| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:02 | |
| *** PotHix has quit IRC | 00:03 | |
| *** salv-orlando has left #openstack-meeting | 00:06 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 00:06 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 00:10 | |
| *** danwent_ has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 00:16 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 00:18 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:22 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 00:23 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 00:30 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 00:33 | |
| *** edgarmagana has quit IRC | 00:34 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 00:43 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 00:51 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 01:01 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:03 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:06 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 01:06 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 01:06 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:06 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:07 | |
| *** gongys has quit IRC | 01:07 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 01:11 | |
| *** romain_lenglet has quit IRC | 01:12 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:12 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:22 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 01:22 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 01:33 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 01:44 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 01:45 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:48 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:03 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:13 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:20 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:22 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 02:24 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:26 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 02:34 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:34 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:36 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:38 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 02:43 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:53 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 02:54 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:58 | |
| *** johnpostlethwait has quit IRC | 03:00 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 03:05 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 03:06 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 03:33 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 03:34 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:39 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:45 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 03:48 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:53 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:53 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:59 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 04:03 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:05 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 04:20 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:20 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 04:23 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 04:36 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:45 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 04:45 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:49 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 04:51 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 05:03 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:03 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:04 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 05:04 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 05:04 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:05 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 05:05 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 05:07 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:24 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:26 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 05:29 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:29 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 05:33 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 05:33 | |
| *** matwood has quit IRC | 05:53 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:56 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 06:03 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 06:07 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 06:12 | |
| *** mnewby_ has quit IRC | 06:25 | |
| *** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:30 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:44 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:10 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 07:13 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:13 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 07:37 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has quit IRC | 07:54 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:55 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 08:05 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:10 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 08:10 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 08:10 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 08:17 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:18 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:18 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 08:31 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 08:43 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:11 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 09:38 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 10:22 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 10:23 | |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 11:14 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:23 | |
| *** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:44 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:56 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:00 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:03 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:04 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 12:04 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:18 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 12:24 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:25 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:28 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 12:33 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:42 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:43 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 12:46 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 12:51 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:01 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 13:09 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:09 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:12 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 13:18 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:18 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:25 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:31 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 13:32 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:32 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:35 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:37 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has quit IRC | 13:37 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 13:41 | |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:44 | |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:48 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:49 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:56 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:59 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 14:02 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:03 | |
| *** nikhil has quit IRC | 14:14 | |
| *** nikhil has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:15 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:17 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 14:17 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:20 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 14:22 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 14:27 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:27 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:29 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 14:29 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 14:29 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 14:30 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:33 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 14:33 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 14:34 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:38 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:41 | |
| *** pballand_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** pballand_ has left #openstack-meeting | 14:48 | |
| *** ozstacker has quit IRC | 14:49 | |
| *** ozstacker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:50 | |
| *** ozstacker has quit IRC | 14:50 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:51 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:51 | |
| *** ozstacker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:52 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:53 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:58 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** metral has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:00 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:01 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** mattray1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 15:04 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| *** mattray1 is now known as mattray | 15:04 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| *** zigo-_- has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:10 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 15:11 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 15:11 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 15:12 | |
| *** PotHix has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:13 | |
| *** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:14 | |
| *** ncode has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| *** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:14 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:17 | |
| *** Ravikumar_hp has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:23 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:23 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:34 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:36 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 15:38 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 15:41 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 15:43 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 15:55 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 16:03 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:06 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:07 | |
| heckj | #join openstack-infra | 16:07 |
|---|---|---|
| heckj | or not | 16:07 |
| *** heckj has left #openstack-meeting | 16:10 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:11 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:11 | |
| *** bencherian has quit IRC | 16:24 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:28 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:28 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 16:32 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:34 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:45 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:49 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 16:49 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:56 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:59 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 17:01 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:04 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| *** arosen has quit IRC | 17:09 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:16 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:19 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 17:22 | |
| *** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:27 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| *** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:34 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:41 | |
| *** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:42 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 17:52 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| ayoung | Keystone meeting! | 17:58 |
| *** GheRivero_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| * oubiwann1 waves and bencherian :-) | 17:58 | |
| oubiwann1 | *at | 17:58 |
| heckj | ready to get rollin? | 18:00 |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 19 18:00:32 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:00 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| heckj | who's here? | 18:00 |
| heckj | o/ | 18:00 |
| ayoung | o/ | 18:00 |
| rafaduran | o/ | 18:00 |
| dolphm | o/ | 18:01 |
| heckj | rafaduran - did you have some bugs you wanted to review today? | 18:01 |
| rafaduran | yes, a couple of them | 18:01 |
| heckj | Perfect - let's hit them at the top today. | 18:01 |
| heckj | #topic hot issues | 18:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "hot issues" | 18:01 | |
| *** GheRivero_ is now known as Ghe_Rivero | 18:01 | |
| rafaduran | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1012381 | 18:01 |
| heckj | rafaduran - have at | 18:02 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1012381 in keystone "Memcache token backend eventually stops working" [High,Triaged] | 18:02 |
| rafaduran | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1012326 | 18:02 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1012326 in keystone "Deleting service tenant breaks 'auth_token' middleware " [High,Triaged] | 18:02 |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| rafaduran | As you can read I've got new bugs that can break the whole stack | 18:02 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 18:02 | |
| rafaduran | One breaks the memcache token backend and the ohter tue auth_token middleware | 18:03 |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 18:03 | |
| heckj | deleting the service 'tenant' is expected to break auth_token, as the services won't be able to validate tokens. What do you suggest there? (bug 1012326) | 18:03 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1012326 in keystone "Deleting service tenant breaks 'auth_token' middleware " [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1012326 | 18:03 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| dolphm | I think the second one can be filed under "Doctor, it hurts when I poke myself in the eye." | 18:04 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| rafaduran | heckj: I'm no really sure how consider that, since can break the whole stack, but, so far, i could reproduce it only after deleting service tenant | 18:04 |
| ayoung | dolphm, should we issue eye-guards? | 18:04 |
| heckj | dolphm: ++ | 18:04 |
| ayoung | ie. prevent the deletion of certain protected entities like that one? | 18:05 |
| rafaduran | anyway, we might want check the error message and see if the error is anything but a token not found and discard the the service token in that case | 18:05 |
| heckj | ayoung: I think it's potentially worth including in a deployment doc, but I'm hesitant to encode something more in the implementation that is a guard against a specific deployment mechanism | 18:05 |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:06 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse | 18:06 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| ayoung | anything else on that? | 18:08 |
| heckj | rafaduran - your other one looks like a nasty issue from a glance at it, but I'll need to dig further to have any sense. Do you have a recommendation on a fix? (bug 1012381) | 18:08 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1012381 in keystone "Memcache token backend eventually stops working" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1012381 | 18:08 |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:09 | |
| rafaduran | heckj: that bug can be fixed just monkey patching thread | 18:09 |
| rafaduran | as nova does | 18:09 |
| heckj | rafaduran - excellent. Thank you. | 18:09 |
| heckj | rafaduran - are you going to submit a patch for that? | 18:09 |
| rafaduran | I plan to do thtat, but I don't know if there is a good reason to not being already monkey patching it | 18:10 |
| termie | o/ | 18:10 |
| heckj | rafaduran - not that I'm aware of - I'll assign the bug to you, please patch it in! | 18:11 |
| heckj | ola termie! | 18:11 |
| rafaduran | heckj: ok | 18:11 |
| heckj | Any other new/hot issues? | 18:11 |
| ayoung | I have one. | 18:12 |
| ayoung | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7754/ | 18:12 |
| ayoung | Signed tokens is posted for review | 18:12 |
| termie | ayoung: yeah i saw :) | 18:12 |
| ayoung | Jenkins is showing an error on each test, which lead to my question about openssl. | 18:12 |
| ayoung | Unit tests run 100% on my machine | 18:12 |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:12 | |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7754/ <-- reviews please | 18:13 |
| ayoung | the variations between Ubuntu and Fedora for openssl are less than a mino0r version number apart | 18:13 |
| heckj | ayoung: just got a poke from mtaylor that openssl *is* installed on the jenkins hosts | 18:13 |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 18:13 | |
| mtaylor | yeah. just verified by hand | 18:13 |
| heckj | ayoung: I'll give it a shot under ubuntu and see if I can spot what's gone awry | 18:13 |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:14 | |
| ayoung | hmm...not getting enough info from the error log to diagnose the problem | 18:14 |
| ayoung | heckj, thanks | 18:14 |
| heckj | np | 18:14 |
| ayoung | BTW Kudons on the unit tests for Keystone. This would not have been possible if they were not so thorough | 18:14 |
| ayoung | Kudons are very big Kudos | 18:15 |
| heckj | heh | 18:15 |
| heckj | Okay - next topic | 18:15 |
| heckj | #topic V3 API | 18:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "V3 API" | 18:15 | |
| heckj | draft 2 is available - posted to the list this weekend | 18:16 |
| heckj | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_TkawQIa52eSBfS4pv_nx1SJeoBghIlGVZsRJJynKAM/edit | 18:16 |
| ayoung | heckj, for Signed tokens, I added two minor APIs. I wonder if they should go in that doc? | 18:16 |
| heckj | Have some good feedback from gabriel hurley in there now | 18:16 |
| ayoung | one is for fetching the CA, the othter for fetching the signing cert | 18:16 |
| dolphm | With lots of little updates this morning | 18:16 |
| heckj | ayoung - yes, please. I'd like to incorporate them. Can you email me a a description of the APIs you added and relevant details? | 18:16 |
| ayoung | heckj, will do | 18:17 |
| rafaduran | heckj: looking at draft2 it seems you are not considering moving querying to something like /{resuource}/search?whatever, aren' t you? | 18:18 |
| heckj | termie: since you're here, I had a largish question re: the policy pieces: what do you think about sticking with just basic CRUD for that file in the CORE, and enabling anything additional (such as dolph is suggesting) as an extension at this point? | 18:18 |
| heckj | rafaduran: I'm leaning far away from that and instead focusing on trying to keep it to query parameters to "plural" resources | 18:18 |
| dolphm | heckj: I'm down with that, btw | 18:19 |
| dolphm | /policy is an easier deliverable | 18:20 |
| heckj | dolphm: yeah - significantly easier I think | 18:20 |
| *** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz | 18:20 | |
| heckj | I haven't' dug up the details of how the whole "/version" resource/API thing works in previous versions yet. | 18:20 |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 18:21 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 18:21 | |
| rafaduran | heckj: I would like as separate path because searching capablilites depend on the backend and thus it might be useful being disabled for some backends (the same as CRUD) | 18:21 |
| heckj | I've never quite groked the whole extensions mechanism I'm afraid - just need to dig in and try to understand it. It's left me more confused than anything in using the APIs so far | 18:21 |
| heckj | rafauran: for all of the API calls, returning a 501 NotImplemented is a possible result. I don't see how making it a separate URI path makes that easier. | 18:22 |
| heckj | rafaduran: ^^ | 18:22 |
| rafaduran | hekj: keeping it into an extension thant can disable at configuration file | 18:23 |
| heckj | rafaduran: I'm totally for the internal python API being reasonably separated out per back-end, but I'd prefer to have the resource URIs for the REST interface be as consistent as possible | 18:23 |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:23 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has quit IRC | 18:24 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 18:24 | |
| heckj | rafaduran: that's the point. I want to see these as defined in a core API, not as an extension. Having a back-end that refuses to implement portions of the CORE api is acceptable - hence the 501 NotImplemented. | 18:25 |
| rafaduran | heckj: if we want support complex queries everything can get messy, but it's just my opinion | 18:26 |
| heckj | rafaduran: agreed, these are for simple filtering based on feedback I got from the horizon team and a couple other folks trying to do UI for this | 18:26 |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:27 | |
| heckj | rafaduran: more complex query/search is quite possible under a different URI with an extension - nothing is stopping that. I didn't have clear use cases on those situations though, so I haven't tried to include that in this API release | 18:27 |
| heckj | anything else on the APIs? | 18:27 |
| rafaduran | heckj: ok simple filtering shouldn't be an issue, a if someone need something more complex, can add its own extension | 18:27 |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| heckj | #topic Folsom-2 milestone | 18:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Folsom-2 milestone" | 18:28 | |
| heckj | milestone is in two weeks | 18:28 |
| heckj | I've been updating a few of the blueprints and such to match what I'm seeing on progress | 18:28 |
| heckj | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-2 | 18:28 |
| heckj | Anyone seen or heard from everett toewes re: having quota data in Keystone? | 18:29 |
| heckj | dolphm_: what's your intended outcome from https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone? | 18:30 |
| heckj | I just added https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone-api to cover implementing policy and such in keystone itself | 18:30 |
| heckj | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone-api | 18:30 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: my goal was to have an implementation in review, but i suppose having rbac solidified in v3 is the real goal | 18:31 |
| heckj | dolphm_: wasn't sure how to represent the progress on it for the project. There's two related things that I was confusing | 18:31 |
| heckj | 1) implementing a policy.json and relevant pieces within keystone instead of the current isAdmin() checks and | 18:32 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: if we go with /policy, then the service implementation is easy, and the only slightly tricky part is delivering the policy through middleware to the underlying service | 18:32 |
| heckj | 2) consolidating the various policy.json files and suggestions for a deployment set of roles for an implementation | 18:32 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: i wouldn't be addressing keystone consuming it's own rbac, at least within this blueprint | 18:32 |
| heckj | dolphm_: cool - I'll update the blueprint and kick it to Folsom-3 if that's OK with you. I'd like to get the API consensus wrapped up by the middle of next week to begin implementation, but that leaves almost no time to implement. | 18:33 |
| ayoung | can we please get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8233/ in? It will really speed up the unit test runs. | 18:33 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: side note -- i wanted to throw default tenancy on the agenda for today -- we have two different understandings/implementations floating around | 18:34 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: sure | 18:34 |
| heckj | kk - | 18:34 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: agree | 18:34 |
| heckj | #topic open discussion. | 18:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion." | 18:34 | |
| liemmn | heckj: I can help with defining the policy for keystone... since I think that will help me answer some questions as to who can do what in Keystone... (domain admin, super admin, etc...) | 18:34 |
| heckj | dolphm_: take it away | 18:34 |
| liemmn | Is that under the bp you created? | 18:35 |
| heckj | liemmn: Ok - I'll make a blueprint and assign to you if that's acceptable | 18:35 |
| dolphm_ | so, i believe the implementation for default tenancy changed between legacy and redux | 18:35 |
| liemmn | sure... I can take a stab at it :) | 18:35 |
| dolphm_ | in legacy, default tenancy was enforced in the keystone server during the authentication call | 18:35 |
| dolphm_ | if the user had a default tenant id, but did not specify a tenant during auth, that tenant was added to the token and included in the response | 18:36 |
| dolphm_ | keystone doesn't do that anymore | 18:36 |
| dolphm_ | as of today, the service appears to have no awareness of "auto-scoping" or whatever we call it | 18:36 |
| heckj | @liemmn: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/document-deployment-suggestions-policy | 18:37 |
| dolphm_ | instead, the behavior is assumed by auth_token ... because several tenant ID's *could* be returned in an authentication response, auth_token looks through them in a priority order (starting with the token) and eventually falls back on the user's tenant | 18:37 |
| liemmn | thanks, heckj | 18:37 |
| dolphm_ | the first tenant ID found is what is passed down to the underlying service by auth_token via the X-Tenant-Id and X-Tenant-Name headers | 18:38 |
| dolphm_ | first tenant id/name * | 18:38 |
| dolphm_ | so, A) anyone know if I'm just insane?, B) is this change an issue for anyone? i'm not clear on whether it was an intentional shift or not | 18:39 |
| dolphm_ | termie: ^^ | 18:39 |
| dolphm_ | i think auth_token's behavior is fine, as it's really intended to handle the various historical keystone authentication responses (pre-diablo, diablo, essex, etc), so i'm more concerned about the intended public api behavior | 18:41 |
| heckj | dolphm_: My sense is the following: | 18:42 |
| ayoung | define "first" | 18:42 |
| heckj | 1) tenant_id on a user object is a suggestion (optional) of a default tenant | 18:42 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: first? | 18:43 |
| heckj | 2) when it's available, it can be used as a default - primarily for the use case of username+password request for a token | 18:43 |
| ayoung | "the first tenant ID found is what is passed down " | 18:43 |
| ayoung | LDAP doesn't guarantee order, so I might need to put something in there to deal with it | 18:43 |
| heckj | If tenant_id isn't defined on a user, an auth using just user+pass should fail. | 18:44 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: ah, 2 sec, i'll link to the impl to explain | 18:44 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/master/keystone/middleware/auth_token.py#L411 | 18:44 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: you can see how it iterates through each potential response format until one doesn't raise a KeyError, that's the "first" one found, and therefore what is passed down through the wsgi env | 18:45 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: you just described the current behavior, FWIW | 18:46 |
| *** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:46 | |
| dolphm_ | heckj: mostly implemented by auth_token | 18:46 |
| heckj | dolphm_: yeah!! :-) | 18:46 |
| heckj | dolphm_: would you prefer a different mechanism? | 18:46 |
| ayoung | OK, that should be fine by LDAP | 18:46 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: not necessarily, i just want to make sure we're all on the same page (i sure wasn't!) | 18:47 |
| heckj | dolphm_: cool | 18:47 |
| dolphm_ | i'm also curious sure if this "new" behavior is incompatible with the legacy behavior, *from a client's perspective* | 18:47 |
| ayoung | are we deprecating diablo functionality in the future? | 18:47 |
| dolphm_ | or is somehow different from a security perspective | 18:47 |
| heckj | dolphm_: dunno - the only client usage I have direct feedback on is the horizon team, who are all lurking around me, ready to pounce. | 18:48 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: that's a big question :) | 18:48 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: lol | 18:48 |
| heckj | ayoung: I was expecting to support diablo responses through Folsom release - beyond that I'm happy to deprecate. | 18:50 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: another topic... in the v3 draft, you have the "User" entity described as having a "name" attribute, but through most of the API it appears you call that attribute "username" instead | 18:50 |
| ayoung | can we tag them as deprecated now with the goal of removing them in Gollum | 18:50 |
| heckj | dolphm_: my fuckup - that was supposed to be description | 18:50 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: in v2, the only place "username" is used is during auth ("username" + "password") | 18:50 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: can i change them to name + description throughout? | 18:50 |
| heckj | dolphm_: yes, please | 18:51 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: np | 18:51 |
| heckj | ayoung: I'm fine with that - not quite sure *how* we mark API or responses as deprecated | 18:51 |
| heckj | ^^ anyone know appropriate mechanics for the APIs in OpenStack | 18:51 |
| uvirtbot | heckj: Error: "^" is not a valid command. | 18:51 |
| ayoung | #action figure out how to deprecate | 18:51 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: that's in the multiple choice response, actually | 18:51 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: each version has a "status" attribute which could return things like "alpha", "beta", "stable", or "deprecated" | 18:52 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: i think the possible responses are defined in the versions.xsd | 18:52 |
| heckj | all I had to do is learn the versions API eh? | 18:52 |
| * heckj is shamed into learning that stuff | 18:52 | |
| dolphm_ | heckj: ;) | 18:52 |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:53 | |
| ayoung | #action tag diablo specific attributes as deprecated | 18:54 |
| ayoung | Not sure if I am allwoed to #action or not | 18:54 |
| dolphm_ | #action heckj re-action previous action | 18:55 |
| heckj | ayoung:go forward with it | 18:55 |
| heckj | #action tag diablo specific attributes as deprecated | 18:55 |
| heckj | tada! | 18:55 |
| liemmn | Another topic on the api... I am thinking to fold the access key admin api into the credentials api (after all, it is just another user credentials)... What do you guys think? | 18:55 |
| liemmn | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/access-key-authentication | 18:55 |
| dolphm_ | liemmn: sounds good to me :) | 18:56 |
| liemmn | so, we will have a type called "access-key" or something like that | 18:56 |
| dolphm_ | liemmn: if it fits that's awesome | 18:56 |
| ayoung | liemmn, I like that approach | 18:56 |
| heckj | liemmn: sounds excellent - tried to bring in your feedback on draft1 to enable it | 18:56 |
| heckj | liemmn: anything still missing to enable? | 18:56 |
| dolphm_ | if it doesn't fit, credentials api is broken | 18:56 |
| liemmn | cool... I added some feedbacks on draft#2 in the credentials api to support access keys too (all optional attributes of course :) ) | 18:57 |
| ayoung | Of course, there is something wrong with posting the Secret keys across the wire, but that is a detail we can argue about later | 18:57 |
| liemmn | ayoung: You're talking about the auth part? Not sure if there is value in that... | 18:58 |
| liemmn | IMHO, we should be using signature auth, not token auth with secret keys :) | 18:59 |
| ayoung | who am I to argue with that? | 18:59 |
| ayoung | dolphm_, can you reapprove https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8233/ as it speeds up running the whole body of unit tests. Pretty much any SQL based test runs faster, the suite goes from 10 minutes down to 3 or something.... | 19:00 |
| heckj | Opps - lost track of time | 19:01 |
| heckj | wrapping this up | 19:01 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 19:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 19:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 19 19:01:21 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-18.00.html | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-18.00.txt | 19:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-18.00.log.html | 19:01 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: yeah, but i don't see an improvement that big, myself | 19:01 |
| dolphm_ | just sayin' ;) | 19:01 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| ayoung | dolphm_, that was just running the Core SQL tests. | 19:01 |
| heckj | BBL | 19:02 |
| ayoung | try running the whole suite. | 19:02 |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: the whole suite takes me < 40 seconds | 19:02 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: your change brings that down to like 35 seconds for me | 19:02 |
| jeblair | anyone want to talk about ci stuff? | 19:03 |
| *** johnpostlethwait has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:03 | |
| clarkb | sure | 19:03 |
| *** comstud has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse | 19:03 | |
| jeblair | #startmeeting | 19:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 19 19:03:59 2012 UTC. The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:04 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:04 |
| jeblair | #topic recent work | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "recent work" | 19:04 | |
| jeblair | i have a proposal for a backup system | 19:04 |
| jeblair | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8623/ | 19:04 |
| jeblair | so we'll start having off-site backups for our important servers | 19:05 |
| *** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:05 | |
| jeblair | (at least, as soon as i can spin up an hpcloud machine for that purpose) | 19:05 |
| clarkb | I read it. Looks good. | 19:05 |
| clarkb | is the plan to backup all servers to both RS and HP? | 19:06 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:06 | |
| jeblair | yep | 19:06 |
| jeblair | or at least, all the 'important' servers. | 19:06 |
| jeblair | (which is most of them) | 19:06 |
| jeblair | also, a number of us have changes submitted upstream to gerrit | 19:07 |
| jeblair | mine are 'add username to json query output' (merged) | 19:07 |
| jeblair | and 'openid sso', not merged yet at last check | 19:07 |
| jeblair | and i've been making a few changes to the jenkins job filler | 19:08 |
| clarkb | mine upstreams the 'status:reviewable' query and the "important changes" page | 19:08 |
| Shrews | jeblair: sounds doubtful mine (WIP) will get accepted | 19:08 |
| jeblair | Shrews: it's an important first step though, and having WIP even if it's not merged upstream as-is, is way better than not having anything. | 19:09 |
| Shrews | jeblair: true | 19:09 |
| jeblair | my current thinking is that assign to owner is a pretty good match for WIP, but.... | 19:09 |
| Shrews | jeblair: we should mention for anyone listening that we have 2.4.1 ready to go which has the email fix | 19:09 |
| jeblair | what do do with the other half of the assignment functionality is still a question... | 19:09 |
| jeblair | it's useless or possibly actively harmful to us as currently designed. if it could be assigned to a group though, that could be useful to us. | 19:10 |
| jeblair | Shrews: great, is there a change proposed to productionize that? | 19:10 |
| Shrews | jeblair: yes https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8699/ | 19:11 |
| jeblair | Oh, i just remembered, there's one thing i want to test out on 2.4.1 before we put it in... | 19:11 |
| jeblair | (it's not something that would affect gerrit itself) | 19:11 |
| Shrews | k | 19:11 |
| clarkb | spearce did respond to the comments about drafts, WIP, and private changes. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/repo-discuss/drafts/repo-discuss/YuLup-ELrP8/GOHurEUcA8IJ | 19:12 |
| jeblair | but rather, I changed zuul to set verified=0 when it starts testing a change, and i also had it leave a message | 19:12 |
| jeblair | i bet the message will get emailed; i need to check if setting verified=0 without leaving a message creates an email | 19:12 |
| jeblair | basically, i'd like zuul to be as quiet as possible. but if it sends an email regardless, may as well leave the message there. | 19:13 |
| jeblair | #link https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/repo-discuss/drafts/repo-discuss/YuLup-ELrP8/GOHurEUcA8IJ | 19:13 |
| clarkb | doesn't sound like upstream has much interest in "fixing" drafts | 19:13 |
| clarkb | the solution of having a second repository for private changes seems like a lot of extra work | 19:14 |
| jeblair | U( | 19:15 |
| jeblair | :( | 19:15 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:15 | |
| jeblair | anybody else been working on something interesting? | 19:15 |
| clarkb | in tree docs are now uploaded to docs.openstack.org/developer/$project | 19:16 |
| clarkb | #link http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova | 19:16 |
| jeblair | cool! has there been discussion about moving ci docs there as well? | 19:17 |
| clarkb | I think annegentle didn't want the CI docs there, but if we setup ci.openstack.org to be an ftp server we could use the same jenkins jobs for ci.openstack.org | 19:18 |
| Shrews | jeblair: i have pygerrit working in dev mode, but it's not useful to us unless we upload it to Google Apps. I sent mtaylor a list of changes that I think it needs if we want to explore using it instead of java gerrit. | 19:18 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 19:18 | |
| clarkb | Shrews: is pygerrit v1.0 of gerrit? or some fork? | 19:19 |
| Shrews | short of it: it needs a lot of work | 19:19 |
| jeblair | Shrews: neat. i'm guessing that's a substantial list of changes? | 19:19 |
| Shrews | clarkb: yes, v1.0 of gerrit | 19:19 |
| jeblair | Shrews: ok, well it's still good to know what our options are(n't). :) | 19:20 |
| Shrews | jeblair: yes. we first need to divorce it from GAE as a first step | 19:20 |
| Shrews | i mean, it's doable though | 19:20 |
| *** Ravikumar_hp has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:21 | |
| jeblair | #topic etherpad / docs changes | 19:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "etherpad / docs changes" | 19:21 | |
| Shrews | if anyone wants to play with the code, my modified version is: https://github.com/Shrews/PyGerrit | 19:21 |
| jeblair | clarkb: want to summarize etherpad-lite, and where that's going? | 19:22 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 19:22 | |
| clarkb | sure. Etherpad Lite is light weight implementation of etherpad basically. Lite on resource use, not on features. | 19:22 |
| clarkb | The idea is to migrate the existing etherpad install to etherpad lite. I have a puppet module written to do that and the change to apply it to the future etherpad.openstack.org host is in gerrit | 19:23 |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 19:23 | |
| clarkb | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8706/ | 19:23 |
| clarkb | before that gets approved I need to copy a few files over to the new host (ssl certs) | 19:23 |
| clarkb | the ssl certs are currently self signed by me, but I imagine at some point we may want trusted certs? | 19:24 |
| jeblair | yeah, we'll get real certs | 19:25 |
| clarkb | the migration of data from etherpad to etherpad-lite is blocking on access to the old server, but the process looks straightforward and is documented at https://github.com/Pita/etherpad-lite/wiki/How-to-migrate-the-database-from-Etherpad-to-Etherpad-Lite | 19:25 |
| clarkb | so once we have access to the data I don't expect any major issues migrating and testing | 19:25 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 19:26 | |
| clarkb | I know annegentle is hoping to use etherpad-lite as a place where folks can edit code then push to gerrit for review. etherpad-lite is pluggable through node.js and has an API (with python bindings) so in theory this is doable | 19:27 |
| jeblair | cool. my hope is that if that project gets off the ground, we'll have an etherpad server ready for it. | 19:27 |
| jeblair | #topic testing | 19:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "testing" | 19:28 | |
| jeblair | I'm going to continue working on the jenkins job filler with the goal of being able to succinctly describe the devstack jobs | 19:29 |
| jeblair | I'd like to check in with the tempest folks and see if they think it'll be ready for gating soon | 19:29 |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:29 | |
| *** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz | 19:30 | |
| jeblair | and we should start looking into how we can test client library backwards compatibility | 19:30 |
| jeblair | #topic open discussion | 19:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:31 | |
| jeblair | anything else anyone wants to talk about? | 19:31 |
| clarkb | I did eventually manage to update the github pull request closing script | 19:32 |
| jeblair | yes, thank you. that source of cronspam is dealt with. now onto the next! :) | 19:33 |
| notmyname | I do | 19:33 |
| notmyname | last week there was some discussion about gating swift on devstack (or something along those lines) | 19:33 |
| notmyname | adding swift to the devstack gate (may be a better way to say that) | 19:34 |
| notmyname | I'm trying to catch up from being out all last week, and just want to know the status on that conversation | 19:34 |
| jeblair | it seems a number of people would like to see that added | 19:34 |
| jeblair | i have not done any work on that, nor proposed a change | 19:35 |
| notmyname | to gate swift on this or to add swift to devstack defaults? | 19:35 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| notmyname | (I'm actually not sure of the differences) | 19:35 |
| jeblair | so the process would be: | 19:35 |
| jeblair | 1) make sure devstack can configure swift correctly (whether enabled by default or not is orthogonal) | 19:36 |
| jeblair | 2) propose a change to the devstack-gate scripts to enable swift for the gating tests | 19:36 |
| notmyname | what is currently gated by devstack? | 19:37 |
| jeblair | (that change is actually self-limiting; in that if it doesn't work, it wont pass it's own gate test.) | 19:37 |
| jeblair | (1 sec) | 19:38 |
| clarkb | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8443/ is a move to add quantum | 19:39 |
| jeblair | openstack-dev/devstack openstack/nova openstack/glance openstack/keystone openstack/python-novaclient openstack/python-keystoneclient openstack/python-quantumclient openstack/python-glanceclient openstack/horizon openstack/tempest" | 19:39 |
| jeblair | notmyname: those are the projects currently gated on devstack ^ | 19:39 |
| notmyname | ok | 19:40 |
| jeblair | clarkb: yep, and it still needs some devstack configuration work, so it won't go in yet | 19:40 |
| jeblair | er, except tempest; it's running silently right now, not part of the gate. | 19:42 |
| jeblair | notmyname: do you happen to know if swift-in-devstack works currently? | 19:43 |
| notmyname | jeblair: no idea. I've never used devstack | 19:43 |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
| notmyname | I certainly support getting it to work, but devstack isn't something I've looked at yet | 19:43 |
| jeblair | ok. it worked at some point, i believe, so if it doesn't currently, i doubt it will be too hard to get it up to date. | 19:45 |
| notmyname | great :-) | 19:45 |
| jeblair | cool; other items? | 19:46 |
| jeblair | oh, er, mtaylor has started a significant mailing list thread about python client library versioning. all the details have not yet been resolved. | 19:47 |
| jeblair | not sure we're equipped to talk about it in depth here, but i thought i'd mention it for the record. | 19:47 |
| jeblair | thanks everyone! | 19:48 |
| jeblair | #endmeeting | 19:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 19:48 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 19 19:48:16 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:48 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-19.03.html | 19:48 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-19.03.txt | 19:48 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-19.03.log.html | 19:48 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:53 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| bcwaldon | will be right back for ppb meeting | 19:59 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 19 20:00:48 2012 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 #startvote. | 20:00 |
| johnpur | o/ | 20:00 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | o/ | 20:01 |
| jbryce | so we've got 5 so far? | 20:01 |
| vishy | o/ | 20:01 |
| jbryce | need 2 more | 20:01 |
| jbryce | need 1 more | 20:01 |
| jbryce | step right up | 20:01 |
| danwent_ | o/ | 20:01 |
| *** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse | 20:01 | |
| jbryce | sweet | 20:01 |
| vishy | anotherjesse_zz: is popping in too | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | still need one more - I don't count | 20:01 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:01 |
| anotherjesse | o/ | 20:02 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: i didn't count you this time | 20:02 |
| mtaylor | w00t | 20:02 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: :) | 20:02 |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:02 |
| jbryce | #topic Library/Gating Projects | 20:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Library/Gating Projects" | 20:02 | |
| *** ncode has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| johnpur | monty: you always count to us :) | 20:02 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: do you want to explain where you've ended up with the discussion on the mailing list? | 20:02 |
| jaypipes | should markmc join us? | 20:03 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think the sticking point is on a different release scheme than associated server projects | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | back! | 20:03 |
| anotherjesse | how many errors on the that page can you spot ;) | 20:03 |
| notmyname | here | 20:03 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: so, I'm not sure I've sold markmc on anything - but I believe bcwaldon is more on board with the new version of things | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: yep | 20:04 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: = ) it's a wiki page so people should feel free to update their affiliations | 20:04 |
| ttx | jbryce: our point is that libs require PyPI, and PyPI makes your life miserable if you want to do a complex scheme | 20:04 |
| mtaylor | short story: client versions should be there own thing and tied to neither server releases or api versions | 20:04 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: or you're on board with my version of things ;) | 20:04 |
| mtaylor | yup | 20:04 |
| * mtaylor bows to bcwaldon | 20:04 | |
| bcwaldon | like a boss | 20:04 |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| heckj | o/ | 20:04 |
| mtaylor | and other than that, I think as long as we tag all releases, we can defer discussion of stable branches until we come up with a situatoin where we're actually in trouble? | 20:05 |
| jbryce | is markmc in the other room? | 20:05 |
| ttx | for the record, I was thinking like markmc initially, but couldn't find a solution that would work... so I accepted mtaylor's solution. | 20:05 |
| jaypipes | nope | 20:05 |
| mtaylor | ttx: which is bcwaldon's :) | 20:05 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: nope | 20:05 |
| mtaylor | I don't know if anyone read my latest novel in that thread... | 20:06 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I'm fine with that - I mostly needed a tag | 20:06 |
| mtaylor | heckj: awesome. you shall have one | 20:06 |
| jbryce | well the current state makes sense to me as well with tags | 20:06 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 20:06 | |
| jaypipes | ++ me as well, after reading the various posts I concur with bcwaldon (much as it pains me) | 20:06 |
| jbryce | ok. sounds like we're ready for a vote | 20:06 |
| mtaylor | whee! | 20:06 |
| ttx | So in summary, I think the drawbacks of doing simple versioning / release scheme are far outweighed by the convenience of using PyPI in a straightfoward manner. | 20:07 |
| bcwaldon | jaypipes: what that mouth | 20:07 |
| notmyname | wait | 20:07 |
| bcwaldon | jaypipes: gah, watch* | 20:07 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: could you propose what we're voting on? | 20:07 |
| * mtaylor is scared of days when mtaylor and jaypipes both agree with bcwaldon | 20:07 | |
| jbryce | notmyname: waiting... | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | :) | 20:07 |
| notmyname | jbryce: for what you just said. an actual proposal or link to what we're voting on. not "what so-and-so said on the mailing list" | 20:07 |
| johnpur | notmyname: good point | 20:08 |
| mtaylor | let me try to make a quick summarization for voting purposes: | 20:08 |
| jbryce | notmyname: that's why i asked mtaylor to propose it in its current form | 20:08 |
| mtaylor | we will decouple client releases from server release, we will release client libs to pypi as they are ready and their version scheme will be standard library versioning (major version bump on incompatible api changes) | 20:09 |
| mtaylor | ttx: yeah? ^^ | 20:09 |
| ttx | mtaylor: ..and there will be no stable version point releases | 20:10 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| mtaylor | oh, and there will only ever be one "stable" release of client libs, and it will be expected to support all currently supported versions of the relevant api | 20:10 |
| mtaylor | which is the longer way of saying what ttx just said | 20:10 |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| johnpur | are we making a statement about what "currently supported" means? | 20:11 |
| jbryce | ok. give me a minute to do the votebot | 20:11 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: was just going to ask that | 20:11 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: I don't think so | 20:11 |
| mtaylor | I think we have not made decisions on deprecating old api versions overall | 20:11 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| mtaylor | but when we do make the decision to do that, I would not expect the client libs to need to support things we declare are now crap | 20:12 |
| johnpur | We should queue this up for discussion | 20:12 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:12 |
| jbryce | #startvote Should we decouple client releases from server releases, release client libs to pypi as they are ready, version them with a standard library scheme (major version bump on incompatible API changes), and have a single stable release of client libs expected to support all currently supported versions of the relevant API? Yes, No, Abstain | 20:12 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: Should we decouple client releases from server releases, release client libs to pypi as they are ready, version them with a standard library scheme (major version bump on incompatible API changes), and have a single stable release of client libs expected to support all currently supported versions of the relevant API? Valid vote options are Yes, No, Abstain. | 20:12 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:12 |
| bcwaldon | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| johnpur | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| jbryce | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| heckj | #vote yes | 20:13 |
| openstack | heckj: yes is not a valid option. Valid options are Yes, No, Abstain. | 20:13 |
| heckj | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| danwent_ | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| notmyname | #vote Yes | 20:13 |
| johnpur | lol | 20:13 |
| heckj | picky thing... | 20:13 |
| ttx | #vote Abstain | 20:13 |
| mtaylor | haha. | 20:13 |
| jbryce | does vote have a -i option? | 20:13 |
| johnpur | computers are awesome! | 20:13 |
| * ttx really wishes there was another solution. | 20:13 | |
| mtaylor | clarkb: feature request - case insensitive voting | 20:13 |
| bcwaldon | vishy, anotherjesse ? | 20:14 |
| clarkb | roger | 20:14 |
| anotherjesse | #vote Yes | 20:14 |
| jbryce | vishy: last chance | 20:15 |
| *** sparkycollier has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:15 | |
| vishy | Yes | 20:15 |
| vishy | sorry :) | 20:15 |
| vishy | #vote Yes | 20:15 |
| ttx | Sidenote #1: it also makes more sense to separate from parent project in case we do a common single library for all openstack stuff | 20:15 |
| jbryce | #endvote | 20:15 |
| openstack | Voted on "Should we decouple client releases from server releases, release client libs to pypi as they are ready, version them with a standard library scheme (major version bump on incompatible API changes), and have a single stable release of client libs expected to support all currently supported versions of the relevant API?" Results are | 20:15 |
| openstack | Yes (8): anotherjesse, bcwaldon, johnpur, jbryce, vishy, heckj, danwent_, notmyname | 20:15 |
| openstack | Abstain (1): ttx | 20:15 |
| mtaylor | baller. we shall work on getting the bits in place to do the above. thanks all! | 20:15 |
| ttx | Sidenote #2: That means we'll revive the python-*client projects in Launchpad | 20:15 |
| jbryce | #topic PPB to Technical Committee transition | 20:16 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "PPB to Technical Committee transition" | 20:16 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee | 20:16 |
| jbryce | that link is ttx's current proposal | 20:16 |
| jbryce | i think the most unsettled portion of it is the status of PTLs as it relates to the Technical Committee | 20:17 |
| *** oubiwann1 has quit IRC | 20:17 | |
| jbryce | which we discussed a little previously but never really reached a consensus | 20:17 |
| ttx | I can explain my position again | 20:17 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:17 | |
| bcwaldon | I think PTLs should have a seat guaranteed, they ARE technical leadership | 20:17 |
| johnpur | what is unclear to me is whether TC == PPB? or is TC + BoD == PPB? | 20:17 |
| heckj | bcwaldon:++ | 20:18 |
| ttx | bcwaldon, heckj: that's unfair and doesn't scale, let me explain | 20:18 |
| jbryce | johnpur: there isn't an exact equivalent, but TC is closer to PPB | 20:18 |
| ttx | As we split Nova into smaller bits, we can expect more than 10 PTLs, erach representing a tiny bit of code | 20:18 |
| ttx | A vote should represent an equal force | 20:19 |
| jbryce | johnpur: the core project additions/removals (not incubation) will also require board approval as it affects what the trademark represents | 20:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I wouldnt call a person in control of a section of Nova a PTL | 20:19 |
| ttx | The only way to esnure that fairness is to have everybody elected, and PTLs running for a positio,n | 20:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I would propose a new title for those positions | 20:19 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: where does the bucket stop ? Cinder ? Glance ? | 20:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I dont follow | 20:20 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: do glance and cinder have PTLs? | 20:20 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: currently, yes | 20:20 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: or should they i suppose is the more appropriate question | 20:20 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Cinder is a split of Nova. It's a full-fledged core project. I don't want to have small and bug core projects | 20:20 |
| ttx | I want to have core projects | 20:20 |
| ttx | big* | 20:20 |
| jbryce | ttx is referring to all of the things that we've been breaking out of nova | 20:20 |
| ttx | There will be no correlation between the size of a core project and the fact that it is core | 20:21 |
| jbryce | quantum too | 20:21 |
| ttx | so you will end up with 10+ PTLs | 20:21 |
| bcwaldon | I understand, but doesnt there have to be someone in control of Nova to coordinate all the goings on? | 20:21 |
| ttx | PTLs for large projects will get elected to the TC anyway | 20:21 |
| jbryce | yes, nova would continue to have a PTL | 20:21 |
| ttx | and PTLS for very small projects, well..; why should they get an appointed seat ? | 20:21 |
| jbryce | ttx: what about representation for the smaller projects? especially if there are more of them? | 20:21 |
| bcwaldon | I think we're talking past each other here | 20:22 |
| ttx | A PTL is still in charge of its project... | 20:22 |
| heckj | ttx: i think it's stilly to have a system that supports implicitly the idea that their *could* be another group other than the PTLs who are deciding technical decisions about those projects. | 20:22 |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| bcwaldon | heckj: yes, thats my main point | 20:22 |
| ttx | He can participate to the meeting. I don't see why he would necessarily need to have a vote. | 20:22 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: really, the TC should be PTLs + some more smart people | 20:22 |
| * mtaylor proposes a bi-cameral solution, with one side having proportional representation, and the other side having equal | 20:22 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: because voting makes things happen! | 20:22 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: that's actually my preferred make up as well | 20:23 |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 20:23 | |
| jbryce | similar to what we have now, just removing the appointed seats | 20:23 |
| * anotherjesse kicks me | 20:23 | |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: but you're missing the part about PTLs having guaranteed membership | 20:23 |
| ttx | OK, then I'll say that I don't thin kit's fair that vishy's voice is as important as John Griffith's. | 20:23 |
| johnpur | :( | 20:23 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: no i wasn't. i agreed with you | 20:23 |
| ttx | it should be more important. He represents a larger project | 20:23 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: ok, I must have missed it in the three convos happening here :) | 20:23 |
| danwent_ | ttx: vish will have authority because we trust his judgement and he can sway people. | 20:24 |
| ttx | I understand why THIS group would prefer to keep PTLS appointed, but a bloated workgroup won't work | 20:24 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: but you just said nova is going to continue to be split... | 20:24 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: earlier i was just trying to explain that ttx was actually talking about real PTLs and projects not sub-components of nova or any project | 20:24 |
| *** zigo-_- has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| bcwaldon | okie | 20:24 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: the projects will never be of equal size. Fairness is to get everyone elected | 20:24 |
| jbryce | so if we remove the appointed seats, we now have 4 additional slots before we're back to current size | 20:24 |
| jbryce | i don't know that we've had too much of a problem with bloat to date | 20:25 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: so what happens when we get a bunch of random people elected to TC dictating what the PTLs have to do | 20:25 |
| jbryce | one other important point | 20:25 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: a new company could join tomorrow with enough voting power to install people | 20:25 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| jgriffith | ttx: The only thing I would ask about is some sort of requirement to even run for election? | 20:25 |
| jbryce | according to the Bylaws, the technical committee has the ability to change its make up and processes down the road | 20:25 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: they would elect PTLs as well | 20:25 |
| *** glenc_ has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: fair | 20:25 |
| ttx | The trick is to get the technical membership right, so that the same people vote for PTLs and vote for TC | 20:26 |
| jbryce | i would trust the group to recognize if the current structure is getting so bloated as to prevent problems and make some changes | 20:26 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: then in the end, the TC ends up being the 9 most representative PTLs. | 20:26 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: ok, I guess I'm not thinking about how many PTLs there will be down the road | 20:26 |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:26 | |
| jbryce | how many more pieces do we anticipate splitting out? | 20:27 |
| johnpur | jbryce: this is why i asked about ppb and tc equivalence, i agree with what ttx just said | 20:27 |
| ttx | jbryce: we have the opportunity to do it right, why not take it now ? | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | if we end up with 20 projects we are probably doing something wrong, that shouldn't be solved by not allowing PTLs in, but not allowing projects in | 20:27 |
| heckj | jbryce: I don't see a whole lot more splitting out than already has for core projects. I think this is a non issue | 20:27 |
| johnpur | however, this doesn't cover the policy and global view that ppb is suppoed to own | 20:27 |
| jbryce | ttx: depends on the definition of "doing it right" | 20:27 |
| notmyname | jbryce: but you don't want to trust the future TC to voluntarily "limit" its reach (by limiting who is in it, it implies that current members of it vote themselves off of it) | 20:27 |
| * mtaylor thinks anotherjesse isn't going to accept his coffee-as-a-service project into core. cries. :( | 20:27 | |
| ttx | Also note that PTLs are still very much in charge of their project. The TC just solves issues that are cross-project | 20:27 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: go back to your corner! | 20:28 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: +1 | 20:28 |
| ttx | TC controls "openstack", PTls control each project | 20:28 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: ok, well I feel like theres already a lot of mandating that happens even though I'm Glance PTL | 20:28 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: so be careful with what you say :) | 20:28 |
| notmyname | bcwaldon: +1 | 20:28 |
| heckj | ttx: false division - the projects are interrelated and getting more so, not less. | 20:29 |
| *** danwent_ has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:29 | |
| johnpur | ttx: today we have an implied (maybe explicit) assumption that PTL's are solving cross project technical issues outside of "governance", right? | 20:29 |
| bcwaldon | johnpur: definitely is happening | 20:29 |
| heckj | johnpur: yes, absolutely occuring | 20:29 |
| johnpur | TC should add value above this level of interaction | 20:29 |
| ttx | how about that: the PTLs are all members of the TC, but only elected members get a vote | 20:30 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: then what does membership even mean? | 20:30 |
| ttx | so they can participate in the discussion and influence the vote | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: shouldn't the TC/PBB/whatever only come into play if there is a roadblock? | 20:30 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I would assume *anybody* can participate | 20:30 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: open community, no? | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | thus far the discussions between projects have gone well | 20:30 |
| jbryce | mtaylor has been participating in the discussion all day today! | 20:30 |
| * mtaylor does his best | 20:30 | |
| bcwaldon | anotherjesse: indeedly doodly | 20:30 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: ++ | 20:31 |
| johnpur | anotherjesse: right. and to raise issues that individual projects/owners might not consider | 20:31 |
| jbryce | i actually think that either model could work, but i do feel like having the PTLs involved in all of these decisions has been better for us over the past year and a half that the POC/PPB has existed | 20:32 |
| johnpur | to guide openstack as a whole | 20:32 |
| ttx | What would be the alternative ? A TC entirely made of, and only consisting of, PTLs ? | 20:32 |
| anotherjesse | I'm leaning towards PTLs being on the TC until a time where it is unmanagable | 20:32 |
| * ttx doesn't want bloat | 20:32 | |
| anotherjesse | and then fix it | 20:32 |
| jbryce | PTLs plus X number of generally elected seats (4-5) | 20:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: how many ptls will we have for the next 9 months? | 20:32 |
| jbryce | 7 | 20:32 |
| anotherjesse | nova,glance,swift,keystone,cinder,quantum,dash | 20:33 |
| jbryce | if cinder makes it in | 20:33 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: nova, glance, swift, keystone, quantum, horizon | 20:33 |
| bcwaldon | so 6 or 7 | 20:33 |
| bcwaldon | I think we will be fine for the next 9 months :) | 20:33 |
| ttx | cinder, at least two other projects filing in incubation... | 20:33 |
| * heckj agrees | 20:33 | |
| bcwaldon | whats the time frame on forming this TC? | 20:33 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: which two other projects/ | 20:33 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: unified cli, ceilometer, heat... | 20:33 |
| heckj | ttx: I understand your point, but I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here | 20:34 |
| anotherjesse | I would argue that those aren't core | 20:34 |
| ttx | heckj: I would prefer that everyone is on the TC for the same reason. That sounded fair. You would get elected anyway :) | 20:34 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: anotherjesse they wont be for at least 9 months | 20:34 |
| anotherjesse | bcwaldon: even then, are they essential iaas | 20:34 |
| jbryce | the current structure is 5 generally elected seats, all core PTLs, plus 4 appointed. if we remove the 4 appointed seats, we have 4 spots before we even get back to the size we are right now | 20:34 |
| bcwaldon | anotherjesse: thats another discussion | 20:34 |
| bcwaldon | anotherjesse: (I agree with you) | 20:35 |
| *** Mike656 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: we need to decide on the structure within the next few weeks and be ready for a transition in august to september timeframe | 20:35 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: I like that plan | 20:35 |
| heckj | ttx: kind of you to say, but not exactly the point | 20:35 |
| ttx | jbryce: If that's what everyone wants, I'll fold. I'd prefer to design a long-lasting solution rather than something we need to revisit soon | 20:35 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: it may slip past that by a month or so, but that's the timeline we're shooting for | 20:35 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: ok, so once we actually form this thing we've still got 6 months | 20:35 |
| ttx | let's ask it the other way around: what's the problem with all-elected members ? | 20:36 |
| ttx | some project PTL might not be in ? so what. It's not as if decisions were unanimous | 20:36 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I feel like the PTLs have already been identified as critical leadership, and their inherently *technical* skills are necessary | 20:37 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: but I might just be talking myself up, here :) | 20:37 |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:37 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: if the TC is elected by project contributors, you'll get PTL-like people on the TC | 20:37 |
| ttx | note that we only let contributors vote | 20:37 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: that is true | 20:38 |
| ttx | think of it as a super-PTL vote. All contributors choose the 9 best people. | 20:38 |
| ttx | Instead of half of them being selecetd by subgroups | 20:38 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'd also like to look at this more like the electoral college than the popular vote | 20:38 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I dont want a super project (nova) to have all the representation on cross-project matters | 20:38 |
| jbryce | ttx: i think the issue is underrepresentation of smaller projects | 20:38 |
| *** Mike656_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| ttx | jbryce: smaller projects will have to be underrepresented. If we create a project for each core plugin, there will be a lot of them | 20:39 |
| ttx | and it would be unfair to consider them less important than others | 20:39 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I *really* want to make sure we agree on what a PTL is | 20:39 |
| jbryce | what is a core plugin? how is that different from a core project? | 20:40 |
| jbryce | we have a definition and process for determining that something becomes part of "core OpenStack"...is that the same thing you're referring to? | 20:40 |
| ttx | jbryce: if we continue to split Nova into smaller bits (like for Cinder)... there will be a lot of new core projects. Not counting those that will file for inclusion | 20:41 |
| ttx | I'd hate it if we decided to reject a core project just because the TC feels crowded | 20:41 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I would too, and if we got to that point we would have to fix the TC | 20:41 |
| jbryce | when i asked earlier what else might get split from nova besides networking and block storage, it didn't seem like people had a really long list | 20:41 |
| ttx | That's why I recommended a fixed number and get them all elected | 20:41 |
| ttx | That's fair and it scales. | 20:42 |
| *** Mike656 has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I still dont agree that its fair | 20:42 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: well, its "fair" but it may not give the best representation | 20:42 |
| jbryce | can we take a straw poll to see where people are standing on the idea of having PTLs plus generally elected seats for the makeup of the TC? | 20:42 |
| bcwaldon | I'm sure many people have alt+tabbed away by this point :) | 20:42 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: I don't think it's fair that memebrs of smaller projects, or members of multiple projects, get multiple attempts to select their TC member | 20:43 |
| jbryce | e.g. the Technical Committee would consist of all PTLs plus 5 generally elected seats | 20:43 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: no joke | 20:43 |
| mtaylor | nah. this is where the action is | 20:43 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: that's an odd way of looking at PTL to TC relation | 20:43 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: you dont count! | 20:43 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: the PTL position is more important than the TC imho | 20:43 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: fairness: basically, the vote of a strong contributor to Nova has less weight than the vote of a small contributor to cinder and glance | 20:43 |
| johnpur | anotherjesse: +1 | 20:44 |
| anotherjesse | PTL is about leading a project, people don't become active in many of them to try to get TC or PBB or whatever | 20:44 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: but if we segment up Nova, the weights will even out | 20:44 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: you still get more power if you're a small contributor to all projects rather than a big contributor to all of them | 20:45 |
| ttx | err... | 20:45 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: the weight should be about how wise/practical/... the person is, not the value of their project. If vishy was a total asshole and didn't try to work with the other projects he wouldn't have the same position | 20:45 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: you still get more voting power if you're a small contributor to all projects rather than a big contributor to only one of them | 20:45 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: ok, well I'm at the point where I'm going to #agree to #disagree | 20:46 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: I think all-elected is the only way to have fair representation. That said, we can bend the rule if we thing something else is more important | 20:46 |
| jbryce | so.... | 20:46 |
| anotherjesse | the PTLs are elected | 20:47 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I know, I've been listening to you | 20:47 |
| ttx | like making sure all PTLs as leaders of this community will be at TC | 20:47 |
| *** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:47 | |
| jbryce | heckj, notmyname, vishy: do you have an opinion on this? | 20:47 |
| johnpur | ttx: the ptl's are all elected now. | 20:47 |
| danwent | ttx: so all elected means getting rid of appointed as well? | 20:47 |
| ttx | danwent: sure | 20:48 |
| jbryce | danwent: appointed seats are going away in either scenario | 20:48 |
| heckj | jbryce: All PTLs + 5 generally elected seats | 20:48 |
| johnpur | it sounds like the tc is simply aggregating the ptl's and giving them (as a group) a wider charter | 20:48 |
| danwent | ttx: k, wasn't sure | 20:48 |
| jbryce | options are a) 9 seats, all elected generally or b) PTLs plus 5 generally elected seats | 20:48 |
| notmyname | jbryce: PTLs should have a seat. voters should have a commit in the past 2 release cycles. no proxy votes | 20:49 |
| johnpur | do we think that the non-ptl members of the PPB are adding value? | 20:49 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: you're proposing two different sizes of TC, yes? | 20:49 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: speaking as one ;) | 20:49 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: yes. one is fixed and one is variable with the number of projects | 20:49 |
| bcwaldon | johnpur: yes | 20:49 |
| danwent | do we have a proof-point how "how large is too large"? Or just guessing? | 20:49 |
| notmyname | johnpur: when they attend... :-) | 20:49 |
| johnpur | this may help in the decision | 20:49 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: kk, just pointing out that the latter will be 11-12 for the G-whiz time frame | 20:50 |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: correct | 20:50 |
| notmyname | danwent: generally about 10-12 is the max effective size of a group | 20:50 |
| danwent | notmyname: seems reasonable | 20:50 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: citation needed | 20:50 |
| jbryce | danwent: we've been 14-15 for around a year | 20:50 |
| notmyname | bcwaldon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number | 20:51 |
| danwent | jbryce: yet we struggle for qourum at the start of meetings? | 20:51 |
| danwent | didn't realize we were that big. | 20:51 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: well done | 20:51 |
| jbryce | danwent: we haven't had that problem for a while. i think that was more process failure on my part than our size | 20:51 |
| johnpur | dunbar's number is 100-200 :) | 20:52 |
| notmyname | bcwaldon: actually, I think that's the wrong reference, but the principle is there :-) | 20:52 |
| johnpur | that's a lot of ptls! | 20:52 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: wait | 20:52 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: yes, just read into it | 20:52 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: 150! | 20:52 |
| ttx | Last remark: should the "gating projects" that we just decided would exist as official projects have leaders ? Would they be considered "PTLs" and get a seat to the TC ? | 20:52 |
| ttx | sigh. I'd prefer if we didn't have to artifically limit the number of projects and leaders just to avoid committee bloat | 20:53 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: I hope not | 20:53 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: did I miss some context for that first question? | 20:53 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: are they official core projects? | 20:53 |
| * anotherjesse missed somethign | 20:53 | |
| johnpur | ttx: agree. we need a system that scales to the natural size of the openstack project | 20:54 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: previous topic. Proposal created "library projects" and "gating projects" as official openstack projects | 20:54 |
| jbryce | i thought they were getting a non-core designation | 20:54 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 20:54 |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| ttx | so PTLs = core only ? | 20:54 |
| ttx | other projects don't get to have a leader ? | 20:54 |
| ttx | or they are not 'important enough' to have a seat ? | 20:54 |
| mtaylor | anybody can have any leader they want | 20:54 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: maybe not a PTL in the governance we set up | 20:54 |
| *** Ravikumar_hp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| mtaylor | otherwise we'd just call them core projects | 20:55 |
| ttx | ok, so your governance is also about deciding which kind of leaders actually should have a reserved seat on the TC | 20:55 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'd call that a side-effect, but yes | 20:55 |
| danwent | one way to look at this is as a representative democracy… with PTLs having a spot on TC, each developer is guaranteed to have a representative on the TC that they work closely with. Albiet with skewed voting power, as ttx notes. Seems new approach makes it easy for a dev not to really know anyone on the TC, especially if they contribute to a smaller project. Not sure if that is a goal we consider important though. | 20:55 |
| ttx | so only PTLs-as-in-core-project | 20:55 |
| ttx | danwent: good summary | 20:56 |
| ttx | Like I said, I'm ready to accept some skew... I just want to do it for good reasons | 20:56 |
| jbryce | ttx: that was my thought. that's why i keep tying it back to the core project designation | 20:56 |
| jbryce | the purpose of the community and development process is to produce the core software projects | 20:56 |
| bcwaldon | 2 minutes, turkish | 20:57 |
| ttx | not because some people are afraid to lose their seat, but because we actually want that kind of representation | 20:57 |
| jbryce | lots of other activities and projects related to that and that make that work | 20:57 |
| ttx | jbryce: what size would be the limit at which you would reconsider that PTL+5 model ? | 20:57 |
| jbryce | ttx: dunbar's number? = ) | 20:58 |
| ttx | haha | 20:58 |
| jbryce | i don't have a specific number in mind | 20:58 |
| johnpur | lol | 20:58 |
| notmyname | lol | 20:58 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| ttx | frankly, I would expect the PTLs would get elected anyway, as proved by last election (where some PTLs were also running for the free seats) | 20:59 |
| jbryce | we've moved to having an average of about a meeting a month and with proper notice have been able to reach quorum and have good discussions | 20:59 |
| jbryce | so i don't think even 15 is too many | 20:59 |
| ttx | the benefit of the "pure 9" model is that it has bloat-containment built-in | 20:59 |
| jbryce | true | 20:59 |
| jbryce | well...we're out of time | 20:59 |
| jbryce | i'll send something to the list to follow up | 20:59 |
| jbryce | thanks everyone | 20:59 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 21:00 | |
| heckj | ty | 21:00 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 19 20:59:59 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-20.00.html | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-20.00.txt | 21:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-20.00.log.html | 21:00 |
| mtaylor | anybody from rax sit near antonym? | 21:00 |
| ttx | hear hear | 21:00 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: pvo, _cerberus_, jkoelker | 21:00 |
| bcwaldon | mtaylor: get a room | 21:00 |
| mtaylor | bcwaldon: cool. thanks | 21:00 |
| pvo | mtaylor: I'm starting at his russian face | 21:00 |
| * ttx is a election system purist, as you can all realize now :) | 21:01 | |
| mtaylor | pvo: could you poke him about getting us access to the etherpad server when you have a sec? | 21:01 |
| pvo | mtaylor: we have other tools on that box. | 21:01 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: loud and clear | 21:01 |
| pvo | can give you a sql dump and a targz of the dir? | 21:01 |
| pvo | would that work? | 21:01 |
| ttx | heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: still around ? | 21:01 |
| notmyname | here | 21:01 |
| danwent | o/ | 21:01 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: allo | 21:01 |
| mtaylor | pvo: can you come to #openstack-infra ? | 21:01 |
| vishy | o/ | 21:01 |
| mtaylor | pvo: probably - it'll just probably need to happen twice | 21:01 |
| jgriffith | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: always ready to compromise though, if I can be convinced that's for the greater good | 21:01 |
| vishy | (although i would like to have 10 minutes before the nova section to grab a coffee) | 21:01 |
| heckj | o/ | 21:01 |
| ohnoimdead | <- filling in for devcamcar o/ | 21:02 |
| heckj | I think ohnoimdead is standing in for devcamcar - he's out sick | 21:02 |
| heckj | er, yeah | 21:02 |
| ohnoimdead | beatcha | 21:02 |
| ttx | "never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon." | 21:02 |
| heckj | hmph | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 19 21:02:35 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 21:02 |
| ttx | Agenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:02 |
| ttx | vishy: run | 21:03 |
| ttx | #info Only 2 weeks left until the milestone-proposed cut for Folsom-2 (July 3) | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | * chmouel to post about python-swiftclient separation to the ML: DONE | 21:03 |
| ttx | * chmouel to discuss with CI on enabling swift in devstack-gate | 21:03 |
| notmyname | ttx: chmouel asked me to comment. he's not here | 21:04 |
| ttx | I think I just saw notmyname discussing it in a previous meeting ? | 21:04 |
| *** Ghe_Rivero has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| *** devananda has left #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| notmyname | that hasn't been done, but I discussed it briefly with the ci team in their meeting today | 21:04 |
| notmyname | so there is a little more to talk about, but the conversation is definitely started | 21:04 |
| notmyname | I can take it as an action item | 21:04 |
| ttx | #action notmyname to pursue discussion on enabling swift in devstack-gate | 21:05 |
| ttx | * jgriffith to update the ML with Cinder progress | 21:05 |
| ttx | I don't think I've seen that | 21:05 |
| ttx | let's carry over | 21:05 |
| ttx | #action jgriffith to update the ML with Cinder progress | 21:05 |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| ttx | * ttx to clarify Horizon 2012.1.1 release process and fix CI to match | 21:05 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:06 | |
| jgriffith | ttx: email sent out to cinder core and select others with no feedback | 21:06 |
| ttx | markmc took the lead on that, we now have proposed 2012.1.1 tarballs for all projects that use such versioning, based on current stable/essex branches. | 21:06 |
| ttx | jgriffith: could you send it to the general ML ? | 21:06 |
| anotherjesse | jgriffith: you might want to cc openstack | 21:06 |
| heckj | please | 21:06 |
| ttx | #help Please test proposed 2012.1.1 deliverables: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg13251.html | 21:06 |
| jgriffith | Yeah, I can do that, but it's awkward right now anyway because everything is in Draft | 21:06 |
| jgriffith | Nobody can pull it | 21:06 |
| jgriffith | But yes, after this meeting I'll send an updated to ML | 21:07 |
| ttx | jgriffith: thx | 21:07 |
| heckj | ty | 21:07 |
| ttx | #topic bp-issues script | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bp-issues script" | 21:07 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| ttx | #info I finally took the time to write a tool to single out generic issues with blueprints | 21:07 |
| ttx | heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, ohnoimdead, danwent: You can use it to find issues about your plan and fix them before I ask you to do so in the meeting | 21:08 |
| ttx | Think of it as a pythonized version of me. | 21:08 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: excellent | 21:08 |
| ttx | #link https://github.com/ttx/bp-issues | 21:08 |
| danwent | import ttx | 21:08 |
| heckj | sounds nice | 21:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: please call it ttx.py | 21:08 |
| ttx | It catches unassigned/unprioritized stuff, things that are missing from series goals, bad dependency prioritization, etc. | 21:08 |
| heckj | yeah ^^ | 21:08 |
| ttx | #action ttx to rename script to ttx.py | 21:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: or thierrorize.py | 21:08 |
| ttx | It's still a bit early so probably will have a few false negatives | 21:09 |
| ttx | and will be updated to catch more stuff as you get better :) | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:09 | |
| ttx | heckj: hello again :) | 21:09 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:10 |
| heckj | ola! | 21:10 |
| ttx | Looks good, just a couple of questions: | 21:10 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/stop-ids-in-uris (Guang Yee) | 21:10 |
| ttx | You said last week that is actually dependent on implement-v3-core-api... | 21:10 |
| ttx | Does it make sense to track it as a separate objective ? | 21:10 |
| ttx | Should it depend on (or be depended on by) implement-v3-core-api ? | 21:10 |
| heckj | yep - meant to shift it back/merge it, didn't get that done | 21:10 |
| heckj | it depends on implement-v3-core-api | 21:11 |
| ttx | #action heckj to repurpose stop-ids-in-uris wrt implement-v3-core-api | 21:11 |
| ttx | ok, thx | 21:11 |
| heckj | yep | 21:11 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone (dolphm) | 21:11 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| ttx | You mentioned last week that this is also depending on implement-v3-core-api and would likely be split ? | 21:11 |
| ttx | split between... a pre-v3 and a post-v3 thing ? | 21:12 |
| heckj | have the split blueprints related to V3 & RBAC up, but not fully assigned to people, milestones, etc | 21:13 |
| heckj | some of that just nailed down this morning in the keystone meeting | 21:13 |
| ttx | OK, that might explain the following... | 21:13 |
| ttx | ttx.py picked up the following issue: | 21:13 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone-api | 21:13 |
| ttx | * Not in series goal while targeted to a series milestone | 21:13 |
| heckj | yeah, that's it exactly. | 21:13 |
| ttx | kewl, will let you fix | 21:14 |
| ttx | heckj: anything else ? | 21:14 |
| heckj | fix in now - nope- questions? | 21:14 |
| ttx | How is v3-api feedback/implementation going ? Any cut date on the feedback ? | 21:14 |
| bcwaldon | heckj: I've kept the images api v2 spec open through development - I would suggest you do the same | 21:15 |
| heckj | excellent feedback - have some ML responses to make. Hoping to nail down consensus sufficient to begin implementation in another 5-10 days | 21:15 |
| *** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| heckj | bcwaldon: damned good idea | 21:15 |
| bcwaldon | heckj: once you start implementing it, you find some pretty dumb stuff | 21:15 |
| *** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz | 21:15 | |
| heckj | totally believe it | 21:15 |
| ttx | heckj: so you could start implementing it right now ! | 21:15 |
| ttx | (let's see if that trap works) | 21:16 |
| heckj | ttx: patches welcome! | 21:16 |
| *** sparkycollier has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| gabrielhurley | heckj: I noticed the term "tenant" was still in the v3 API draft... so it's not changing to "project"? /troll | 21:16 |
| ttx | touché | 21:16 |
| ttx | ready to switch to swift? | 21:17 |
| *** swifterdarrell has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:17 | |
| heckj | would you all tar and feather me if I changed it all RIGHT NOW!?!? | 21:17 |
| heckj | s/tenant/project/g | 21:17 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:17 | |
| ttx | notmyname: yo | 21:17 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:17 |
| ttx | Next version should be 1.5.1, do you have any plans already ? | 21:17 |
| notmyname | I've been out this past week and just catching up today. no plans yet. I | 21:18 |
| *** tty_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:18 | |
| ttx | We know it will include the swiftclient split and an important bugfix... | 21:18 |
| notmyname | miskey | 21:18 |
| notmyname | I'll work on that this week | 21:18 |
| notmyname | yes | 21:18 |
| notmyname | I'll work on setting a date this week | 21:18 |
| ttx | notmyname: bp-issues picked up two Essential specs listed in your Folsom plans, without any milestone yet: | 21:18 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/extract-client-lib | 21:19 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/keystone-middleware | 21:19 |
| ttx | Should those both be targeted to 1.5.1 ? | 21:19 |
| notmyname | the first will be in 1.5.1 (we just talked about it) | 21:19 |
| notmyname | the 2nd I'm not sure yet | 21:19 |
| ttx | ok, targeting the first one | 21:19 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:19 |
| notmyname | chmouel said he was going to pick it up, but no work has been done yet | 21:20 |
| notmyname | no, nothing else right now. questions? | 21:20 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: isnt there already a python-swiftclient? | 21:20 |
| notmyname | bcwaldon: the separation hasn't landed in a release yet | 21:20 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:20 | |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: so python-swiftclient is the product of extract-client-lib? | 21:21 |
| notmyname | correct | 21:21 |
| bcwaldon | ok | 21:21 |
| bcwaldon | i am pleased | 21:21 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:22 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: hello | 21:22 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: why hello there | 21:22 |
| * ttx refreshes to avoid last-minute tricks | 21:22 | |
| heckj | heh | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I only changed one bug on you this time | 21:22 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: So far, looks like you're still on your way to complete api-2 in folsom-2 ? | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: doubt it | 21:23 |
| *** metral_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'm more comfortable with f-3 for all of api-2 | 21:23 |
| ttx | Oh ? Which part might not make it ? | 21:23 |
| ttx | api-v2-store-access ? | 21:23 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: possibly | 21:23 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: theres been a lot of refactoring going on recently | 21:23 |
| ttx | Was wondering if api-v2-images-pagination and api-v2-images-sorting were actually not implemented yet. | 21:24 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I think we're at a place that we can make measurable progress again, but with only 2 weeks left, i'm not 100% confident | 21:24 |
| markwash | ttx: they are | 21:24 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yes, markwash speaks the truth | 21:24 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: some of the work we're doing could fit under a few different bps | 21:24 |
| ttx | markwash: awesome! set "implementation status" to implemented please | 21:24 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: like pagination-related links | 21:24 |
| markwash | ttx: sure, sorry I missed that | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: the tenant-specific swift container storage may slip to f3 | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: its not as important as previously thought | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: and it hasnt been started, afaik | 21:25 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: right | 21:25 |
| *** metral has quit IRC | 21:25 | |
| *** metral_ is now known as metral | 21:25 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: bp-issues just picked up the following issue for you: | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: a lot should land in the next 7 days, though | 21:26 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/kill-registry-server : Targeted to a milestone but has no assignee and unknown status | 21:26 |
| markwash | ttx: actually gonna wait until we get the next and first links finished before. . sorry, don't know where my head is | 21:26 |
| markwash | bcwaldon: ^^ | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | markwash: ok, sorting is done, right? | 21:26 |
| markwash | nod | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: we could argue about it, or just leave it | 21:26 |
| ttx | markwash: ack. matybe just add a comment on the whiteboard for the one that is still pending | 21:26 |
| *** salv-orlando has left #openstack-meeting | 21:27 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: let's argue about it another day. I did my share of arguing today | 21:27 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:28 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: no sir | 21:28 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:28 |
| ttx | #topic Quantum status | 21:28 |
| markwash | is anybody else here feeling like a stakeholder in v2? | 21:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status" | 21:29 | |
| ttx | oops | 21:29 |
| markwash | feels like we're just in a room by ourselves, which is fine too :-) | 21:29 |
| * ttx lets 20 second for a stakeholder to show up | 21:29 | |
| markwash | :-) | 21:29 |
| ttx | danwent: hey | 21:29 |
| danwent | hello | 21:29 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:29 |
| bcwaldon | markwash: shh, don't let anyone find out we're changing things! | 21:30 |
| danwent | latency should be good b/c we're both in france | 21:30 |
| ttx | heh... Still very busy, looks like you should start postponing stuff that will obviously miss the bus, if any | 21:30 |
| ttx | Would like to review the essential stuff: | 21:30 |
| danwent | already have postponed several things. | 21:30 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/improved-nova-quantum-integration | 21:30 |
| ttx | You mentioned potentially dropping other stuff to get this completed... how is it going so far ? | 21:30 |
| danwent | so Trey will again have cycles to work on this. Yesterday we also pulled in yong to work on it as well. | 21:31 |
| danwent | still may main concern, though tr3buchet expressed confidence | 21:31 |
| *** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:31 | |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-dhcp: still on track ? | 21:31 |
| danwent | this was the thing that was really off-track last time. | 21:31 |
| ttx | ah? misunderstood then | 21:32 |
| danwent | we now have a design together and the developer making progress, which is a big improvement. my personal opinion is that the scope of the design is too much work, but he's prioritizing the basic case first, so I think we'll be ok. | 21:32 |
| danwent | too much work for F-2 that is. | 21:32 |
| ttx | ok, we'll see next week how it goes | 21:33 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/new-cli: looks almost there ? | 21:33 |
| danwent | indeed. i've asked for everything to be in for an initial review next week. | 21:33 |
| danwent | ttx: yes, very close. i'm doing some final testing on it. | 21:33 |
| ttx | great. | 21:33 |
| danwent | we'll probably merge the main branch tomorrow, with any outstanding issues being filed as additional bugs | 21:34 |
| ttx | danwent: Anything else ? | 21:34 |
| danwent | still a ton to do, but really happy with progress the team is making | 21:34 |
| danwent | commits and reviews are way up in the past month or so…. i should put a graph together | 21:34 |
| * ttx senses a blogpost coming | 21:35 | |
| ttx | Questions on Quantum ? | 21:35 |
| danwent | yes, but F-2 work before blogpost :) | 21:35 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:35 | |
| ttx | vishy: how was that coffee ? | 21:35 |
| vishy | not good | 21:35 |
| vishy | ttx: I made it back in time, and the coffee did too | 21:36 |
| ttx | vishy: come to my place. I bought an automatic espresso machine with grinder | 21:36 |
| vishy | ttx: but it was not in the right location | 21:36 |
| vishy | ttx: in the cup or in my tummy would have been the right location | 21:36 |
| vishy | ttx: unfortunately it was on the ground and on my shirt | 21:36 |
| vishy | == wrong location | 21:36 |
| ttx | hmm. Suboptimal | 21:36 |
| vishy | :| | 21:36 |
| vishy | agreed | 21:37 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:37 |
| *** matwood has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| ttx | Looks like we are a bit behind. Should probably start deferring stuff that we already know won't make it | 21:37 |
| ttx | First let's review the status on the essential stuff: | 21:37 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/general-host-aggregates (jog0) | 21:37 |
| ttx | jog0 mentioned last week that this was on track -- but maybe some parts might not land, so it could be split | 21:37 |
| vishy | jog0: yes i was chatting today | 21:38 |
| vishy | russellb: any progress on the no-db stuff? | 21:38 |
| jog0 | ttx: after sorting out some details with vishy earlier today the first part is on target. Expect a patch set for review later this week | 21:38 |
| ttx | jog0: cool | 21:38 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/finish-uuid-conversion (mikal) | 21:38 |
| ttx | do we have news on that ? | 21:38 |
| *** ncode has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| russellb | vishy: very litle ... been distracted by other things this cycle | 21:39 |
| russellb | been looking this week though | 21:39 |
| russellb | still some chance for folsom-2, but more likely folsom-3 | 21:39 |
| vishy | russellb: that is what I was thinking | 21:39 |
| ttx | vishy: my understanding is that there is more coming to finish-uuid-conversion ? | 21:40 |
| vishy | ttx: I think the prop in is the last | 21:41 |
| ttx | ok | 21:41 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/volume-decoupling (vishy) | 21:41 |
| ttx | My understanding is that Cinder can now fully be used, so this is complete ? | 21:41 |
| ttx | (or not) | 21:41 |
| vishy | ttx: well there are a few more things on the whiteboard, but those have their own blueprints in the other projects | 21:41 |
| vishy | ttx: so I suppose we could just link those blueprints and mark it implemented? | 21:42 |
| ttx | if nothing else needs to land in nova, should be implemented yes | 21:42 |
| ttx | What's your plan for F2: keep both options and default to nova-volume ? | 21:42 |
| vishy | and use this one: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/extract-nova-volumes | 21:42 |
| vishy | F2 keep both and default to nova-volume | 21:42 |
| ttx | right | 21:42 |
| vishy | F3 switch the default | 21:43 |
| ttx | agreed | 21:43 |
| ttx | (after the PPB declares Cinder core (or not)) | 21:43 |
| ttx | trusted-messaging (ewindisch) is also marked "not started", I suppose it's unlikely to hit F2 now ? | 21:43 |
| * russellb hasn't heard anything about itlately | 21:44 | |
| ttx | Finally I was wondering if those two were not already completed: | 21:44 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/zeromq-rpc-driver (ewindisch) | 21:44 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/lvm-disk-images (Boris Filippov) | 21:44 |
| vishy | top one yes | 21:44 |
| russellb | zero-mq-rpc-driver is complete | 21:44 |
| ttx | ok, adjusting | 21:44 |
| vishy | yes both implemented | 21:45 |
| ttx | Wanted to discuss a bit about Nova bug triaging | 21:45 |
| *** salv-orlando_ has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| ttx | The BugTriage day had a good effect on cutting down the number of untriaged bugs, but the numbers are increasing again: | 21:45 |
| ttx | http://webnumbr.com/untouched-nova-bugs | 21:45 |
| ttx | vishy: how do you suggest we solve that ? | 21:45 |
| ttx | Should we run BugTriage days more often ? | 21:45 |
| ttx | Should we add BugTriaging to the ReviewDays tasks ? | 21:46 |
| ttx | Should we just encourage more devs to do BugTriaging ? | 21:46 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| ttx | Should we recruit a team of triagers ? | 21:46 |
| ttx | Should we write a thread on the ML about it ? | 21:46 |
| vishy | ttx: yes | 21:46 |
| vishy | we need more help triaging | 21:46 |
| ttx | yes..to which ? | 21:46 |
| vishy | thread to ml to recruit might be a good start | 21:47 |
| ttx | vishy: should we open the Nova bug supervisor team to empower more people ? | 21:47 |
| *** salv-orlando__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| ttx | (I proposed to do it across the board but some smaller projects complained) | 21:47 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| jgriffith | ls | 21:48 |
| ttx | vishy: ML thread : should I, should you ? | 21:48 |
| vishy | lets try recruiting first | 21:48 |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| ttx | vishy: you take the action to do the ML post or should I do it for you ? | 21:49 |
| vishy | ttx: you can do it! | 21:50 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:50 |
| ttx | #action ttx to raise a new thread about Nova bug triaging | 21:50 |
| vishy | just tracking down some interesting racy network bug that seems to have crept in | 21:50 |
| vishy | otherwise the stability has been pretty good | 21:50 |
| vishy | especially considering the amount of changes that have gone in | 21:51 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:51 | |
| ttx | Indeed. Questions on Nova ? | 21:51 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:52 | |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: still around ? | 21:52 |
| ohnoimdead | o/ | 21:52 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:52 |
| ttx | Nice progress overall, don't have any comments! | 21:52 |
| ttx | Just one question about https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/global-ajax-communication | 21:53 |
| ttx | It's marked "Deferred": should we remove it from Folsom series / folsom-3 milestone ? | 21:53 |
| ohnoimdead | yeah, probably. that one sort of turned into a rather large conversation | 21:53 |
| ttx | ok, will un-folsom3-it as a start | 21:54 |
| gabrielhurley | ohnoimdead, ttx: given what the quantum guys were saying earlier in the meeting, it sounds like https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/readd-quantum-support may be in jeopardy. | 21:54 |
| *** salv-orlando__ has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| gabrielhurley | I guess that should also be directed at danwent | 21:54 |
| ohnoimdead | ttx: sounds good | 21:54 |
| danwent | gabrielhurley: arvind was supposed to send me an update today | 21:55 |
| danwent | but i haven't heard from him. | 21:55 |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 21:55 | |
| danwent | we really narrowed the scope of what we're targeting for F-2, and arvind said he was comfortable with it. | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | danwent: gotcha | 21:55 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 21:55 | |
| danwent | will ping him and include you all | 21:55 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: ok, when you get the answer from arvind you can set to "slow progress" or "blocked" with e acomment on the whiteboard | 21:55 |
| ohnoimdead | gabrielhurley: we can kick to f-3 if necessary | 21:55 |
| danwent | yes, we can | 21:56 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: (only keep it "good progress" if it's on track | 21:56 |
| ttx | ) | 21:56 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: duly noted | 21:56 |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: Anything else ? | 21:56 |
| ohnoimdead | nope, i think we are looking good. we got a couple of interns for the summer helping out as well. ;) | 21:56 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:56 |
| ttx | #topic Other Team reports | 21:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports" | 21:57 | |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? annegentle ? | 21:57 |
| jgriffith | Well.... yeah, kinda | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | Cinder should be available in the next couple of days (out of draft) | 21:58 |
| ttx | jgriffith: good good | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | Four of the five blueprints should be implemented (at least for first pass) | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | nova volume decouple is what I'm trying to finish up now | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | that's all | 21:59 |
| ttx | ok | 21:59 |
| jgriffith | thanks | 21:59 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:59 | |
| annegentle | jgriffith: I'll set up a meeting to talk docs | 21:59 |
| ttx | Anything else, anyone ? | 21:59 |
| jgriffith | annegentle: yes, I haven't forgotten, just still wasn't ready :( | 21:59 |
| annegentle | jgriffith: no worries | 21:59 |
| ttx | Note that during a webinar today the events team announced that our next Design Summit would be held in San Diego on the week of October 15th | 21:59 |
| ttx | Mark your calendars | 22:00 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| annegentle | still working on a "deployment template" document that helps people inform others about their deployment | 22:00 |
| annegentle | still invite people to work on an operations manual | 22:00 |
| ttx | annegentle: business as usual, I see | 22:00 |
| annegentle | ttx: :) | 22:00 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| ttx | annegentle: anything else you wanted to mention before we close it ? Looks like we always are the only ones listening in the end :) | 22:01 |
| annegentle | ttx: I wonder if adding a "deployers news" section to this meeting would be useful? | 22:01 |
| ttx | annegentle: to inform users of largish changes ? | 22:01 |
| ttx | or to brag about deployments ? | 22:02 |
| annegentle | ttx: or for deployers to bring their bugs/track stuff? | 22:02 |
| annegentle | everyone wants to track stuff :) | 22:02 |
| ttx | annegentle: hm, they are supposed to ask questions on each project status update | 22:02 |
| heckj | not the only ones... | 22:02 |
| annegentle | ttx: ah, ok, it's embedded throughout | 22:02 |
| * ttx hugs heckj | 22:03 | |
| ttx | annegentle: yep | 22:03 |
| ttx | ok, let's close it | 22:03 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 22:03 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 19 22:03:38 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:03 |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-21.02.html | 22:03 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-21.02.txt | 22:03 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-21.02.log.html | 22:03 |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| ttx | thanks everyone, thanks heckj | 22:03 |
| heckj | heh | 22:03 |
| heckj | lunchtime! | 22:03 |
| *** tty_ has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** lzyeval has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:05 | |
| *** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:10 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:12 | |
| *** lzyeval has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:16 | |
| *** glenc_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:17 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 22:29 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| *** gabrielhurley has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 22:41 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| *** Mike656_ has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| *** metral has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| *** metral has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:49 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:51 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 22:53 | |
| *** metral has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:02 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:05 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:07 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 23:11 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:12 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 23:12 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:12 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 23:20 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:24 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 23:24 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:40 | |
| *** anderstj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:40 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
| *** torgomatic has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** swifterdarrell has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** anderstj_ has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:43 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:43 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:49 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 23:49 | |
| *** anderstj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:49 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:51 | |
| *** anderstj_ has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:57 | |
| *** matwood has quit IRC | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!