable other developers to help | 18:36 |
| joesavak | joseph: ok - i think we're already on the right path - more blueprints & bug management for essex than diablo | 18:37 |
| heckj | The conversations appear to be happening between some of the devs and HP, but I haven't seen anything on the lists, open conversations, or even announcements of meetings yet. We really need to get that straightened out. | 18:37 |
| heckj | I'm helping with docs now, and I've found it very difficult because of lack of access - and honestly I've been hesitant to just slap this into the mailing list. Maybe my bad | 18:38 |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:38 | |
| heckj | joesavak: I don't want to say "essex only" - just more structure is needed in coordinating community involvement. Right now it appears to be all inward facing | 18:38 |
| joesavak | j - yea, we have been talking with Liem and Jason especially around domains | 18:38 |
| heckj | can we shift that conversation to the mailing list? Or set up a time to talk about design ideas and considerations on IRC? SOmething to make it more available/accessible | 18:39 |
| joesavak | j - yes. I'll setup some time and we can do a sprint planning together. That may help | 18:39 |
| joesavak | ok - any other questions or issues? | 18:40 |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| joesavak | #topic action-items | 18:40 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "action-items (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:40 | |
| joesavak | Joe Savak to schedule a meeting with HP contributors and RS contributors for keystone to flush out design more, task, and estimate work | 18:41 |
| joesavak | Joe Savak to check with Ziad on the E-0 possibility and communicate it out | 18:41 |
| heckj | How about changing that to scheduling a "public" meeting | 18:41 |
| anotherjesse | heckj: ++ | 18:42 |
| joesavak | j- ok, public. We might do it on our next ks status meeting | 18:42 |
| heckj | awesome | 18:42 |
| joesavak | Joe Savak to request peer reviews of RS developers | 18:42 |
| joesavak | did i miss anything? | 18:42 |
| joesavak | Joe Savak to have a beer? | 18:43 |
| joesavak | ok - thanks y'all. | 18:43 |
| heckj | thx | 18:43 |
| joesavak | #endmeeting | 18:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 18:43 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Oct 25 18:43:56 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:43 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-17.59.html | 18:43 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-17.59.txt | 18:44 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-17.59.log.html | 18:44 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 18:55 | |
| *** robertn_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:59 | |
| * soren pokes mtaylor | 19:00 | |
| * mtaylor pokes soren | 19:00 | |
| * carlp doesn't like poking | 19:01 | |
| mtaylor | who's here. anyone | 19:01 |
| carlp | :) | 19:01 |
| * mtaylor pokes carlp | 19:01 | |
| * mtaylor pokes carlp | 19:01 | |
| * mtaylor pokes carlp | 19:01 | |
| * mtaylor pokes carlp | 19:01 | |
| * mtaylor pokes carlp | 19:01 | |
| robertn_ | robertn | 19:01 |
| carlp | thanks Monty | 19:01 |
| robertn_ | pokes carp in the tenders | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | and with that ... | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Oct 25 19:01:43 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 | sigh. the minutes linked to on the wiki are not the droids I'm looking for | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | so - last time we talked for about two hours on the topic of packaging | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | anybody want to start that freight train moving again? | 19:03 |
| carlp | it was exciting | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | it was so exciting | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | #agreed everyone loved talking about packaging last week | 19:03 |
| anotherjesse | more exciting than keystone meeting? | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: I was eating a sandwich during the keystone meeting - did I miss fun? | 19:04 |
| anotherjesse | always | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | blast. that'll teach me to eat | 19:04 |
| carlp | mtaylor: do you have time this week where we can meet and setup netstack jenkins slave? | 19:05 |
| zul | lest talk about it again :) | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | so - in general, since last week I've gotten nova trunk gating moved to building from pip-based venv instead of slaves with depends installed from packages | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | it was fun - I discovered in working on caching the process of building the venv that venvs are not terribly relocatable, even after running virtualenv --relocatable | 19:06 |
| *** naehring has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:06 | |
| mtaylor | carlp: YES | 19:06 |
| soren | mtaylor: Huh? | 19:06 |
| soren | mtaylor: Oh, nm. | 19:06 |
| carlp | mtaylor: Let's schedule a time offline for that then | 19:06 |
| heckj | mtaylor: definitely missed the fun of keystone mtg | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | carlp: how does sometime during the day tomorrow work? | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | carlp: yes to offline | 19:07 |
| soren | mtaylor: What about all the stuff that isn't in pip? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | soren: those are still installed via apt | 19:07 |
| soren | mtaylor: Where does that come from? Which versions of everything to expect? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | soren: tools/pip-requires | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | soren: virtualenvs are rebuilt any time tools/pip-requires changes, and additionally are rebuilt every night for good measure | 19:07 |
| soren | mtaylor: Eh? | 19:07 |
| heckj | soren: the tools/pip-requires are pretty religiously updated too, since almost all the devs are using them | 19:07 |
| heckj | oh wait, I think I misread your question | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | I'm not thrilled about the current state of tracking the things that get installed not via pip | 19:08 |
| soren | mtaylor: Right, but the stuff that isn't in pip. Where does that come from? Which versions of those things can one expect? | 19:08 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I think it's mostly in README and the like, is that correct? | 19:08 |
| soren | mtaylor: I'm with you. Mixing packaging systems is craptastic. | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | currently, anotherjesse has a list in devstack, I have a list in the puppet modules for our slaves, and jeblair has one in the preseed launch stuff for bare metal | 19:08 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: we are currently focusing on diablo | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | I would really love to figure out a sane way to maintain that list that makes it easy for devs to deal with and not wonky for the currently 3 automated systems that need the list | 19:09 |
| anotherjesse | once we move to essex then we will want to figure out a way to share lists | 19:09 |
| anotherjesse | (perhaps coming from the projects themselves?) | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: cool. yeah - it's a terrible problem right now - but it's going to get old over time | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | sorry | 19:10 |
| soren | mtaylor: Which kernel version, which version of libvirt, etc. etc.? Whatever's in Maverick? Natty? Oneiric? | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | it's NOT a terrible problem right now | 19:10 |
| heckj | make some files in tools/ for each project - packagedeps-apt packagedeps-rpm | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | soren: so, the idea is that we'll still have a ppa with depends | 19:10 |
| heckj | would that work? | 19:10 |
| soren | mtaylor: Also, how do we handle it when we need changes to upstream code? | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | soren: at the moment it's nova-core's ppa driving the slaves - but I would like a non-project specific ppa - I made one in ~openstack-ci but I'm not 100% convinced that's the right place for it | 19:11 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| soren | mtaylor: We've on more than one occasion had sporadic test suite failures due to Eventlet bugs. | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | heckj: the main issue there is that from an integration perspective, we kind of need people to agree on dep versions ... so I'd like to have a master list of "this is what needs installed for openstack" | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | soren: yes - that would be the sorts of things we'd want in the ppa of depends - and also of course forwarded upstream and to the distros | 19:12 |
| *** mmetheny has quit IRC | 19:12 | |
| heckj | mtaylor: ah - so a need for a combined list, rather than one for each project | 19:12 |
| *** mmetheny has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:12 | |
| mtaylor | heckj: that's what _I'd_ like | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | but I'm open to being shot down there | 19:12 |
| soren | mtaylor: So how would that work? Would we temporarily remove it from pip-requires and move it somewhere else? | 19:12 |
| heckj | given the growing cross-dependencies in code, that makes sense to me | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | soren: oh - you mean pip-requires-based things | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | hrm | 19:13 |
| soren | mtaylor: Yes. | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | sorry - brain dead for a sec | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | good question ... it's still on the cards to make our own pypi server that trunk versions of our software gets uploaded to | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | I would think we could temporarily upload other things there - but I'd like to keep that to emergencies- otherwise I think things start getting weird | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | or? | 19:14 |
| soren | We didn't choose not to use pip to begin with at random. It was a rather conscious decision. | 19:14 |
| soren | Just sayin'. | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | I know | 19:14 |
| soren | In other words: I don't know. I don't have a good answer for how to do it with pip. | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | that's fair. I'm going to propose then that when we run against that, we can look at uploading something to our openstack pypi and see how that works for us | 19:16 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| mtaylor | anybody have any sense if the projects would be opposed to changing the location of the virtual env that run_tests.sh creates from .${project}-venv to .virtualenv ? | 19:17 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: wouldn't that make it harder if different projects need different versions? | 19:18 |
| anotherjesse | I'm not a venv expert | 19:18 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I don't think it makes that big of a difference - they're never in the same directory | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | because right now I've got a template job in jenkins that handles venv stuff - and I'd love if it could not have to attempt to figure out the name of the venv ... | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: what heckj said | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: but we're also trying to incite projects to need the same versions of deps :) | 19:18 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: crazy talk | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | I know. I'm completely mental | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | heckj: cool. I'll try to propose some patches there - I think it'll make the jenkins code a little more reusable | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | so moving forward: | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor get run_tests.sh patched to create .virtualenv instead of .${project}-venv | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | #action get other projects migrated to the pip builders | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor get that darned pypi server set up | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | that's the stuff I'm going to try to get going on this front | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | anybody got anything else on pip builders? | 19:22 |
| heckj | nope | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | #topic bare metal | 19:23 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bare metal" | 19:23 | |
| mtaylor | in other news, jeblair has made great progress in getting the bare metal stuff ready to start running tests | 19:23 |
| jeblair | hi | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: wanna catch folks up? | 19:23 |
| heckj | sweet! | 19:23 |
| jeblair | https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/dev-openstack-deploy-rax/ | 19:24 |
| jeblair | here's a summary: | 19:24 |
| jeblair | i have a procedure for setting up a machine to drive tests, based on ubuntu orchestra | 19:24 |
| jeblair | documentation for that will be up real soon now | 19:25 |
| anotherjesse | orchestra = juju? | 19:25 |
| jeblair | i have a jenkins slave running on that machine, and it's running the above job | 19:25 |
| jeblair | ensemble == juju | 19:25 |
| jeblair | orchestra == cobbler | 19:25 |
| anotherjesse | ah | 19:25 |
| jeblair | basically the idea is to distill down to instructions that look like "apt-get install ubuntu-orchestra-server" and install these config files | 19:26 |
| jeblair | attempting to get the barrier to entry for running bare metal tests very low | 19:26 |
| * anotherjesse would be interested in adding it to devstack tools directory once done | 19:26 | |
| heckj | ++ | 19:26 |
| jeblair | part of the orchestra configuration is to set the test machines up with an lvm snapshot so we can do use kexec to quickly reset them to a known state. that seems really solid now | 19:27 |
| jeblair | so the above job runs kexec to reset the machines, then runs devstack on them to set up openstack | 19:28 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: interesting - any good docs on reading how that works? | 19:28 |
| jeblair | anotherjesse: mostly written, should be up soon | 19:28 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: I was referring to kexec in general for this use case - but can't wait to see your docs as well | 19:29 |
| anotherjesse | (eg when researching this did you find any good resources) | 19:29 |
| jeblair | then the job runs exercise.sh, which is where we are now. it looks like we'll need to change the configuration a bit | 19:29 |
| jeblair | anotherjesse: i think this is a moderately novel use of kexec. mostly it's used by kernel developers to test new versions of the kernel. i didn't run into many folks using it for qa, but i could have just missed it. | 19:30 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: trail blazing! | 19:30 |
| heckj | neat, looking forward to seeing how you did it! | 19:31 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| jeblair | :) another improvement over our last iteration of bare metal testing is: | 19:31 |
| jeblair | if you visit the link above, you'll see that the syslogs for each host are separately archived along with the build | 19:31 |
| jeblair | so it should be easier to diagnose problems by looking at the syslog for just the head node, or just a compute node, etc. | 19:32 |
| heckj | nice | 19:32 |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:32 | |
| jeblair | that's about the state. mostly we need to tune the devstack config so exercise.sh works and make sure all the openstack components are syslogging so we get all the info | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: you're doing this with oneiric images, yeah? | 19:33 |
| jeblair | then we should be able to start running post-commit tests on that | 19:33 |
| jeblair | natty | 19:33 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: making devstack enable syslog is probably a good thing in genearl | 19:33 |
| jeblair | yep | 19:33 |
| jeblair | if post commit is solid, we can start gating | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: I was thinking perhaps a flag to devstack which toggles between starting things in screen or starting things normally spitting to syslog? or is that too much? | 19:33 |
| anotherjesse | not too much - lets create an issue (once we move to essex we will move to lp+gerrit for devstack) | 19:34 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: i don't care if things start in screen as long as they also syslog | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: ++ | 19:34 |
| heckj | ++ | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: actually, I think we're going to have to gerrit devstack before we can use devstack based things for trunk gating | 19:34 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| mtaylor | because we'll want to be able to make sure that devstack changes don't break known good trunk, and then that trunk works with known good devstack, yeah? | 19:35 |
| anotherjesse | we were hoping to move to essex at end of day today - but given the uncertainity about keystone I'm not sure | 19:35 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: if needed we can move earlier | 19:35 |
| mtaylor | oh well - we should be fine then :) | 19:35 |
| jeblair | yeah, i thought you meant something other than that by 'move to essex'. ;) | 19:35 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| mtaylor | same here | 19:35 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: you're still in the last meeting in your head, aren't you… I am. | 19:36 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: stackrc points to diablo and we haven't worked on essex (eg master) since we need to get diablo working for users first | 19:36 |
| anotherjesse | it *might* work on master- not sure | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | makes total sense ... | 19:36 |
| jeblair | i'm happy to move devstack into lp/gerrit as soon as you're ready. is openstack/ or openstack-ci/ the right place for it? | 19:36 |
| anotherjesse | I think openstack/ but it doesn't feel like a full project | 19:36 |
| anotherjesse | it is just a shell script | 19:37 |
| anotherjesse | we can email the list | 19:37 |
| heckj | I'm good with either. | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: that might be the reason why exercise.sh isn't working for you? or are you running it on diablo too | 19:37 |
| jeblair | no, it's running on cloudbuilders diablo | 19:37 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: I may not get the swift stuff complete before you want to move it - in that case I'll just re-do into gerrit from your branch | 19:37 |
| jeblair | break one thing at a time. :) | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: ok. good to know :) | 19:37 |
| jeblair | i'd like to see openstack/ be for full openstack projects in the long term. i know the ci team has some stuff in there. we're going to move it out i think, but it's a little tricky due to the number of machines with operational scripts expecting those repos right now | 19:38 |
| jeblair | should be easier once monty finishes the pip builders, actually. | 19:39 |
| jeblair | maybe devstack belongs there, if not, openstack-ci makes some sense to me. it's possible this is a bit of a bikeshed now. :) | 19:39 |
| jeblair | any other questions about bare metal | 19:39 |
| jeblair | ? | 19:39 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: just a note that we (rax cloudbuilders) are working on build_domu.sh that works like build_kvm or build_lxc | 19:40 |
| anotherjesse | for xenserver | 19:40 |
| anotherjesse | you might want to add a xenserver version eventually for gating | 19:40 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: sleepsonthefloor is working on that and getting help from citrix / rax public cloud | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | only one is the one I hinted at earlier - which also affects non baremetal stuff - currently we're doing all testing on natty still - partially because there are no oneiric images in cloud servers yet | 19:41 |
| jeblair | anotherjesse: cool | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | I'd like to move that to oneiric when we have images for it - anybody have a problem with that? | 19:41 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: could you use freecloud with oneiric uec images? | 19:41 |
| anotherjesse | I think using oneiric is probalby good as it (should) decrease the size of the ppa needed? | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: possibly. we've also gotten access to an account on the hp cloud which we're working on integrating in to slave pools | 19:42 |
| jeblair | whatever provider we use does need to be very stable | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | yes. which so far is mainly rax cloud servers ... but as soon as we have jclouds plugin finished, I'd love to have on-demand slaves across a few different clouds once we can | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | especially if we can use the same uec image on each provider | 19:43 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: is anyone working on the jcloud? I'm not a java person but would love to see that working | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | but that's starting to be a whole other topic - and a bit longer-term than this week :) | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: still sourcing around for someone to do that work - I have a few leads - but yeah, it'll be great to get that plugin done | 19:44 |
| zykes- | what meeting is this again? | 19:44 |
| carlp | zykes-: CI | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | I think that's about it for bare metal... | 19:45 |
| zykes- | ok | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:45 | |
| mtaylor | anybody got anything else? | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | want to throw rotten fruit? | 19:45 |
| jeblair | we should maybe cancel next week's meeting? | 19:45 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: I'd love to hear the state of the actual tests - is that what soren has been doing? | 19:45 |
| carlp | I think I got that out of my system with the poking earlier | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | oh yeah - jeblair, soren, vishy, ttx and I are all going to be at UDS next week | 19:46 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:46 | |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: are you coming? or are you staying home? | 19:46 |
| anotherjesse | mtaylor: I'll be there - as soon as I get my tix | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: sweet | 19:46 |
| heckj | me too | 19:46 |
| jeblair | anotherjesse: gabe and daryl are working on that as well as soren | 19:46 |
| carlp | I'll be at home :( | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | so I think it's fair to say we will not have an IRC meeting for CI next week | 19:47 |
| zykes- | anyone at the citrix summit now or ? | 19:47 |
| ttx | Our plan is to drown mtaylor in the pool before he starts relying on devstack for CI | 19:47 |
| zul | count me in | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | ttx: too late | 19:47 |
| ttx | soren: will need your help | 19:47 |
| ttx | mtaylor: you mean you started to learn swimming ? | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | ttx: started? dude, I've been swiming since I was a wee small boy- I grew up in the south, there is only one thing to do in the summer down there, and it's get in a pool of water | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: it is set up in gerrit - and I've seen patches come through | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | anotherjesse: I think it'll be really helpful once we're using at least part of it to gate something, so that there can be good feedback in terms of inputs/outputs needed | 19:48 |
| ttx | Still think that with soren and zul we can succeed. | 19:49 |
| jeblair | oh, regarding that, if we're ready to gate before os-integration-tests are ready, i'm planning on just using exercise.sh as a placeholder and to have something to gate on | 19:50 |
| mtaylor | that seems like a great step one to me | 19:50 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: exercise.sh is a place holder for us too ;) | 19:50 |
| anotherjesse | jeblair: we plan on helping with the ci tests once we things have stabilized | 19:50 |
| jeblair | groovy :) | 19:51 |
| soren | Sorry, was away for a little bit. | 19:54 |
| soren | ttx: Need my help for what? | 19:54 |
| jeblair | this would be a great time to end the meeting! | 19:55 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:56 | |
| *** naehring has quit IRC | 19:56 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:56 | |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:57 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Oct 25 19:57:08 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:57 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-19.01.html | 19:57 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-19.01.txt | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | thanks everybody | 19:57 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-19.01.log.html | 19:57 |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| soren | ttx: Oh. That. Yeah, sign me up. | 19:59 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Oct 25 20:00:01 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:00 |
| jbryce | roll call? | 20:00 |
| notmyname | here | 20:00 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| zns | here | 20:00 |
| bencherian | here | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | o/ | 20:01 |
| jk0 | o/ | 20:01 |
| jbryce | ewanmellor, johnpur, vishy, anotherjesse: around? | 20:01 |
| pvo | o/ | 20:02 |
| jbryce | all right...that's enough to get started | 20:02 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda has 1 thing on it | 20:02 |
| ewanmellor | Here | 20:02 |
| jbryce | #topic Status on vulnerability management team setup | 20:02 |
| anotherjesse | here | 20:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status on vulnerability management team setup" | 20:02 | |
| johnpur | hey | 20:03 |
| jbryce | ttx: want to take it away? | 20:03 |
| ttx | yes, wanted to do a quick update | 20:03 |
| ttx | we recently made progress in setting up proper security teams | 20:03 |
| ttx | The proposed plan is to have a very small team of vulnerability management people (that will just be reponsible for tracking the fix and disclosure process)... | 20:03 |
| ttx | ...and a large (open) team of security-concerned folks to discuss auditing and security improvements to OpenStack. | 20:03 |
| ttx | For the first team, see http://wiki.openstack.org/VulnerabilityManagement | 20:03 |
| ttx | #info Proposal is that the small vuln-mgmt team would be set as "security contact" for all the core projects | 20:04 |
| ttx | Note that the affected PTL is getting involved as the very first step to vulnerability resolution. | 20:04 |
| ttx | You can also see the proposed openstack.org/security page contents at: | 20:04 |
| ttx | #link http://etherpad.openstack.org/8hWNQwkWf9 | 20:04 |
| vishy | here | 20:04 |
| ttx | Let me know if you see anythign wrong in there | 20:05 |
| zns | ttx: says to join https://launchpad.net/~openstack-security but the group does not exist. | 20:05 |
| ttx | zns: sure, the contents needs t obe approved first | 20:06 |
| ttx | basically I'm not sure we should have a common openstack group, or should we have project-oriented groups | 20:06 |
| ttx | like the nova-security-improvements subgroup that vishy set up | 20:06 |
| zns | ttx: ah. OK. | 20:06 |
| mtaylor | is there any benefit to having per-project security groups? | 20:07 |
| vishy | ttx: that subgroup was meant for improving the security of the code as opposed to responding to vulnerabilities | 20:07 |
| ttx | vishy: the same for ~openstack-security | 20:07 |
| *** adiantum has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:07 | |
| mtaylor | seems like openstack group is the easier to maintain - and I'd think that doing that and then moving to more complex if needed would make sense | 20:07 |
| vishy | ah ok | 20:07 |
| ttx | vishy #openstack-vuln-mgmt is the team for responding to vuln | 20:07 |
| mtaylor | ah | 20:07 |
| jbryce | i think there are big benefits to only have one team and i don't expect the volume to be extremely high | 20:07 |
| ttx | s/#/~ | 20:07 |
| jbryce | especially in the area of simplifying the process | 20:08 |
| ttx | vishy: would you mind if we refunded ~nova-security-improvements into ~openstack-security ? | 20:08 |
| vishy | one team for improvements seems kind of silly to me | 20:08 |
| ttx | (that one is an open security interest group) | 20:08 |
| vishy | they are very project specific | 20:08 |
| jbryce | sorry...i'm talking one team for vulnerabilities | 20:08 |
| ttx | jbryce: we need one team for vuln | 20:09 |
| vishy | why would anyone who works in glance or swift care about reimplementing a nova-db worker to lock down the database? | 20:09 |
| jbryce | i agree that improvements probably make more sense as separate teams | 20:09 |
| vishy | (for example) | 20:09 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: the http://wiki.openstack.org/VulnerabilityManagement seems to say it is about processes not code fixes | 20:09 |
| anotherjesse | for handling security issues | 20:09 |
| vishy | one team for process seems fine | 20:09 |
| vishy | separate teams for implementation though | 20:09 |
| pvo | for just security issues, I would think 1 team would work . | 20:09 |
| ewanmellor | On the vuln side, I would like to see a statement that "responsible disclosure" includes disclosing to downstream products and distros in a private, co-ordinated fashion, so that we can get patches to our customers on the day of the public disclosure. | 20:09 |
| pvo | vishy: agree for implementation | 20:09 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: see http://wiki.openstack.org/VulnerabilityManagement | 20:10 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: it states it a bit more clearly | 20:10 |
| jbryce | #info one team for vulnerability management across all openstack projects | 20:11 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: OK, I would like to see one page with this stuff written down, not two ;-) | 20:11 |
| jbryce | #info separate teams by project for general security improvements | 20:11 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: the question is whether a common "openstack-security" group (to discuss security improvements) is better or worse than separate ~nova-security and others | 20:11 |
| vishy | ttx: imo, security improvements are code specific and a shared group would just get bogged down in theory | 20:12 |
| ttx | vishy: yes, I have no string opinion either way | 20:12 |
| ttx | vishy: the security folks kinda prefer a common group, but I agree that a project-focused group would deliver more results | 20:12 |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| ttx | ewanmellor: will make sure that is written down in both places ! | 20:13 |
| vishy | ttx: who are "the security folks"? | 20:13 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: (the etherpad is the static website content, the wiki is much more controllable) | 20:13 |
| ttx | vishy: people that came to Ray and I at the end of the nova security meeting and with which we brainstormed this so far | 20:13 |
| ttx | vishy: mostly code auditors | 20:14 |
| reed | we should also close the list openstack-security | 20:14 |
| ttx | reed: close ? list ? | 20:14 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: What is the meaning of the term "downstream users"? I would expect a company like Citrix, as a downstream software vendor, to be notified before e.g. Disney, as a downstream deployer. | 20:14 |
| reed | I don't think it's used at the moment http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-security | 20:14 |
| _0x44 | I think in general it makes more sense for there to be project level sub-teams that can serve as the single-point of contact for the openstack-security team when it actually is formed. | 20:15 |
| _0x44 | They're complementary | 20:15 |
| ttx | vishy: I'll discuss the split with them | 20:15 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:15 | |
| ttx | ewanmellor: downstream users = distributions and public cloud providers | 20:16 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: OK, worth clarifying. Private cloud users may wonder whether they are in that category, or why they are not. | 20:16 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: we will refine the process once the team is in place. | 20:16 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: we badly need some process set up. it won't be set in stone once it's in place | 20:17 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: but I see what you mean. | 20:17 |
| jbryce | ttx: +1 | 20:17 |
| jbryce | let's get it in place and then we will really find out where we need to improve it | 20:17 |
| ttx | OK, so we'll proceed in setting up the vuln-mgmt team and make progress on vuln management process | 20:17 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: Also, does the Coordinated Disclosure section imply that those phases happen in strict order? I would want to be notified that a vuln was known even before a fix was ready, because I usually need to get a QA slot reserved. | 20:18 |
| ttx | and I'll discuss splitting the security interest groups per project | 20:18 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: the problem is to balance disclosure with speed of fix | 20:18 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: once downstream users (with my definition) know about it, it's all downhill from there | 20:19 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: you need to coordinate release fast | 20:19 |
| johnpur | ttx: fixes hit the "stable" branch quickly? | 20:20 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: that's why the current proposed process gets a fix first | 20:20 |
| ttx | the stable branch would be one of the downstreams. | 20:20 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: Not true. The aim is to be co-ordinated and careful, not necessarily fast. Citrix would handle any vuln with strict non-disclosure rules (we have a team that does this). | 20:20 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: and then coordinates the fix down | 20:20 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 20:21 | |
| ttx | ewanmellor: the "downstream users" group will be large. You can't keep a secret long with such a group | 20:21 |
| ttx | in my experience with 20+ people in the loop you can't embargo for more than one week. | 20:22 |
| notmyname | ttx: based on the foundation announcement, seems that we can't keep a secret in the PPB either ;-) | 20:22 |
| mtaylor | it should be assumed that secrets are impossible to keep | 20:22 |
| bencherian | agreed | 20:22 |
| ttx | mtaylor: indeed, that's why time is of the essence | 20:22 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: That's why I asked what the definition of "downstream users" was. You said that is was distros and public cloud providers, by which I assumed you meant the professional security teams of said companies. | 20:22 |
| ttx | I bet the moment the vulnerability is known, some affected people will start deploying fixes. | 20:24 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: I see your point. I guess we can discuss that when we'll have a list for the "downstream users" :) | 20:24 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: So I would expect that the existence of a vuln, disclosed to professionals, would be treated with the professionalism, respect, and secrecy that we would all expect. We _have_ to be able to keep a secret for more than a week, because we may need to do more than a week's QA on it. | 20:24 |
| ttx | see if we can reorder the process | 20:24 |
| johnpur | for users in production, it may be critical to get the fixes, get through QA, and pushed to production | 20:25 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: I guess a few years on vendor-sec has left me a bit pessimistic | 20:25 |
| ttx | johnpur: that's agreed. ewan is proposing that all downstream users know about the vulnerability as early as possible, even with no fix available yet | 20:26 |
| jbryce | so where do we sit on this? we think the proposal is good but we need to determine exactly when a broader group is notified that a vulnerability exists vs. that it exists and has a fix? | 20:27 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: I guess we could say something is coming up, without too much detail | 20:27 |
| ewanmellor | ttx: Know about the _existence_ of a vuln. Not necessarily what it is. | 20:27 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: oh, I see | 20:27 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: sure, that's acceptable | 20:27 |
| ttx | (I think) | 20:27 |
| johnpur | ttx: agree. need to define downstream crisply, particularly the branches that have deployed systems | 20:27 |
| ttx | "something affecting that and that, severity High, coming up, patch on its way" | 20:28 |
| jbryce | ttx: that makes sense to me | 20:28 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: I'll roll that in the process | 20:28 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: or you can. hey, it's a wiki :) | 20:28 |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 20:28 | |
| ewanmellor | ttx: Sounds good. | 20:28 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think I'm done, will keep you posted with more progress next week | 20:29 |
| ewanmellor | Security processes documented on wikis *shudder* | 20:29 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:29 |
| ttx | ewanmellor: hehe | 20:29 |
| jbryce | #topic open discussion | 20:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 20:29 | |
| jbryce | anyone have anything else they'd like to discuss? | 20:30 |
| mtaylor | I'd like to propose making the core dev infrastructure (CI, gerrit, jenkins, whatnot) an openstack project with a ptl who's voted in by its devs rather than just something everything depends on and happens to be there | 20:31 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| devcamcar | here now btw | 20:31 |
| mtaylor | especially now that we're starting to get more contributions in that space from non-rackspace folks | 20:31 |
| ttx | mtaylor: I would keep "openstack projects" to pure user-facing code. Make up a team and hold elections if you want ? | 20:32 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: I like that idea | 20:32 |
| mtaylor | ttx: well yes - I essentially just want to make it a thing we recognize and manage, rather than merely something we count on | 20:32 |
| ttx | i.e. don't reuse the word PTL but copy the idea | 20:32 |
| jbryce | ttx: i agree. i wouldn't consider that "administrative" type thing to be part of the shipped openstack software | 20:33 |
| ttx | "Team lead" | 20:33 |
| bencherian | mtaylor: i like it as well. we're working on a lot of the core dev infrastructure stuff right now and will definitely contribute it back if we can | 20:33 |
| ttx | team leads should be elected as soon as people don't agree who should be the lead, basically | 20:33 |
| notmyname | I like the idea of the packaging/integration piece being an equal voice and managed the same as the other projects. and we all integrate with the 6 month releases | 20:33 |
| jbryce | i think set it up as a project and elect a team lead if you want and encourage contributions, but it's not really part of a cloud software stack | 20:34 |
| jbryce | it's not going to get get shipped in a downstream distribution or deployed at a service provider | 20:34 |
| ttx | i.e. it's not incubating or core or whatever | 20:34 |
| notmyname | jbryce: no, but it's an essential piece of openstack itself | 20:34 |
| mtaylor | totally not part of the cloud software stack ... but I think notmyname put it well ... it's about explicit governance/managment/ppb oversight | 20:34 |
| ttx | notmyname: I'm not sure mtaylor includes packaging in that | 20:35 |
| notmyname | ttx: he should ;-) | 20:35 |
| johnpur | mtaylor: do you consider the openstack-qa effort part of this? | 20:35 |
| mtaylor | ttx: well... I would include packaging in that if the openstack project decided it wanted to provide packaging :) | 20:35 |
| notmyname | johnpur: I would | 20:35 |
| ttx | mtaylor: my point :) | 20:35 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: interesting question - one consumes the output of the other in my head | 20:35 |
| johnpur | mtaylor: right | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | I actually think that openstack-qa should similarly be an administrative managed grouping that also doesn't produce shipped code | 20:36 |
| annegentle | I get encouraged to do the same for Docs - PTL for docs, but I think it's not necessary as doc doesn't create/maintain clouds | 20:36 |
| ttx | So we might need some area for "official team" or something | 20:36 |
| ttx | I don't want all teams to go through PPB for formation* | 20:36 |
| zns | Would this be something the "foundation" would own? | 20:36 |
| ttx | though some teams, owning some critical central stuff, would benefit from PPB oversight | 20:36 |
| annegentle | or rather, not necessarily unnecessary, but the wrong governance model | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:37 |
| jbryce | i'm fine if we want these things to have some kind of oversight/governance, but i think that we should not confuse it with the "product" that we're building | 20:37 |
| notmyname | these things, IMO, are all part of a meta-project. I'd consider all of the support pieces (including docs) to be part of it | 20:37 |
| johnpur | so we need to "define" how we handle automation, qa, and docs? | 20:37 |
| notmyname | zns: IMO, no more than the foundation "owns" swift, nova, or keystone | 20:37 |
| ttx | jbryce: sure. Not project, but "official team" or "meta-project", or whatever new name we can come up with | 20:37 |
| devcamcar | throwing all the support projects into one lump doesn't seem wise | 20:37 |
| ttx | for a team that own s a part of openstack that the PPB still should have oversight over | 20:38 |
| johnpur | ttx: +1 | 20:38 |
| ttx | devcamcar: I agree it should not be a single "janitor meta-project", but rather a category of stuff. | 20:38 |
| devcamcar | ++ | 20:39 |
| notmyname | IMO, it's not about oversight but consistency. allow each of the projects (including this yet-to-be-defined meta-project) to do things according to their needs and integrate with every major release. this means packaging, etc too | 20:39 |
| ttx | I can think of two teams that fit that description | 20:39 |
| ttx | doc and CI | 20:39 |
| johnpur | ttx: qa? | 20:39 |
| *** adiantum_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:39 | |
| mtaylor | I think qa is the third. it's currently working on producing openstack-integration-tests | 20:39 |
| ttx | johnpur: I don't think so. | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | which will be pretty stinking important to the project | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | hopefully :) | 20:40 |
| ttx | We could have multiple competing QA projects, no ? | 20:40 |
| mtaylor | god I hope not | 20:40 |
| ttx | why? | 20:40 |
| zykes- | devcamcar: got time for some questions regarding nova & db in #..-dev ? | 20:40 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| zns | notmyname: own wasn't the best word. I mean would this come under PPB and technical oversight or would it become infrastructure that is not directly governed by the PPB? | 20:40 |
| mtaylor | let's put it this way - the CI system will not use multiple competing QA projects to tests openstack | 20:40 |
| annegentle | ttx: I think QA and Doc could help each other. | 20:40 |
| ttx | I really see QA as a team thing. You don't need permission to do QA | 20:41 |
| ttx | and all QA is good | 20:41 |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:41 | |
| ttx | contrast with CI -- you only have one CI. | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | you don't need permission to do qa - you do need permission to check in new tests to the tests suite that is used for trunk gating | 20:41 |
| *** adiantum has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| devcamcar | zykes: I will be able to in a min | 20:41 |
| ttx | mtaylor: CI can choose to use whatever team's tests they want | 20:41 |
| zns | anngentle: Doc provides concrete deliverables that ship with the stack (PDF, webhelp, RST, etc..). QA/CI does not - what it delivers is quality but you don't download, install, and run that... | 20:41 |
| ttx | mtaylor: just choose to use the ones from the super-QA team | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | so the test suites that are the output of the QA team's work | 20:42 |
| johnpur | ttx: getting a coherent and consistent qa effort amongst the community is super important | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | ttx: so, that's a business I do not want to be involved in - choosing _which_ qa product I prefer | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | there is currently a defined super-QA team for openstack, and I will use what they hand me - since that affects trunk gating, I think it should be managed | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | is all I'm saying | 20:42 |
| ttx | johnpur: my point is that if someone can't bear Jay and still wants to do QA, he should be able to | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | ttx: and if someone can't bear vishy and still wants to hack on nova? | 20:43 |
| johnpur | ttx: lol, who doesn't love jay? | 20:43 |
| annegentle | ttx: the benefits would be in consistency (for all three teams) | 20:43 |
| mtaylor | or doesn't like me and wants to help run the CI system? ;) (that's the more believable example) | 20:43 |
| ttx | mtaylor: my point -- QA is something you can do in multiple ways. While CI or Nova are unique | 20:44 |
| annegentle | all doc is good, but it's better if it's consistent and trustworthy | 20:44 |
| *** adiantum_ has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| mtaylor | ttx: I think you and I are using the word QA differently | 20:44 |
| mtaylor | ttx: you are referring to the act of QA - I am referring to the concrete set of test code produced by the team who is doing testing activities | 20:44 |
| ttx | mtaylor: imagine a group calling themselves "the-fuzzers" wanting to do some code analysis and file bugs based on their results | 20:45 |
| mtaylor | ttx: so we might need an additional word | 20:45 |
| mtaylor | ttx: right. I don't give a shit about that :) | 20:45 |
| ttx | mtaylor: do you want to prevent them from forming a group ? | 20:45 |
| ttx | mtaylor: that's QA too | 20:45 |
| mtaylor | god not. but that's not what I'm talking about | 20:45 |
| mtaylor | ok. so let's call what I'm talking about "openstack integration test developers" | 20:45 |
| ttx | mtaylor: so I think you're not after "QA", you are after "the ones producing my test suite" which is quite different | 20:45 |
| ttx | right | 20:45 |
| mtaylor | so in my view - we have three of this style of currently unmanaged group - CI, Docs, and "the ones producing my test suite" - and I think we should come up with something slightly more official for them :) | 20:46 |
| ttx | mtaylor: agreed, that should be unique :) | 20:46 |
| johnpur | ttx: i see it as more than that. consistent test frameworks, hooks to the ci mesh, gating trunk, etc. | 20:46 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:47 | |
| devcamcar | mtaylor: are you looking for a name or formal policy? | 20:47 |
| ttx | mtaylor: sure, just don't call them "projects" and don't call their lead "PTL". | 20:48 |
| johnpur | code coverage, bare metal provisioning and deployment, etc. | 20:48 |
| notmyname | ttx: -1 | 20:48 |
| devcamcar | johnpur: sounds like we just had our first major scope creep | 20:48 |
| devcamcar | some of the things you described are proposed for satellite | 20:49 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: well, that's sort of why jim and I like to refer to ourselves as "core dev infrastructure" rather than just CI | 20:49 |
| johnpur | devcamcar: it is part of the on-going openstack-qa discussion | 20:49 |
| zykes- | scope creep devcamcar ? | 20:49 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: since we currently manage all of those things in the set of systems that are relyed on by the project | 20:49 |
| ttx | <jbryce> i think set it up as a project and elect a team lead if you want and encourage contributions, but it's not really part of a cloud software stack | 20:49 |
| ttx | <jbryce> it's not going to get get shipped in a downstream distribution or deployed at a service provider | 20:49 |
| jbryce | there is a difference between software we're shipping to our users and things that help us produce that software | 20:50 |
| *** wwkeyboard has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| devcamcar | jbryce: Exactly | 20:50 |
| jbryce | i agree with ttx that we shouldn't call the latter exactly the same thing as the former | 20:50 |
| ttx | notmyname: if they don't have release code deliverables, they shoudn't be a core project | 20:50 |
| devcamcar | qa and ci arw closely coupled, but docs? | 20:50 |
| johnpur | service providers (being part of the community) will be setting up and running CI and QA systems (hopefully). | 20:50 |
| jbryce | but i think if we want to come up with some more official mechanism for oversight we can do that | 20:50 |
| ttx | and if they can't be a core project... then calling them "projects" is confusing | 20:51 |
| notmyname | integration with packaging, CI, docs, etc (whatever this group is called) should be the same as eg integration between nova+glance+swift+keystone | 20:51 |
| notmyname | ttx: it's about consistency | 20:51 |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| jbryce | notmyname: i think they're too different to try to enforce artificial consistency | 20:51 |
| notmyname | jbryce: what's artificial? | 20:51 |
| jbryce | their output has very different purposes | 20:51 |
| notmyname | ttx: I thought we only had one deliverable: Openstack ;-) | 20:51 |
| *** robertn_ has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| ttx | I don't have strong feelings either way, but calling them all "projects" while they are all different things doesn't really help | 20:52 |
| notmyname | ttx: I think you've used the word "component" in the past :-) | 20:52 |
| mtaylor | so, I guess the thing that I'm on about is that currently there are a set of us doing the tasks to get these things done, and we respond to the needs and wishes of the ppb... but the relationship of the people doing the jobs to the openstack project is happenstance rather than explicit | 20:53 |
| jbryce | notmyname: yes...the projects are components of the open source cloud system we are trying to build.... | 20:53 |
| ttx | notmyname: the word "project" unfortunately survived ! | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | I think the areas themselves are actually working pretty well | 20:53 |
| jbryce | ci software would not be a component of that | 20:53 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: so are you in search of a problem here? | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: possibly | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | :) | 20:53 |
| ttx | mtaylor: maybe wait for it to fail | 20:54 |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| * mtaylor likes having failover systems in place _before_ failure ... but perhaps spent too much time doing HA consulting | 20:54 | |
| ttx | mtaylor: the PPB (currently) has the power to fix things going wrong... not sure it should be involved in things that work well | 20:54 |
| notmyname | jbryce: ttx: this may poison my whole argument for a separate project, but I really like this idea because it's part of what I originally wanted with with project autonomy. each project (including the meta-project) choosing for themselves their best things and integrating with every major openstack release | 20:55 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| *** Oneiroi has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| ttx | I guess I don't like the idea of a single meta-project with one true lead. I think Anne should lead docs, whoever happens to lead CI. | 20:56 |
| jbryce | i'm not sure there's an action to take right now unless someone wants to try to put together a real proposal | 20:56 |
| ttx | and if there is more than one, you need a category | 20:56 |
| johnpur | where i see ppb involvement is enforcing that the ci and qa processes are required of projects. that we use common processes and utilize the same mechanisms to gate trunck, etc. trying to push a consistent approach. | 20:56 |
| notmyname | ttx: no different that nova and lieutenants | 20:56 |
| *** Ravikumar_hp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| ttx | notmyname: we don't call lieutenants areas "projects". They are called "subteams" | 20:57 |
| notmyname | johnpur: enforcing integration across the projects | 20:57 |
| notmyname | ttx: sounds good to me | 20:57 |
| notmyname | ttx: a doc subteam of the openstack integration project | 20:57 |
| notmyname | etc | 20:58 |
| ttx | notmyname: but who could lead a single frankenstein meta-project ? I don't think such a PTL would make sense | 20:58 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| notmyname | vishy is doing well ;-) | 20:58 |
| notmyname | j/k j/k | 20:58 |
| vishy | lol | 20:58 |
| jbryce | 1 minute | 20:58 |
| vishy | ITS ALIVE!!!! | 20:58 |
| jbryce | parting thoughts? | 20:58 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: wait - are you now saying that vishy is _not_ doing well? ;) | 20:58 |
| *** adiantum has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| notmyname | mtaylor: you're putting words in my mouth :-) | 20:59 |
| ttx | mtaylor: that's what I heard ! | 20:59 |
| ttx | Burn the witch ! | 20:59 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | on that note.... | 20:59 |
| *** dubsquared has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** rjh has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | we're out of time | 20:59 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Oct 25 20:59:45 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-20.00.html | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-20.00.txt | 20:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-20.00.log.html | 20:59 |
| devcamcar | I heard that notmyname hates vishy omg! :) | 20:59 |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 21:00 |
| notmyname | devcamcar: whew. that wasn't logged :-) | 21:00 |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jbryce | do we need to schedule a witch-burning session at the next design summit? | 21:00 |
| devcamcar | haha | 21:00 |
| vishy | can we get a scale? | 21:00 |
| vishy | and a duck? | 21:00 |
| notmyname | jbryce: the swift team calls those the PPB meetings ;-) | 21:01 |
| zykes- | pitchforks and torches ;p | 21:01 |
| jaypipes | *sigh* | 21:01 |
| devcamcar | and angry villagers! | 21:01 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| ttx | ok, let's get started | 21:01 |
| _0x44 | devcamcar: I think between the two of us we can provide the angry villagers. | 21:01 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Oct 25 21:01:50 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:01 |
| ttx | Welcome everyone to the weekly general meeting... Today's agenda is at: | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:02 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #info Please use #info #link #idea #action for a richer summary... | 21:02 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:02 | |
| ttx | * ttx to set up some survey monkey for summit feedback | 21:02 |
| ttx | AFAICT the survey (common with Conference) should be launched today or tomorrow. | 21:02 |
| ttx | it's out of my hands now | 21:02 |
| ttx | All the other actions were DONE and we'll talk about them in each project status. | 21:03 |
| *** adiantum has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| ttx | zns: around ? | 21:03 |
| zns | yep | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | zns: Looking at: | 21:03 |
| zns | Keystone status update: | 21:03 |
| zns | - Many blueprints updated and targeted (more to come) - this was an action item from last week. | 21:03 |
| zns | - Working on upleveling our commit quality. Getting good feedback (thanks anotherjesse). More blueprints, specs, and bugs are being authored on and will be targeted to the appropriate milestones. | 21:03 |
| zns | - Documentation work for E0 making good progress. | 21:03 |
| zns | - Implementation of Diablo API calls that were not implemented is going slower than expected, but making progress. | 21:03 |
| zns | - We have updates in e0 that we'd like to back port to Diablo (especially bug fixes). But there are also schema changes which I think only belong in Essex, so we need to figure out how we can back port the fixes without the schema changes. Working on that. | 21:03 |
| zns | - Big question on the table is are we trying to go to fast? We are going to focus on getting the implementation done and stabilizing, so that might delay how much we can deliver by E3 (our early freeze). Stability and continuity (i.e. migration scripts) come first given customers are using Diablo. | 21:03 |
| ttx | so you decided to do a E0 ? | 21:04 |
| *** renuka has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| zns | I'd like to get whatever bug fixes we have shipped for E0. No need for customers to live with bugs. | 21:04 |
| zns | yes. | 21:04 |
| jaypipes | zns: are you tracking a stable/diablo branch? | 21:04 |
| ttx | I heard that essex trunk already contains backwards-incompatible changes wrt diablo | 21:04 |
| ttx | so E0 can't be used as a bugfix release... | 21:05 |
| zns | https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bugs?field.tag=diablo-backport | 21:05 |
| ttx | zns: if taht's the case, you should rather tag something on the stable/diablo branch | 21:05 |
| ttx | no ? | 21:05 |
| jaypipes | zns: ok, good. have any been applied to a stable/diablo branch yet? (not sure they could be, considering the rate of change in Essex trunk) | 21:05 |
| zns | ttx: I don't know - what do you think? Better to backport to 2011.3 or have people try to find out what is the latest stable release (is it E0, E1, ex…?). I thought having the last stable release be THE release was a decision in Boston… | 21:06 |
| zns | … looking for your advice on this. We can do either... | 21:06 |
| ttx | depends on what you want to do a milestone or release for... | 21:07 |
| zns | Essex trunk BTW works with all core projects. But it has a schema change, which is the main issue... | 21:07 |
| ttx | do you want to do a diablo+, i.e. only bugfixes over what you released as diablo ? | 21:07 |
| *** sifusam has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| devcamcar | zns: we do need stable diablo branch asap. I'm fielding a ton of bug reports on my side related to keystone. quite a bit of overhead for us... | 21:07 |
| zns | My take is that we should only backport fixes. No API changes or schema updates/migrations. | 21:07 |
| anotherjesse | I field this but https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/854425 is in the backports | 21:08 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 854425 in keystone "schema normalization (token vs users/tenants)" [Low,Fix committed] | 21:08 |
| anotherjesse | and is a schema change without migrations | 21:08 |
| zns | devcamcar: what would help you best; an E0 release with schema changes or backport to Diablo without schema changes? | 21:08 |
| devcamcar | zns: also for the schema changes I didnt see migrations | 21:08 |
| devcamcar | what jesse said | 21:08 |
| zns | I don't think we can do migrations for every milestone. That's a lot of work. | 21:08 |
| anotherjesse | zns: disagree | 21:09 |
| devcamcar | zns: backport without schema changes | 21:09 |
| zns | Hence my thought we backport to Diablo and leave the schema changes in Essex. | 21:09 |
| anotherjesse | migrations is how you do scheam change | 21:09 |
| zykes- | ttx: just as a note i use keystone (latest from trunk) and i'm grately satisfied... | 21:09 |
| devcamcar | zns: you should have migrations for every change, not every milestone | 21:09 |
| _0x44 | How are you changing the schema without a migration? | 21:09 |
| ttx | zns: so you're after stable/diablo work and a tag there | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: yes, but unfortunately, if you do that with diablo packages of nova or glance, everything blows up. | 21:09 |
| zns | zykes-: thanks. Did you migrate from Diablo? | 21:09 |
| ttx | not after a E0 | 21:09 |
| anotherjesse | https://github.com/openstack/nova/tree/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/migrate_repo | 21:09 |
| anotherjesse | pretty easy to do migratinos | 21:09 |
| zns | ttx: yes | 21:10 |
| mtaylor | I would think in this case that the migration isn't as much of a practical issue because noone out there is probably running the diablo keystone because of the issues | 21:10 |
| zykes- | jaypipes: uhm, i got nova + swift diablo and glance | 21:10 |
| zykes- | works dandy | 21:10 |
| mtaylor | so in GENERAL, things not having migrations is probably a good policy | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: nova and glance DIABLO packages... | 21:10 |
| mtaylor | in this case, there is likely nothing large to migrate FROM | 21:10 |
| ttx | ok, people calm down | 21:10 |
| ttx | so the keystone folks need to work on stable/diablo, backport what can be, and tag/ cut a tarball from that | 21:11 |
| zns | So should we do releases every milestone (with migrations if the schema changes)? anotherjesses: you run many production deployments. Thoughts? | 21:11 |
| ttx | since it's diablo work, it's not a formal Essex milestone | 21:11 |
| zykes- | jaypipes: yeah, i use the griddynamics packages for what was the core projects in the diablo release but keystone didn't work so i use it from trunk there | 21:11 |
| ttx | discussion on specifics of what is relevant for each branch and not can go off-meeting | 21:12 |
| anotherjesse | zns: my view is migrations should always be explicit | 21:12 |
| anotherjesse | in released software or even if you are just running a service | 21:12 |
| ttx | zns: I had a few questions about specs that may or may not be in your Essex plans: | 21:12 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/pluggable-protocols (marked deferred) ? | 21:13 |
| zns | _0x44: changing the definitions in the model. That generates the schema in sqlalchemy. | 21:13 |
| _0x44 | anotherjesse: +N, where N is the number of potential schema changes | 21:13 |
| _0x44 | zns: ಠ_ಠ | 21:13 |
| anotherjesse | python model introspection and creating a new sqlite database any time you touch keystone-manage is not a good idea | 21:13 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/2-way-ssl (targeted to essex-1 but not with series=Essex yet) ? | 21:13 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/service-endpoint-location (targeted to essex-2 but not with series=Essex yet) ? | 21:13 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: looks like we could have an ML thread around that | 21:14 |
| zns | ttx: OK. We'll fix those. | 21:14 |
| ttx | I don't want to spend the hour on this | 21:14 |
| ttx | zns: thx | 21:14 |
| ttx | zns: So your plan for essex-1 is https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:14 |
| zns | anotherjesse, _0x44: shall we go off thread? Would love to get your thoughts on how to handle this better/in line with other projects. | 21:14 |
| ttx | zns: Is that correct and on track (with 2 weeks left) ? | 21:15 |
| devcamcar | zns: I'm happy to help as well | 21:15 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| ttx | About migrations / the best is to copy how other projects are doing it | 21:15 |
| zns | ttx: yes. There are also additional changes we have not put in as separate BPs yet. Part of what we need to catch up on. They are calls in the Core API that were not yet implemented. | 21:15 |
| ttx | zns: OK, I'll be in touch with you this week | 21:16 |
| zns | devcamcar: thanks. I'll start a mailing list thread. | 21:16 |
| ttx | I'd like to have finalized essex-1 plans by Thursday | 21:16 |
| ttx | zns: Anything else ? | 21:16 |
| zns | OK. No, nothing else. | 21:16 |
| zns | Tx | 21:16 |
| ttx | So in summary, two discussions are to be had around keystone -- migrations, and working on a diablo+ tag in the stable/diablo branch | 21:17 |
| ttx | is that a fair summary ? | 21:17 |
| devcamcar | lgtm | 21:17 |
| ttx | when do you need that diablo+ tag ? last week ? | 21:17 |
| zns | ttx: yes | 21:18 |
| ttx | #agreed two discussions are to be had around keystone -- migrations, and working on a diablo+ tag in the stable/diablo branch | 21:18 |
| zykes- | seems yogi is already working on backports? alot of mails raining in | 21:18 |
| zns | zykes-: yes, he's working on it. | 21:19 |
| ttx | ok, moving on to next project, then | 21:19 |
| ttx | unless someone has a question ? | 21:19 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:19 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:19 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:19 |
| ttx | notmyname: Any hint on when you'll want to release 1.4.4 ? | 21:19 |
| notmyname | when https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.4 is done | 21:19 |
| *** adiantum has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:20 | |
| ttx | ok, that's a complete plan ? | 21:20 |
| ttx | (so far ?) | 21:20 |
| notmyname | I'd like to see most of https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:openstack/swift,n,z done for 1.4.4 | 21:20 |
| notmyname | the milestone in LP covers most of that | 21:20 |
| ttx | ack | 21:21 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:21 |
| notmyname | I don't think so. | 21:21 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:21 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:22 | |
| jaypipes | https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:22 |
| ttx | jaypipes: had a few questions about https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/essex | 21:23 |
| ttx | About protected-properties: what is it blocking on ? | 21:23 |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| jaypipes | it's actually not going to be done at all. The 2.0 API proposal makes them irrelevant. | 21:23 |
| ttx | ok, will mark superseded and remove from plan | 21:24 |
| *** adiantum has quit IRC | 21:24 | |
| ttx | #action ttx to mark protected-properties superseded and remove from essex | 21:24 |
| jaypipes | ttx: already done. | 21:24 |
| ttx | rha$ | 21:24 |
| ttx | About changes-since-filter: it's marked "Needs Code Review" but I couldn't find a corresponding review. | 21:24 |
| jaypipes | bcwaldon: ? | 21:24 |
| ttx | I was wondering if it wasn't just merged already and should be added to essex-1 | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | bah, sorry, I'm here | 21:25 |
| jaypipes | ttx: no, there was a branch bcwaldon did for that, but not sure what happened with it | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | changes-since-filter is implemented | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | sorry for not updating the BP | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | that was done in diablo | 21:26 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: you mean it's a hidden diablo feature ? | 21:26 |
| jaypipes | ok, done. | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: it's in the 1.1 spec, so it would have been a bug if it weren't done | 21:26 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: heh | 21:26 |
| jaypipes | ttx: it was added to nova first, then glance afterwards made it actually efficient IIRC. | 21:26 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Any other thing on your mind ? | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: just didn't make it into Glance release notes, I guess | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | jaypipes: it was *accepted* as a param in nova first, just didn't affect the result | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | ttx: trying to get the 2.0 Images API proposal out to the ML soon. | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | ttx: for an RFC period of about 3-4 weeks | 21:27 |
| ttx | jaypipes: does one of your BP cover that ? Or is it still tbd ? | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | ttx: after I get the API proposal out, I will create BPs for each subsequent change in the API that needs implemented... | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | ttx: gotta get the proposal done first then I promise I will update the BPs to better represent the work. | 21:28 |
| ttx | jaypipes: ok. Already have a milestone target for that ? essex-2/3 ? | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | e2 | 21:28 |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 21:28 | |
| ttx | looks like a busy milestone :) | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | yup. | 21:29 |
| ttx | anyone: Questions on Glance ? | 21:29 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:29 | |
| ttx | vishy: yo | 21:29 |
| vishy | hy | 21:30 |
| ttx | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/essex | 21:30 |
| vishy | * hi | 21:30 |
| ttx | lot of activity today, still work in progress ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | so I've been targetting like mad | 21:30 |
| ttx | or seeing the end of the tunnel ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | I'm very close to having everything in essex | 21:30 |
| ttx | (the white light) | 21:30 |
| vishy | prioritization and milestone targetting haven't happened in detail yet | 21:30 |
| *** cp16net has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| vishy | I did a first pass on the obvious ones | 21:30 |
| ttx | vishy: as far as targeting goes, would be good to nail essex-1 first | 21:31 |
| vishy | I'm going to send a message out to all the lists asking for help from the leads in targetting and cleanup | 21:31 |
| vishy | I think there are a few duplicates still. There were a lot of very crufty blueprints | 21:31 |
| ttx | also would be good to convert those team assignments into real people :) | 21:31 |
| ttx | the kind I can ping to death on IRC | 21:31 |
| *** Gordonz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| ttx | in doubt, I'll pig the team lead :P | 21:32 |
| vishy | right | 21:32 |
| ttx | vishy: how complete is https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:32 |
| ttx | vishy: Is it complete or do you have more in mind ? | 21:32 |
| vishy | probably pretty close actually | 21:32 |
| vishy | just because it is coming up soon | 21:32 |
| ttx | right, two weeks left | 21:33 |
| ttx | So pci-passthrough and osapi-console-log need to be completed over the next two weeks | 21:33 |
| vishy | both of those are in review now | 21:33 |
| vishy | so i think they are ok | 21:33 |
| vishy | if anything else gets added, it will likely be stuff that is already under review that i didn't notice | 21:33 |
| ttx | oh, cool. btw, please use bp/* branch topics in Gerrit, so that we get magic links at http://wiki.openstack.org/releasestatus/ | 21:34 |
| ttx | that helps me in trying to update BP status for you | 21:34 |
| vishy | all stuff that hasn't been started i expect to be targetted e2 or later | 21:34 |
| vishy | ttx: yes I guess they didn't know how to do that | 21:34 |
| ttx | Working on more auto-BP-updating from commit messages with jeblair | 21:35 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:35 |
| vishy | ttx: I think that is it | 21:36 |
| ttx | vishy: think you can have essex-1 plan in order by Thursday ? Looks almost ok to me | 21:36 |
| ttx | (the rest of essex can wait a bit) | 21:36 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:37 |
| vishy | ttx: sure | 21:37 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:37 | |
| ttx | yay Horizon. | 21:37 |
| ttx | devcamcar: o/ | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | hi! | 21:38 |
| ttx | devcamcar: You got a nice and complete plan at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/essex | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:38 |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 21:38 | |
| devcamcar | and a name! | 21:38 |
| ttx | It's so complete it's a bit scary :) A few remarks: | 21:38 |
| ttx | We need to keep "Essential" blueprints to a bare minimum. | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | understood, I will tweak | 21:38 |
| ttx | They are supposed to delay the release if not completed. So I'm being even more a PITA about them, and having 7 of them is just too much. | 21:38 |
| ttx | So I'd try to reprioritize a bit lower and keep the "Essential" ones a minimum, if possible. | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | that's fair | 21:39 |
| ttx | For any "Essential" you keep (if any), I'd like an assignee to be set. That would be the person I'll be a pain to :) | 21:39 |
| ttx | Essential: must do / High: will do / Medium: wants to do / Low: may do | 21:39 |
| ttx | thanks :) | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | my other update is that we are really close to having migrated to all of the official tools | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | gerrit transition should happen this week | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | and then we will be back into Jenkins, which is a relief for me :) | 21:40 |
| ttx | next week I'll look into the release tooling, making sure we have what we need (basically Ci set up to produce tarballs) | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | oh and yea, we named it Horizon | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | great | 21:40 |
| ttx | devcamcar: A few remarks on https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:40 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:40 | |
| ttx | You should set assignees to all the blueprints and bugs targeted. | 21:41 |
| ttx | At this point, if they are not assigned, they just won't get done in time :) | 21:41 |
| devcamcar | Wilcox | 21:41 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Are all the blueprints you have there on track ? | 21:41 |
| ttx | I was wondering about improve-dev-documentation (slow progress ?) and javascript-unit-tests (not started ?) | 21:41 |
| devcamcar | thanks autocomplete | 21:41 |
| devcamcar | js unit tests will get done next week | 21:41 |
| devcamcar | dev documentation has been ongoing | 21:41 |
| devcamcar | i think evry | 21:42 |
| devcamcar | I think everything is tracking well right now | 21:42 |
| ttx | ok, great | 21:42 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:42 |
| devcamcar | nope | 21:42 |
| ttx | Questions on Horizon ? | 21:42 |
| ttx | "no question on the horizon"... | 21:42 |
| anotherjesse | devcamcar: event horizon = ? | 21:42 |
| devcamcar | haw | 21:42 |
| devcamcar | anotherjesse: oh god, I didn't even make that connection | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | backbone.js powered websocket + yagi | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | dashboard 5.3 | 21:43 |
| devcamcar | anotherjesse: patches welcome | 21:44 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects and other Team reports | 21:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects and other Team reports" | 21:44 | |
| ttx | danwent: how is Quantum doing these days ? | 21:44 |
| danwent | good. slowing getting the dev wheels turning again after the summit | 21:44 |
| danwent | #link here is a wiki page with a rough plan for essex overall: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumEssexRoadmap | 21:44 |
| ttx | yes, it always takes a bit of time to recover | 21:44 |
| danwent | #info essex-1 milestone blueprints are filling in a bit slowly: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/essex-1 | 21:45 |
| danwent | We have a couple reviews in for the Quantum network manager in nova, would be great to get help from network savvy nova core devs | 21:45 |
| ttx | vishy: you don't really have a network subteam, do you ? | 21:46 |
| vishy | yes | 21:46 |
| anotherjesse | aren't we all on vishy's subteams? | 21:46 |
| danwent | actually, i think they just created one with trey | 21:46 |
| vishy | we just created one | 21:46 |
| vishy | ! | 21:46 |
| ttx | hah | 21:46 |
| ttx | I'm so yesterday | 21:46 |
| danwent | I'll work with trey on those reviews | 21:46 |
| danwent | nothing much else to report, unless there are questions. | 21:46 |
| ttx | Other team leads with a status report ? | 21:47 |
| ttx | doc/CI/QA ? | 21:47 |
| ttx | stable release ? | 21:47 |
| annegentle | nothing today, next Docs Team Meeting in November (14th) and watch for the time change Nov 6th. | 21:47 |
| anotherjesse | don't know if devstack is going to join CI or QA or … but we are hoping to get diablo "done" so we can move to essex … at which point we will start doing gerrit & lp instead of github issues/pull requests | 21:48 |
| ttx | yes we are entering DST fuzzy zone. Double check UTC time for all meetings | 21:48 |
| *** dubsquared has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:49 | |
| ttx | Europe goes off DST on Oct 30 | 21:49 |
| ttx | topic Open discussion | 21:49 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:49 |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:49 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:49 | |
| ttx | Anything, anyone ? | 21:49 |
| wwkeyboard | What about the Melange/Nova merge thing? | 21:49 |
| danwent | there are a couple pull requests at: https://github.com/rackspace/python-novaclient | 21:49 |
| wwkeyboard | is that still on? | 21:49 |
| danwent | would be great if someone on that team could take a look. | 21:50 |
| danwent | or tell me a better place to push patches | 21:50 |
| ttx | vishy: did you rule on the Melange in/exclusion ? | 21:50 |
| vishy | ttx: no i didn't | 21:50 |
| vishy | i was trying to find out the status of that today | 21:50 |
| anotherjesse | is troytoman around? | 21:50 |
| annegentle | hey I did want to remind nova core reviewers to also keep an eye on compute-api - Nati has some changes that need review. | 21:50 |
| troytoman | o/ | 21:51 |
| wwkeyboard | There is a merge request for the merge | 21:51 |
| ttx | vishy: feel free to abuse the open discussion for that. | 21:51 |
| troytoman | vishy: what was the melange question? | 21:51 |
| wwkeyboard | https://review.openstack.org/#change,646 | 21:51 |
| vishy | troytoman: where are we at with melange | 21:52 |
| vishy | troytoman: are we still trying to merge? | 21:52 |
| pvo | danwent: will get someone on the pull req | 21:52 |
| troytoman | vishy: yes. after talking with jaypipes we cut the merge prop into 3 phases to make it easier to review | 21:52 |
| troytoman | the first one has been approved by jay but we need more to get it merged | 21:52 |
| troytoman | then we can do the additional pieces | 21:53 |
| vishy | troytoman: ok if we are going that route | 21:53 |
| vishy | I will get the new nova-network team to take responsibility for getting it going | 21:53 |
| troytoman | OK | 21:53 |
| vishy | btw as an fyi | 21:54 |
| vishy | I'm marking all of the "good idea" blueprents as Undefined / New / Deferred | 21:55 |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| vishy | so that is where to find the backlog | 21:56 |
| troytoman | alright | 21:56 |
| ttx | vishy: ++ | 21:56 |
| ttx | vishy: so Melange will still be in Nova itself ? | 21:56 |
| vishy | yes sounds that way | 21:57 |
| ttx | vishy: should be your call, not someone else's :) | 21:57 |
| troytoman | vishy: since we haven't merged it, we don't have to do it that way | 21:57 |
| troytoman | but based on initial input and the latest convo with jay that was the plan | 21:57 |
| vishy | we have to do one or the other | 21:57 |
| troytoman | if we want to do something else, i just want to know so we can have a clean path forward | 21:58 |
| vishy | troy, lets discuss this offline | 22:00 |
| ttx | vishy: if you don't feel strongly one wy or the other, raise an ML thread -- there is always someone feeling strongly about something somewhere :) | 22:00 |
| ttx | ok, let's close this... | 22:00 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| Vek | no kidding :) | 22:00 |
| vishy | ttx: we have just been discussing it for far too long | 22:00 |
| vishy | an ml thread will just go around and around again | 22:00 |
| ttx | vishy: yes, you even lost me :) | 22:00 |
| ttx | ok, just decide then | 22:01 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:01 | |
| troytoman | vishy: sure. ping me when you are ready | 22:01 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Oct 25 22:01:21 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-21.01.html | 22:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-21.01.txt | 22:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-21.01.log.html | 22:01 |
| *** markmc has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| danwent | thanks ttx :) | 22:01 |
| ttx | danwent: 5 seconds into the next hour, sorry | 22:01 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| danwent | ok netstackers, let's get this started... | 22:01 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Oct 25 22:01:57 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 |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** rjh has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| danwent | everybody here? | 22:02 |
| bhall | I am :) | 22:02 |
| danwent | salv is out today | 22:02 |
| edgarmagana | Hello Everybody! | 22:02 |
| danwent | well, i know troy is there, so let's start with melange | 22:03 |
| danwent | #topic melange status | 22:03 |
| somik | :o | 22:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange status" | 22:03 | |
| danwent | troy? | 22:03 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| danwent | #info based on discussion in previous openstack team meeting, melange merge into nova is still waiting | 22:03 |
| danwent | mmm… maybe troy is not here. | 22:04 |
| danwent | #action #danwent contact troytoman about melange packaging | 22:04 |
| danwent | anything else that anyone has on melange? | 22:04 |
| troytoman | back | 22:04 |
| danwent | just in time :) | 22:04 |
| troytoman | merge is still waiting. vishy and I are going to nail down the path forward | 22:05 |
| *** Ravikumar_hp has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| troytoman | i promised blueprints that are not done (mac address creation and /interfaces) | 22:05 |
| troytoman | those are still in draft mode | 22:05 |
| troytoman | that's it, i think | 22:05 |
| danwent | ok, any questions for troy? | 22:05 |
| danwent | troy, any comments on packaging? my question above? | 22:05 |
| danwent | or does that depend on merging into nova? | 22:06 |
| troytoman | it may depend. sounds like they might revisit if melange should merge or be separate | 22:06 |
| troytoman | so it could impact packaging | 22:06 |
| danwent | ok, i guess we'll wait until the dust settles there | 22:06 |
| danwent | ok, sounds like we're good on melange | 22:06 |
| danwent | #topic quantum status | 22:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum status" | 22:06 | |
| danwent | btw, I forgot to post the agenda link earlier. | 22:07 |
| danwent | #link: agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meeting | 22:07 |
| danwent | essex-1 is only two weeks out | 22:07 |
| danwent | milestone is looking a bit sparse in general: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/essex-1 | 22:07 |
| *** robertn_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| danwent | if there is anything (bug or feature) that you are targeting for this release, please target something to this milestone by thursday | 22:08 |
| danwent | any other updates on essex-1? | 22:08 |
| edgarmagana | dan: you mean this Thursday 27th? | 22:09 |
| edgarmagana | or the next one? | 22:09 |
| danwent | edgar: by target I just meant create a blueprint or bug and associate it with the milestone. | 22:09 |
| edgarmagana | dan: got it | 22:09 |
| danwent | yes, the 27th, at least for any major work (i.e., work that will take a while to review or might disrupt other code) | 22:09 |
| danwent | if it is a small bug fix, it is fine to target it to a release later in the cycle | 22:10 |
| danwent | Ok, want to cover the major reviews we have outstanding | 22:10 |
| danwent | #info review: tyler just submitted the new quantum packaging for review. this is a major change, so please look it over and make sure you are OK with it. | 22:10 |
| danwent | anyone have the link handy? | 22:11 |
| bhall | just a sec | 22:11 |
| markvoelker | This one? https://review.openstack.org/1094 | 22:11 |
| bhall | https://review.openstack.org/#change,1094 | 22:11 |
| bhall | damn, beat me to it | 22:11 |
| bhall | :) | 22:11 |
| danwent | :) | 22:11 |
| markvoelker | =) | 22:11 |
| danwent | packaging is a really key deliverable for essex-1, so we want to get reviews on this quickly. | 22:11 |
| danwent | #info: review bhall also submitted DHCP changes for QuantumManager (this is also much of the code to get L3 routing + NAT working as well) | 22:12 |
| danwent | brad, you have the link? | 22:12 |
| bhall | yup, sec | 22:12 |
| bhall | https://review.openstack.org/#change,916 | 22:12 |
| *** renuka has quit IRC | 22:13 | |
| danwent | I'm really hoping more quantum folks will get up to speed on the QuantumManager code, so it would be great to have people do a review, even if they aren't a nova core dev. | 22:13 |
| danwent | any other reviews outstanding? | 22:13 |
| danwent | Ok, is Carl P here? | 22:14 |
| danwent | I don't see his handle... | 22:14 |
| danwent | #action #danwent contact Carl P about functional testing for essex-1, have him send to ML | 22:14 |
| danwent | anything else to report on packaging, other than the in progress review? | 22:15 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| markvoelker | Nothing from me... | 22:15 |
| bhall | danwent: one more review | 22:15 |
| danwent | bhall: please use info tag so it shows up in agenda | 22:15 |
| bhall | #info review on switching to update port/net calls: https://review.openstack.org/#change,929 | 22:16 |
| markvoelker | Does that work if you're not the chair? | 22:16 |
| danwent | yes, I believe everything but "agreed" works even if you are not chair | 22:16 |
| markvoelker | cool | 22:16 |
| danwent | so everyone should feel free to use "info" and "link" | 22:16 |
| danwent | #info from salvatore: Operational status: spec published, received good feedback. Will update specification according to feedback received during this week. | 22:17 |
| danwent | #info: from salvatore: API framework: work in progress, and in good shape. I have now code that can run both v1.0 and v1.1 APIs. Unit tests pass (note: I’m running the whole set of API unit tests against both versions. This is a bit paranoid at the moment, but might come handy in the future) | 22:17 |
| danwent | #info: from salvatore: Nova-network feature parity: willing to investigate what it will take to get to parity on AWS-style security groups. Posted a reply to Brad initial mail on the ML. | 22:17 |
| danwent | Salvatore is traveling, so please send any questions to ML | 22:17 |
| danwent | I want to try and draft a Quantum Essex roadmap so I could see everything in one place and think about dependencies | 22:18 |
| danwent | #link draft Quantum Essex Roadmap: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumEssexRoadmap | 22:18 |
| danwent | we can definitely add/delete/modify, but I found it helpful to identify the different "chunks" we're working on for Essex. | 22:19 |
| danwent | particuarly, I think we need to get people committed to milestones in a couple key areas: | 22:20 |
| danwent | 1) nova-parity work for Quantum Manager | 22:20 |
| danwent | 2) dashboard work | 22:20 |
| danwent | 3) API work | 22:20 |
| danwent | 4) functional / integration test | 22:20 |
| danwent | so I was thinking of trying to setup phone calls or meetings to make sure we get stuff nailed down. | 22:20 |
| danwent | Ram and I already chatted on doing a whiteboard session for #1 to get his team more familiar with the QuantumManager stuff that Brad and I have been doing | 22:21 |
| danwent | Mark, are you able to drive #2? | 22:21 |
| danwent | doesn't seem over eager…. | 22:22 |
| danwent | or he's not here :) | 22:22 |
| markvoelker | Sorry, getting pulled into multitasking =) | 22:22 |
| *** jmeredit has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| markvoelker | I'm working on resource allocation this week, should have better answers soon. But I think we'll be able to tackle it. | 22:23 |
| danwent | mark: just saying that I'd like to get a plan around dates + who is doing what for the dashboard | 22:23 |
| danwent | great | 22:23 |
| danwent | one of my goals is to get folks from different teams working on different parts of the code, so it definitely doesn't have to be all your team on the dashboard stuff, I'm just looking for you to drive the planning. | 22:23 |
| somik | for dashboard: I received another volunteer willing to help out, I'll send your way once I know more | 22:23 |
| markvoelker | somik: great, please do! | 22:24 |
| danwent | Salvatore can drive the API stuff, but we're also looking for someone else to participate on that end. Please speak up if you're interested. I know Ram mentioned there might be someone on his team interested. | 22:24 |
| danwent | And I will be bugging Carl P about the system/functional test. | 22:25 |
| danwent | Mark: is there a cisco contact that you want as a driver on the system/functionanl test? | 22:25 |
| markvoelker | Hmm... how about CC myself and shwetap? | 22:25 |
| danwent | Ok, I will let Carl know. | 22:26 |
| danwent | so expect emails from me in the next few days around how we can firm up plans in each of these areas. Please look over the draft roadmap and give your thoughts. | 22:26 |
| danwent | any questions/comments on quantum before we go to open discussion? | 22:26 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:27 | |
| *** sifusam has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| danwent | jame urquhart had a good write-up on quantum this week: http://t.co/sqauRvpb | 22:27 |
| danwent | anything else? | 22:28 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:28 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Oct 25 22:28:40 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:28 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-22.01.html | 22:28 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-22.01.txt | 22:28 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-10-25-22.01.log.html | 22:28 |
| danwent | thanks folks! | 22:28 |
| *** cdub has left #openstack-meeting | 22:29 | |
| danwent | have a good one | 22:29 |
| bhall | adios | 22:29 |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:29 | |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** danwent has left #openstack-meeting | 22:31 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:31 | |
| *** debo_os has left #openstack-meeting | 22:32 | |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:32 | |
| *** wwkeyboard has left #openstack-meeting | 22:32 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has left #openstack-meeting | 22:35 | |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| *** mcohen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** jmeredit has left #openstack-meeting | 22:44 | |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| *** mcohen_ is now known as mcohen | 22:44 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:44 | |
| *** danwent_ has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| *** Gordonz_ has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:52 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** ewanmellor has left #openstack-meeting | 22:58 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:58 | |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** Oneiroi has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 23:06 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:09 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 23:26 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:26 | |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:28 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:34 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 23:35 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:36 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 23:46 | |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!