| *** julim has quit IRC | 00:04 | |
| *** MarkAtwood has quit IRC | 00:05 | |
| *** hemna is now known as hemnafk | 00:09 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:14 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:14 | |
| *** vahidh has quit IRC | 00:18 | |
| *** fnaval_ has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** branen_ has quit IRC | 00:21 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:23 | |
| *** markwash has quit IRC | 00:25 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 00:25 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:26 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| *** vkmc has quit IRC | 00:28 | |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:28 | |
| *** ndipanov_gone has quit IRC | 00:31 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:32 | |
| *** hemanth has quit IRC | 00:32 | |
| *** lexx has quit IRC | 00:32 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:36 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has left #openstack-meeting | 00:37 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:37 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:38 | |
| *** ryu25 has quit IRC | 00:39 | |
| *** gyee_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:45 | |
| *** sushils has quit IRC | 00:47 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:48 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:50 | |
| *** tanisdl has quit IRC | 00:52 | |
| *** adrian_otto has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:54 | |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 01:01 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:02 | |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 01:02 | |
| *** cathy_zhang has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:02 | |
| cathy_zhang | #openstack-meeting-alt | 01:02 |
|---|---|---|
| *** cathy_zhang has quit IRC | 01:03 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:04 | |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 01:09 | |
| *** nosnos has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:09 | |
| *** jorisroovers has quit IRC | 01:14 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:14 | |
| *** jorisroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:17 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** jomara has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** adrian_otto has quit IRC | 01:18 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:21 | |
| *** gyee_ has quit IRC | 01:23 | |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 01:24 | |
| *** jomara has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:25 | |
| *** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:25 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 01:26 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:27 | |
| *** mrodden1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:27 | |
| *** sjing has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:28 | |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** jorisroovers has quit IRC | 01:31 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 01:37 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:39 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:39 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has quit IRC | 01:40 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 01:41 | |
| *** _ozstacker_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:44 | |
| *** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:45 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 01:46 | |
| *** mrodden1 has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** ozstacker has quit IRC | 01:48 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 01:49 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 01:54 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 01:55 | |
| *** yaguang has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:56 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:56 | |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:58 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** nosnos_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:02 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:03 | |
| *** nosnos has quit IRC | 02:05 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 02:07 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 02:09 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:10 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:11 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| *** zhikunliu has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:19 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 02:21 | |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:22 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 02:29 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:31 | |
| *** armax has left #openstack-meeting | 02:31 | |
| *** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:32 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 02:34 | |
| *** jhenner|afk has quit IRC | 02:37 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 02:38 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 02:40 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 02:40 | |
| *** rbowen has quit IRC | 02:40 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:40 | |
| *** fifieldt has quit IRC | 02:41 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:44 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 02:45 | |
| *** arosen has quit IRC | 02:45 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:45 | |
| *** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:47 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:48 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 02:48 | |
| *** ndipanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:50 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 02:56 | |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:59 | |
| *** noslzzp has quit IRC | 03:00 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 03:01 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:02 | |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 03:04 | |
| *** noslzzp has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** neelashah has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:08 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 03:11 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 03:12 | |
| *** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:21 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 03:22 | |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:22 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:22 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** epim has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:26 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:26 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:26 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:28 | |
| *** arosen has quit IRC | 03:28 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:33 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 03:35 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:35 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:37 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 03:40 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:40 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has quit IRC | 03:41 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 03:41 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 03:45 | |
| *** twoputt_ has quit IRC | 03:46 | |
| *** twoputt has quit IRC | 03:46 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:50 | |
| *** nermina has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:55 | |
| *** jorisroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:59 | |
| *** jroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:01 | |
| *** jorisroovers has quit IRC | 04:03 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:04 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:05 | |
| *** chandankumar has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:05 | |
| *** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:06 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 04:08 | |
| *** Linz has quit IRC | 04:09 | |
| *** Linz has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:09 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:12 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 04:13 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:14 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:19 | |
| *** vipul-away is now known as vipul | 04:29 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:29 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 04:31 | |
| *** nosnos_ has quit IRC | 04:32 | |
| *** nosnos has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:32 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** aguzikova has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:37 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:39 | |
| *** radsy has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:39 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 04:44 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 04:47 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 04:47 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 04:48 | |
| *** ArxCruz has quit IRC | 04:50 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:52 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:55 | |
| *** maxdml has quit IRC | 04:59 | |
| *** suo has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:02 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:02 | |
| *** coolsvap_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:05 | |
| *** jasondotstar has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** zigo_ has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:11 | |
| *** epim has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** pablosan has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:19 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:23 | |
| *** coolsvap_ has quit IRC | 05:24 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 05:27 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 05:27 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 05:27 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:28 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:29 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:30 | |
| *** zhikunliu has quit IRC | 05:31 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:35 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:39 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 05:42 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 05:44 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 05:50 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:51 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:53 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 05:53 | |
| *** radix_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:59 | |
| *** nermina has quit IRC | 06:02 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 06:04 | |
| *** comay has quit IRC | 06:06 | |
| *** radsy has quit IRC | 06:07 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:07 | |
| *** comay has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:11 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has quit IRC | 06:15 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 06:16 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:16 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has quit IRC | 06:20 | |
| *** denis_makogon has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:23 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:24 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 06:26 | |
| *** neelashah has quit IRC | 06:28 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 06:28 | |
| *** noslzzp has quit IRC | 06:28 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:29 | |
| *** boris-42 has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:29 | |
| *** terriyu has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:31 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:33 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:35 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:38 | |
| *** akuznetsov has quit IRC | 06:45 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has quit IRC | 06:49 | |
| *** haomaiwa_ has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** skraynev has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:52 | |
| *** haomaiwang has quit IRC | 06:53 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 06:53 | |
| *** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:53 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 06:54 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:54 | |
| *** skraynev has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:54 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 06:56 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 06:58 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:59 | |
| *** sjing has quit IRC | 07:04 | |
| *** sjing has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:06 | |
| *** mengxd has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:06 | |
| *** mengxd has quit IRC | 07:07 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:10 | |
| *** Shaan7 has quit IRC | 07:11 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:12 | |
| *** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:13 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:14 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has quit IRC | 07:15 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov_ is now known as NikitaKonovalov | 07:15 | |
| *** doron_afk has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:18 | |
| *** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:20 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 07:26 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:27 | |
| *** ikhudoshyn has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:29 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 07:30 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:38 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 07:38 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:38 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:39 | |
| *** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:40 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 07:42 | |
| *** boris-42 has quit IRC | 07:42 | |
| *** imarnat_ has quit IRC | 07:43 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:43 | |
| *** terriyu has quit IRC | 07:44 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 07:45 | |
| *** boris-42 has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:45 | |
| *** igormarnat has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:45 | |
| *** katyafervent has quit IRC | 07:46 | |
| *** tsufiev has quit IRC | 07:46 | |
| *** tsufiev has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:46 | |
| *** katyafervent has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:47 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 07:47 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 07:47 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 07:49 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:49 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 07:49 | |
| *** DinaBelova has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:53 | |
| *** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:59 | |
| *** lexx has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:00 | |
| *** igormarnat_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:00 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:01 | |
| *** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:04 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has quit IRC | 08:05 | |
| *** matsuhashi has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:05 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:06 | |
| *** avishayb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:06 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 08:06 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:07 | |
| *** DinaBelova has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** flaper87|afk is now known as flaper87 | 08:10 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:14 | |
| *** yuan has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:16 | |
| *** romcheg has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:18 | |
| *** romcheg1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:20 | |
| *** romcheg has quit IRC | 08:20 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:20 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:23 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 08:24 | |
| *** romcheg1 has quit IRC | 08:26 | |
| *** lexx has quit IRC | 08:27 | |
| *** Kharec has quit IRC | 08:29 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 08:29 | |
| *** ndipanov has quit IRC | 08:29 | |
| *** ndipanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:30 | |
| *** Kharec has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:30 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has quit IRC | 08:34 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has quit IRC | 08:39 | |
| *** denis_makogon has quit IRC | 08:39 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:41 | |
| *** thelorax123 has quit IRC | 08:42 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:50 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 08:52 | |
| *** uaberme has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:52 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:52 | |
| *** sjing has quit IRC | 08:53 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:54 | |
| *** romcheg has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:54 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 08:57 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:06 | |
| *** fbo_away is now known as fbo | 09:06 | |
| *** _coolsvap_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:06 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:09 | |
| *** yassine has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:10 | |
| *** alatynskaya has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:18 | |
| *** aguzikova_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:20 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 09:21 | |
| *** aguzikova has quit IRC | 09:23 | |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:24 | |
| *** ruhe has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:25 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:30 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 09:30 | |
| *** _coolsvap_ has quit IRC | 09:37 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:37 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 09:40 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 09:42 | |
| *** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:46 | |
| *** jamespage has quit IRC | 09:46 | |
| *** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:46 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 09:46 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 09:48 | |
| *** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:50 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:50 | |
| *** DinaBelova has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:53 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:58 | |
| *** matsuhas_ has quit IRC | 09:58 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 10:00 | |
| *** matsuhashi has quit IRC | 10:02 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:02 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:06 | |
| *** aguzikova_ has quit IRC | 10:08 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 10:13 | |
| *** avishayb has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| *** DinaBelova has quit IRC | 10:18 | |
| *** bauzas1 is now known as bauzas | 10:20 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 10:22 | |
| *** evgenyf has quit IRC | 10:23 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 10:24 | |
| *** bauzas has left #openstack-meeting | 10:25 | |
| *** DinaBelova has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:25 | |
| *** ildikov has quit IRC | 10:29 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 10:29 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 10:32 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:32 | |
| *** paragan has quit IRC | 10:35 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 10:35 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:36 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 10:36 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:38 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 10:40 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 10:40 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 10:43 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 10:44 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 10:44 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 10:47 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 10:48 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:50 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:50 | |
| *** jroovers has quit IRC | 10:54 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 10:54 | |
| *** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:55 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has quit IRC | 10:55 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 10:57 | |
| *** rossella_s has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:03 | |
| *** yaguang has quit IRC | 11:05 | |
| *** ruhe has quit IRC | 11:07 | |
| *** rfolco has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:11 | |
| *** jamespage has quit IRC | 11:12 | |
| *** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:12 | |
| *** igormarnat_ has quit IRC | 11:15 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:16 | |
| *** avishayb has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:22 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 11:22 | |
| *** jorisroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:26 | |
| *** jorisroovers has quit IRC | 11:27 | |
| *** jorisroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:27 | |
| *** ArxCruz has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:30 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:35 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 11:37 | |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:41 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 11:41 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:42 | |
| *** n0ano has quit IRC | 11:44 | |
| *** jroovers has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:44 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 11:46 | |
| *** jorisroovers has quit IRC | 11:46 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 11:47 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:47 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:48 | |
| *** saschpe_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:49 | |
| *** saschpe has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:50 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** DinaBelova has quit IRC | 11:51 | |
| *** rpodolyaka has quit IRC | 11:51 | |
| *** romcheg has quit IRC | 11:53 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:53 | |
| *** pcm_ has quit IRC | 11:55 | |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:56 | |
| *** 5EXAAWDOS has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:57 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:58 | |
| *** bogdando has quit IRC | 12:04 | |
| *** DinaBelova has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:05 | |
| *** bgorski has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:11 | |
| *** flaper87 is now known as flaper87|afk | 12:11 | |
| *** nosnos has quit IRC | 12:11 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 12:12 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 12:13 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:15 | |
| *** Guest46324 is now known as med_ | 12:15 | |
| *** med_ is now known as medberry | 12:15 | |
| *** flaper87|afk is now known as flaper87 | 12:16 | |
| *** suo has quit IRC | 12:19 | |
| *** spligak has quit IRC | 12:23 | |
| *** spligak has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:24 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:32 | |
| *** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:32 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 12:34 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 12:36 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 12:37 | |
| *** boris-42 has quit IRC | 12:41 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:43 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:47 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:50 | |
| *** romcheg has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:50 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 12:51 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 12:54 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 12:54 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:55 | |
| *** wwallnrr__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:55 | |
| *** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:56 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:56 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:57 | |
| *** pdmars has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:59 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 13:00 | |
| *** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:00 | |
| *** dkranz has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:01 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 13:01 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 13:01 | |
| *** jhenner1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:03 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:03 | |
| *** jhenner has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| *** 5EXAAWDOS has quit IRC | 13:07 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:07 | |
| *** yaguang has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:11 | |
| *** ygbo has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:12 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 13:13 | |
| *** rpodolyaka has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:14 | |
| *** coolsvap has left #openstack-meeting | 13:15 | |
| *** dhellmann-afk is now known as dhellmann | 13:15 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:16 | |
| *** coolsvap has left #openstack-meeting | 13:17 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 13:17 | |
| *** marios has quit IRC | 13:18 | |
| *** marios has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:19 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 13:20 | |
| *** weshay has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:21 | |
| *** nprivalova has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:23 | |
| *** doron_afk is now known as doron | 13:25 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 13:27 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:28 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:29 | |
| *** arosen has quit IRC | 13:31 | |
| *** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk | 13:31 | |
| *** gongysh has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:32 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 13:33 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** neelashah has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:35 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 13:37 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:37 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:40 | |
| *** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:42 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:42 | |
| *** Fdot has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:44 | |
| *** igormarnat_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:46 | |
| *** marios has quit IRC | 13:46 | |
| *** marios has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:50 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 13:50 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 13:51 | |
| *** slong has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:51 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:51 | |
| *** dguitarbite has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:52 | |
| *** slong is now known as summerlong | 13:53 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 13:54 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:56 | |
| *** gongysh has quit IRC | 13:57 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** ruhe has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| annegentle | ready to start? | 14:01 |
| *** rbowen has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:01 | |
| *** fnaval has quit IRC | 14:01 | |
| annegentle | #startmeeting DocTeamMeeting | 14:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 14:01:52 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is annegentle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:01 | |
| *** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'docteammeeting' | 14:01 |
| EmilienM | o/ | 14:02 |
| annegentle | hey EmilienM | 14:02 |
| chandankumar | hello all! | 14:02 |
| annegentle | our agenda is here: | 14:02 |
| annegentle | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_meeting | 14:02 |
| annegentle | Hm, need to think about which action items to review | 14:02 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| annegentle | I'll review the ones from last week | 14:03 |
| annegentle | Loquacity to begin working on a proposal for config-reference and cloud admin guide IA | 14:03 |
| annegentle | Not sure how she's doing there, but she has started it | 14:03 |
| annegentle | and | 14:03 |
| annegentle | fifieldt to organise a doc bug day | 14:03 |
| *** NikitaKonovalov has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| annegentle | The selected doc bug day is Dec 20 | 14:03 |
| annegentle | follow the sun | 14:03 |
| annegentle | #info Doc Bug Day scheduled for Dec 20 2013 | 14:03 |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:04 | |
| summerlong | annegentle, just do as much as you can in that one day? | 14:04 |
| annegentle | #topic Announcement Google Hangout | 14:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Announcement Google Hangout (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:04 | |
| annegentle | hee hee summerlong | 14:04 |
| annegentle | I'd been meaning to get this scheduled, and it'll be next week | 14:04 |
| annegentle | #info Google Hangout Monday, December 2, 2013 at 03:00:00 (that's 7:00 PM PST, 9:00 PM CST, 10:00 PM EST) | 14:04 |
| annegentle | Pretty excited to do some higher fidelity talking :) | 14:05 |
| annegentle | summerlong: oh sorry reread your question, yes, do as much as you can in one day, triage, fix | 14:05 |
| chandankumar | annegentle, for me it is about 08:30 a:m in the morning. :) | 14:05 |
| summerlong | :), ta | 14:05 |
| *** shaunm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:05 | |
| annegentle | hey shaunm | 14:06 |
| shaunm | morning annegentle | 14:06 |
| annegentle | doc bug day is more for already contributing people | 14:06 |
| annegentle | not for new contributors per se | 14:06 |
| annegentle | since onboarding takes a while and we want efficiency | 14:07 |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:07 | |
| annegentle | oh I'll skip to onboarding in the agenda | 14:07 |
| annegentle | any other Qs on doc bug day? | 14:07 |
| annegentle | #info doc bug day for bugs in openstack-manuals and openstack-api-site | 14:08 |
| annegentle | #info idea for doc bug day is to get numbers down, not necessarily onboard new contributors | 14:08 |
| annegentle | #topic Onboarding doc contributors | 14:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Onboarding doc contributors (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:08 | |
| annegentle | Speaking of which | 14:08 |
| annegentle | I've asked Nick Chase to help out with onboarding, so I've been emailing him on CC when I get new people who want to help with docs | 14:08 |
| annegentle | Two in the past two weeks I want to say? | 14:08 |
| annegentle | So that's AWESOME and thank you Nick! | 14:09 |
| annegentle | #info Nick Chase to help with onboarding doc contributors | 14:09 |
| *** jhenner1 has quit IRC | 14:09 | |
| annegentle | So copy Nick if you get anyone reaching out with questions, you can always help also, but I thought it would be nice to have one point of contact | 14:09 |
| annegentle | Which also leads into another topic | 14:09 |
| *** jd__` has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:09 | |
| annegentle | #topic Educating devs on what goes where | 14:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Educating devs on what goes where (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:09 | |
| annegentle | So I've had a few conversations lately and the TC is working on better definitions for incubation and integration graduation | 14:10 |
| annegentle | And there are teams going for incubation who would bring a writer with them, which is nice | 14:10 |
| annegentle | so I'm working on definitions for doc requirements for each stage | 14:10 |
| annegentle | for incubation, I think dev docs are the only requirement | 14:10 |
| *** jd__ has quit IRC | 14:10 | |
| *** jd__` is now known as jd__ | 14:10 | |
| summerlong | annegentle, great idea! | 14:10 |
| annegentle | for graduation, projects would have to show they are supporting users with their docs | 14:10 |
| chandankumar | annegentle, +1 | 14:11 |
| annegentle | Also, I don't think devs are as familiar with our titles as I'd like, so I want to do some sort of education campaign around "what goes where" | 14:11 |
| annegentle | Any thoughts on this? | 14:11 |
| annegentle | To me, the main titles where we'd want integrated projects to "plug in" are install, config, admin, ops | 14:11 |
| annegentle | Security and HA seem secondary | 14:11 |
| annegentle | Input? Ideas on how to educate? | 14:11 |
| summerlong | in the dev session, we were wanting to do a HowTo page for devs? | 14:11 |
| *** dhellmann-afk is now known as dhellmann | 14:11 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: yes, that's right, Diane is working on a page about the API docs specifically | 14:12 |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:12 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: I think we can expand that (or slice it into a second page, here's the titles for deployers/operators) | 14:12 |
| annegentle | summerlong: but that's the idea | 14:12 |
| summerlong | cool | 14:12 |
| annegentle | summerlong: I wonder if a podcast/ screencast would help? What do you think? | 14:12 |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:12 | |
| annegentle | Stephen Spector at HP cloud asked for that and I think it's a great idea | 14:13 |
| summerlong | annegentle, for devs? Basic steps, places would work, I'd think. | 14:13 |
| annegentle | I think we have to have the wiki page at a minimum, looking for more ideas too. | 14:13 |
| annegentle | summerlong: yeah, for devs who want to write and for people looking for info, might work for both. | 14:14 |
| annegentle | I could tweet a title a day for a week :) LOL | 14:14 |
| annegentle | Oh twitter. | 14:14 |
| annegentle | blog post maybe? | 14:14 |
| summerlong | annegentle, I meant that the dev personality is not as much a video walkthrough. | 14:14 |
| annegentle | I didn't get a ton of input on the blog post about docimpact but people are reading it | 14:14 |
| annegentle | summerlong: yeah that's a good point | 14:14 |
| annegentle | summerlong: match to the personality | 14:15 |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 14:15 | |
| summerlong | annegentle, a blog sounds good | 14:15 |
| annegentle | summerlong: maybe a few edits in READMEs scattered throughout the repos would help? | 14:15 |
| summerlong | annegentle, shotgun effect | 14:15 |
| chandankumar | summerlong, ;) | 14:16 |
| annegentle | #action Anne to write a blog post describing all the titles and their priorities (we'd want integrated projects to "plug in" are install, config, admin, ops; security and HA are secondary) | 14:16 |
| EmilienM | annegentle: Security & HA are secondary but we also need more contributions on it | 14:16 |
| annegentle | EmilienM: very true | 14:16 |
| annegentle | #action Anne to follow up with HP Cloud's Spector for a podcast/screencast | 14:16 |
| annegentle | Anyone want to draft a parallel page to Diane's page? | 14:17 |
| annegentle | wiki page that is | 14:17 |
| *** arosen has quit IRC | 14:17 | |
| annegentle | it's ok if no one can :) | 14:17 |
| summerlong | annegentle, any work items for me will have to wait for a bit until our release in Dec. | 14:17 |
| *** sgordon has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:18 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: got it, yeah | 14:18 |
| annegentle | hey sgordon | 14:18 |
| * sgordon slinks in | 14:18 | |
| annegentle | #topic Cancel regular office hours now that we meet weekly | 14:18 |
| sgordon | sorry was on another call till 9 and totally forgot | 14:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Cancel regular office hours now that we meet weekly (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:18 | |
| annegentle | sgordon: no worries | 14:18 |
| annegentle | So, I had something else scheduled the last two weeks during office hours, and it seemed okay | 14:18 |
| annegentle | now that we're meeting weekly is it okay to cancel "office hours" for docs? | 14:18 |
| summerlong | +1 | 14:18 |
| annegentle | I think it was a good experiment, but not really necessary any more | 14:19 |
| annegentle | ok, I'll call it agreed :) | 14:21 |
| annegentle | #agreed Cancel regular office hours now that we meet weekly | 14:21 |
| chandankumar | yes | 14:21 |
| annegentle | #topic Doc Boot Camp? | 14:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Doc Boot Camp? (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:21 | |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:21 | |
| annegentle | I left it as a question mark to see what the interest is, do we want another boot camp this release? Do we still call it a boot camp if it's more of what nova and other projects are calling a mid-release meetup? | 14:21 |
| annegentle | Would the goals change if we don't call it boot camp? | 14:22 |
| summerlong | annegentle, what timeframe are you thinking then? | 14:22 |
| annegentle | Really just put it on the agenda to get people thinking about it. At the last one our energy was high and we really wanted to get together again. | 14:22 |
| annegentle | summerlong: to be similar to last time, it'd be Feb. | 14:22 |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:22 | |
| *** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:22 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: like end of Feb? | 14:22 |
| annegentle | I'll just throw it out there, for discussion, and discuss next week too. | 14:23 |
| summerlong | Feels very soon after the summit | 14:23 |
| annegentle | I'm still just kind of pondering it, you can probably tell :) | 14:23 |
| *** maxdml has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:23 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: and I want to figure out what we'd do, for how many days, etc | 14:24 |
| annegentle | goals for it | 14:24 |
| summerlong | The two-day span felt right | 14:24 |
| annegentle | we really had great outcomes from last time, the number of contributors has grown | 14:24 |
| sgordon | yeah - i personally wonder if remote activities might not be a better use of time/resources mid cycle for us - like the bug day for example | 14:24 |
| annegentle | sgordon: yeah that's good input, travel and all is such a time loss in some ways. Esp. if we can all get together at the summit in April | 14:25 |
| sgordon | yah | 14:25 |
| annegentle | let's talk about it and keep it in the agenda for discussion | 14:25 |
| annegentle | cool | 14:25 |
| annegentle | ok | 14:25 |
| annegentle | #topic Operations Guide workflow | 14:25 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Operations Guide workflow (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:25 | |
| *** alatynskaya has quit IRC | 14:26 | |
| *** Loquacity has quit IRC | 14:26 | |
| annegentle | So mordred (Monty), jeblair (Jim) and I met with our O'Reilly project manager and editor and technical rep about how to maintain master while enabling a developmental edit and copy edit and indexing on the Operations Guide | 14:26 |
| *** dkranz has quit IRC | 14:26 | |
| mordred | I didn't do it | 14:26 |
| annegentle | that meeting was yesterday and I just wanted to report back some progress | 14:26 |
| annegentle | mordred: you didn't sign me up for merging, I did :) | 14:27 |
| mordred | :) | 14:27 |
| *** Loquacity has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:27 | |
| annegentle | so what we'll do is as late as possible, like next Jan, create a branch for O'reilly to do copy edits and such in, and I'll backport to master branch | 14:27 |
| annegentle | mordred: keep me honest in case I'm not 'splainin' it right | 14:27 |
| annegentle | so we can keep editing master branch of openstack/operations-guide as much as possible | 14:28 |
| annegentle | and also get the benefits of the custom edit | 14:28 |
| sgordon | annegentle, what is the plan for that guide target wise? | 14:28 |
| sgordon | i.e. havana/icehouse ? | 14:28 |
| annegentle | sgordon: havana | 14:28 |
| sgordon | right | 14:28 |
| annegentle | Also, in Jan/Feb, we're gonna do a mini 2-day sprint with the original authors | 14:28 |
| annegentle | I'm still working out details there | 14:28 |
| *** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:29 | |
| summerlong | annegentle, RH is still trying to find an Ops person to help. I need to bug them again. | 14:29 |
| annegentle | I'm happy we can keep working in master and not freez | 14:29 |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 14:29 | |
| annegentle | freeze | 14:29 |
| annegentle | summerlong: great | 14:29 |
| annegentle | I keep asking around at Rackspace too | 14:29 |
| annegentle | really they can update master any time | 14:30 |
| *** sarob__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:30 | |
| summerlong | true | 14:30 |
| annegentle | I don't know if the sprint will be all that useful to people new to it, ya know? Not sure. | 14:30 |
| annegentle | 2 days, havana updates | 14:30 |
| annegentle | also, a lot of our planning depends on another meting with O'Reilly so I understand their developmental edit | 14:30 |
| annegentle | possibly a big rewrite is around the corner and I just don't know it yet | 14:30 |
| annegentle | not to make people nervous but who knows | 14:31 |
| annegentle | so the next meeting is next Thurs. or Fri. and I'll report what I know then | 14:31 |
| annegentle | Ok, last but not least, | 14:31 |
| annegentle | #topic Doc tools updates | 14:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Doc tools updates (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:31 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:31 | |
| annegentle | #info The Clouddocs-maven-plugin is now in Stackforge | 14:32 |
| annegentle | #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/clouddocs-maven-plugin/ | 14:32 |
| sgordon | summerlong, cant convince graeme to be volunteered? | 14:32 |
| sgordon | ;) | 14:32 |
| summerlong | :) | 14:32 |
| annegentle | This enables all openstack contributors to work on the maven plugin that builds our HTML and PDF and api-ref output | 14:32 |
| annegentle | spread the word to all your friends :) | 14:33 |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| chandankumar | annegentle, sure | 14:33 |
| *** oubiwann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:33 | |
| annegentle | chandankumar: it should make it easier for you to research the Disqus replacement (and find others to help!) | 14:34 |
| annegentle | (well, easier is relative, that's a BIG project) | 14:34 |
| chandankumar | annegentle, yes | 14:34 |
| annegentle | I'll have to ask reed or fifieldt if they know anything about the ask.openstack.org integration, I don't have any further updates on that. | 14:34 |
| annegentle | We've updated nearly all of the repos to use 1.12.0 | 14:35 |
| chandankumar | annegentle, yes | 14:35 |
| annegentle | that takes care of a pair of XSS vulnerabilities reported | 14:35 |
| annegentle | that's all I've got! | 14:35 |
| annegentle | #topic Open discussion | 14:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: DocTeamMeeting)" | 14:35 | |
| annegentle | So yesterday we announced our selections for the GNOME Outreach Program for Women, and I'm pleased to say we got 4 interns starting Dec. 10th! | 14:36 |
| *** radez_g0n3 is now known as radez | 14:36 | |
| chandankumar | annegentle, how to test maven cloud plugin locally in my machine? | 14:36 |
| summerlong | wow! | 14:36 |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 14:36 | |
| chandankumar | Wow! | 14:36 |
| annegentle | #link https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2013/DecemberMarch#Accepted_Participants | 14:36 |
| annegentle | Miranda Zhang will work with Diane as her mentor on the API documentation. | 14:37 |
| annegentle | HP really stepped up and helped out here, for the whole OPW program. (thanks mordred for that lead!) | 14:37 |
| summerlong | Another pair of eyes just for the API docs, far out. | 14:37 |
| *** lexx has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:37 | |
| annegentle | so, keep an eye out for Miranda and welcome her, help her with reviews, patches, and so on | 14:37 |
| *** Shaan7 has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:38 | |
| annegentle | summerlong: oh the API docs are sooooo underserved :) | 14:38 |
| summerlong | Indeed, Diane slaving away out in the wilderness | 14:38 |
| annegentle | summerlong: hee | 14:39 |
| annegentle | I did talk through a few incubation ideas with Doug Hellman on IRC yesterday. One idea, and I like it, is to create a sample "wrapper" book that people can use to write easily-pluggable content for later integration | 14:39 |
| annegentle | so, set up a set of sample generic books for install, for config, that would fit in easily later | 14:40 |
| annegentle | I think that if a project applies now for incubation, the soonest they'd get in to integration is the J release | 14:40 |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 14:40 | |
| annegentle | and as a doc team, we're not really fully resourced for all integrated projects, so I want to find ways for them to bootstrap | 14:40 |
| annegentle | maybe write up how to create pluggable content and also how to use pandoc to convert content | 14:41 |
| annegentle | anyway | 14:41 |
| annegentle | we can quit early if there's no other open discussion items | 14:41 |
| annegentle | Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving if you gobble turkey in your corner of the world! | 14:42 |
| summerlong | Happy Thanksgiving! | 14:42 |
| annegentle | Thanks all! | 14:42 |
| annegentle | #endmeeting | 14:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 14:42 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 14:42:52 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:42 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docteammeeting/2013/docteammeeting.2013-11-26-14.01.html | 14:42 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docteammeeting/2013/docteammeeting.2013-11-26-14.01.txt | 14:42 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docteammeeting/2013/docteammeeting.2013-11-26-14.01.log.html | 14:42 |
| *** summerlong has quit IRC | 14:43 | |
| *** shaunm has left #openstack-meeting | 14:43 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:43 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:44 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:45 | |
| *** colinmcn_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** vijendar has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:47 | |
| *** thedodd has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:50 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 14:50 | |
| *** claytonc has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:51 | |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:52 | |
| *** sarob__ is now known as sarob_ | 14:53 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 14:54 | |
| *** colinmcn_ has quit IRC | 14:55 | |
| *** colinmcn_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:55 | |
| *** r_m_r has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:55 | |
| *** n0ano has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:56 | |
| *** jroovers has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:56 | |
| *** toan-tran has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** bgorski has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** fnaval_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:58 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** adrian_otto has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** adrian_otto has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| *** jgallard has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** r_m_r has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| *** bauzas has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:00 | |
| n0ano | anyone here for the scheduler meeting? | 15:00 |
| toan-tran | yes | 15:00 |
| bauzas | yes, first time here | 15:00 |
| n0ano | #startmeeting scheduler | 15:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 15:01:00 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is n0ano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: scheduler)" | 15:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'scheduler' | 15:01 |
| alaski | hi | 15:01 |
| n0ano | bauzas, welcome (we don't bite - much :-) | 15:01 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| bauzas | n0ano: thanks :) | 15:01 |
| *** fnaval has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| n0ano | I sent out an agenda but most of the people that are concerned with those items aren't here yet | 15:02 |
| *** Yathi has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:02 | |
| *** dvarga has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** MikeSpreitzer has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| n0ano | Given the US holiday this week this meeting might be a bust | 15:03 |
| toan-tran | I see Boris with memcached based | 15:04 |
| *** jecarey has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| toan-tran | Yathi with instance group | 15:04 |
| jgallard | hi all | 15:04 |
| toan-tran | collins cannot join | 15:04 |
| n0ano | boris doesn't appear to be online and yathi hasn't said anything | 15:04 |
| *** adrian_otto has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| toan-tran | what is "black box scheduler" ? | 15:04 |
| MikeSpreitzer | hi | 15:04 |
| Yathi | Hi | 15:04 |
| n0ano | a session from the summit, basically allow the system to use a `black box' scheduler, put in the data and the black box gives the scheduling answer | 15:05 |
| jgallard | this is the same thing as "scheduling as a service" ? | 15:05 |
| MikeSpreitzer | How is BB sched different from plugging in a custom scheduler? | 15:06 |
| bauzas | n0ano: is it related to the scheduling-as-a-service thing ? | 15:06 |
| Yathi | is it the session we proposed ? - smart resource placement ? | 15:06 |
| bauzas | jgallard: :) | 15:06 |
| jgallard | :) | 15:06 |
| n0ano | jgallard, I don't think so, saas is move the scheduler into a separately addressable service, black box is changing the internals of the scheduler | 15:06 |
| Yathi | garyk are you on? | 15:06 |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:07 | |
| alaski | I think a "black box" scheduler would have to be a new scheduler that's plugged in rather than filter_scheduler. There would have to be a compelling reason for a deployer to use it | 15:07 |
| garyk | hi, sorry, was on a call | 15:07 |
| n0ano | Yathi, I believe the BB was from the rethinking scheduler design session | 15:07 |
| jgallard | n0ano: ok, thanks for the clarification | 15:07 |
| toan-tran | do we have a etherpad on BB? | 15:07 |
| n0ano | one was started at the summit, it should still be there | 15:08 |
| n0ano | #topic black blox scheduler | 15:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "black blox scheduler (Meeting topic: scheduler)" | 15:08 | |
| garyk | toan-tran: let me try and look up lifeless's etherpad on the scheduling | 15:08 |
| toan-tran | garyk: thanks | 15:09 |
| n0ano | alaski, yes, I was worried about throwing out the baby with the bath water with this proposal | 15:09 |
| *** vkozhukalov has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| Yathi | It will be good to have the link... for all the session etherpads.. I seem to have lost it | 15:09 |
| MikeSpreitzer | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Summit/Icehouse/Etherpads#Nova | 15:09 |
| n0ano | the current filter scheduler has some scaling concerns, I don't know that we have to throw it away completely to address them. | 15:10 |
| MikeSpreitzer | I do not see the words "black box" on that index | 15:10 |
| jgallard | MikeSpreitzer: thanks | 15:10 |
| garyk | here is the proposal - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler | 15:10 |
| *** BillArnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:10 | |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, that's my interpretation, that's probably not the exact words from the session but I think it describes it better | 15:10 |
| MikeSpreitzer | What garyk posted is Robert Collins' proposal | 15:11 |
| MikeSpreitzer | that's not "black box", that's code refactoring | 15:11 |
| bauzas | n0ano: was it about extending the resource tracker ? | 15:11 |
| garyk | MikeSpreitzer: yes, that is correct. it seems be be gaining momentum | 15:11 |
| garyk | My understanding is that the first step will be code moving | 15:12 |
| garyk | Then there will be discussion how to make it into a service | 15:12 |
| bauzas | garyk: agreed, that's the saas goal | 15:12 |
| MikeSpreitzer | garyk: neither of those is "black box", at least as the words are usually construed | 15:12 |
| garyk | :) | 15:12 |
| n0ano | bauzas, it was to create a set of constraints that could be fed to an industry standard scheduler code | 15:12 |
| Yathi | black box, if I remember about the rethinking scheduler design proposal - it is about the multiple scheduler threads | 15:12 |
| Yathi | but can't recollect this being called as black box | 15:13 |
| bauzas | n0ano: ah, so you talk about this one ? https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IcehouseNovaExtensibleSchedulerMetrics | 15:13 |
| MikeSpreitzer | OK, maybe the problem is just bad wording on today's agenda | 15:13 |
| alaski | I think there was concern that a solver scheduler would be a black box | 15:13 |
| Yathi | as part of the smart resource placement design session - we talked about Solver Scheduler - a constraint based solver | 15:14 |
| *** bgorski has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:14 | |
| n0ano | bauzas, no, that's not it either, let me look | 15:14 |
| Yathi | a pluggable "black box" so to say! | 15:14 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Any replaceable module in a system is a black box in that sense, alaski, right? We define its interface, internals are private. | 15:14 |
| *** dkranz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:15 | |
| toan-tran | pluggable? plugged to what? | 15:15 |
| toan-tran | nova? | 15:15 |
| n0ano | found it - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RethinkingSchedulerDesign | 15:15 |
| toan-tran | or openstack in general? | 15:15 |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:15 | |
| alaski | MikeSpreitzer: in a sense yes. But with the filter_scheduler it's easy to trace how it made its decision, a solver scheduler was considered a potential black box because there's not that same traceability | 15:15 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 15:15 | |
| *** colinmcn_ has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| alaski | it's more about debugging issues when the scheduler doesn't return an answer you expect | 15:16 |
| MikeSpreitzer | ah yes, I remember that remark | 15:16 |
| Yathi | exactly.. this issue was raised at the session | 15:16 |
| Yathi | traceability may have to be introduced, probably with some logging if it is possible | 15:17 |
| MikeSpreitzer | But I'm not sure what to do with it. Are we to shy away from every computation that is not easy to reproduce in someone's head? | 15:17 |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:18 | |
| alaski | In my opinion, no. But it can't be the only, or default, option for Nova | 15:18 |
| MikeSpreitzer | because...? | 15:19 |
| alaski | because the default is used for gating code changes and traceability is a necessity | 15:19 |
| MikeSpreitzer | what exactly do you mean by "traceability"? | 15:19 |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 15:19 | |
| *** sgordon has left #openstack-meeting | 15:19 | |
| Yathi | it believe even with filter scheduler - it is a list of filters | 15:20 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:20 | |
| Yathi | so some filters will fail and log ? | 15:20 |
| *** schwicht has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:20 | |
| alaski | understanding why a scheduling decision was made. If Jenkins fails a gate check because it couldn't schedule an instance, I want to know why | 15:20 |
| MikeSpreitzer | thanks | 15:20 |
| toan-tran | alaski: we have logs on every filter | 15:20 |
| toan-tran | cant that help? | 15:20 |
| MikeSpreitzer | In my group's previous work, we developed a replay framework. Problem instances can be logged completely, and replayed into a test harness for debugging purposes. | 15:21 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Essentially, a formalized kind of log that can be replayed. | 15:21 |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, but how do you know the exact state that the system was in in order to replay things | 15:22 |
| *** cfriesen has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:22 | |
| MikeSpreitzer | The log contains all the relevant information. | 15:22 |
| alaski | toan-tran: I'm not sure if there are logs on every filter, but they can be added. And there is a blueprint for additional logging in the scheduler being worked on | 15:22 |
| toan-tran | alaski: at least the filter_scheduler says which filter returns which hosts | 15:23 |
| toan-tran | of course' it's inside the filer that we have to add log if we need more details | 15:23 |
| n0ano | always remembering that logging adds overhead, we're already concerned about scheduler efficiency | 15:23 |
| toan-tran | we also have Error code, although not every detailed | 15:23 |
| alaski | toan-tran: right. The filter_scheduler is fine, the concern is regarding a potential new scheduler which is based on more complicated solving methods, or possibly even hueristics | 15:24 |
| alaski | and by fine I mean not too bad, it could certainly be better | 15:24 |
| toan-tran | alaski: aggreed | 15:24 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| MikeSpreitzer | Regardless of decision method, same inputs apply, right? | 15:24 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Would it be OK to have a variable level of logging? Full in the gate, production might be less? | 15:25 |
| Yathi | just to be clear.. the idea is not yet to replace Filter scheduler.. provide an additional option for a scheduler driver | 15:25 |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, I think that's an absolute requirement | 15:25 |
| cfriesen | is logging really expensive? I thought the issue was mostly the time to pull the data out of the database? | 15:25 |
| toan-tran | so basically we need a framework to write the new scheduler, some steps that it must voice the state? | 15:26 |
| alaski | Yathi: yes. | 15:26 |
| n0ano | cfriesen, the logs have to be stored somewhere, we're already concerned about DB access, this would just make it worse | 15:26 |
| alaski | MikeSpreitzer: variable logging would be great | 15:26 |
| cfriesen | why not just stream the logs via syslog? | 15:27 |
| *** venkatesh has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:27 | |
| Yathi | I think it is about enhancing a decision making engine to be able to clearly log which of the constraints did not satisfy | 15:27 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Yathi: getting a log of complete input is non-trivial | 15:27 |
| MikeSpreitzer | but necessary to replay and explain. | 15:27 |
| MikeSpreitzer | However, note that some serious guys do very extensive logging all the time | 15:28 |
| n0ano | cfriesen, possible but one of the ideas is creating multiple schedulers, with multiples a single log point would be helpful although maybe I've overthinking things | 15:28 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Do I recall correctly that Google logs a lot all the time? | 15:28 |
| *** ivasev has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:28 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| Yathi | I guess I don't have anything else to add here at this point on the logging aspect | 15:29 |
| toan-tran | log is not good, we should think about creating info objects | 15:30 |
| MikeSpreitzer | I have experience with IBM products that offer variable level of logging. Our product guys love it. I hate it when called in to debug a customer problem, they always logged too little, so it always starts with "turn up the logging to XXX and then reproduce the problem" | 15:30 |
| toan-tran | I think we have a blueprint for that | 15:30 |
| n0ano | toan-tran, not sure I understand what you mean about objects | 15:30 |
| alaski | toan-tran: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/record-scheduler-information though it's still under discussion | 15:30 |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, but at least that's an option vs. no or minimal logging | 15:31 |
| *** sacharya has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:31 | |
| MikeSpreitzer | yes | 15:31 |
| MikeSpreitzer | What we did at first is to make some of our optional logging have a very precise and parseable format, put all information on scheduler problems in there. | 15:32 |
| *** DennyZhang has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:32 | |
| n0ano | well, one take away from this seems to be a concensus that we need to consider logging, especially variable level | 15:32 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Later the product guys got interested in non-optional binary logging of structured data, but I'm not sure how far they have taken it thus far. | 15:32 |
| n0ano | I don't know if there is any kind of loggin standard in OpenStack, anybody know? | 15:32 |
| russellb | openstack/common/log.py is what everything uses | 15:33 |
| toan-tran | alaski: this is what I'm talking about: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-missing-notifications | 15:33 |
| toan-tran | I remember it has had more information than current version | 15:34 |
| *** DennyZhang has quit IRC | 15:34 | |
| n0ano | russellb, which I believe puts everything in files on the local machine with not level capability | 15:34 |
| alaski | n0ano: there are level capabilities | 15:34 |
| toan-tran | and this one: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/notification-compute-scheduler | 15:35 |
| n0ano | alaski, which are setable from configuration files/run time? | 15:35 |
| russellb | and can use syslog | 15:35 |
| russellb | yes, you configure what levels you want logged | 15:35 |
| russellb | and where you want the logs to go | 15:35 |
| bauzas | n0ano: you just set it explicitely | 15:35 |
| *** DennyZhang has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:36 | |
| n0ano | sounds like the infrastructure is there then, we just need to make sure all the filters use the logging services properly | 15:36 |
| MikeSpreitzer | And if we want to be able to debug scheduler decision making, "properly" means log all the relevant information at the chosen log level. | 15:37 |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, +2 | 15:37 |
| *** fnaval_ has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| n0ano | s/+2/+1 | 15:37 |
| toan-tran | Mike: +1 | 15:38 |
| toan-tran | the question is , how we find "relevant"? | 15:38 |
| bauzas | I only played with a global logger for the whole project, don't know if we can have a special logger for scheduling things | 15:38 |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:38 | |
| bauzas | afaik, the logger is global to nova | 15:38 |
| n0ano | bauzas, I would hope we don't need anything special, standard loggin services should be fine | 15:38 |
| toan-tran | the problem of text logging is that the developper of a scheduler can write anything in the log | 15:39 |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:39 | |
| toan-tran | which is not necessarily meaningful to others | 15:39 |
| bauzas | n0ano: then you're fine | 15:39 |
| MikeSpreitzer | toan-tran: that's why I talk about a precisely defined format for the scheduler problem info | 15:39 |
| toan-tran | Mike: agreed! | 15:39 |
| toan-tran | should we create a log class for that? | 15:40 |
| toan-tran | put some structure into what is logged | 15:40 |
| alaski | That's probably a good idea, but I think there's more immediate work before that becomes a concern | 15:40 |
| MikeSpreitzer | I agree | 15:41 |
| n0ano | some structure is good as long as there is the freedom to add other things that aren't part of the structure | 15:41 |
| bauzas | toan-tran: there is no need for a log class | 15:41 |
| *** noslzzp has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:41 | |
| *** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk | 15:41 | |
| bauzas | you just have to explicitely define which logger name you want | 15:42 |
| n0ano | I'm feeling that someone needs to create a BP to propose some standardized logging for the current scheduler filters | 15:42 |
| MikeSpreitzer | In my group's work, we have an internal API to the solver, and it has simple style: input is a whole problem, output is a whole answer. It is pretty easy to do complete logging in that case. | 15:42 |
| MikeSpreitzer | We have not had to worry about alternate solvers or alternate schedulers. | 15:43 |
| toan-tran | Mike: is it possible to record the state of the system in the log? | 15:43 |
| n0ano | MikeSpreitzer, the filter scheduler is kind of like that, input is the set of possible nodes and output is the set of acceptable nodes | 15:43 |
| MikeSpreitzer | Currently we log snapshots of the relevant state info. Alternatively the log could stream updates. | 15:43 |
| MikeSpreitzer | As alaski said, I think we have beat this horse enough for now. | 15:44 |
| *** dguitarbite has quit IRC | 15:44 | |
| Yathi | Mike +1 | 15:44 |
| n0ano | agreed, since Yahti is here let's switch to | 15:45 |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:45 | |
| n0ano | #topic instance groups | 15:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "instance groups (Meeting topic: scheduler)" | 15:45 | |
| n0ano | Yathi, do you have an update on this | 15:45 |
| Yathi | garyk you want to say something | 15:45 |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** herndon has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** akuznetsov has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| toan-tran | well, since one one say a word, I have a question :) | 15:47 |
| Yathi | no major update as of now. But the plan after the summit was to continue the implementation on a simpler instance group model | 15:47 |
| n0ano | looks like garyk got called away | 15:47 |
| toan-tran | if we intend to make it into nova | 15:47 |
| toan-tran | do we keep edge & policy? | 15:47 |
| Yathi | a flat group model | 15:47 |
| Yathi | we do not keep the edge | 15:47 |
| toan-tran | Yathi: +1 | 15:48 |
| n0ano | Yathi, I thought there was work needed on the V3 API, is that ongoing | 15:48 |
| toan-tran | what about policy, we don't have policy manager either | 15:48 |
| toan-tran | ? | 15:48 |
| Yathi | yeah I believe it is part of the plan.. to complete what was pending from Havana time.. | 15:48 |
| Yathi | work is needed for V3 API | 15:49 |
| n0ano | do you think that will be controversial or should it be straight forward | 15:49 |
| * n0ano always worries about API changes | 15:49 | |
| *** briancline has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:50 | |
| cfriesen | I've been playing with the current instance groups CLI and have some comments on usability--where do I send feedback? | 15:50 |
| Yathi | we will sync up again with others - garyk, debo and discuss on the remaining tasks | 15:51 |
| MikeSpreitzer | cfriesen: I'm just a newbie here, my guess is the mailing list | 15:51 |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:51 | |
| Yathi | please send it to - the dev mailer is the best | 15:51 |
| MikeSpreitzer | but you can talk to us now too! | 15:52 |
| *** rbowen has quit IRC | 15:52 | |
| *** DrBacchus has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:52 | |
| cfriesen | there's a bunch of stuff I ran into...like it would be nice to accept human-readable group names in the commands rather than only the full group UUID | 15:52 |
| MikeSpreitzer | +1 in general on that | 15:52 |
| cfriesen | and to me it doesn't make sense to have an "instance-group-add-members" command where the member argument is optional | 15:52 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 15:53 | |
| cfriesen | what does that even mean? :) | 15:53 |
| MikeSpreitzer | me steps back, waiting for someone who designed that API to answer | 15:53 |
| * MikeSpreitzer will eventually remember to type a slash before a command | 15:54 | |
| n0ano | sounds like no one wants to admit ownership, might need to ask that one on the dev mailing list | 15:54 |
| Yathi | I think it is best to compile an email | 15:54 |
| cfriesen | okay, will do. | 15:54 |
| *** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:55 | |
| *** jmontemayor has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:55 | |
| n0ano | OK, time running down | 15:55 |
| n0ano | #topic opens | 15:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "opens (Meeting topic: scheduler)" | 15:55 | |
| garyk | sorry, i had internet problems. | 15:55 |
| n0ano | anybody have any opens they want to raise in the few minutes we have available | 15:55 |
| garyk | instance group updates: have posted scheduler changes. pending api changes - debu will work on these next week\ | 15:55 |
| garyk | sorry for late update | 15:55 |
| n0ano | garyk, NP, we didn't say too many bad things about you :-) | 15:55 |
| garyk | :) | 15:55 |
| n0ano | garyk, yeah, that's what we got, pretty much WIP | 15:56 |
| *** aguzikova has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:56 | |
| n0ano | any other opens | 15:56 |
| toan-tran | I'd like to discuss on SaaS | 15:56 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:56 | |
| toan-tran | well, discuss on SaaS's discussion :) | 15:56 |
| Yathi | you mean the external scheduler ? | 15:57 |
| *** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:57 | |
| toan-tran | yeah | 15:57 |
| bauzas | we're running out of time | 15:57 |
| n0ano | toan-tran, I would like to discuss it also but we'll need a full session for that | 15:57 |
| Yathi | that might need a lot of time.. | 15:57 |
| n0ano | Yathi, no might, it will take a lot of time. | 15:57 |
| Yathi | :) | 15:57 |
| toan-tran | that's what I'm saying :) | 15:57 |
| toan-tran | how we organise discussion on SaaS | 15:57 |
| jgallard | can we add this item in 1st for next week? | 15:58 |
| jgallard | :) | 15:58 |
| alaski | +1 | 15:58 |
| bauzas | I was thinking there was a separate meeting on that point, non ? | 15:58 |
| bauzas | no ? | 15:58 |
| toan-tran | I don't know where Collins live | 15:58 |
| n0ano | next week, if possible, I'd like to get Boris on board to talk about memcached, that's the most important immediate topic, we can put SaaS as the 2nd priority | 15:58 |
| *** marekd|away is now known as marekd | 15:58 | |
| bauzas | toan-tran: he lives in NZ | 15:58 |
| toan-tran | if he lives in UTC+13 | 15:58 |
| *** dhellmann-afk is now known as dhellmann | 15:58 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:59 | |
| toan-tran | ... | 15:59 |
| alaski | n0ano: sounds good | 15:59 |
| toan-tran | ok so we need another slot | 15:59 |
| jgallard | n0ano: ok, great :) | 15:59 |
| bauzas | that's what lifeless proposed | 15:59 |
| toan-tran | not scheduler meeting | 15:59 |
| n0ano | we'll discuss further next week | 15:59 |
| n0ano | tnx everyone | 15:59 |
| n0ano | #endmeeting | 15:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 15:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 15:59:45 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/scheduler/2013/scheduler.2013-11-26-15.01.html | 15:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/scheduler/2013/scheduler.2013-11-26-15.01.txt | 15:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/scheduler/2013/scheduler.2013-11-26-15.01.log.html | 15:59 |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:59 | |
| *** Yathi has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| *** BillArnold has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| *** glikson has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:00 | |
| *** pnavarro has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:00 | |
| *** afazekas has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** jgallard has left #openstack-meeting | 16:02 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 16:03 | |
| *** claytonc has left #openstack-meeting | 16:03 | |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** MikeSpreitzer has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** DinaBelova has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:07 | |
| *** igormarnat_ has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** MikeSpreitzer has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:08 | |
| *** hemanth has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:08 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| hemanth | #quit | 16:09 |
| *** hemanth has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 16:10 | |
| *** MikeSpreitzer has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** markwash has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** toan-tran has quit IRC | 16:15 | |
| *** yaguang has quit IRC | 16:16 | |
| *** hemanth has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** hemanth has quit IRC | 16:17 | |
| *** terriyu has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk | 16:17 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:18 | |
| *** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:18 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 16:20 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:20 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:21 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| *** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:21 | |
| *** venkatesh has quit IRC | 16:24 | |
| *** branen has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:24 | |
| *** litong has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:24 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 16:24 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 16:25 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:25 | |
| *** nprivalova has quit IRC | 16:28 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 16:31 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:31 | |
| *** venkatesh has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:31 | |
| *** paragan has quit IRC | 16:32 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:35 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:35 | |
| *** avishayb has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 16:38 | |
| *** zbitter has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:40 | |
| *** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:42 | |
| *** tnurlygayanov_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:43 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 16:44 | |
| *** MarkAtwood has quit IRC | 16:44 | |
| *** coolsvap_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:45 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 16:45 | |
| *** beagles has quit IRC | 16:45 | |
| *** beagles has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:47 | |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:47 | |
| *** Alexei_987 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:47 | |
| *** bgorski has quit IRC | 16:48 | |
| *** xga_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:49 | |
| *** DinaBelova has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:50 | |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:51 | |
| *** doron is now known as doron_afk | 16:52 | |
| *** pnavarro has quit IRC | 16:52 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 16:54 | |
| *** zbitter is now known as zaneb | 16:55 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 16:56 | |
| *** doron_afk has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** boris-42 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:58 | |
| *** flaper87 is now known as flaper87|afk | 16:59 | |
| *** lexx has quit IRC | 16:59 | |
| boris-42 | Hi all | 17:00 |
| boris-42 | jaypipes harlowja hi | 17:00 |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:00 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:00 | |
| jaypipes | boris-42: afternoon :) | 17:01 |
| boris-42 | jaypipes okay finally I back from vacation | 17:02 |
| boris-42 | so we will have meeting today=) | 17:02 |
| boris-42 | #startmeeting | 17:02 |
| openstack | boris-42: Error: A meeting name is required, e.g., '#startmeeting Marketing Committee' | 17:02 |
| *** fnaval has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| jaypipes | boris-42: I will try to participate. Unfortunately, I have one conf call after another today :( | 17:02 |
| boris-42 | #startmeeting Rally | 17:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 17:02:50 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is boris-42. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'rally' | 17:02 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 ping | 17:04 |
| Alexei_987 | pong | 17:04 |
| boris-42 | harlowja ping | 17:04 |
| boris-42 | #topic profiling status | 17:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "profiling status (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:04 | |
| *** coolsvap_ is now known as coolsvap_away | 17:04 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 could you share our document and ideas around current status and problems | 17:04 |
| boris-42 | dhellmann-afk ping | 17:04 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| Alexei_987 | which one? :) https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tomograph-adjustments ?? | 17:05 |
| *** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:05 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 yep this one | 17:05 |
| boris-42 | boden ping | 17:06 |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| *** msdubov has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| *** lsmola has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 so? | 17:07 |
| *** romcheg has quit IRC | 17:08 | |
| Alexei_987 | so today I was working on planning how we can use ceilometer as a data collector/storage for our profiling data | 17:08 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 did you find the way to use it? | 17:09 |
| *** lexx has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| Alexei_987 | well I'm still working on it but I already have a rough idea of how it should be done | 17:09 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 do we need to make some changes in ceilometer? | 17:09 |
| Alexei_987 | no :) | 17:09 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 or we could use it out of box | 17:09 |
| *** aguzikova has quit IRC | 17:09 | |
| Alexei_987 | we'll use openstack/common/ notification system to send data via RPC | 17:09 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 oh it's nice | 17:09 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 to ceilometer? | 17:10 |
| Alexei_987 | yes | 17:10 |
| Alexei_987 | we'll send raw data to it | 17:10 |
| Alexei_987 | and our visualization system we'll fetch data from ceilometer and handle the rest (display correct hierarchy) | 17:10 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 are we are going to face a problem with to much data in ceilometer? | 17:11 |
| Alexei_987 | theoretically we may face it | 17:11 |
| Alexei_987 | but it's ceilmeter's job to handle it | 17:11 |
| Alexei_987 | since it's supposed to be HA data collector | 17:11 |
| *** marekd is now known as marekd|away | 17:12 | |
| boris-42 | jd__ ping | 17:12 |
| Alexei_987 | so if we actually face such problem we'll have to work on ceilometer to improve it's performance (which is ok for me) | 17:12 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 do you have some data about how much data we will send to ceilometer | 17:12 |
| Alexei_987 | no since we don't have any working prototype for now :) | 17:12 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:12 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 ouch=) | 17:12 |
| Alexei_987 | but I'm pretty sure that we won't have any problems with that for a long time | 17:13 |
| Alexei_987 | it already handles a lot of data so our load won't be too much for it | 17:13 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 okay | 17:13 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 so you are going to write new backend for tomograph? | 17:14 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 how much it will take time? 1-2 days? | 17:14 |
| Alexei_987 | well it won't be a backend for tomograph | 17:14 |
| Alexei_987 | it will be a new library + ceilometer backend | 17:14 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 get rid of tomograph? | 17:14 |
| Alexei_987 | since tomograph won't be compatible with new data structure | 17:14 |
| *** eyerediskin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:14 | |
| Alexei_987 | you can consider it as tomograph 2.0 | 17:14 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 so we are going to drop all current beckends in tomograph? | 17:15 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 refactor it, and add our ceilometer? | 17:15 |
| Alexei_987 | yes since we won't use them anyway | 17:15 |
| boris-42 | harlowja ^ | 17:15 |
| Alexei_987 | true, true | 17:15 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 okay | 17:15 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 I hope Tim won't be against | 17:16 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 so how much you are going to spend time to implement all this stuff | 17:16 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 ? | 17:16 |
| Alexei_987 | well I've underestimated it a little bit in the morning :) | 17:16 |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 17:17 | |
| Alexei_987 | but I guess I'll have the working profiler till the end of the week | 17:17 |
| *** boden has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:17 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 okay | 17:17 |
| Alexei_987 | so 2-3 days for new profiler + ceilometer backend | 17:17 |
| *** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:17 | |
| *** glikson has quit IRC | 17:17 | |
| *** sandeepr has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:17 | |
| boris-42 | Okay let's then join other topics | 17:17 |
| Alexei_987 | have to do a lot of digging in ceilometer code | 17:17 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| boris-42 | #topic rally benchmark egine changes | 17:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "rally benchmark egine changes (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:18 | |
| *** ativelkov has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** sergmelikyan has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| Alexei_987 | typo ^ | 17:18 |
| boris-42 | i can't fix it=) | 17:18 |
| boris-42 | lol | 17:18 |
| boris-42 | There are 2 main areas here | 17:18 |
| boris-42 | boden could you share details about generic cleanup? | 17:19 |
| boden | boris-42 yes... The actual impl is complete, and I'm currently working on the UTs for it. In summary the cleanup runs just prior to deleting the users/projects for the benchmark and will cleanup servers, images, networks, volumes,etc.. | 17:20 |
| boris-42 | boden when you are going to finish work around UTs for this? | 17:20 |
| *** ildikov has quit IRC | 17:21 | |
| boden | boris-42 in reality not until next week most likely... its a holiday here this week and today is my last day for the week | 17:21 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 17:21 | |
| boris-42 | boden ok no problem, so we could expect some patches at next monday? | 17:21 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:21 | |
| *** david-lyle is now known as david-lyle_afk | 17:22 | |
| boden | monday or tuesday most likely.. I may be some time over vacation to work on it, but not sure | 17:22 |
| boris-42 | boden btw could you just push your patch on review (without tests) just to review it? | 17:22 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 17:23 | |
| boden | boris-42 sure... I can do that before vacation --- need to run tox and clean that up 1st | 17:23 |
| boris-42 | boden thank you | 17:23 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:23 | |
| *** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:23 | |
| boris-42 | Okay next guys is msdubov he is working on changing config of benchmark, so we will be able to run not only "continuously" task but also "periodicaly". Could you explain this change and our current status? | 17:23 |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:23 | |
| msdubov | boris-42 Hi | 17:24 |
| msdubov | boris-42 So currently Rally executes benchmarks for a given number of times according to the user settings in the benchmark config | 17:25 |
| msdubov | Last week we have changed the format of the config, so it has become more flexible | 17:25 |
| msdubov | and also more transparent to the end-user | 17:25 |
| msdubov | Futher work is concentrated on 2 major features: | 17:25 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 17:26 | |
| msdubov | 1) Implementing benchmark running for a specified amount of time. E.g. we should be able to ask Rally to load the cloud with the benchmark scenario for booting-deleting servers for 10 minutes | 17:26 |
| msdubov | 2) Implementing periodic benchmark run: this should enable the end-user to execute any benchmark scenario with given intervals | 17:27 |
| *** ygbo has quit IRC | 17:27 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 17:27 | |
| *** reaper has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:27 | |
| msdubov | E.g. launch the boot-delete server scenario taking 1 minute pause after each run. | 17:27 |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| msdubov | Finally we plan to implement running multiple benchmark scenarios in parallel so that we can consider one scenario as the main one, while the other scenario as "noise" | 17:28 |
| msdubov | The mentioned changes are essential for implementing this stuff | 17:28 |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| boris-42 | msdubov okay so when you are going to finish all stuff around periodic running test? or is it already finish? | 17:29 |
| msdubov | boris-42 So actually the patches for 1) and 2) seem to be ready and are pending for review | 17:29 |
| msdubov | boris-42 as soon as they get merged I'll concentrate on parallel run | 17:30 |
| boris-42 | msdubov okay thnaks | 17:31 |
| boris-42 | #topic benchmark engines & server providers | 17:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "benchmark engines & server providers (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:31 | |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 17:31 | |
| *** nermina has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:31 | |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:32 | |
| eyerediskin | benchmark engines? | 17:32 |
| *** venkatesh has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| boris-42 | #topic deployers & server providers | 17:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "deployers & server providers (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:33 | |
| boris-42 | Sorry typo=) | 17:33 |
| boris-42 | eyerediskin could you share status of deployers & server providers? | 17:33 |
| eyerediskin | there is 3 patches on review | 17:34 |
| eyerediskin | and one more coming soon (image downloading for virsh provider) | 17:34 |
| *** evgenyf has quit IRC | 17:35 | |
| eyerediskin | boris-42: this one is done long time ago https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48811/ | 17:35 |
| boris-42 | eyerediskin so I should review it?) | 17:36 |
| eyerediskin | lxc engine and multihost provider: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57240/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56222/ | 17:36 |
| boris-42 | eyerediskin did you test LXC providers?) | 17:36 |
| boris-42 | eyerediskin I mean in real life? | 17:36 |
| eyerediskin | boris-42: all 3 was tested many times with different configs | 17:37 |
| eyerediskin | and some bugs was fixed since first patchset =) | 17:37 |
| *** marekd|away is now known as marekd | 17:38 | |
| *** Fdot has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** coolsvap_away has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 17:39 | |
| *** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:39 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| *** bknudson has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| boris-42 | eyerediskin okay I will review them=) msdubov Alexei_987 you should also review that patches ^ | 17:40 |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: I'm reviewing stuff when I have free time :) | 17:40 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 if I will be such reviewer, I won't made any review=) | 17:41 |
| *** FallenPegasus has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:41 | |
| msdubov | boris-42 Okay will do that tomorrow | 17:41 |
| boris-42 | #topic split deploy & benchmark workflow | 17:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "split deploy & benchmark workflow (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:42 | |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: ok :) I'll spend at least 2 hours each day for reviews :) | 17:42 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 it is too much I think 1hrs is enough=) | 17:42 |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: multiply all my estimates by the pow of 3.14 | 17:42 |
| boris-42 | lol | 17:42 |
| boris-42 | Okay we have critical arch bug, we were not able to use deployment system of Rally for benchamrking | 17:43 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 17:43 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:43 | |
| Alexei_987 | huh? | 17:44 |
| Alexei_987 | why not? | 17:44 |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| boris-42 | because we should specify it task.conf information about image_uuid, and flavor_id that we are not able to get before we make deployment | 17:44 |
| boris-42 | and task.conf is specified before deployment process is started =) | 17:44 |
| *** fabio has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:44 | |
| Alexei_987 | hm.. :) | 17:44 |
| Alexei_987 | we should have this stuff predefined | 17:45 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 actually there is a lot of another issues | 17:45 |
| boris-42 | e.g. we were not able to deploy openstack and run multiple benchmarks agains it | 17:45 |
| boris-42 | So we chose the way to split deploy/benchamrk parts | 17:46 |
| Alexei_987 | (facepalm) | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | And now Rally it 2 click | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | is* | 17:46 |
| Alexei_987 | yeah but it means that we don't need deploy at all | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 hm why? | 17:46 |
| *** fabio is now known as fabiog | 17:46 | |
| Alexei_987 | we have tripleO + fuel + devstack | 17:46 |
| Alexei_987 | + any other manual deploy | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 it is not manual at all | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 it is in 1 click | 17:46 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 like before | 17:47 |
| Alexei_987 | no.. I mean that we can just agree that we are already have Openstack running | 17:47 |
| Alexei_987 | and delegate deploy part to something else | 17:47 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 nope | 17:47 |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 17:47 | |
| *** jumper4567 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:47 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 try to deploy OpenStack with DevStack in LXC containers on Amazon VMs | 17:47 |
| Alexei_987 | why should I? | 17:48 |
| Alexei_987 | I mean rally's purpose is profiling not deploy | 17:48 |
| *** romcheg has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:48 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 ehmmmm | 17:48 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 no | 17:48 |
| Alexei_987 | no? | 17:48 |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 no | 17:48 |
| Alexei_987 | ok | 17:48 |
| *** jumper4567 has quit IRC | 17:48 | |
| boris-42 | Alexei_987 it is the system that makes benchmark of openstack at scale simple | 17:49 |
| Alexei_987 | ok so profiling + benchmark | 17:49 |
| Alexei_987 | ? | 17:49 |
| boris-42 | no | 17:49 |
| boris-42 | deploy + benchmark + results processing + profling | 17:49 |
| *** jumper4567 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:49 | |
| boris-42 | and there are also now another use case | 17:49 |
| *** rossella_s has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| boris-42 | about generating real workloads | 17:49 |
| Alexei_987 | IMHO too many responsibilities | 17:49 |
| boris-42 | Nope | 17:50 |
| Alexei_987 | ok forget it | 17:50 |
| *** jumper4567 has quit IRC | 17:50 | |
| Alexei_987 | let's get back to the topic | 17:50 |
| boris-42 | If I am not able to get 1k servers deployment in one click in venv | 17:50 |
| *** IlyaE has quit IRC | 17:50 | |
| boris-42 | I don't need other parts | 17:51 |
| boris-42 | I don't need benchmarks and profiling at all | 17:51 |
| boris-42 | because deploy process is to complicated even if you are using FUEL/TrippleO/Anvil/Devstack | 17:51 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: exactly | 17:51 |
| boris-42 | So our goal is not to reinvent and make new deployer for OpenStack | 17:52 |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: and you want us (2-3 devs) to make something that is more powerfull | 17:52 |
| boris-42 | just to use existing | 17:52 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| boris-42 | and simplify and unify work with them (so to get good deployment for deployers without any knowledge about how the hell I should deploy openstack) | 17:53 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| ogelbukh | boris-42 wants to be able to configure and ignite delployment tool from rally | 17:53 |
| ogelbukh | any deployment tool, eventually | 17:53 |
| ogelbukh | right? | 17:53 |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh yep | 17:53 |
| *** jumper4567 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:53 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh by specifying all configurations that could be specifed | 17:54 |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh so to make it simple to use | 17:54 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:54 | |
| ogelbukh | you need good configuration model then ) | 17:54 |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh without any knowladge | 17:54 |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh I think that current stuff is pretty good | 17:54 |
| *** tnurlygayanov_ has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh we just need to split deploy/benchamrk workflows | 17:54 |
| *** vipul is now known as vipul-away | 17:54 | |
| ogelbukh | that's for sure | 17:54 |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh and I think that during this week we will finish work on that | 17:54 |
| *** jumper4567 has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh there are just few patches that should be merged | 17:55 |
| ogelbukh | looking forward to it | 17:55 |
| *** jumper4567 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/rally+branch:master+topic:bp/independent-deploy,n,z | 17:55 |
| Alexei_987 | boris-42: 5 minutes left :) | 17:55 |
| ogelbukh | we'll need this stuff really soon ) | 17:55 |
| *** shardy has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** markpeek has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| boris-42 | #topic Okay last topic is make Rally as a Service | 17:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Okay last topic is make Rally as a Service (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:56 | |
| *** markpeek has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** hemnafk is now known as hemna | 17:56 | |
| boris-42 | We should determine API that should provide Rally services | 17:56 |
| *** FallenPegasus has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| boris-42 | so we started this ether pad https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/rally-service-api | 17:57 |
| ogelbukh | nice ) | 17:57 |
| boris-42 | I will also make some email in mailing list about this=) | 17:57 |
| boris-42 | so everybody that would like to discuss this will be able to take a part | 17:57 |
| *** jlibosva has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| boris-42 | Service is actually very important | 17:58 |
| *** twoputt has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| *** twoputt_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| boris-42 | because it is base step to make WEB UI for Rally | 17:58 |
| *** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| boris-42 | that will be our next major goal | 17:58 |
| boris-42 | #topic free discussion | 17:58 |
| ogelbukh | boris-42: and many other things, I dare to say ) | 17:58 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "free discussion (Meeting topic: Rally)" | 17:58 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| boris-42 | =)) | 17:58 |
| boris-42 | I think that there will be no free discussion today=) | 17:59 |
| boris-42 | because we don't have enough time=) | 17:59 |
| ogelbukh | btw, found this tool for api design: apiary.io | 17:59 |
| ogelbukh | looks neat | 17:59 |
| boris-42 | #endmeeting | 17:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 17:59 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 17:59:37 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 17:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rally/2013/rally.2013-11-26-17.02.html | 17:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rally/2013/rally.2013-11-26-17.02.txt | 17:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rally/2013/rally.2013-11-26-17.02.log.html | 17:59 |
| *** jumper4567 has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| boris-42 | ogelbukh what is this?) | 17:59 |
| ayoung | KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN gasp EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE | 18:00 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| boris-42 | ayoung lol | 18:00 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, share with the rest of the class? | 18:00 |
| lbragstad | morganfainberg: +1 | 18:00 |
| dolphm | \o/ | 18:00 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 18:00 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| lbragstad | hey | 18:00 |
| gyee | free the birds! | 18:00 |
| fabiog | Hi | 18:00 |
| bknudson | hi | 18:00 |
| shardy | o/ | 18:00 |
| *** Alexei_987 has left #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| *** nachi has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** jamielennox has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| dolphm | i assume a few people are MIA this week | 18:01 |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| * morganfainberg is mia mentally. | 18:01 | |
| morganfainberg | *shifty eyes* | 18:02 |
| gyee | morganfainberg, same here | 18:02 |
| dolphm | was hoping henrynash would be here, as filtering is icehouse-m1 targetted | 18:02 |
| ayoung | Oooh. | 18:02 |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| dolphm | #startmeeting keystone | 18:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 18:02:47 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dolphm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: keystone)" | 18:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'keystone' | 18:02 |
| dolphm | #topic icehouse-m1 | 18:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "icehouse-m1 (Meeting topic: keystone)" | 18:02 | |
| dolphm | is next week! | 18:02 |
| *** marekd-mobile has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| dolphm | our list of BP's is very short | 18:03 |
| morganfainberg | so soon! | 18:03 |
| *** bradjones has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| ayoung | M1 always catches people by surprise | 18:03 |
| dolphm | i bumped quotas to m2 recently, as warranted by the additional discussions at the summit | 18:03 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, no one expects M1 (eh, it's missing something) | 18:03 |
| dolphm | ayoung: ++ | 18:03 |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| ayoung | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/icehouse-1 | 18:03 |
| dolphm | dstanek is working on two other bp's that i'm hoping to have merged this week | 18:04 |
| dolphm | i think updates are in progress for both, but: | 18:04 |
| dolphm | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/50491/ | 18:04 |
| dolphm | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52456/ | 18:04 |
| *** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| dolphm | ayoung: danke | 18:04 |
| ayoung | Code review or implemented for all. | 18:04 |
| dolphm | if there are any other blueprints that should be targeting m1 - speak up! | 18:04 |
| ayoung | KDS? | 18:05 |
| ayoung | Heh | 18:05 |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 18:05 | |
| *** eyerediskin has left #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| ayoung | seriously, though, it should have been | 18:05 |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| dolphm | that mailing list discussion is very indecisive -- i thought we had a firm direction on that early last week | 18:05 |
| jamielennox | yes, well KDS doesn't look like it did at the end of H | 18:05 |
| dolphm | now it should be in barbican and in keystone and it's own standalone service | 18:05 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 18:05 | |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, the decision i'm hearing is, in keystone, move to it's own thing or barbican later | 18:06 |
| *** cfriesen has left #openstack-meeting | 18:06 | |
| bknudson | I'm still a little confused about KDS -- PKI is no good, but you're going to need PKI anyways for SSL. | 18:06 |
| *** uaberme has quit IRC | 18:06 | |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, otherwise you need to use a non-integrated project to secure messaging | 18:06 |
| jamielennox | so my understanding is we are going with keystone extension - ? | 18:06 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, and separate wSGI/port | 18:06 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 18:06 | |
| jamielennox | i disagree on the seperate port | 18:06 |
| jamielennox | or at least i don't see any reason for it | 18:06 |
| dolphm | morganfainberg: then it might as well be based on falcon or pecan/wsme | 18:07 |
| morganfainberg | jamielennox, isolation since it'll move out of keystone | 18:07 |
| ayoung | jamielennox and I discussed this. | 18:07 |
| bknudson | shouldn't need a separate port... that's what resource paths are for. | 18:07 |
| jamielennox | but it's still going to have to live in keystone/contrib anyway | 18:07 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, i guess the last part, port/wsgi is not needed. | 18:07 |
| ayoung | I suggested a separate port to facilitate splitting it of completely | 18:07 |
| dolphm | bknudson: ayoung wants it to be a standalone service | 18:07 |
| gyee | if its an *internal* service, why does it matter where you stash it as anything internal is subject to change | 18:07 |
| bknudson | I thought ayoung wanted everything in httpd? | 18:07 |
| ayoung | dolphm, still do...but we have committments to meet | 18:08 |
| ayoung | bknudson, this is tactical, not strategic. I don;t want KDS in Keystone long term | 18:08 |
| jamielennox | if the config file is point to the base_url for KDS then it should make no difference if it is KDS=http://localhost:5000/v3/OS-EXT-KDS/v1 or KDS=http://localhost:8888/v1 | 18:08 |
| morganfainberg | so, short answer, it looks like it should be in keystone until it can be split. - and i'm fine with that. | 18:08 |
| dolphm | bknudson: so, supported and reviewed by keystone-core, but a completely separate standalone service that has nothing to do with identity | 18:08 |
| ayoung | and I sort of agree with jamielennox on his point | 18:08 |
| dolphm | that means it's own catalog entry, etc | 18:08 |
| jamielennox | before dolphm and ayoung's patch to port it various place i had mostly done a port to it's own service based on pecan/wsme | 18:09 |
| bknudson | it's a good idea to have a catalog entry if it's going to move. | 18:09 |
| ayoung | but still think we will have less trouble splitting it if we get people starting from KDS root instead of auth_url... | 18:09 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, dolphm, i think it needs to be in the catalog and be discoverable. | 18:09 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: is that in review somewhere? | 18:09 |
| ayoung | morganfainberg, hells not | 18:09 |
| jamielennox | i was hoping that i could just drop it in as an extension using wsme and pecan in a way that it is easily extractable | 18:09 |
| ayoung | no no no no no | 18:09 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, discoverable at least. | 18:09 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: not finished | 18:09 |
| ayoung | NO! | 18:09 |
| ayoung | morganfainberg, not our job to do that | 18:09 |
| jamielennox | no KDS should not be in the servcie catalog | 18:09 |
| ayoung | you are lifting up the side of the tent and inviting the camel in | 18:09 |
| dolphm | ayoung: you're asking for it to be a separate service, but you don't want it to be discoverable? | 18:09 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, so hard set uri? | 18:09 |
| ayoung | sop many things need to be discoverable in the undercloud....but it is not for us to say how that is to be done | 18:10 |
| lifeless | bauzas: I live in NZ - UTC+13 | 18:10 |
| dolphm | s/undercloud/meaningful language/g | 18:10 |
| ayoung | dolphm, it is no different than compute figuring out where the RPC server/message broker is. | 18:10 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, in the triple-o sense, the management layer (e.g. nova processes themselves) | 18:11 |
| morganfainberg | keystone service, not to be confused by something an end-user would access/consume to make an instance/project/etc | 18:11 |
| lifeless | morganfainberg: oh man, so thats not the tripleo sense :) | 18:11 |
| ayoung | dolphm, undercloud has come to be a useful term...out of tripleO to distinguish between the services exposed to end users vs those that are Internal to the OS deployment. | 18:11 |
| lifeless | the undercloud is the openstack infrastructure deploying cloud. | 18:11 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: KDS is going to be similar to configuring MySQL or AMPQ. It is not a service that is used at a client level | 18:11 |
| morganfainberg | lifeless, ok ok fine, in the not-so-triple-o-sense | 18:11 |
| morganfainberg | lifeless, in the. not public consumption sense. | 18:12 |
| dolphm | lifeless: ++ | 18:12 |
| bknudson | I think there's a DBaaS project. | 18:12 |
| ayoung | so my suggesting: use jamielennox 's pecan approach, but kick it off from keystone-all | 18:12 |
| *** aguzikova has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:12 | |
| bknudson | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove | 18:12 |
| ayoung | suggestion | 18:12 |
| dolphm | ayoung: why do you want it to be started by keystone-all? why not just bin/keydist or something? | 18:13 |
| dstanek | ayoung: in the same process or using a different port? | 18:13 |
| jamielennox | you can nest wsgi applications, so there should be no reason that the pecan/wsme app can't live and run as an extension | 18:13 |
| bknudson | I don't have a problem with it as a different service. | 18:13 |
| ayoung | bknudson, that is for end user consumption...just like Barbican was supposed to be. | 18:13 |
| morganfainberg | if it's a separate service, keystone-all seems like the wrong place to start it. | 18:13 |
| dolphm | morganfainberg: ++ | 18:13 |
| lifeless | morganfainberg: a key (har har) thing to note is that the nova cloud we deploy - the overcloud - can only use public services from the undercloud (e.g. heat) - so if KDS was 'within the cloud only' we'd deploy one KDS per overcloud. | 18:13 |
| fabiog | morganfainberg + | 18:13 |
| bknudson | shouldn't call it keystone-all if it doesn't start everything | 18:13 |
| lifeless | morganfainberg: rather than one in the undercloud and use it from the overcloud | 18:13 |
| dolphm | morganfainberg: i'd rather get as much of the separation correct from the beginning | 18:13 |
| bknudson | change it to keystone-some | 18:13 |
| morganfainberg | bknudson, but KDS isn't... keystone really. | 18:13 |
| *** sushils has quit IRC | 18:13 | |
| dolphm | bknudson: but it's not keystone-* | 18:13 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, ++ | 18:13 |
| morganfainberg | lifeless, as stated above, KDS would be like ZMQ or AMQ | 18:14 |
| bknudson | so a new bin/kds ? | 18:14 |
| ayoung | dolphm, you know what, that works too. not keystone-all, but kdsd or something works for me | 18:14 |
| *** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:14 | |
| * mordred lurking, reading through scrollback - I hear we're talking about fun things | 18:14 | |
| dolphm | bknudson: yeah | 18:15 |
| dstanek | so what i'm hearing so far is new start script in bin and new service on a new port | 18:15 |
| bknudson | I don't have a problem with a separate bin... seems like an impl detail. | 18:15 |
| dstanek | is that right? | 18:15 |
| ayoung | jamielennox, would bin/kdsd make more sense? And then not an extension? | 18:15 |
| dolphm | dstanek: ++ | 18:15 |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:16 | |
| jamielennox | ayoung: i'm still advocating the extension makes more sense, but if the consensus is new service then so be it | 18:16 |
| jamielennox | i just want the consensus part | 18:16 |
| *** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:16 | |
| dstanek | jamielennox: why do you think it makes more sense? | 18:16 |
| bknudson | what's the port for kds? | 18:16 |
| dolphm | #agreed kds to have it's own bin/* startup script to run on it's own port | 18:16 |
| bknudson | (default port) | 18:17 |
| *** DennyZhang has quit IRC | 18:17 | |
| jamielennox | dstanek: the reason for it being a new service is purely so it is easily extractable later - i don't think that this makes any sense as we can already nest all the kds info into the extension | 18:17 |
| jamielennox | and this is what extensions are for | 18:17 |
| atiwari | 239297 | 18:17 |
| ayoung | jamielennox, new service, with an eye to completely extracting it from the keystone code base. | 18:17 |
| ayoung | bknudson, port 88 | 18:17 |
| dolphm | bknudson: random(1025, 32767) | 18:17 |
| fabiog | dolphm: I would like to come to a conclusion with the OS-SHARED-SECRET, please. It has been around for too long ... | 18:18 |
| * ayoung waits for you all to look in /etc/services for port 88 | 18:18 | |
| dolphm | fabiog: it's on the agenda | 18:18 |
| *** gokrokve has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| dolphm | fabiog: kds has been around far longer :) | 18:18 |
| fabiog | dolphm: thanks, just checking we will have time for it ... | 18:18 |
| *** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:18 | |
| jamielennox | so out of interest where does a new service in keystone live (code wise) | 18:18 |
| jamielennox | top level? keystone/kds | 18:18 |
| morganfainberg | jamielennox, there was some talk of a new repo | 18:19 |
| ayoung | jamielennox, we can leave it in contrib for now | 18:19 |
| jamielennox | morganfainberg: can't happen for now | 18:19 |
| morganfainberg | but contrib is the right place | 18:19 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: sure -- it'd be nice if it didn't import anything from outside keystone.kds though :) | 18:19 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: you could also isolate it's testing infrastructure -- keystone.tests.kds.* | 18:19 |
| ayoung | dolphm, it just uses some keystone.common which should be acceptable | 18:19 |
| bknudson | is there going to be a kds-manage ? | 18:19 |
| mordred | dolphm: well, maybe keystone.openstack.common | 18:19 |
| mordred | ayoung: ++ :) | 18:19 |
| dolphm | ayoung: -- | 18:19 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: yep that was the idea - openstack.common was the only one i had to share | 18:19 |
| bknudson | to create the db tables. | 18:20 |
| dolphm | mordred: ++ | 18:20 |
| ayoung | bknudson, so far, no. If we need it, then we will add it. | 18:20 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: cool | 18:20 |
| mordred | tests in kds.tests should work too | 18:20 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: make it as easy as possible to move to a top level project | 18:20 |
| mordred | shoudl be found by test discovery - doesn't matter - we do that in horizon | 18:20 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: or if barbican is the correct home for it, base it on falcon... | 18:20 |
| ayoung | We have a plan? Itsounds like we have a plan. | 18:20 |
| mordred | only thing that can be split split is distribution targets - only one setup.py/tarball output | 18:21 |
| dolphm | mordred: that works for me keystone.kds.tests | 18:21 |
| mordred | don't base anyhting on falcon please | 18:21 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: my understanding is that we can mix pecan/wsme and keystone - but falcon is a framework as well | 18:21 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, pecan/wsme? | 18:21 |
| mordred | please | 18:21 |
| jamielennox | sorry, falcon is a server as well | 18:21 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, ok | 18:21 |
| dolphm | mordred: fine by me | 18:21 |
| mordred | we've got to stop having framework wars around here | 18:21 |
| mordred | cause eek | 18:21 |
| ayoung | I thought Barbican was a project, and Cloud Keep was a program. Did that change? KDS should stay its own project | 18:21 |
| dolphm | mordred: pecan/wsme is more tempting to me for keystone, long term | 18:21 |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| morganfainberg | mordred, lets make our own framework, that is subtly different and standardize on that /s (xkcd ref in here somewhewre) | 18:22 |
| dolphm | ayoung: that's still the case | 18:22 |
| ayoung | It can be under the CLoudKeep program then, when it spins up | 18:22 |
| mordred | morganfainberg: YES! do that | 18:22 |
| dolphm | morganfainberg: is that not keystone.common.wsgi lol? | 18:22 |
| mordred | (programs usually have descriptive names. /me stop trolling) | 18:22 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, oh no, we need something new! | 18:22 |
| *** gokrokve has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| dolphm | morganfainberg: oh right! keystone.common.superwsgi | 18:23 |
| morganfainberg | dolphm, *stops being snarky / off topic* | 18:23 |
| *** boris-42 has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| ayoung | jamielennox, do you have enough to execute off of here? | 18:23 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: so, what milestone are we looking at :) | 18:23 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: m2? possible for nova to consume by m3? | 18:23 |
| bknudson | kds looks like a lot of work | 18:23 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: well it's not m1 | 18:23 |
| bknudson | lots of code | 18:24 |
| jamielennox | m2 should be fine | 18:24 |
| morganfainberg | jamielennox, m2 would be _very_ good | 18:24 |
| bknudson | I just hope it doesn't get dumped on us in one big review. | 18:24 |
| jamielennox | bknudson: 1 for framework, 1 for host keys, 1 for group keys | 18:24 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: do you have a link to the bp for kds? | 18:24 |
| lbragstad | bknudson: +1 | 18:24 |
| dolphm | i can't find it... | 18:24 |
| *** herndon has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:24 | |
| ayoung | We have nkinder from RH engaged as well. He is going to take a swipe at the API doc for KDS | 18:24 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, ++ nice. | 18:25 |
| *** nkinder has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:25 | |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, hopefully it isn't too much work to get it into shape | 18:25 |
| ayoung | morganfainberg, he's the Manager for Dogtag, and has a strong crypto background. | 18:25 |
| dolphm | ayoung: thank you! | 18:25 |
| bknudson | jamielennox: 6 for framework, 8 for host keys, 4 for group keys. | 18:25 |
| nkinder | ayoung: hi all | 18:25 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, woot! | 18:25 |
| morganfainberg | nkinder, yay! | 18:25 |
| ayoung | nkinder, was just saying... | 18:25 |
| ayoung | We have nkinder from RH engaged as well. He is going to take a swipe at the API doc for KDS | 18:25 |
| dolphm | alright, let's move on | 18:25 |
| *** msdubov has quit IRC | 18:25 | |
| jamielennox | bknudson: takes me long enough to get my regular reviews past | 18:25 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: poke me with the bp link if you have it | 18:26 |
| bknudson | jamielennox: because they're too big! | 18:26 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: this is the oslo one: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+spec/trusted-messaging | 18:26 |
| nkinder | Yep. It's on my list for the thanksgiving break | 18:26 |
| morganfainberg | nkinder, very awesome. and thanks! | 18:26 |
| nkinder | I'm curious to know how much belongs in the API doc vs. Keystone docs? | 18:26 |
| jamielennox | maybe there isn't one for keystone... /me inheritted a lot of this | 18:26 |
| dolphm | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server | 18:26 |
| nkinder | Some of this is really implementation behind the API | 18:27 |
| bknudson | nkinder: implementation doesn't belong in api doc. | 18:27 |
| gyee | if you use wsme, you auto generate the docs? | 18:27 |
| dolphm | #topic Password rotation | 18:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Password rotation (Meeting topic: keystone)" | 18:27 | |
| morganfainberg | nkinder, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40692/ is the original api doc | 18:27 |
| ayoung | nkinder, we were thinking more along the lines of "how would an end user actuall consume this, and what would they expect" | 18:28 |
| morganfainberg | nkinder, if that helps. | 18:28 |
| dolphm | fabiog: o/ | 18:28 |
| ayoung | OK, so multiple shared secrets is bad | 18:28 |
| gyee | ayoung, is a business use case | 18:28 |
| MarkAtwood | but useful | 18:28 |
| ayoung | I've been reviewing, discussing, and stick to my guns on this one. | 18:28 |
| ayoung | gyee, then do it outside of Keystone | 18:28 |
| ayoung | or use the exsitng abstractions differently | 18:28 |
| gyee | ayoung, services needs to integrate with it | 18:28 |
| ayoung | gyee, no they don | 18:29 |
| ayoung | t | 18:29 |
| gyee | its been propose as *an extension* | 18:29 |
| gyee | proposed | 18:29 |
| ayoung | gyee, no | 18:29 |
| ayoung | it is an end run around security | 18:29 |
| dolphm | gyee: you can always publish extensions out of tree | 18:29 |
| fabiog | ayoung: and it is using the same concept as EC2, that is already there | 18:29 |
| ayoung | do it outside of Keystone altogether if you like | 18:29 |
| *** vipul-away is now known as vipul | 18:29 | |
| MarkAtwood | and fork the keystone protocol | 18:29 |
| *** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| bknudson | it's a lot of work to maintain something out of tree... | 18:30 |
| gyee | this is no different than KDS, Trust, or OAUTH | 18:30 |
| lbragstad | bknudson: +1 | 18:30 |
| bknudson | especially since we have no guarantee of internal API stability | 18:30 |
| gyee | why is this an exception? | 18:30 |
| fabiog | bknudson + | 18:30 |
| dolphm | bknudson: it's a lot of work for keystone-core to maintain features that aren't consumed by openstack as well | 18:30 |
| morganfainberg | fabiog, MarkAtwood, really quickly, you want to avoid using the current credential implementation? it seems to already hit the mark, just without the "password" mechanism directly | 18:30 |
| gyee | dolphm, CI/CD and other service are waiting to integrate, so I heard | 18:30 |
| *** xga__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:31 | |
| MarkAtwood | monty, would CI use it if it was in? | 18:31 |
| ayoung | the list of potential security concerns with multiple passwords/symetric shared secretes far outweighs the benefits. | 18:31 |
| ayoung | outweigh | 18:31 |
| gyee | ayoung, what security concern? the risk is no different that passwords | 18:31 |
| gyee | did you read my responses in the review? | 18:32 |
| ayoung | gyee, it multiplies the issues with passwrods, and adds in the "oh, I disabled this one, but that one is still active" | 18:32 |
| dolphm | ayoung: that seems very backwards to me - do you have reasoning? | 18:32 |
| MarkAtwood | google does it, amazon does it, fb auth does it | 18:32 |
| bknudson | one could use an ldap server that supported multiple passwords. | 18:32 |
| bknudson | not sure if there are any, but if you had your own ldap implementation... | 18:32 |
| gyee | ayoung, you disable a user, not a password | 18:32 |
| fabiog | morganfainberg: we need an auth method to leverage the current credential API | 18:32 |
| *** ruhe has quit IRC | 18:32 | |
| mordred | wait - can someone talk to me very shortly like I'm a moron? | 18:32 |
| nachi | gyee + | 18:33 |
| *** acoles has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:33 | |
| dolphm | gyee: users aren't much more than passwords anyway :) | 18:33 |
| mordred | is this about the rackspace extension that's not compatible with anything ? | 18:33 |
| mordred | we stoped using that in infra | 18:33 |
| mordred | because it's not in keystone for real | 18:33 |
| MarkAtwood | mordred, no its about the one that hpcloud is running | 18:33 |
| mordred | we don't use that either | 18:33 |
| gyee | dolphm, points is once you disabled a user, all his credentials are effectively disabled | 18:33 |
| bknudson | is hpcloud using this already? | 18:33 |
| gyee | easy to contain the risk | 18:33 |
| MarkAtwood | if it was in keystone, would you use it? | 18:33 |
| ayoung | gyee, right now, the "user" object is really an ID and a password. There is nothing more to it. The same thing that you were trying to do with multiple shared secrets can be done with multiple user accounts. Yes, it complicates external systems mapping one external acount to Keystone, but that is not a keystone issue. | 18:33 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, no. this would be to be able to rotate passwords without eliminating access until it is explicitly revoked | 18:33 |
| mordred | can anyone explain to me, in very simple terms, why haivng an api key is better than having a password? | 18:33 |
| MarkAtwood | bknudson | 18:33 |
| MarkAtwood | yes we are, we want to give this work to the community | 18:34 |
| ayoung | I see no benefit to contributing to the mess that is the Keystone password system already | 18:34 |
| mordred | when the password gives me access to muck with api keys? | 18:34 |
| MarkAtwood | basically ALL of our industrial users are using the feature | 18:34 |
| *** xga_ has quit IRC | 18:34 | |
| dolphm | ayoung: agree - the only downside (at minimum) is having to manage group membership to apply authorization | 18:34 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, that is the crux of the argument, but in short the argument is to allow access w/o having to change all systems that use that password at once (rolling auth change) | 18:34 |
| bknudson | seems like if it's been implemented somewhere already for some time and have found it useful then that's a good candidate to go into keystone proper. | 18:34 |
| jamielennox | mordred: as i understand it the main benefit would be allowing different api keys on for example different nova hosts but still sharing the same service user | 18:34 |
| dolphm | ayoung: multiple 'passwords' per user ID avoids the re-assignment problem | 18:34 |
| jamielennox | i don't think this is about rotation yet | 18:34 |
| ayoung | dolphm, and, if they use external auth, the logic that they want can be done, without adding anything to keystone | 18:35 |
| MarkAtwood | our users assign a different "application password" to each app or subsystem | 18:35 |
| mordred | ok. I can see why people might want that | 18:35 |
| mordred | well, some of your users do | 18:35 |
| *** acoles_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| mordred | some of us just use the one password | 18:35 |
| MarkAtwood | and then can track which ones are being used, and can disable indivual ones, and set expirations for them | 18:35 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, jamielennox, rotation is part-in-parcel of this but it is a side effect. | 18:35 |
| *** ruhe has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| jamielennox | morganfainberg: yea, it allows rotation but it's a side effect | 18:35 |
| morganfainberg | what MarkAtwood just described ^ | 18:35 |
| ayoung | So if you want multiple passwords, go for it, but use basic-auth and external, and then map from the credential to the user id in an auth plugin | 18:35 |
| MarkAtwood | ayoung, can you explain basic-auth to me and "external" | 18:36 |
| gyee | MarkAtwood, means using Apache :) | 18:36 |
| gyee | or Nginx | 18:36 |
| MarkAtwood | http basic auth cannot be trusted to go through SSL accelerations and load balancers | 18:36 |
| ayoung | gyee, or even in Keystone | 18:36 |
| bknudson | doesn't seem like any clients actually support using basic-auth. | 18:36 |
| *** acoles has left #openstack-meeting | 18:36 | |
| mordred | ayoung: I would like for our public clouds to stop having divergent auth methods | 18:36 |
| *** DinaBelova has quit IRC | 18:36 | |
| mordred | ayoung: because that's the first thing people interact with | 18:37 |
| ayoung | MarkAtwood, basic auth is the HTTP mechanism for userid and password | 18:37 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:37 | |
| gyee | bknudson, nope, not right now | 18:37 |
| ayoung | I have a proof of concept...one sec | 18:37 |
| mordred | and if you have to do something 'special' that's not discoverable | 18:37 |
| dolphm | MarkAtwood: interesting, i've never thought about that | 18:37 |
| MarkAtwood | ayoung, it doesnt work. i have been down this path when writing OAuth | 18:37 |
| mordred | to conenect to rackspace and to connect to hp | 18:37 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| mordred | then we're not interoperable | 18:37 |
| mordred | and all of openstack dies | 18:37 |
| mordred | this is the reason I'm so generally pissed off about the rackspace auth extension | 18:37 |
| *** ativelkov has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| ayoung | https://github.com/admiyo/keystone/commit/2f5243d779c39f8f5ed2df128e68090df440012f | 18:37 |
| mordred | because it's TECHNICALLY a legal auth extension | 18:37 |
| MarkAtwood | basic auth looks great, excpe that load balancers mangle it, transparent proxys mangle it, ssl accelerators mangle it, and apache does not pass it down to the app | 18:37 |
| mordred | but it changes the user experience in ways they have to know more than "this is an openstack cloud" | 18:38 |
| mordred | so if this is an issue that we know is going to make all of our public clouds diverge from what openstack is - I think that's a Really Bad Thing | 18:38 |
| bknudson | mordred: I hope that doesn't mean we're stuck with least-common-denominator (user+password) | 18:38 |
| mordred | THAT SAID | 18:38 |
| gyee | mordred, we can propose it a core if makes you a happier man :) | 18:38 |
| dolphm | mordred: ++ | 18:38 |
| MarkAtwood | hp's fallback is to stop this merge effort and put it under the HPAPI: extenstion, which just makes it worse | 18:38 |
| mordred | the public clouds should have more devs working on keystone | 18:38 |
| gyee | core API I mean | 18:39 |
| dolphm | mordred: working on it! | 18:39 |
| MarkAtwood | mordred: working on it! | 18:39 |
| MarkAtwood | :) | 18:39 |
| mordred | so - I'm a bit more than pissed off at the fac that we have companies in here trying to throw weight behing "we're a big company, listen to us" | 18:39 |
| ayoung | MarkAtwood, you know what, you just argued against doing anything with standard HTTP. | 18:39 |
| MarkAtwood | ayoung yes i know i did. and it sucks | 18:39 |
| MarkAtwood | i was on your side of this argument 6 years ago | 18:40 |
| ayoung | I realize Apache does not pass it down to the app, but Apache can handle basic auth for you already | 18:40 |
| ayoung | so that one gets passed through as REMOTE_USER | 18:40 |
| MarkAtwood | not all of use run Apache | 18:40 |
| dstanek | MarkAtwood: i have not seen the issues your talking about with basic-auth | 18:40 |
| MarkAtwood | do you really want to make the web server daemon a dependency | 18:40 |
| ayoung | MarkAtwood, absolutelty | 18:40 |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, i've seen those issues with some SSL accelerators and LB systems | 18:40 |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, they do a lot of mangling at the larger scale implementations ot get their job done | 18:41 |
| bknudson | a web server is better at serving web responses than our basic keystone impl will be. | 18:41 |
| dstanek | morganfainberg: do they remove the headers? | 18:41 |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, they can. | 18:41 |
| *** jlibosva has quit IRC | 18:41 | |
| MarkAtwood | and REMOTE_USER doesnt work when you're running apache as a proxy | 18:41 |
| *** Linz has quit IRC | 18:41 | |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, depends on the LB etc | 18:41 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:41 | |
| dstanek | morganfainberg: that sucks, sounds like broken gear | 18:41 |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, and reverse proxying does lots of odd stuff. | 18:41 |
| *** Linz has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:41 | |
| dolphm | MarkAtwood: i'm in favor of leveraging what we can, and i have yet to see *any* specific pushback against requiring httpd | 18:42 |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, not so much broken, but configured as such because it's needed to leverage the farm behind it. | 18:42 |
| *** david-lyle_afk is now known as david-lyle | 18:42 | |
| *** fbo is now known as fbo_away | 18:42 | |
| dstanek | morganfainberg: broken in that they are violating the HTTP protocol right? | 18:42 |
| MarkAtwood | dstanek, its not even a violation of protocol | 18:42 |
| mordred | so - is the opposition to the mutliple token thing | 18:42 |
| morganfainberg | dstanek, headers dont have to be passed on. etc. | 18:42 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov_ has quit IRC | 18:42 | |
| MarkAtwood | the w3c have beeen rank cowards about it | 18:42 |
| mordred | the implementaion of managing the tokens? | 18:43 |
| mordred | or being able to expose the consumption one in the protocol? | 18:43 |
| mordred | s/one/of one/ | 18:43 |
| ayoung | mordred, multiple tokens? Or multiple passwords? | 18:43 |
| gyee | if we are using external auth it means accounts are managed outside of Keystone | 18:43 |
| mordred | ayoung: passwords | 18:43 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, correct inverse, mutiple passwords any one of them can issue the same token. | 18:43 |
| dstanek | gyee: do you have a review or bp i can look at? | 18:43 |
| morganfainberg | same token in this context = same roles/etc in the data (not physically the exact same token) | 18:43 |
| ayoung | mordred, my feeling is that Keystone should never have been attempting to manage passwords in the first place, and we should not attempt to increase its scope. | 18:44 |
| *** lsmola has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:44 | |
| mordred | ayoung: honestly, the thing I care about is that there is a consistent user-facing api to access this stuff for cloud consumers - if HP and rax each do a plugin to deal with multi-passsword-mapping-to-user on the admin side, I dont care | 18:44 |
| gyee | dstanek, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46771/ | 18:44 |
| mordred | ayoung: well, thing is - it's an interface to the exstence of passwords | 18:44 |
| mordred | whether it manages them itself or not | 18:44 |
| gyee | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46771/ | 18:44 |
| mordred | I mean, the system that actually owns the passwords at HP is not keystone, it's something else - but keystone is the thing that the user talks to | 18:44 |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:44 | |
| ayoung | mordred and the use case they are asking for could be done in the existing mechanisms | 18:45 |
| mordred | I imagine at many private clouds it's AD or LDAP that owns the passwords | 18:45 |
| ayoung | mordred, or even a pre-existing SQL database | 18:45 |
| morganfainberg | mordred, one challenge comes from IdP (identity provider such as ldap) and now having passwords that are indepenant/managed separately from it. you're no longer relying on the IdP for AuthN | 18:45 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:45 | |
| dolphm | gyee: thanks, i should have linked that at the top | 18:45 |
| ayoung | that does not map to what SQLAlchemy in Keystone expectes or provides | 18:45 |
| *** bradjones has quit IRC | 18:45 | |
| MarkAtwood | does anyone use the idp for passwords at scale? | 18:45 |
| mordred | ayoung: by existing mechanism, you mean in the keystone protocol? or using specific things in an apache deployment choice | 18:46 |
| gyee | please take a look at the comments in detail in that review | 18:46 |
| MarkAtwood | i remember watching the rdo demo about how they dont either | 18:46 |
| * mordred trying to catch up on lots of tech details really quickly | 18:46 | |
| gyee | alternatively, we can add the "expried_at" field for a password | 18:46 |
| dolphm | ayoung: by your reasoning, all of this should be handled by an alternative password auth plugin, correct? | 18:46 |
| gyee | so a password is no longer valid after the upgrade | 18:46 |
| ayoung | BTW, there are several other security professionals that have weighed in on that review. I'll leave it to you guys to read their feedback | 18:46 |
| MarkAtwood | we keep the passwords and appkeys in a seperate system because it's keep MUCH more secure against read and access than the IdP | 18:47 |
| gyee | ayoung, I've responded to the security professionals in that review | 18:47 |
| ayoung | dolphm, I would not even feel comfortable agreeing to that | 18:47 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| dolphm | ayoung: why not? | 18:47 |
| *** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:47 | |
| morganfainberg | MarkAtwood, that argues for a separate auth plugin, that just overloads the current password one. | 18:47 |
| morganfainberg | MarkAtwood, simplest solution? | 18:47 |
| morganfainberg | s/overloads/overrides | 18:47 |
| MarkAtwood | ayoung, you want to remove login shared secrets from keystone entirely? | 18:48 |
| ayoung | dolphm, we can do it with the mapping piece from federation | 18:48 |
| mordred | MarkAtwood: that sounds sane to me - no? | 18:48 |
| mordred | the end user shouldn't need to tell keystone anything new about the tyep of password, no? | 18:48 |
| dolphm | ayoung: i don't follow that at all? | 18:48 |
| dolphm | ayoung: this is about keystone's idp, not delegated authorization | 18:48 |
| jamielennox | so would a compromise be to bump the role for installing a SHARED-SECRET to admin (or something new) so that it could be set up for use by services but not be user facing? | 18:48 |
| morganfainberg | and we have agreed internally to maintain internal API stability for 1 cycle (to the best of our ability) so maintaining the plugin shouldn't be too onerous. | 18:49 |
| gyee | this is not about federation, it a simple case of password rotation for rolling upgrade | 18:49 |
| MarkAtwood | its useful for user facing | 18:49 |
| MarkAtwood | users use it | 18:49 |
| gyee | please don't make it any more complicated | 18:49 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: that's entirely user facing | 18:49 |
| ayoung | dolphm, I was saying that they could keep the passwords outside of Keystone using mod_auth_sql and then map REMOTE_USER to user_Id and get the same effect | 18:49 |
| ayoung | that does not require an explicit plugin | 18:49 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: that's just a question of "which" users | 18:49 |
| mordred | MarkAtwood: but where do users use it? and does that require protocol violations? | 18:49 |
| mordred | for normal auth | 18:49 |
| ayoung | but that keeps it from being Keystone's problem, and uses a well tested mechanism. | 18:49 |
| dolphm | gyee: and you specifically only care about "service users", correct? | 18:50 |
| gyee | dolphm, yes, but service user is a user | 18:50 |
| ayoung | dolphm, I would allow for an extension that did the same based on the current password plugin | 18:50 |
| MarkAtwood | users use it when they are running multiple applications in their account | 18:50 |
| jamielennox | fair enough, guess my expected usage is different | 18:50 |
| dolphm | gyee: correct- i'm just pointing out that's our agreed long term use case for keystone's own idp | 18:50 |
| ayoung | but I would not want it installed by default | 18:50 |
| MarkAtwood | telling the users and operators to open a new account for each application is a non-starter | 18:50 |
| ayoung | and...no. Each time I think it htrough, I see a slew of problems. | 18:50 |
| ayoung | MarkAtwood, I thought all of that was handled through your backend CRM system anywa | 18:51 |
| ayoung | y | 18:51 |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| gyee | ayoung, suspending multiple account in order to suspend a user is pretty complicated | 18:51 |
| bknudson | ayoung: are the problems worse than just having username/password ? How is 2 passwords worse than 1? | 18:51 |
| *** isviridov has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| ayoung | But password rotation needs two passwords, and unique ways to identify them. If you want rotation, use two users. | 18:52 |
| gyee | look, this is being proposed as an extension, means disabled by default | 18:52 |
| morganfainberg | ayoung, it's a fair request that a service user can be used for multiple things. | 18:52 |
| * dolphm 8 minutes remaining | 18:52 | |
| MarkAtwood | no. the links between CRM and the operations are not deep, for security and auditing reasons | 18:52 |
| *** xga__ has quit IRC | 18:52 | |
| mordred | ayoung: so, it has just been pointed out that multi-password would be useful by openstack-infra | 18:52 |
| lifeless | I'm going to pipe up here | 18:52 |
| gyee | mordred, for password rotation, heck yeah! | 18:52 |
| mordred | we currently maintain 3 different accounts on each cloud so that we can ensure that one of our apps doesn't accidentally delete gerrit | 18:52 |
| mordred | no - not for that | 18:53 |
| atiwari | ayoung, can we talk about service scoped roles definition link:https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/service-scoped-role-definition? | 18:53 |
| mordred | for role protection | 18:53 |
| mordred | we have nodepool, which is very dynamic | 18:53 |
| lifeless | and say this is an important story for ops in TripleO's opinion. There are many ways to slice it but: we want graceful rotations. | 18:53 |
| *** aguzikova has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| atiwari | I looked at your proposal which is like "keystone:manager" name spacing the role name, does not handle all the issue mentioned in BP. | 18:53 |
| mordred | and then we have some servers which deleting is BAAAAAAD | 18:53 |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| mordred | so we have different accounts | 18:53 |
| mordred | and keep precious servers there and do not put that password anywhere that dynamically creates/destroys nodes | 18:53 |
| MarkAtwood | hp was able to give CI/CD multiple accounts only because CI/CD is extremely special | 18:54 |
| lifeless | mordred: I think the infra story is not one that maps well here, because an account can generally do anything to itself. | 18:54 |
| mordred | lifeless: righ t- but the thing is | 18:54 |
| ayoung | atiwari, No. BUt we can talk about mapping nested role definitions to services :) | 18:54 |
| nkinder | ayoung: rotation can be performed with an expiration/changeover period. This is similar to what AD does. | 18:54 |
| *** Hunner has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:54 | |
| gyee | nkinder, but you still have to maintain both new and old passwords right? | 18:54 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:54 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:55 | |
| lifeless | gyee: for the changeover period; but password reuse policies mean you are anyway :) | 18:55 |
| gyee | so isn't that *multiple credentials active* at the same time? | 18:55 |
| atiwari | atiwari, let talk after the meeting | 18:55 |
| nkinder | gyee: for a very limited period of time (and you only allow 2 ever - old and current) | 18:55 |
| atiwari | ayoung ^^^ | 18:55 |
| ayoung | atiwari, I see it | 18:55 |
| nkinder | gyee: it's much different than allowing 40 creds to be created for a single account that live that way long-term. | 18:55 |
| gyee | nkinder, so that's essentially what we are proposing, we can add the "expired_at" field in there | 18:55 |
| gyee | so the old password expired after some time | 18:56 |
| dolphm | mordred: should that just be different tenants, ideally? | 18:56 |
| gyee | 40 creds is only allowed if the business process allows it | 18:56 |
| gyee | users can't create credentials at well | 18:56 |
| MarkAtwood | well, they can, but "too many" trips a security alert and its looked at | 18:57 |
| *** chuck__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:57 | |
| gyee | heck, keystone credential APIs are admin-protected out-of-the-box | 18:57 |
| dolphm | mordred: meh, nvm. i guess i see the use case for a set of credentials not being able to cross tenant boundaries at all | 18:57 |
| *** chuck__ has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| morganfainberg | gyee, fabiog, | 18:57 |
| morganfainberg | *retypes* | 18:57 |
| bknudson | can keystone even be configured to allow a user to create their own creds? | 18:57 |
| dolphm | bknudson: revise the policy.json ? | 18:58 |
| morganfainberg | bknudson, i think so? | 18:58 |
| *** lexx has quit IRC | 18:58 | |
| gyee | bknudson, not the default policy | 18:58 |
| bknudson | you'd need a mapping from cred to user | 18:58 |
| morganfainberg | gyee, ok, but it's just policy.json mangling iirc | 18:58 |
| gyee | bknudson, cred APIs are admin-protected out-of-the-box | 18:58 |
| *** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:58 | |
| morganfainberg | bknudson, thats in the cred table already, afaik | 18:58 |
| gyee | morganfainberg, correct, but that's a deployment option | 18:58 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:58 | |
| bknudson | ok, it's got user_id | 18:58 |
| morganfainberg | bknudson, yep | 18:58 |
| bknudson | but it's not in the url | 18:59 |
| ayoung | gyee, extending the password API to check (current, old) is way different than what you are proposing. Allowing simple rotations in the current paradigm is scary, but preferable. | 18:59 |
| morganfainberg | ah, fair enough. | 18:59 |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| lifeless | ayoung: what is a 'simple rotation' ? | 18:59 |
| ayoung | lifeless, just rotations | 18:59 |
| lifeless | ayoung: I need detail. | 18:59 |
| lifeless | ayoung: like, do we have nova-compute processes on servers doing their own password updates? | 18:59 |
| dolphm | so -- to meekly summarize in the last couple minutes... password rotation is desirable for service users, the only long term use case for keystone's own idp. for end users, password rotation would likely be managed by a federated or external auth source anyway | 18:59 |
| nkinder | lifeless: the old password is still allowed to be used for some period after it is changed. This gives a window to go update your services to use the new password. | 19:00 |
| ayoung | lifeless, new and old are both valid for a short period of time, as Nathan said. Not an open ended numer, and not a new API. | 19:00 |
| lifeless | ayoung: this is a huge operational thing : auditors and compliance /care/, and if we get it wrong downtime ensues. | 19:00 |
| lifeless | ayoung: ok, cool. *that* I love. | 19:00 |
| nkinder | lifeless: That period should be configurable, but ideally short | 19:00 |
| lifeless | ayoung: and AFAICT it meets the use case put up. | 19:00 |
| lifeless | nkinder: matter of hours be ok ? | 19:00 |
| MarkAtwood | there are more use cases then key rotation | 19:00 |
| * dolphm (time's up) | 19:00 | |
| dolphm | switching to -dev! | 19:01 |
| lifeless | MarkAtwood: may need to take it to the list | 19:01 |
| gyee | dolphm, we have to give users a bridge in the mean time, which means implementing the extension | 19:01 |
| nkinder | lifeless: yep, that's ideal in my mind, but it's a policy decision | 19:01 |
| dolphm | #endmeeting | 19:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 19:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 19:01:07 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-11-26-18.02.html | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-11-26-18.02.txt | 19:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-11-26-18.02.log.html | 19:01 |
| *** fabiog has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| *** arunkant has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| jeblair | infra! | 19:01 |
| *** nachi has left #openstack-meeting | 19:01 | |
| * fungi raises an ascii hand | 19:01 | |
| zaro | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** nkinder has left #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| jeblair | mordred, pleia2: ping | 19:02 |
| mordred | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| clarkb | o/ | 19:02 |
| * mestery is here lurking and listening. | 19:02 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| Hunner | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| pleia2 | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| jeblair | oh good those were my other pings! | 19:02 |
| jeblair | #startmeeting infra | 19:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 19:02:48 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'infra' | 19:02 |
| *** marekd-mobile has left #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| jeblair | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:02 | |
| jeblair | this should shock no one | 19:03 |
| jeblair | #action jeblair file bug about cleaning up gerrit-trigger-plugin | 19:03 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:03 | |
| * fungi feigns shock | 19:03 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:03 | |
| jeblair | #action jeblair move tarballs.o.o and include 50gb space for heat/trove images | 19:03 |
| jeblair | pleia2: how do you want to track the work on historical publications? | 19:03 |
| jeblair | pleia2: want to just open a bug about it? | 19:04 |
| pleia2 | jeblair: sounds good | 19:04 |
| pleia2 | last week was kind of chaos, so I didn't ask anyone to help me get started | 19:04 |
| jeblair | funzo: how are static volumes? | 19:04 |
| fungi | bit of a snag here... | 19:04 |
| fungi | #link http://www.rackspace.com/knowledge_center/product-faq/cloud-block-storage | 19:05 |
| fungi | "What's the maximum number of Cloud Block Storage volumes I can attach to a single server instance?" | 19:05 |
| jeblair | fungi: gee, sorry about your nick there. | 19:05 |
| fungi | "You may have up to 14 Cloud Block Storage volumes attached to a single Server." | 19:05 |
| mordred | hahaha | 19:05 |
| fungi | i like funzo | 19:05 |
| fungi | could be my new friday nick | 19:05 |
| jeblair | yay cloud? | 19:05 |
| fungi | so anyway, yeah. suggestions? slowly migrate some pvs from 0.5t to 1t? | 19:05 |
| jeblair | so we're at 5.5T out of a possible 14T | 19:06 |
| jeblair | right? | 19:06 |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 19:06 | |
| clarkb | thats the best thing I can come up with | 19:06 |
| fungi | i can shift data from smaller to larger cinder volumes and replace them until we have enough | 19:06 |
| jeblair | fungi: i think that's the way to go | 19:06 |
| fungi | not a possible 14t either, no. see the faq ;) | 19:06 |
| soren | I think that's a technical limitation. | 19:06 |
| fungi | "The limit for Volumes and storage is 10 TB total stored or 50 volumes per region (whichever is reached first)." | 19:06 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 19:06 | |
| *** colinmcnamara has quit IRC | 19:06 | |
| jeblair | also, jog0 and sdague merged a patch thursday that should _greatly_ reduce the log size | 19:06 |
| fungi | soren: yes, i've seen a lot of references to xen being unable to present more than 16 block devices into a domu | 19:07 |
| soren | Up to 8 partitions per disk, up to 16 disks, where two are assigned by Nova by default. | 19:07 |
| fungi | at least older xen versions | 19:07 |
| clarkb | jog0: sdague: have a link to that change? | 19:07 |
| soren | ...and that's all you get with 256 minor numbers to choose from. | 19:07 |
| jeblair | clarkb: it cleaned up the isomumblemumble log spam | 19:07 |
| soren | Uh.. | 19:07 |
| jeblair | clarkb: something like 10G -> 2G | 19:07 |
| clarkb | jeblair: nice | 19:07 |
| mordred | so it's possible this might put more fuel on the 'figure out swift' fire? | 19:07 |
| soren | Unless, of course you know how to do basic arithmetic. | 19:07 |
| * soren shuts up now before he makes more of an arse of himself. | 19:08 | |
| jeblair | mordred: i'm not sure that fire needs more fuel | 19:08 |
| mordred | well, right :) | 19:08 |
| * mordred adds fuel to exploding gas bombs... | 19:08 | |
| fungi | so anyway, i'm happy to wiggle a few pvs this week, just wanted to make sure there weren't better options to get us short-term gains with minimal additional effort before i pressed ahead on that | 19:08 |
| jeblair | jhesketh is not here, but i hope to get together with him soon to find out if he's planning on working on that and supply him with any help needed | 19:08 |
| jeblair | fungi: i think that's the best thing to do now | 19:09 |
| fungi | #action fungi grow logs and docs-draft volumes so they're 50% full | 19:09 |
| jeblair | and hopefully we'll get on swift before it becomes an issue | 19:09 |
| sdague | clarkb: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56471/ | 19:09 |
| clarkb | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56471/ | 19:09 |
| *** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| sdague | that's the review on the logs | 19:09 |
| jeblair | and if we don't quite make that, we can start ratcheting down the logs we keep (1 year to 9 months, for instance) | 19:09 |
| clarkb | jeblair: fungi ++ good intermediate fix | 19:09 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 19:10 |
| fungi | jeblair: don't we already only keep 6 months of logs? | 19:10 |
| jeblair | fungi: maybe update the docs to say to only add 1TB volumes | 19:10 |
| pleia2 | fungi: yeah | 19:10 |
| fungi | jeblair: will do | 19:10 |
| jeblair | fungi: i thought it was 2 releases or 1 year. i might be wrong. | 19:10 |
| pleia2 | it's 6 months, one release | 19:10 |
| fungi | #action fungi update docs for static to recommend 1t cinder volumes | 19:10 |
| jeblair | nope i'm wrong. | 19:10 |
| jeblair | -type f -mtime +183 -name \*.gz -execdir rm \{\} \; \ | 19:10 |
| fungi | yeah, it's a metric crapton of logs | 19:10 |
| jeblair | so, er, 4 months then, i guess. yeesh. | 19:11 |
| fungi | anyway, we've beaten this item to death for now | 19:11 |
| jeblair | hopefully we won't need that. | 19:11 |
| jeblair | #topic Trove testing (mordred, hub_cap) | 19:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Trove testing (mordred, hub_cap) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:11 | |
| jeblair | mordred, hub_cap: what's the latest? | 19:11 |
| mordred | jeblair: I have done nothing on this in the last week - hub_cap anything on your end? | 19:11 |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:12 | |
| mordred | hub_cap: also, I'm a bit cranky that you have someone working on turning on your non-tempest tests when you have not finished getting tempest up and going | 19:13 |
| jeblair | wow | 19:13 |
| mordred | hub_cap: in fact, I'm sorry my brain didn't fire on this properly the other day - I believe we should -2 any changes from you that add support for your other thing until you've got tempest wired up | 19:14 |
| jeblair | mordred: is there such a change? | 19:14 |
| hub_cap | hey im ok w/ that. i just figured you'd wanted both and id rather he do the legacy tests | 19:15 |
| mordred | jeblair: we told them how to do it a day or two ago | 19:15 |
| mordred | we want everythig - but you need tempest tests to be integrated | 19:15 |
| mordred | so you sohuld really get those going | 19:15 |
| hub_cap | i didnt know there was an order | 19:15 |
| mordred | and I want your legacy tests deleted | 19:15 |
| hub_cap | yes mordred i agree | 19:15 |
| mordred | because O M G | 19:15 |
| hub_cap | i know..... i know :) | 19:15 |
| mordred | so, let's get your tempest stuff wired up, _then_ we can get your additional things added | 19:15 |
| mordred | k? | 19:15 |
| hub_cap | kk | 19:15 |
| hub_cap | good by me! | 19:16 |
| jeblair | hub_cap, mordred: when do you think that might happen? | 19:16 |
| mordred | hub_cap: what are we blocking on for that for you right now? anything on my end? | 19:16 |
| *** acoles__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| hub_cap | nothing is blocking other than me not doing the work | 19:16 |
| hub_cap | thats the blocker heh | 19:16 |
| mordred | great. I'll start poking you more then | 19:16 |
| hub_cap | dirty | 19:16 |
| hub_cap | :) | 19:17 |
| *** acoles__ has left #openstack-meeting | 19:17 | |
| mordred | #action mordred to harrass hub_cap until he's writen the tempest patches | 19:17 |
| jeblair | #topic Tripleo testing (lifeless, pleia2) | 19:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Tripleo testing (lifeless, pleia2) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:17 | |
| lifeless | hi | 19:18 |
| pleia2 | continuing to patch tripleo for the multi test environments, and working on networking now | 19:18 |
| lifeless | uhm, we just did this in #openstack-meeting-alt | 19:18 |
| lifeless | I wonder if we can dedup the topics somehow | 19:18 |
| pleia2 | indeed we did! | 19:18 |
| pleia2 | for more, see tripleo meeting :) | 19:18 |
| jeblair | okay, i'm not sure we need that detail | 19:19 |
| jeblair | pleia2: can you relate this to infra? | 19:19 |
| pleia2 | no updates for infra at this time | 19:19 |
| jeblair | okay. so 'still hacking on test-running-infra' is more or less the status | 19:20 |
| pleia2 | yep | 19:20 |
| lifeless | progress is being made | 19:20 |
| lifeless | visibly so | 19:20 |
| jeblair | ok | 19:20 |
| jeblair | #topic Savanna testing (SergeyLukjanov) | 19:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Savanna testing (SergeyLukjanov) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:21 | |
| SergeyLukjanov | working on setting up jobs for d-g | 19:21 |
| mordred | I've seen patches for this | 19:21 |
| jeblair | so i think we basically just told SergeyLukjanov to wait just a bit for the savanna devstack tests | 19:21 |
| jeblair | which is an unusual thing for us to do! | 19:21 |
| mordred | jeblair: yay us! | 19:21 |
| jeblair | but clarkb is doing a d-g refactor, and we want to get the savanna jobs into that refactor | 19:22 |
| SergeyLukjanov | I'll rebase my change on clarkb one | 19:22 |
| clarkb | but there is a good reason for that. I am reasonably happy with how the d-g job refactor turned out and want people building on top of that | 19:22 |
| jeblair | so hopefully it shouldn't be long | 19:22 |
| jeblair | i look forward to reviewing it! :) | 19:22 |
| SergeyLukjanov | and I'm already have some draft code of api tests for savanna | 19:22 |
| SergeyLukjanov | and hope to make a patch later this weel to tempest | 19:23 |
| SergeyLukjanov | later this week* | 19:23 |
| jeblair | SergeyLukjanov: excellent! sdague ^ | 19:23 |
| sdague | cool | 19:23 |
| *** galstrom_zzz is now known as galstrom | 19:24 | |
| jeblair | #topic Goodbye Folsom (ttx, clarkb, fungi) | 19:24 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Goodbye Folsom (ttx, clarkb, fungi) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:24 | |
| fungi | heyhey | 19:24 |
| clarkb | its gone ! | 19:24 |
| mordred | woohoo | 19:24 |
| jeblair | i bring it up again because we linked to this review last week: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57066/ | 19:24 |
| fungi | yep, folsom is gone, havana tests are all implemented now | 19:24 |
| jeblair | and it's abandoned due to -1 | 19:24 |
| fungi | oh | 19:24 |
| jeblair | so i wanted to check: is the grenade situation straightened out, or do we have work to do still? | 19:24 |
| *** jhenner has quit IRC | 19:25 | |
| sdague | it's still in process | 19:25 |
| fungi | i think there is more to do. dprince? | 19:25 |
| fungi | ahh, right. sdague, you said there was still some grenade code support missing for that change? | 19:25 |
| sdague | yeh, the first one is maybe merging today | 19:26 |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:26 | |
| SergeyLukjanov | sdague, just to clarify - is it ok to start with only /smth api tests and client? | 19:26 |
| SergeyLukjanov | sdague, I mean with only one 'endpoint' | 19:26 |
| jeblair | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57066/ | 19:27 |
| *** thelorax123 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:27 | |
| jeblair | sdague: can you link the change you're referring to? | 19:27 |
| sdague | SergeyLukjanov: yeh, I think so, but it will take looking at the patch when it comes in to be sure | 19:27 |
| SergeyLukjanov | sdague, sure, thx | 19:27 |
| sdague | jeblair: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57744/ | 19:28 |
| jeblair | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57744/ | 19:28 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 19:28 | |
| dprince | fungi: sorry, too many meetings, let me catch up here... | 19:28 |
| *** igormarnat__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:29 | |
| ttx | yeeha | 19:29 |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| dprince | fungi: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57066/ | 19:30 |
| dprince | fungi: I was waiting on some other grenade core fixes first though. | 19:30 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:30 | |
| fungi | dprince: right, that was the question. sdague caught us up | 19:30 |
| fungi | so i think we're cool on this topic for the moment? | 19:31 |
| dprince | fungi: Cool. FWIW this stuff is actually blocking parts of a Nova patch series for me. So I'll know when its done! | 19:31 |
| clarkb | sounds like it | 19:31 |
| jeblair | #topic Jenkins 1.540 upgrade (zaro, clarkb) | 19:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Jenkins 1.540 upgrade (zaro, clarkb) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:32 | |
| jeblair | i think the change to get nodepool up is in progress | 19:32 |
| clarkb | yup zaro pushed that | 19:32 |
| jeblair | so let's check back in on this later | 19:32 |
| jeblair | #topic New devstack job requirements (clarkb) | 19:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "New devstack job requirements (clarkb) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:32 | |
| jeblair | clarkb: you have a change up, yeah? | 19:33 |
| clarkb | I do | 19:33 |
| clarkb | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/58370/ | 19:33 |
| jeblair | when i find changes to devstack-gate.yaml, i've been suggesting they coordinate with you | 19:33 |
| jeblair | except if they are for non-official projects, in which case i think we want those jobs in a different file | 19:33 |
| clarkb | jeblair: thank you ti has been helpful, I have been leaving a long comment on those changes linking back to 58370 with details | 19:34 |
| jeblair | (and in that case, i don't think they need to consider this refactor) | 19:34 |
| *** igormarnat__ has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| clarkb | jeblair: right I think they can continue to abuse devstack for whatever erason | 19:34 |
| *** fbo_away is now known as fbo | 19:34 | |
| clarkb | 58370 is handy because it clearly shows how to write devstack gate job templates that are useful in all the places we want to use them. check, gate, check on stable branch for d-g changes, and periodic bitrot jobs for releases | 19:35 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| clarkb | and we cover all of these bases with two templates per logical job. Overall I am pretty happy with it | 19:35 |
| clarkb | also WSME/Pecan can overload branch-designator to have special jobs just for them that are otherwise identical to the gate jobs | 19:35 |
| clarkb | so this will help us integrate the world | 19:35 |
| jeblair | clarkb: how does that work? (i haven't looked at the change) what would they set, for example? | 19:36 |
| clarkb | jeblair: the tail end of the jobs names has -{branch-designator} in it. I have been using that to distinguish between stable-grizzly and stable-havana and master for periodic jobs and use -default for things that run against proposed changes on the proposed branch | 19:37 |
| jeblair | got it | 19:37 |
| clarkb | jeblair: WSME/pecan could put wsme-default in that var instead and get a new job that zuul won't put in the gate with everyone else that is otehrwise identical | 19:37 |
| *** lexx has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:38 | |
| jeblair | #topic Jenkins Job Builder Release (zaro, clarkb) | 19:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Jenkins Job Builder Release (zaro, clarkb) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:38 | |
| jeblair | #link https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jenkins-job-builder/0.6.0 | 19:38 |
| jeblair | exists ^ | 19:38 |
| clarkb | oh cool so that got done ++ for doing that | 19:38 |
| jeblair | cut maybe an hour ago | 19:38 |
| jeblair | #topic Puppetboard (anteaya, Hunner, pleia2) | 19:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Puppetboard (anteaya, Hunner, pleia2) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:38 | |
| clarkb | I can update the bug that asked us to cut a release if that hasn't been done yet | 19:38 |
| jeblair | clarkb: ++ | 19:39 |
| pleia2 | o/ | 19:39 |
| pleia2 | so last week Hunner gave anteaya and I an internal demo of puppetboard | 19:39 |
| fungi | clarkb: and probably need to switch other outstanding bugs from committed to released too | 19:39 |
| pleia2 | it's pretty cool, has published logs from servers, basic stats | 19:39 |
| pleia2 | faster than dashboard, but does require use of puppetdb (which we don't currently use) | 19:39 |
| Hunner | I have code, but still working out the apache manifest stuff (it's an older module version that my prototype used). So not yet pushed to review | 19:39 |
| pleia2 | did we have any other requirements? | 19:40 |
| jeblair | where does puppetdb run? | 19:40 |
| Hunner | Puppetdb is essentially swap out the puppet.conf lines that post to the dashboard, and add it the lines for sending to the puppetdb | 19:40 |
| pleia2 | puppet master | 19:40 |
| pleia2 | (right?) | 19:40 |
| Hunner | Currently the puppetdb would be running on the puppetboard box, since it's kind of related | 19:40 |
| jeblair | okay, i like keeping the master simple. | 19:40 |
| Hunner | Currently masters -> dashboard; in the future masters -> puppetdb -> puppetboard | 19:41 |
| fungi | that makes the most sense to me. it's not privileged in any way, right? | 19:41 |
| Hunner | Yeah, low impact to masters | 19:41 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:41 | |
| Hunner | It's not privileged, no | 19:41 |
| fungi | yeah, better on the puppetboard system then | 19:41 |
| jeblair | Hunner: i see that it stores facts and catalogs from each node; does that include hieradata? | 19:41 |
| clarkb | it does run on postgres (which may or may not be a problem) | 19:42 |
| Hunner | One point to note is: just like mysql running on the dashboard box, postgresql will run on the puppetdb/puppetboard box | 19:42 |
| jeblair | Hunner: specifically, i'm wondering if this puts plaintext passwords on more systems. | 19:42 |
| Hunner | jeblair: It does not store hieradata; just the facts, reports, and compiled catalogs | 19:42 |
| jeblair | Hunner: great | 19:42 |
| Hunner | Think of hieradata like manifests... neither of those are outputs | 19:42 |
| Hunner | Only inputs | 19:42 |
| Hunner | puppetdb stores the outputs | 19:42 |
| Hunner | (facts, catalogs, reports) | 19:43 |
| jeblair | *nod* | 19:43 |
| Hunner | And is HTTP REST API queryable | 19:43 |
| Hunner | But that's extra shiny that you don't need to care about | 19:43 |
| fungi | i can see caring about it down the road. being able to query system status for other things could be very, very helpful | 19:43 |
| *** acoles_ has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| Hunner | It's essentially trying to be a centalized "best guess" at the whole infrastructure | 19:44 |
| Hunner | So yeah, useful down the road for what you say | 19:44 |
| *** jecarey has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:45 | |
| Hunner | But as a gui report server ("What's failing? Oh...") it works great | 19:45 |
| jeblair | the postgres thing is kind of a bummer, since we're trying to move to cloud databases (which are only mysql right now), but i think we can live with it. | 19:45 |
| *** jamielennox has left #openstack-meeting | 19:45 | |
| jeblair | so what's next? wait for Hunner to finish apache manifests? | 19:46 |
| Hunner | Yep. Hopefully have a review by next meeting | 19:46 |
| jeblair | pleia2: any other questions? | 19:46 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 19:46 | |
| jeblair | Hunner: thank you very much! | 19:46 |
| pleia2 | that's it from me | 19:47 |
| fungi | i take it postgres is a hard requirement (substring search or other non-mysql feature) | 19:47 |
| pleia2 | thanks Hunner | 19:47 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:47 | |
| Hunner | fungi: At this time yes. I could ask for the details and share, since I'm curious too | 19:47 |
| fungi | cool. thanks! | 19:47 |
| jeblair | #topic Multi-node testing (mestery) | 19:47 |
| Hunner | The backend is actually swappable, though the only two existing backends are postgres and in-memory | 19:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Multi-node testing (mestery) (Meeting topic: infra)" | 19:47 | |
| mestery | hi | 19:48 |
| mestery | So, anteaya set me up with this slot to discuss this, mostly wanted to ask some questions and get some direction around this. | 19:48 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:48 | |
| mordred | gah. had network glich. someone talk to me about hard reqs for postgres at some point please | 19:48 |
| jeblair | Hunner: maybe you can pass on what you find to mordred | 19:49 |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:49 | |
| jeblair | mestery: what are your questions? | 19:49 |
| mestery | For the Neutron ML2 plugin, we would like to do gate testing in a multi-VM environment to test out the tunneling capabilites and new drivers in ML2. | 19:49 |
| mestery | So a) is that possible today (multi-node testing in the gate)? | 19:49 |
| mordred | Hunner: yeah - grab me offline and let's chat about that - I'll try not to troll you tooo much | 19:50 |
| mordred | mestery: we're working on some solutions aroud that in the tripleo testing workstream | 19:50 |
| jeblair | mestery: a) it's not possible today | 19:51 |
| mestery | mordred: Great! | 19:51 |
| mordred | a) it's not ready yet - but somethign tells me that we'll have to cook up the same things to do it outside of that workstream, so perhaps you guys could lend a hand to that if you have some bandwidth | 19:51 |
| *** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:51 | |
| mestery | mordred: Perfect, I think that would be good! | 19:51 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 19:51 | |
| jeblair | mordred: i'm hesitant to suggest that as a solution; i'm not sure it will suffice | 19:51 |
| mestery | We have some ML2 folks who could help with this. | 19:51 |
| fungi | mestery: i take it it's not feasible to test out tunneling entirely within a single devstack install on one machine | 19:51 |
| jeblair | mordred: afaik, the multi-node tripleo work is focused on a limited set of multi-node hardware environments | 19:52 |
| fungi | (i.e. each network device as a vm in devstack) | 19:52 |
| mordred | jeblair: that is a good point | 19:52 |
| mestery | fungi: We can test tunneling perhaps, but we need multiple nodes to run agents on each node for testing as well. | 19:52 |
| mestery | fungi: The thing we want to test is the agent communication as well and that path. | 19:52 |
| jeblair | mordred: and at the moment, the work the tripleo folks are doing is not intended to be reusable in infra | 19:53 |
| fungi | in this case "nodes" means more than one neutron controller instance? | 19:53 |
| mestery | I apologize, I'm still learning a lot of this infra code as well, so please bear with me. :) | 19:53 |
| *** adrian_otto has left #openstack-meeting | 19:53 | |
| pleia2 | mestery: dprince, lifeless, derekh and I are having a status chat on Google+ about our work with tripleo testing in a bit (maybe right after this meeting? I can ping you), you're welcome to be a fly on the wall if you want to see where we are at | 19:53 |
| mestery | fungi: No, one control node, multiple compute nodes. | 19:53 |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| jeblair | pleia2: any chance you guys could open that up a bit? | 19:54 |
| fungi | i wonder if we could set up more than one nova service on one devstack machine | 19:54 |
| pleia2 | jeblair: oh yeah, anyone is welcome | 19:54 |
| jeblair | pleia2: we don't use g+ for openstack development | 19:54 |
| mestery | pleia2: Cool! Shoot me the info, if I can make it I will join. | 19:54 |
| pleia2 | jeblair: oh, that, maybe we should use the asterisk | 19:54 |
| jeblair | mestery: i'd like to get you some straightforward answers to your question | 19:55 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:55 | |
| mestery | jeblair: So it sounds like it's not supported, and it will take some work to make it happen? | 19:55 |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 19:55 | |
| jeblair | mestery: please feel free to check out what the tripleo folks are doing, but i do not want you to be misled into thinking that is the shortest or most certain path to multi-node gate testing. | 19:56 |
| mestery | jeblair: Understood, I'll do that. Thank you! | 19:56 |
| fungi | and it's also worth exploring whether multi-node testing (in the sense we've been discussing) is necessary for what you want to test too | 19:56 |
| jeblair | mestery: for the at-scale testing we do on virtual machines in the gate, we do need a multi-node solution | 19:56 |
| *** raghu_rao has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:56 | |
| mestery | jeblair: OK. | 19:56 |
| mestery | fungi: It is necessary, because we need multiple Neutron nodes, 1 control node and one with neutron agents on it. | 19:57 |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:57 | |
| jeblair | mestery: however, it's a few steps away, and probably won't be available for a while. we need to have non-jenkins test workers running in order for that, and there are still some things to do before we can get even to that point. | 19:57 |
| Hunner | For multi-node testing with virtual machine groups, there is rspec-system or its rewritten counterpart beaker-rspec. At least that's what we use (if I understand your requirements) | 19:57 |
| mestery | jeblair: Understood. This came up in our Neutron ML2 meeting last week, thus my interest in talking to everyone here. | 19:57 |
| *** sparkycollier has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:57 | |
| * ijw sneaks out of the woodwork | 19:58 | |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| clarkb | Hunner: the problem here is we use public cloud resources that intentionally hobble the networking things we can get away with | 19:58 |
| ijw | I've run VM groups for Openstack testing by starting a VM that, in turn, installs and starts others. I wasn't using devstack, I was using something stackforge-based, but there's no reason why devstack wouldn't also work. | 19:58 |
| *** twoputt_ has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| *** twoputt has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| clarkb | and we are trying to test networking things | 19:59 |
| Hunner | Sounds good. Carry on | 19:59 |
| mestery | ijw: Thanks, will check that out. Some things to think about here, thanks everyone. | 19:59 |
| jeblair | the problem statement for us is more like: we have a pool of nodes that are all online and connected to zuul -- how do we get a collection of those running a single job. | 20:00 |
| jeblair | we brainstormed about that a bit at the summit and have some ideas | 20:00 |
| jeblair | but regardless, they are still a few steps away | 20:00 |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 20:00 | |
| jeblair | and our time is up | 20:00 |
| jeblair | so thanks everyone, and sorry about the topics we didn't get to | 20:01 |
| jeblair | if there's something urgent, ping in -infra | 20:01 |
| jeblair | #endmeeting | 20:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 20:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 20:01:14 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2013/infra.2013-11-26-19.02.html | 20:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2013/infra.2013-11-26-19.02.txt | 20:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2013/infra.2013-11-26-19.02.log.html | 20:01 |
| ijw | jeblair: yeah, that's hard work compared with what we already have to work with using Openstack itself - which is a system that lets you set up arbitrarily wired networks. | 20:01 |
| ttx | Who is around for the TC meeting ? | 20:01 |
| russellb | o/ | 20:01 |
| markmc | hey | 20:01 |
| lifeless | o/ | 20:01 |
| mikal | Hi | 20:01 |
| *** colinmcnamara has quit IRC | 20:01 | |
| ttx | annegentle, mordred, jgriffith, vishy, markmcclain, jeblair, sdague, dhellmann : around ? | 20:02 |
| jeblair | ttx: i am indeed | 20:02 |
| vishy | o/ | 20:02 |
| *** ijw has left #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| ttx | 7 reached, let's get started | 20:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting tc | 20:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 20:02:24 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 20:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 20:02 |
| ttx | Agenda is at: | 20:02 |
| ttx | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee | 20:02 |
| ttx | #topic Recognize indirect contributions to our code base | 20:02 |
| *** lsell has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Recognize indirect contributions to our code base (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:02 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| ttx | We got a formal request asking us to support a Sponsored-By: commit message header | 20:03 |
| ttx | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2013-November/000389.html | 20:03 |
| ttx | My reading of the -dev discussion would be that commit messages are not to be turned into a NASCAR car | 20:03 |
| russellb | +1 | 20:03 |
| *** casanch1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| ttx | And complex affiliations / sponsoring can be tracked into analytics repositories if that's something people really care about | 20:03 |
| sdague | o/ | 20:03 |
| jeblair | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-November/018571.html | 20:03 |
| jeblair | also that thread on dev ^ | 20:03 |
| *** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| ttx | jeblair: ah, bad link, thx | 20:03 |
| markmc | well, also people can consider using different email addresses for work affiliated for different companies | 20:04 |
| lifeless | me too | 20:04 |
| lifeless | we have a system | 20:04 |
| mordred | o/ | 20:04 |
| markmc | and have the analytics tools handle single person, multiple addresses, multiple affiliations | 20:04 |
| lifeless | use emails. | 20:04 |
| lifeless | done | 20:04 |
| ttx | does anyone want to argue *for* Sponsored-by at this point ? | 20:04 |
| jeblair | ttx, markmc: i agree with what you have said, and don't feel that this is ripe for tc action | 20:04 |
| russellb | yep, emails seems like a good recommendation | 20:04 |
| mordred | agree- it ials would work with all of the current stats counting things | 20:04 |
| markmc | also, Co-authored-by: my-alt-email@foobar.com where your work is sponsored by multiple companies | 20:04 |
| mordred | and would not break russel's things | 20:04 |
| * nijaba can argue if you want ;) | 20:05 | |
| ttx | no need to spend more time on this if no member feels like defending it | 20:05 |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:05 | |
| russellb | seems like we feel that using email addresses solves this | 20:05 |
| markmc | nijaba, would have been better to reply on-list :) | 20:05 |
| markmc | nijaba, we're just re-stating consensus from the list here | 20:06 |
| nijaba | markmc: sure, but I think I made my point in the original proposal. Then wanted to let the debate take place | 20:06 |
| vishy | markmc: i like the co-authored-by strategy | 20:06 |
| vishy | + its an easy way to double your line count! | 20:06 |
| ttx | ok, I guess we can move on to next topic | 20:06 |
| ttx | unless someone screams now | 20:06 |
| ttx | #topic Add David Chadwick as exceptional ATC (Keystone) | 20:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Add David Chadwick as exceptional ATC (Keystone) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:07 | |
| ttx | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57500/ | 20:07 |
| markmc | makes sense to me | 20:07 |
| ttx | +1 ("I'm actually surprised that he isn't a contributor already") | 20:07 |
| sdague | +1 | 20:07 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** rfolco has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| mikal | +1 | 20:07 |
| ttx | Will APRV this one as soon as it reaches the bar (probably already has) | 20:08 |
| * ttx checks | 20:08 | |
| ttx | except Monty -1ed it :) | 20:08 |
| sdague | for alphabetizing | 20:08 |
| russellb | has 5 | 20:08 |
| sdague | he's that guy | 20:08 |
| russellb | there's always that guy | 20:08 |
| ttx | jeblair: did you make the +1/+2 change already ? | 20:08 |
| jeblair | ttx: yes | 20:09 |
| *** ociuhandu has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| ttx | ok, that explains stuff | 20:09 |
| jeblair | ttx: that's why we're all +/-1 now | 20:09 |
| russellb | only ttx has +2/+A? and tc has +1/-1? | 20:09 |
| ttx | anyway, will approve once it reaches the approval bar | 20:09 |
| jeblair | russellb: yes | 20:09 |
| russellb | k | 20:09 |
| ttx | lsell: around? | 20:09 |
| jeblair | also, i agree it should be alphabetized, but since we agreed that ttx can self-approve trivial changes, i figure we can fix later. | 20:09 |
| lsell | yes | 20:09 |
| *** romcheg has left #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| ttx | skipping to ceilo / telemetry since Lauren is around | 20:10 |
| ttx | #topic Change Ceilometer from Metering/Monitoring to Telemetry | 20:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Change Ceilometer from Metering/Monitoring to Telemetry (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:10 | |
| mordred | jeblair: I can change my vote with that - that's a good solution | 20:10 |
| ttx | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56402/ | 20:10 |
| ttx | Last week I delayed the decision so that we can get input from the OpenStack marketing folks on this "official name" | 20:10 |
| ttx | I think there is confusion between the program name (which is originally picked by the team itself) and the official OpenStack name (which is more of a marketing / BoD thing) | 20:10 |
| * vishy wants his +2 back | 20:10 | |
| ttx | We reuse the official names in the program names | 20:10 |
| *** bknudson has left #openstack-meeting | 20:11 | |
| ttx | I guess we could consider that programs are named by their teams and when one of their projects become incubated they engage with the marketing folks to come up with a name for it | 20:11 |
| *** jlibosva has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| ttx | and if that makes sense, may rename the program to match the official name (may not always make sense) | 20:11 |
| ttx | In this case, this is the program being renamed | 20:11 |
| ttx | But also the name we'd suggest as official OpenStack name for Ceilometer | 20:12 |
| russellb | so there's program names, project code names, and project official openstack names, yes? | 20:12 |
| ttx | yes | 20:12 |
| ttx | russellb: imagine multiple projects under the Compute program | 20:12 |
| russellb | yep | 20:12 |
| russellb | just making sure i have it straight | 20:12 |
| ttx | you have Nova and SuperNova | 20:12 |
| * mordred wants supernova | 20:12 | |
| ttx | Nova's "openstack name " is "OpenStack Compute" like the program | 20:13 |
| *** radez is now known as radez_g0n3 | 20:13 | |
| russellb | and here we're proposing a program name change (and probably recommending an official project name change too, but technically separate) | 20:13 |
| *** olaph has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:13 | |
| russellb | right. | 20:13 |
| ttx | program is "Compute" | 20:13 |
| ttx | SuperNova could be "OpenStack Black Hole" | 20:13 |
| ttx | at which point you may consider renmaing the program to "Computes and Black Holes" if that makes better sense than "Nova" | 20:13 |
| ttx | err. "Compute". | 20:13 |
| *** jeckersb_gone is now known as jeckersb | 20:13 | |
| ttx | does that make sense for everyone ? | 20:14 |
| *** vipul is now known as vipul-away | 20:14 | |
| *** vipul-away is now known as vipul | 20:14 | |
| russellb | good here! | 20:14 |
| markmc | it's a little contorted, but I get what you mean :) | 20:14 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| jeblair | ttx: yes. and ideally, we want the program and product names aligned. thus, lsell is here :) | 20:14 |
| ttx | jeblair: exactly! | 20:15 |
| lsell | sounds good to me too. i just want to make sure we stay aligned where possible as we choose the terms for public comms | 20:15 |
| ttx | also she could suggest better names ! | 20:15 |
| markmc | lsell, so how does Telemetry sound? :) | 20:15 |
| jeblair | lsell: so does "OpenStack Telemetry" sound good? I personally think it sounds awesome | 20:15 |
| lsell | I like that it's accurate, catchy, one-word | 20:15 |
| lsell | I'm a little concerned that a broader audience might not immediately understand the meaning, but we'd like to give it a try and I can circle back with you guys in a few months if we feel like it's not getting traction | 20:16 |
| markmc | yeah | 20:16 |
| lsell | so yes...let's try it | 20:16 |
| * markmc has a pretty decent vocabulary but had to look it up | 20:16 | |
| russellb | it struct me as odd at first FWIW | 20:16 |
| russellb | see my -1 original vote, heh | 20:16 |
| * mordred just realized we have lsell, markmc, nijaba and himself here - does that mean we're having a joint TC/Board meeting? | 20:17 | |
| ttx | it's not as if we didn't move from "OpenStack Networking" to "OpenStack Network service" and back a few times | 20:17 |
| lsell | ok, i'm glad i'm not the only one who had to look it up :) | 20:17 |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 20:17 | |
| jeblair | i was familiar with it, but i guess i read different books. :) | 20:17 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:17 | |
| russellb | it's quite accurate, but there is some cost to being overly clever, i think | 20:17 |
| jbryce | jeblair: i like missiles and space too | 20:17 |
| russellb | but i'm still ok with it.. | 20:17 |
| mikal | And AI supre tanks | 20:17 |
| jeblair | jbryce: right! :) | 20:17 |
| ttx | jbryce: we could shoot missiles for next Foundation team activity. | 20:18 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| * jeblair plays with the space toys on his desk | 20:18 | |
| sparkycollier | it's hard to make something that relates to billing sound exotic, but I think Telemetry just might do it | 20:18 |
| annegentle | heh | 20:18 |
| jbryce | i think that clear over clever is usually better too, but in this case the clear option was getting to be a little unwieldy too | 20:18 |
| russellb | ha | 20:18 |
| markmc | sparkycollier, OpenStack ShowMeTheMoney | 20:18 |
| lsell | i think it will require additional explanation on our side, where metering and/or monitoring is pretty straight forward | 20:18 |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| ttx | yes, "Monitoring" was both inaccurate and boring | 20:18 |
| annegentle | moneyball | 20:18 |
| * nijaba thinks that mordred has some fun ideas :) | 20:19 | |
| ttx | anyway, let's use that as program name and initial openstack name and see how it goes | 20:19 |
| mordred | nijaba: :) | 20:19 |
| annegentle | will they also change the IRC channel from -metering? | 20:19 |
| nijaba | annegentle: would make sense... | 20:19 |
| lsell | sounds good. and moving forward we'd love to engage with the PTL and team as soon as a project is incubated to nail down the naming and make sure everyone is on board | 20:20 |
| ttx | Will APRV https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56402/ tomorrow morning if it still has the overwhelming majority in favor | 20:20 |
| russellb | lsell: sounds great | 20:20 |
| russellb | this one decided to change scope and mess up the name :-p | 20:20 |
| ttx | which brings us to... | 20:21 |
| ttx | #topic Incubation / Graduation / NewProgram requirements drafts | 20:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubation / Graduation / NewProgram requirements drafts (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:21 | |
| ttx | (we could actually add that engagement to the graduation requirements) | 20:21 |
| ttx | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2013-November/000415.html | 20:21 |
| *** galstrom is now known as galstrom_zzz | 20:21 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 20:21 | |
| ttx | So the idea here is for us to have a clearer set of guidelines to apply for incubation / new program requests and end-of-cycle graduation review | 20:21 |
| ttx | So far we've been applying a number of unwritten rules, and I think writing them out would help setting expectations right for candidate projects | 20:22 |
| jeblair | (and they are guidelines; not set in stone) | 20:22 |
| mordred | yes. I think that's very important | 20:22 |
| mordred | we are, ultimately, humans who can make decisions | 20:22 |
| *** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| ttx | I would like to turn those etherpads into a resolution and push for discussion to -dev | 20:23 |
| russellb | that's good to hear confirmed, because i was accused of being a robot recently | 20:23 |
| jeblair | ttx: i think we're about at that point... | 20:23 |
| markmc | ttx, just added some legal bits - apache license, library licensing, contributors signed the CLA, no trademark violations | 20:23 |
| ttx | so if you have strong ideas that are not reflected yet, please add to that before eod | 20:23 |
| ttx | markmc: I appreciate that, thanks | 20:23 |
| jeblair | one thing that might bear discussion is the relative stringency of the transition to incubation vs graduation | 20:23 |
| markmc | also important that the guidelines will evolve | 20:23 |
| sdague | yeh, I was pretty happy with what was in the etherpads yesterday, went through them in depth then | 20:23 |
| annegentle | russellb is a robot?! Who knew | 20:23 |
| mikal | What was the etherpad discussion about the two deployments bit? | 20:24 |
| jeblair | the proposed guidelines for being incubated are quite high -- requiring stackforge, devstack tests, etc. after seeing the discussion around them, i'm coming to agree that that is a good idea. | 20:24 |
| russellb | I actually don't like the requiring production deployments thing ... i think it's in conflict to wanting to be able to review and influence the architecture if necessary | 20:24 |
| sdague | ttx: just out of curiosity, was there a reason not to put them in one pad with headings? I feel in a lot of ways the flow from one level to the next is an important part of the story | 20:24 |
| *** hub_cap is now known as pub_tap | 20:25 | |
| mikal | russellb: but it was a requirement for graduation, not incubation | 20:25 |
| ttx | sdague: I thought they would end up in 3 separate documents in the repo | 20:25 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| ttx | sdague: do you think it makes more sense in a single document ? | 20:25 |
| sdague | ttx: it feels better to me as a single document | 20:25 |
| ttx | "rules-we-apply-for-stuff" ? | 20:25 |
| russellb | i think a single doc makes sense | 20:25 |
| *** randy_perryman has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:25 | |
| jeblair | russellb: i agree, i think it's almost an anti-requirement (but i don't think we can do that either). however, it's struck-out, so i take that as a good sign. | 20:25 |
| annegentle | sdague: ttx: I like the single doc as well | 20:25 |
| russellb | project lifecycle? | 20:26 |
| russellb | or something. | 20:26 |
| ttx | russellb: well... | 20:26 |
| mikal | jeblair: but why is it an anti requirement? | 20:26 |
| *** randy_perryman has left #openstack-meeting | 20:26 | |
| ttx | the issue is that new program is not a step in that lifecycle | 20:26 |
| mikal | Why are we gradutating things people aren't using? | 20:26 |
| annegentle | do we have any time limits already in our governance docs? Such as you don't incubate > integrate until a release passes? | 20:26 |
| mordred | mikal: some things might not get used until they are in a release | 20:26 |
| russellb | ttx: true ... programs_and_projects.txt ? | 20:26 |
| russellb | still seems tightly related | 20:26 |
| mordred | depending on the space in which it exists | 20:26 |
| sdague | mikal: well, that would have bounced cinder from graduating | 20:27 |
| markmc | just added "project must have an elected PTL" to incubation requirements | 20:27 |
| mikal | mordred: couldn't we have dealt with that by making an exception at the time? | 20:27 |
| sdague | and I think cinder is a model for the right way to get through the process | 20:27 |
| ttx | maybe two documents. project lifecycle and program lifecycle | 20:27 |
| russellb | markmc: +1 | 20:27 |
| mordred | mikal: well, how about we say "we'd like to see production deployments" | 20:27 |
| russellb | markmc: elected from its technical contributors? | 20:27 |
| mikal | I want to block projects which don't have active users. | 20:27 |
| ttx | because newprogram can happen before or after incubation request, basically | 20:27 |
| mikal | If they can't find at least a couple of deployments during incubation, there is a big problem | 20:28 |
| markmc | russellb, point | 20:28 |
| mikal | How do we know it meets actual user needs? | 20:28 |
| jeblair | mikal: i would not hold it against operators to avoid deploying incubated projects | 20:28 |
| mikal | How do we know the design is right? | 20:28 |
| jeblair | mikal: incubation is risky | 20:28 |
| mikal | Why are we working on this thing no one wants? | 20:28 |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:28 | |
| mordred | right. especially the more stable openstack itself gets | 20:28 |
| jeblair | mikal: and if we're not willing to say it's part of openstack, we shouldn't expect other people to behave otherwise. | 20:28 |
| russellb | jeblair: +1 | 20:29 |
| mordred | I mean, there might be a point where people are only wiling to deploy our integrated projects | 20:29 |
| russellb | that's my feeling | 20:29 |
| ttx | mikal: yeah, I removed the production deployment requirements when I saw there was no consensus around it. Doesn't mean you can't apply it in your own decision grid | 20:29 |
| sdague | mikal: so what if it's a should instead of a must, and make it judgement call during vote | 20:29 |
| mikal | ttx: I think its stronger than that | 20:29 |
| mikal | ttx: I will vote against the proposed requirements as they stand | 20:29 |
| mikal | ttx: I'm willing to tweak the language | 20:29 |
| sdague | mikal: on that single point, or are there others? | 20:29 |
| mikal | ttx: But I honestly feel we should have a test that says "people will use this" | 20:29 |
| mikal | sdague: I think this one point is a pretty big deal | 20:30 |
| mikal | We have at least two virt drivers in nova at the moment that we don't know if _anyone_ uses | 20:30 |
| mordred | mikal: which ones? | 20:30 |
| mikal | I want to stop that happening at the project level as well | 20:30 |
| sdague | mikal: no, that's fine, it wasn't an accusation, just a question | 20:30 |
| * mordred not trolling, trying to get context | 20:30 | |
| mikal | mordred: virt drivers? powervm and docker are the ones I am thinking of | 20:31 |
| sdague | yeh, I only know one :) | 20:31 |
| ttx | mikal: the document will never represent the whole set of rules we'll apply, it just strives to document a number of rules that we all agreed on | 20:31 |
| mordred | mikal: k. thanks | 20:31 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| lifeless | mikal: you'll vote against a necessary-but-not-sufficient ruleset because it doesn't contain a rule which there isn't consensus on ? :) | 20:31 |
| markmc | mikal, more context ... do you think we've not held projects to this standard so far and it's hurt us? examples? | 20:31 |
| ttx | lifeless: +1 | 20:31 |
| jeblair | mikal: openstack is not just public cloud software. i think we should try to only add useful programs, but i also think there's room for being flexible here, and understanding that this isn't just for hpcloud and rax. | 20:31 |
| vishy | mikal: not sure if anyone uses lxc either | 20:31 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:31 | |
| mikal | markmc: no, I think we've done a good job at the project level until now | 20:31 |
| ttx | lifeless: you expressed it better than I did :) | 20:31 |
| mikal | markmc: I just want to solidify that in the future | 20:31 |
| mikal | So, rephrase it | 20:32 |
| mikal | We could require that users have expressed a desire to deploy. | 20:32 |
| markmc | mikal, I'm not sure I feel we've held projects to the bar you describe so far | 20:32 |
| ttx | mikal: "project should have users" ? | 20:32 |
| markmc | "meets a clear user need" ? | 20:32 |
| russellb | "project should be usable" ? | 20:32 |
| ttx | usable is probably not enough | 20:32 |
| mikal | "Project should have planned deployments"/ | 20:32 |
| mikal | ? | 20:32 |
| mordred | vishy: I know people use lxc | 20:33 |
| mikal | mordred: good god, that would be horrible | 20:33 |
| *** jecarey has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:33 | |
| markmc | planned deployments way, way overstates it IMHO | 20:33 |
| russellb | it's easy to wave hands around and say that you plan to deploy it ... | 20:33 |
| russellb | project should be usable in production at scale in line with other openstack projects? | 20:33 |
| markmc | do the Heat team have any insights even now to "planned deployments" of Heat? | 20:33 |
| mikal | markmc: yes, Rackspace have publicly stated they intend to deploy | 20:34 |
| mikal | markmc: I'd say HP has as well via tripleo | 20:34 |
| sdague | yeh, I was going to say, trove was kind of an exception, looking at Heat and Ceilo | 20:34 |
| jeblair | horizon wouldn't have made the cut for a long, long time. but adding it was a GOOD idea. | 20:34 |
| mordred | yup | 20:34 |
| russellb | same for heat, i think | 20:34 |
| mordred | and now there are deployments | 20:34 |
| *** denis_makogon_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:34 | |
| markmc | mikal, ok, knew RAX was involved, hadn't heard about planned deployment | 20:35 |
| russellb | and ceilo .. | 20:35 |
| markmc | mikal, but did that come before it was accepted into incubation? (no) | 20:35 |
| sdague | can we change the language to *should* - and then make it part of the judgement? | 20:35 |
| markmc | mikal, before graduation? | 20:35 |
| lifeless | RAX have a beta deploy | 20:35 |
| lifeless | you can ask for access | 20:35 |
| lifeless | its just not GA yet | 20:35 |
| markmc | lifeless, coolness, thanks | 20:35 |
| sdague | honestly, I think the raised bar on QA requirements will mean anything that gets near this bar, is going to be in a much better place for people to deploy | 20:35 |
| lifeless | so the question is | 20:36 |
| lifeless | to me anyhow :) | 20:36 |
| annegentle | sdague: similar for docs | 20:36 |
| russellb | sdague: and that's something *much* easier for us to measure | 20:36 |
| russellb | sdague: since it's under our control, where as deployments are not | 20:36 |
| lifeless | is incubation the path to integration, or the path to broad acceptance | 20:36 |
| sdague | russellb: right, exactly. | 20:36 |
| lifeless | I think it clearly should be the former, not the latter. | 20:36 |
| lifeless | But | 20:36 |
| lifeless | I think there will be some of the latter occuring | 20:36 |
| mikal | lifeless: it is often argued by applicants that it is a pre-requisite for the latter | 20:36 |
| mikal | lifeless: as in "no one will use my thing until its incubated" | 20:37 |
| mikal | lifeless: so we should incubate it and then say "so, does anyone use your thing?" | 20:37 |
| lifeless | mikal: and I accept that argument to a degree. Especially for things that we'd otherwise break willynilly. | 20:37 |
| mikal | lifeless: cause if we're working on things people don't want, we should kill those things | 20:37 |
| lifeless | mikal: like hypervisor drivers. | 20:37 |
| MarkAtwood | thats very frustrating to some projects, they want to get some users before incubation, to get feedback and devs | 20:37 |
| russellb | drivers are a separate thing from projects ... | 20:37 |
| lifeless | mikal: I agree with killing unwanted projects. | 20:37 |
| MarkAtwood | but then are told "we wont run you until your incubated" | 20:37 |
| lifeless | russellb: it was an allegory :) | 20:37 |
| ttx | mikal: how about you use the ML thread to come up with a vibrant call to take actual usage in account when considering graduation ? I'm pretty sure that won't be the only suggestion we'll receive out there. | 20:38 |
| MarkAtwood | Designate was in and somewhat still is in that trap | 20:38 |
| mikal | MarkAtwood: sure, so incubation is the time to prove your market. Not integration. | 20:38 |
| sdague | I thought designate was in the trap of single vendor | 20:38 |
| russellb | MarkAtwood: designate's problem was nobody else working on it | 20:38 |
| annegentle | MarkAtwood: I don't like groups coming to us for resources, they should bring them. | 20:38 |
| russellb | and you sohuldn't need to be able to production deploy it to join in to build the thing | 20:38 |
| mikal | ttx: sure, is there an existing thread for these proposals? | 20:38 |
| mikal | ttx: or are you about to send one? | 20:39 |
| ttx | mikal: I plan to start one based on the curret etherpads. Probably tomorrow | 20:39 |
| ttx | current* | 20:39 |
| mikal | ttx: sure, I will reply when it goes out | 20:39 |
| mordred | annegentle: I don't think that's teh designate issue | 20:39 |
| MarkAtwood | russellb, i personally got told by several large private cloud operators that the wouldnt start using or contributing to designate until other people did... it was... frustrating | 20:39 |
| russellb | designate wants to apply again btw, i encouraged them to wait until we have these docs finished | 20:39 |
| ttx | I think that's something that will benefit from carefully-worded argument, rather than IRC discussion | 20:39 |
| markmc | ttx, take a look over https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/incubation-and-integration-requirements as you're doing that | 20:39 |
| annegentle | mordred: yeah that oversimplifies it | 20:39 |
| mordred | annegentle: the designate issue is that the other companies kept waiting for us to 'bless' designate before starting projects to throw out their current dns aas | 20:39 |
| markmc | ttx, I tried to dig up past threads, docs, etc. and summarize | 20:39 |
| russellb | MarkAtwood: then that's their broken approach, not ours | 20:39 |
| mikal | Look, I'm no trying to be a dick here... I just feel very strongly we should have users for our projects, especially before we devalue our brand by associating things people don't want with it. | 20:39 |
| mordred | with several of them having declared they would, but none of them having done it yet | 20:40 |
| markmc | ttx, not sure if we've gotten everything in your etherpads yet | 20:40 |
| lifeless | mikal: ack, I get that too | 20:40 |
| ttx | markmc: ncie | 20:40 |
| ttx | nice even | 20:40 |
| MarkAtwood | russellb | 20:40 |
| jbryce | just as an extra data point, by the time heat and ceilometer were fully integrated, we had dozens of catalogued deployments for each from the user committees data | 20:40 |
| jbryce | 40+ for heat and 70+ for ceilometer | 20:40 |
| ttx | markmc: i can wait until you turned that into the etherpad before starting up -dev discussion | 20:40 |
| russellb | jbryce: nice! | 20:40 |
| annegentle | mordred: then they're probably putting their interests first and not OpenStack's? That's at the heart of my line of questioning. | 20:40 |
| MarkAtwood | russellb: agreee that its there broken process not openstacks, but just be aware its a very common breakage | 20:41 |
| *** epim has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| mordred | jbryce: it's possible that those are numbers we might want to be able to see when doing graduation review | 20:41 |
| russellb | MarkAtwood: common, as in 1 case? | 20:41 |
| mordred | jbryce: I did not know that | 20:41 |
| markmc | ttx, nah, don't wait for me - I posted that etherpad here and on the list a couple of weeks ago | 20:41 |
| lifeless | annegentle: perhaps, but the problem is that 'they' in your sentence and 'they' in designates devs are different groups | 20:41 |
| MarkAtwood | common as i see it many places, not just openstack world | 20:41 |
| jbryce | mordred: yeah...we can share the aggregate at any time whenever you're having those reviews | 20:41 |
| *** denis_makogon_ is now known as denis_makogon | 20:41 | |
| *** vipul is now known as vipul-away | 20:41 | |
| markmc | jbryce, was that at the end of the Havana cycle, or the start? | 20:41 |
| MarkAtwood | people waiting for the crowd to move so they dont have to be in front | 20:41 |
| mordred | annegentle: of course they are - we're tyring to teach them - sometimes we have to leverage them into contributing to openstack | 20:41 |
| mordred | and sometimes they are companies who are already part of openstack but have alternate things that predate openstack | 20:42 |
| markmc | jbryce, Heat graduated at the start | 20:42 |
| mordred | so they're caught in chicken-and-egg problems | 20:42 |
| annegentle | Also we still haven't seen much of a "food fight" in terms of competing solutions, does that scenario change any of our criteria? | 20:42 |
| ttx | markmc: everyone graduates before the start, actually | 20:42 |
| annegentle | mordred: yep, agreed | 20:42 |
| russellb | annegentle: good point | 20:42 |
| markmc | ttx, right - just trying to get to whether that survey came before or after graduation | 20:42 |
| ttx | i.e. it's been 8 months that everyone knew it would be in Icehouse | 20:42 |
| russellb | annegentle: probably the incubation criteria | 20:42 |
| markmc | ttx, i.e. did graduation trigger deployments, or did we have deployments before | 20:43 |
| ttx | markmc: I'm pretty sure adoption ramped up after graduation, before integration :) | 20:43 |
| jbryce | we also have 7 trove and 8 ironic users catalogued currently | 20:43 |
| mordred | markmc: yah. interesting question | 20:43 |
| lifeless | this suggests another concern | 20:43 |
| lifeless | if we push back too hard | 20:43 |
| lifeless | do we make projects create their own brand | 20:43 |
| mordred | jbryce: dude. you have 8 ironic users catalogued? | 20:43 |
| lifeless | in order to get users | 20:43 |
| jbryce | markmc: those were numbers shortly pre-havana release | 20:43 |
| markmc | mordred, heh :) | 20:43 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:43 | |
| lifeless | so they they are less likely to really integrate? | 20:43 |
| ttx | ok, let's push this to the ML thread that will start soon, or for open discussion at the end of meeting if there is time there | 20:43 |
| mordred | jbryce: that's both awesome and terrifying | 20:43 |
| mordred | ttx: ++ | 20:43 |
| russellb | annegentle: something like ... in the case that there are competing implementations, there is consensus that this implementation is the way forward for OpenStack ... or something | 20:43 |
| sdague | ttx: +1 | 20:44 |
| ttx | I have a few quick other things to cover | 20:44 |
| ttx | #topic Other governance changes in progress | 20:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other governance changes in progress (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:44 | |
| annegentle | russellb: or can we handle two at once? | 20:44 |
| markmc | jbryce, ironic doesn't (or didn't at the time of the survey) work at all, really :) | 20:44 |
| ttx | Mission statement for Compute program: https://review.openstack.org/57981 | 20:44 |
| ttx | I'll approve this one once it gets YES from the majority of voters | 20:44 |
| * russellb just trying to catch up on program paperwork | 20:44 | |
| ttx | I think a version with "including but not limited to" would be ok for everyone | 20:44 |
| mordred | annegentle, russellb there's also, comapnies that don't want to ditch their private thing, but _will_ once there is an official openstack thing | 20:44 |
| ttx | Make election times less ambiguous: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57396/ | 20:44 |
| lifeless | cough, HP, cough. | 20:44 |
| *** dhellmann-afk is now known as dhellmann | 20:44 | |
| ttx | I'll approve this one now as a factual/cleanup one, unless someone objects | 20:44 |
| jeblair | i +1d because i never think 'including' means 'including AND limited to'. | 20:45 |
| jbryce | markmc: the survey's always open. the ironic and trove numbers are current not pre-havana | 20:45 |
| jeblair | but either wfm | 20:45 |
| ttx | jeblair: same here, but then I'm French | 20:45 |
| markmc | jbryce, ah | 20:45 |
| *** DennyZhang has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| * russellb is fine either way too ... but generally prefers more well defined scope over open ended | 20:45 | |
| devananda | jbryce: I'm assuming that you meant "8 catalogued nova-baremetal deployments" ? | 20:46 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 20:46 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: tc)" | 20:46 | |
| sdague | jbryce: yeh, it would be nice to time bucket it so we could see evolution over time | 20:46 |
| ttx | i had one last thing: | 20:46 |
| ttx | lifeless suggested we should rule on the critical state for non-deterministic bugs | 20:46 |
| ttx | I replied on the TC list saying it's probably better handled a ML / wiki level unless there is a fight about it | 20:46 |
| ttx | do you generally agree to keep it on ML/wiki rather than imposed by TC at this point ? | 20:46 |
| lifeless | so I'm torn | 20:46 |
| russellb | anyone fighting it? | 20:46 |
| lifeless | on the one hand yes - light weight TC is better | 20:47 |
| jbryce | sdague: we can, just the easiest view for me is a real-time report | 20:47 |
| mordred | yah. dolphm didn't like the use of critical | 20:47 |
| lifeless | on the other hand, this seems to be a bit of a bikeshedding thing already | 20:47 |
| jgriffith | russellb: not sure how I feel on it yet TBH | 20:47 |
| jeblair | ttx, lifeless: maybe we can bring it up at the project meeting next, and if there is disagreement, come back to tc? | 20:47 |
| lifeless | the main reason I flagged it now on the tc list | 20:47 |
| lifeless | is the week lead time | 20:47 |
| ttx | jeblair: yes, probably a good bet | 20:47 |
| lifeless | if consensus happens by next week, then take it off the agenda. | 20:47 |
| jgriffith | russellb: if the triage is accurate fine, but still wayyy too many incorrectly diagnosed | 20:47 |
| lifeless | there is no project meeting now is there? I thought it was canceleld | 20:47 |
| sdague | yeh, I like it being brought to the project meeting first | 20:47 |
| mordred | and while I agree with lifeless on the intent, I think dolphm also has a good point about that - perhaps that's a UI feature we can fix in storyboard... | 20:47 |
| ttx | lifeless: cacelled ? NEVER | 20:48 |
| lifeless | mordred: folk will never agree on the definition of critical I fear. | 20:48 |
| jeblair | jgriffith: er, i think the qa team has a really good track record on triaging gate-blocking bugs | 20:48 |
| *** xga has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| sdague | mordred: yeh, maybe. fwiw, on projects that I have bug access I push all the race bugs to critical when I triage them | 20:48 |
| jeblair | jgriffith: to be clear, we're not at all suggesting any random person be able to do it. | 20:48 |
| lifeless | mordred: better to get out of the game entirely and just say 'this is the order we care about' | 20:48 |
| ttx | I don't really mind which way it's tracked. I just want to make sure however we track it, people react to it | 20:48 |
| jgriffith | jeblair: fair | 20:48 |
| *** hartsocks has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| ttx | "Critical" is a way to make it appear on my radar, which makes sure I pester people about it | 20:49 |
| lifeless | The suggestion is two part: a) QA should have triage rights everywhere. b) gate affecting bugs should be top of the queue of work. | 20:49 |
| * jgriffith is fine then... he can always change it :) | 20:49 | |
| mordred | I agree with a and b | 20:49 |
| lifeless | The bikeshed seems to be about how b is represented. | 20:49 |
| ttx | yep | 20:49 |
| mordred | details about shed color bleh | 20:49 |
| lifeless | I am going to let it stew for a day or so before replying to whatever is said | 20:49 |
| lifeless | since I've been around this many many times before | 20:50 |
| lifeless | :) | 20:50 |
| sdague | honestly, there are non QA core folks that should have this right too, as they do lots of awesome here, like clarkb and jog0 | 20:50 |
| ttx | let's mention it at the project meeting after this one | 20:50 |
| russellb | and also, not all "gate affecting" bugs are created equal ... | 20:50 |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| mordred | perhaps have an 'uber-triage' group that people can be in ? | 20:50 |
| russellb | it failed a few times may really not be the most valuable thing to work on today | 20:50 |
| sdague | so if we are defining a subset, vs. open tracker, we might want to define a new group of folks that are responsible enough to have this priv | 20:50 |
| ttx | I'm just concerned about proliferation of TC edicts where none is actually necessary | 20:50 |
| markmc | lifeless, I think it's more about building a culture of jumping on these issues | 20:50 |
| mordred | sdague: jinx | 20:50 |
| russellb | markmc: +1 | 20:50 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 20:50 | |
| markmc | lifeless, setting bugs to critical isn't going to help it much | 20:50 |
| dims | "gate-keepers" :) | 20:50 |
| russellb | which i think is already getting better | 20:51 |
| jeblair | most teams are open | 20:51 |
| markmc | lifeless, what jog0 did this week is much more effective | 20:51 |
| mordred | ttx: I'm not sure we need an edict here - I think a lot of times even just the tc talking about it can be useful for coordination | 20:51 |
| sdague | markmc: I agree | 20:51 |
| ttx | yes, I think that task could benefit from some branding | 20:51 |
| jgriffith | when all bugs are critical, what does critical mean | 20:51 |
| russellb | we need a jog0 for every project that is looking after stuff and making lots of noise when necessary | 20:51 |
| jgriffith | just sayin | 20:51 |
| sdague | and I think we are moving the culture, which is great | 20:51 |
| lifeless | markmc: I agree to an extent. Part of changing culture is making the desired thing super easy. | 20:51 |
| lifeless | markmc: 'bug is critical' is very easy for any contributor to see without needing a special search. | 20:51 |
| mordred | russellb: we should put out a tc edict that every project provide infra/qa with a jog0 | 20:51 |
| mordred | russellb: :) | 20:51 |
| russellb | +1 | 20:51 |
| lifeless | markmc: 'bug is high but tagged and you should search for those first' -> nowhere near as easy | 20:52 |
| russellb | a gate czar! | 20:52 |
| sdague | nice :) | 20:52 |
| ttx | like the VMT is pursuing people to get things patched, the GateCrashSquad is after non-deterministic bugs and chase people down to make them care | 20:52 |
| jgriffith | although I do agree anything holding up gates is critical | 20:52 |
| ttx | lifeless: interesting to note that the VMT doesn't need to set bugs to critical to get them prioritized | 20:52 |
| ttx | although security bugs are arguably all critical too | 20:52 |
| mordred | honestly - even just a "gate affecting" tag would allow people find gate affecting bugs | 20:52 |
| jgriffith | mordred: +1 | 20:52 |
| jeblair | mordred: but not raise visibility | 20:52 |
| jgriffith | that would be the best solution IMO | 20:52 |
| mordred | because that's the main thing - 'how do I find a list of BLAH" | 20:52 |
| lifeless | VMT? | 20:52 |
| jeblair | mordred: no, i don't think that's the main thing | 20:53 |
| mordred | lifeless: vulnerability management team | 20:53 |
| sdague | mordred: it's not quite the main thing | 20:53 |
| lifeless | ventro medial.. | 20:53 |
| ttx | mordred: yes, but I think you actually need to have a team chsaing people to make them all care, critical/tagged or not | 20:53 |
| *** xga has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| lifeless | so the VMT is a specific team, and they have one search they do right ? | 20:53 |
| jeblair | mordred: i think the main thing is that there is a group of people who are good at identifying bugs that are stopping development work on the project | 20:53 |
| jgriffith | isnt' that what the PTL's should be doing? | 20:53 |
| jeblair | mordred: we need to make sure their work is visible | 20:53 |
| ttx | lifeless: vulnerability management team | 20:53 |
| lifeless | if we're going to build a dedicated gate tackling team, then having a tag is sufficient | 20:53 |
| mordred | jeblair: how is that different from what I said? | 20:53 |
| lifeless | It's not clear to me that that is what we were going to do | 20:53 |
| jeblair | mordred: tagging a bug does not make it visible, except to people looking for it, and there are not very many people looking for it | 20:54 |
| ttx | lifeless: I think we already have the team, it just needs branding and to build awareness | 20:54 |
| jeblair | ttx: who is the team? | 20:54 |
| sdague | ttx: I don't think we have a team | 20:54 |
| markmc | making these issues more visible - why not improve on http://status.openstack.org/rechecks/ ? | 20:54 |
| mordred | I also don't think we have the team | 20:54 |
| lifeless | ttx: we do? Cool... links or it doesn't exist :P | 20:54 |
| jeblair | i think we need these bugs marked as critical, and active participation from project ptls, specifically because we don't have that team. | 20:54 |
| sdague | we have a few people that dropped the things they should have been doing to tackle it this time | 20:54 |
| ttx | jeblair: those people who worked on the recent gate break report look pretty well-organized to me | 20:55 |
| sdague | ttx: most of those people need to go back onto other stuff | 20:55 |
| jeblair | ttx: no, sdague is right, they have other jobs | 20:55 |
| lifeless | markmc: again, if there is a group of folk tracking that specifically, its fine. But if we want to harvest the broad set of 'find a bug and work on it' - that fails to surface the information to the folk that I want to harvest | 20:55 |
| * russellb views it as a function of the QA team, honestly ... to at least organize around the current issues | 20:55 | |
| russellb | and then yell at the right people to get their attention as necessary | 20:55 |
| ttx | jeblair: ok, fair enough. I'mjust unsure that will work. Whatever the way you mark those bugs | 20:55 |
| sdague | ttx: so I think from a triage perspective, to flag something as critical, we might be able to cover it | 20:56 |
| sdague | but to drive those fixes, that needs to come back from the project teams | 20:56 |
| ttx | jeblair: in my experience, marking bugs critical is no substitute for chasing people down. tha's what I do all the time | 20:56 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| sdague | which is why flagging as critical is an important signaling mechanism | 20:56 |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 20:56 | |
| *** bknudson has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| ttx | flagging things as critical lets you piggyback on ME to raise awareness in PTLs | 20:56 |
| sdague | and making it culturally acceptable for people outside of a project team to do that for gate bugs is really the thing I'd like to make sure we're cool with | 20:56 |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| jeblair | ttx: that's why my suggestion is specifically that when the qa team marking something as critical, the project/ptl/dev-community should be notified, and we should expect someone to be assigned to it. | 20:57 |
| markmc | what rate of occurrence would a bug need for it to jump to Critical ? | 20:57 |
| lifeless | ttx: do you have a problem with that ? :) | 20:57 |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| russellb | markmc: i'd like to know that too | 20:57 |
| ttx | lifeless: only works until I get bored about it | 20:57 |
| russellb | because not every failure is automatically a top priority IMO | 20:57 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| russellb | it's just not that simple | 20:57 |
| sdague | markmc: honestly, any race in the gate I think is critical. It's non deterministic behavior that's able to be created in a relatively low concurent environment | 20:57 |
| russellb | what about the 800 other bugs already reported, that are more clearly defined than the gate failure bug? | 20:58 |
| ttx | interesting as we'll have that discussion in the next meeting ! | 20:58 |
| markmc | sdague, we're saying it's critical because it's holding up development - there are degrees of "blocking development" | 20:58 |
| russellb | they're both things we know that are broken | 20:58 |
| lifeless | T-2 | 20:58 |
| ttx | was there anything else somebody wanted to mention before we jump into the next meeting ? | 20:58 |
| sdague | markmc: it's not critical because it's holding up development, it's critical because it's a race in openstack | 20:59 |
| markmc | sdague, "once every 10 years" is not Critical, "happens 50% of the time" is Critical ... so there's a boundary | 20:59 |
| markmc | sdague, it could be a race in unit tests, doesn't affect deployments | 20:59 |
| sdague | markmc: fair, though we've not flagged any of those | 20:59 |
| russellb | would like it defined | 20:59 |
| sdague | only devstack-gate | 20:59 |
| russellb | because if i get a bunch of critical bugs for something that failed twice and nobody knows why, i'm just going to get seriously annoyed | 21:00 |
| ttx | ... | 21:00 |
| markmc | well >50% of the time in unit tests *is* Critical | 21:00 |
| sdague | well, it will be at least a month before we've got enough stats to give yuo hard numbers | 21:00 |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| ttx | ok, we'll continue this ons in 40 min | 21:00 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 21:00 | |
| russellb | in 40 min? | 21:00 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 21:00:27 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-11-26-20.02.html | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-11-26-20.02.txt | 21:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-11-26-20.02.log.html | 21:00 |
| russellb | doesn't the next meeting start now? | 21:00 |
| mriedem | hi! | 21:00 |
| russellb | or you mean in open discussion :) | 21:00 |
| sdague | I think that's where he put the discussion :) | 21:00 |
| ttx | russellb: there are a few other topics to discuss first | 21:00 |
| russellb | k | 21:00 |
| sdague | ttx: but the iron is hot... | 21:00 |
| lbragstad | hey | 21:01 |
| ttx | sdague: a bit of coolig down (and inclusion of PTLs) will help | 21:01 |
| ttx | dhellmann, dolphm, notmyname, jd__, markwash, jgriffith, russellb, stevebaker, david-lyle, markmcclain, hub_cap: around ? | 21:01 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 21:01 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:01 |
| russellb | o/ | 21:01 |
| david-lyle | o/ | 21:01 |
| *** ndipanov has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| lifeless | o/ | 21:01 |
| jgriffith | o | 21:01 |
| stevebaker | [O]/ | 21:01 |
| jd__ | o/ | 21:01 |
| dolphm | o/ | 21:01 |
| bnemec | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | salv-orlando replaces markmcclain I think | 21:01 |
| *** olaph has left #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| stevebaker | ttx: #startmeeting? | 21:01 |
| mrodden | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | stevebaker: don't be impatient | 21:02 |
| salv-orlando | hi | 21:02 |
| russellb | stevebaker: no meeting for you! | 21:02 |
| dims | o/ | 21:02 |
| devananda | \o | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting project | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 21:02:19 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. 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 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:02 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'project' | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:02 |
| ttx | #topic Icehouse-1 progress | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Icehouse-1 progress (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:02 | |
| markwash | o/ | 21:02 |
| ttx | icehouse-1 looks mostly on track from my 1-to-1s today, and not as empty as you'd think | 21:03 |
| ttx | We should also have a Swift 1.11.0 next week | 21:03 |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| *** boris-42 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| * russellb resists obligatory "why is swift different" question ... | 21:03 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| ttx | heat and horizon still have a lot to land | 21:04 |
| ttx | but otherwise everyone else is on track | 21:04 |
| ttx | #topic Icehouse cycle roadmapping | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Icehouse cycle roadmapping (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:04 | |
| ttx | we now have release status for icehouse at: | 21:04 |
| lifeless | ttx: any release concerns about the proposed scheduler split out? | 21:04 |
| ttx | #link http://status.openstack.org/release/ | 21:04 |
| ttx | lifeless: could you summarize your plans ? | 21:05 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | We have 172 tracked blueprints (Medium priority or above) in Icehouse so far | 21:05 |
| ttx | I'd like to have this basic roadmap to be complete by the end of the week | 21:05 |
| *** vipul-away is now known as vipul | 21:05 | |
| ttx | It doesn't have to be "final" in any way. | 21:05 |
| ttx | It just have to be a fair reflection of what you know will be worked on and when you expect that work to hit | 21:05 |
| lifeless | ttx: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler line 38 down for three sections; BP is coming later today | 21:06 |
| ttx | (this is a coordination and communication tool) | 21:06 |
| ttx | So please add missing blueprints to cover what you know should happen, and set an assignee and priority for them. | 21:06 |
| russellb | since we're doing more in depth blueprint reviews for nova, there will still be a batch in the process, and not prioritized, but we'll have them all reviewed and at least under discussion | 21:06 |
| ttx | lifeless: so this causes a number of issues | 21:06 |
| russellb | (for nova) | 21:06 |
| russellb | lifeless: i think we should just go off and do the technical bits that are right | 21:06 |
| russellb | lifeless: and come back when we have something working, and a more well defined upgrade / deprecation plan | 21:07 |
| lifeless | russellb: ack | 21:07 |
| russellb | that we think are right, at least | 21:07 |
| ttx | lifeless: in theory a new project can't be integrated until J, supposing you fast-track incubation | 21:07 |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| russellb | ttx: ack | 21:07 |
| russellb | looking at taking a cinder-like approach ... minimizing divergence from what it's replacing | 21:08 |
| ttx | so marking it deprecated supposes you have the alternate project well lined up to replace it | 21:08 |
| russellb | so that we can get to usable ASAP | 21:08 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 21:08 | |
| ttx | but I guess overall that's doable. Cinder-style | 21:08 |
| russellb | early, but i think it's doable :) | 21:08 |
| ttx | lifeless: i'll have to go deeper in that etherpad :) | 21:09 |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| ttx | russellb: the trick is to avoid doing it ironic-style | 21:09 |
| dansmith | oof | 21:09 |
| *** litong has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| russellb | well ironic-style is closer to neutron style | 21:10 |
| russellb | IMO | 21:10 |
| ttx | russellb: i.e. deprecating in icehouse and not replacing it in J | 21:10 |
| russellb | but yes, with you on that | 21:10 |
| russellb | won't deprecate until we know the replacement is well established | 21:10 |
| ttx | right | 21:10 |
| lifeless | so, if we start with it as a nova project in a new tree we'll have the technical room to do what we need. | 21:10 |
| russellb | compute program project you mean? | 21:10 |
| lifeless | *snarl* | 21:10 |
| lifeless | :) | 21:11 |
| russellb | IMO, yes, compute program until it starts growing real legs to do something more | 21:11 |
| russellb | but it's a ways before it can get that far | 21:11 |
| lifeless | agreed. | 21:11 |
| * annegentle sends lifeless some turkey and gravy | 21:11 | |
| ttx | lifeless: you should still file for incubation asap. There are some pretty harsh requirements for incub/graduation now :) | 21:11 |
| russellb | ha | 21:11 |
| russellb | there's not even a repo yet :) | 21:11 |
| lifeless | so, lets move on | 21:11 |
| lifeless | I have what I need | 21:11 |
| russellb | cool | 21:11 |
| ttx | other questions on icehouse-1 / icehouse roadmap before we discuss cross-project issues ? | 21:12 |
| ttx | mriedem: around ? | 21:12 |
| mriedem | ttx: yup | 21:12 |
| ttx | #topic Oslo sync (mriedem) | 21:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Oslo sync (mriedem) (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:12 | |
| mriedem | powervm | 21:12 |
| mriedem | oh | 21:12 |
| bnemec | heh | 21:12 |
| ttx | mriedem: not yet! i'll let you introduce the discussion | 21:12 |
| mriedem | so i just brought up the oslo sync debate in the nova meeting last week, | 21:12 |
| mriedem | russellb said it should come here since it's cross-project | 21:13 |
| mriedem | since then the ML blew up a bit more but i haven't stayed up to date | 21:13 |
| russellb | let's not boil the ocean on this ... but basically, i was saying it wasn't a nova issue specifically | 21:13 |
| mriedem | that's why dhellmann, bnemec, lbragstad and lifeless are here | 21:13 |
| russellb | and that we should engage with dhellmann, and other oslo folks | 21:13 |
| mriedem | from what i gathered quickly from the ML was there is general consensus on improving update.py a bit? | 21:13 |
| mriedem | russellb: right, that's what i meant to say :) | 21:14 |
| russellb | k | 21:14 |
| ttx | mriedem: that was my interpretation of that thread as well | 21:14 |
| lifeless | so the thing I really want to see | 21:14 |
| lifeless | is all the oslo bits that aren't evolving weekly | 21:14 |
| lifeless | released as libraries | 21:14 |
| david-lyle | +1 | 21:14 |
| lifeless | their special incubation period is over | 21:14 |
| dhellmann | we are working on that | 21:15 |
| lifeless | and we'd avoid a raft of overhead keeping up with hacking format changes and stuff | 21:15 |
| markmc | mriedem, yeah, improving update.py would help | 21:15 |
| lifeless | dhellmann: I know - not criticising, just saying that thats what I really want to see | 21:15 |
| dhellmann | however, there are some unfortunate cross-dependencies | 21:15 |
| markmc | lifeless, mostly agree, but there are some we'd regret taking that approach with when we struggle with future API changes | 21:15 |
| lifeless | dhellmann: because the other angle I'd go is aiming at making the incubator /be/ a library. | 21:15 |
| dhellmann | yes, I would prefer time spent on graduating code over gold-plating update.py | 21:15 |
| markmc | lifeless, but I dig your point that if the APIs haven't changed for a long time, let's just bite the bullet | 21:16 |
| lifeless | markmc: AIUI the point of oslo is to go from 'production in one project to production in > one' | 21:16 |
| lifeless | markmc: the incubator I mean. | 21:16 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| * markwash loves the improvements we've been making before promoting to libs | 21:16 | |
| markmc | lifeless, point of incubator is to evolve towards API stability | 21:16 |
| dhellmann | lifeless: yes, but not "as is" -- we also try to make the code actually usable | 21:16 |
| lifeless | markmc: How do we measure that? | 21:16 |
| dhellmann | right, what markmc said | 21:16 |
| markmc | lifeless, you feel the truthiness in your gut | 21:17 |
| markwash | lifeless: gut check? | 21:17 |
| russellb | and i think oslo generally attracts people with a good gut for such things | 21:17 |
| ttx | one mornign I woke up and FELT that rootwrap was stable. | 21:17 |
| lifeless | markmc: but if noone is evoling the thing | 21:17 |
| markmc | https://github.com/openstack/oslo-incubator/blob/master/MAINTAINERS | 21:17 |
| * dhellmann thanks russellb for complimenting his gut | 21:17 | |
| russellb | has worked well so far i think | 21:17 |
| markmc | " | 21:17 |
| markmc | APIs in oslo-incubator are resting here temporarily until they have been | 21:17 |
| markmc | cleaned up sufficiently so that we can make a commitment to backwards | 21:17 |
| markmc | compatibility and release the API in a properly published library. | 21:17 |
| markmc | " | 21:17 |
| annegentle | dhellmann: snort | 21:17 |
| lifeless | markmc: we're stuck with manual integration rather than continual integration | 21:18 |
| markmc | lifeless, incompatible API churn is painful too | 21:18 |
| russellb | was afraid of this same discussion again, i feel like we've had it 100 times | 21:18 |
| markmc | lifeless, basically, I think the incubation process is evolving, we'll see libraries released more quickly now | 21:18 |
| ttx | the update.py pain is a good motivator for cleaning up APIs | 21:19 |
| markmc | lifeless, but the principle of evolving towards API stability still makes sense | 21:19 |
| dhellmann | right, I think we figured out how to do it with oslo.config and oslo.messaging | 21:19 |
| dhellmann | that's going to make the next few easier | 21:19 |
| lifeless | I'm not disputing the principle - thats a different discussion. | 21:19 |
| lifeless | I'm worried that we're not executing effectively, and I'd like to know how I and the community can help that happen. | 21:19 |
| ttx | OK, we've been havgin that discussion at least 10 times already, and I don't want to spend all this meeting on it | 21:19 |
| markmc | one thing that can help get libraries out more quickly | 21:20 |
| markmc | more people helping! | 21:20 |
| ttx | especially since we all know that markmc always wins the argument in the end | 21:20 |
| *** yassine has quit IRC | 21:20 | |
| markmc | lifeless, seriously, pick a random API, turn it into a library ... see if anyone objects :) | 21:20 |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:20 | |
| bnemec | Have we decided what to do with the pieces of Oslo that don't fit nicely into a library? | 21:20 |
| dhellmann | bnemec: which are those? | 21:20 |
| dhellmann | bnemec: maybe we should take that up after the meeting | 21:21 |
| markmc | ttx, I dunno, lifeless does alright on that front :) | 21:21 |
| lifeless | :P | 21:21 |
| ttx | yes, anyone needing convincing can talk to dhellmann and markmc off-meeting, let's move on | 21:21 |
| bnemec | I don't have any off the top of my head, but I recall from previous discussions that there were things that didn't fit nicely. | 21:21 |
| bnemec | But +1 to after the meeting. | 21:21 |
| lifeless | -> list | 21:21 |
| ttx | #topic Nova PowerVM Driver Removal (mriedem) | 21:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova PowerVM Driver Removal (mriedem) (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:21 | |
| lifeless | 'how can we move it faster' | 21:21 |
| * jd__ agrees with ttx | 21:21 | |
| ttx | You again :) | 21:21 |
| mriedem | so i don't have much else to say about the powervm driver removal | 21:21 |
| ttx | So, on this one... I'm OK with a fast deprecation path if we don't screw any user in the process | 21:22 |
| ttx | We got some reassuring comments from the User committee that this driver may not be in use | 21:22 |
| mriedem | ttx: russellb's idea was just move it to stackforge | 21:22 |
| russellb | no users have shown up, one possible future user | 21:22 |
| ttx | But then we had this guy: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/2013-November/003370.html | 21:22 |
| mriedem | which i think we're OK with | 21:22 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| ttx | that said, if he is in POC -> Prod mode, choosing the PowerVM driver at this point might not be the best option, if IBM loses interest in maintaining it | 21:22 |
| mrodden | i am in favor of the stackforge move | 21:22 |
| dims | +1 to stackforge move | 21:22 |
| ttx | so we might just save him by encouraging him to not go on tat road | 21:22 |
| mriedem | ttx: russellb: yeah, i think what the one user was saying is as long as it's freely available (stackforge), he's ok with it | 21:22 |
| dhellmann | what is the point of keeping the code without any maintainers? | 21:23 |
| *** marekd is now known as marekd|away | 21:23 | |
| russellb | yep ... but honestly, you guys have already said you're not interested | 21:23 |
| ttx | mriedem: I think he said (ubuntu) but meh :) | 21:23 |
| russellb | so i'm not sure why anyone would | 21:23 |
| mriedem | russellb: not interested in what? stackforge? | 21:23 |
| russellb | not interested in maintaining it long term | 21:23 |
| ttx | mriedem: you should probably engage with that specific person and make sure he moves to powervc when ready | 21:23 |
| russellb | so it seems like a dead end for someone to be looking to deploy in the next year | 21:23 |
| russellb | and let's not confuse this with powervc | 21:24 |
| russellb | none of this means we'd accept a powervc driver necessarily | 21:24 |
| mriedem | ttx: yeah, that's what we plan on doing, there are some key people out to be in that discussion though this week (thanksgiving holiday) | 21:24 |
| mriedem | russellb: right, that's understood | 21:24 |
| russellb | we may or may not, but it would be evaluated based on its own merits | 21:24 |
| russellb | ok | 21:24 |
| dims | russellb, what's your thought here? delete from nova and not move to it to stackforge? | 21:24 |
| russellb | it keeps getting brought up, and i really want to separate it | 21:24 |
| mrodden | we will be maintain the powervm driver internally for some time until the powervc one is 'ready'ish | 21:24 |
| russellb | dims: delete from nova, and then you guys (IBM) do what you want | 21:24 |
| ttx | mriedem: so at this point I'm fine with fast deprecation + stackforge if there is some personal advice given to that one user who has mentioned wanting to use it | 21:24 |
| russellb | but stackforge is an option | 21:25 |
| mriedem | my only question about stackforge is if we can use the same gerrit and CI for running unit tests? i wasn't sure how that works. | 21:25 |
| russellb | yes | 21:25 |
| russellb | same infrastructure | 21:25 |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:25 | |
| mriedem | ok, good to know | 21:25 |
| russellb | so actions | 21:25 |
| mriedem | as a fallback plan basically | 21:25 |
| russellb | 1) approve the removal | 21:26 |
| dims | russellb, cool let's stick with that then "Delete from Nova, Move to Stackforge" | 21:26 |
| lifeless | so whats the difference between powervm and powervc | 21:26 |
| russellb | 2) mriedem respond to the openstack post giving some recommendation to the one guy | 21:26 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| lifeless | is one free with the hardware and one commercial ? | 21:26 |
| mriedem | lifeless: powervc is vcenter on power | 21:26 |
| dhellmann | as a note, there is currently a hold on creating new stackforge projects because of a zuul issue | 21:26 |
| russellb | 3) move to stackforge | 21:26 |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| russellb | mriedem: um, but not vcenter at all right? | 21:26 |
| dhellmann | so be aware of that when making scheduling plans | 21:26 |
| russellb | it's your own thing | 21:26 |
| ttx | russellb: +1 | 21:26 |
| mriedem | russellb: right | 21:26 |
| lifeless | dhellmann: is that a short or long hold? | 21:26 |
| mriedem | russellb: i agree with your action plan | 21:26 |
| russellb | ok thanks | 21:27 |
| dhellmann | lifeless: there's a bug they need to fix, so it depends on that | 21:27 |
| russellb | i think we can move on then | 21:27 |
| dhellmann | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/1242569 | 21:27 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1242569 in openstack-ci "manage-projects error on new project creation" [Critical,Triaged] | 21:27 |
| ttx | jeblair: do we have an ETA for the fix on this one ? | 21:27 |
| * ttx has a icehouse-1 blueprint blokced on it) | 21:27 | |
| jeblair | ttx: mordred is working on it | 21:28 |
| jeblair | also, totally not a zuul issue :) | 21:28 |
| dhellmann | ttx, no, yours went through because it's not a stackforge repo | 21:28 |
| jeblair | it is a manage-projects issue | 21:28 |
| russellb | [infra magic] issue | 21:28 |
| mordred | yes. I will fix this in a few hours | 21:28 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: sorry, didn't mean to mischaracterize it | 21:28 |
| ttx | dhellmann: oh. nice. stops complaining | 21:28 |
| mordred | the fix is well identified - I just need about an hour to actually do it | 21:28 |
| * dhellmann would give mordred and hour if he had one | 21:28 | |
| mordred | as soon as I'm done with these powerpoint slides... | 21:29 |
| markmc | hehe | 21:29 |
| ttx | ok, let's move on | 21:29 |
| ttx | russell did summarize the plan quite well | 21:29 |
| ttx | #topic flake8 (notmyname) | 21:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "flake8 (notmyname) (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:29 | |
| notmyname | hi | 21:29 |
| ttx | notmyname: you mentioned getting pushback that forces you to ignore a check ? | 21:29 |
| ttx | but then you were using a phone keyboard | 21:30 |
| notmyname | (maybe there has been process since) | 21:30 |
| notmyname | *progress | 21:30 |
| notmyname | so swift has a few cases where a bare except is needed. so we offered a patch to hacking to support #noqa on bare excepts | 21:30 |
| jeblair | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57334/ | 21:31 |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:31 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| lifeless | notmyname: thats surprising. Do you run on python2.4 ? | 21:31 |
| notmyname | it got some pushpack (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57334/) which caused us to simply ignore the check https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56712/ | 21:31 |
| jeblair | notmyname: i don't see pushback | 21:31 |
| jeblair | notmyname: except for a suggestion that the commit message have an explanation | 21:32 |
| jog0 | notmyname: neither do I | 21:32 |
| jog0 | in fact this hasn't got approved yet just do to review backlog | 21:32 |
| lifeless | notmyname: I realise thats a side issue, but bare except: only difference from except BaseException in that it catches string exceptions | 21:32 |
| *** casanch1 has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| *** ArxCruz has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| lifeless | notmyname: which are thorughly deprecated and dead upstream | 21:32 |
| notmyname | like I said, seems perhaps there was movement yesterday that I hadn't seen | 21:32 |
| notmyname | so perhaps a non issue today (not that I have more info than when I was on my phone with ttx this morning) | 21:33 |
| jog0 | so no feedback in a few days is pushback? | 21:33 |
| dolphm | notmyname: is there a discussion somewhere regarding the need for bare excepts? | 21:33 |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| *** macjack has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| lifeless | notmyname: on a purely technical basis I'm fascinated :) | 21:33 |
| * dhellmann wonders why each hacking rule has to look for noqa independently | 21:33 | |
| notmyname | dhellmann: great question :-) | 21:34 |
| dolphm | notmyname: (just found clay's comment on Nov 19 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57334/ citing PEP8; reading) | 21:34 |
| notmyname | there was other discussions in IRC earlier in the week that caused us to believe the hacking patch wouldn't land. | 21:34 |
| notmyname | were* | 21:34 |
| ttx | notmyname: I think that patch is not blocked, so you should be able to remove your workaround | 21:34 |
| notmyname | ttx: then we can move on | 21:34 |
| ttx | (when it lands) | 21:35 |
| mordred | dhellmann: each hacking rule parses the line using a few different methods - and there is not a global line parser for a line | 21:35 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| notmyname | I don't want to be blocked on that | 21:35 |
| notmyname | and simply wanted to raise it here to ensure it goes (based on IRC conversations more than review comments) | 21:35 |
| ttx | ok, looks like this is a non-issue, next topic | 21:35 |
| ttx | #topic Proper tracking for non-deterministic bugs affecting gate | 21:35 |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:35 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Proper tracking for non-deterministic bugs affecting gate (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:35 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| ttx | That one should be more bikeshedding | 21:36 |
| ttx | lifeless: want to introduce this one ? | 21:36 |
| lifeless | oh yay | 21:36 |
| *** ArxCruz has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| russellb | btw, cross project topic for the queue ... checking in on neutron vs nova-network status | 21:36 |
| lifeless | so 40 minutes ago we were gathered here | 21:36 |
| *** ArxCruz has quit IRC | 21:36 | |
| lifeless | and talking about how to get gate bugs attention | 21:36 |
| jeblair | ttx: NICE time estimate, btw! | 21:36 |
| lifeless | and the various tradeoffs between using the well known hammer of critical | 21:36 |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| ttx | jeblair: I'm a pro. | 21:37 |
| lifeless | (actually 38, but 40 was a h/t to ttx) | 21:37 |
| lifeless | anyhoo | 21:37 |
| lifeless | critical | 21:37 |
| lifeless | or some gate-thing-specific search (e.g. /rechecks, a canned bug search - e.g. tag, etc etc) | 21:37 |
| ttx | lifeless: I thought notmyname's topic would create more flames. | 21:37 |
| lifeless | go to it | 21:37 |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| lifeless | ttx: well if my technical question was answered, maybe:P | 21:37 |
| markmc | how about we start by figuring out how to decide which non-deterministic failures are really critical? | 21:38 |
| lifeless | lets not use the word critical - overloaded. | 21:38 |
| ttx | markmc: I think sdague's point is that they all are | 21:38 |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| lifeless | Lets say - things we want 24 hour fast focus on | 21:38 |
| ttx | markmc: as they just add up | 21:38 |
| sdague | markmc: so up until this point it's been the judgement of the group of us that flag it | 21:38 |
| lifeless | and things we want ahead of other bug fixes | 21:38 |
| lifeless | and things we want in the general mix of bugfixes | 21:38 |
| lifeless | because those are I think the three effective categories we have | 21:38 |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| lifeless | 'drop everything', 'front of the regular queue', 'whenever' | 21:39 |
| sdague | and I guess the question is if we're going to continue with a small group of folks with that power (either explicitly or by cultural construct), do we trust those folks to make good judgements there | 21:39 |
| markmc | they sound like they should be marked as critical, yes :) | 21:39 |
| markmc | however, if we have say 30 non-deterministic bugs right now ... they don't all qualify under that criteria | 21:39 |
| ttx | lifeless: some busy projects only have two ('drop everything' and 'whenever') | 21:39 |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| dolphm | are we also proposing that 'critical' bug fixes get priority in the gate queue? | 21:40 |
| sdague | because the reality is, until the race shows up a few times it doesn't pop up | 21:40 |
| ttx | but that's arguably a failure | 21:40 |
| lifeless | ttx: degenerate case of front of the queue ;P | 21:40 |
| sdague | markmc: so here's the thing, it's not 2 giant races | 21:40 |
| russellb | dolphm: have to be careful with doing that kind of thing, if it's automatic it'll get abused :( | 21:40 |
| lifeless | from collections import set as deque | 21:40 |
| sdague | it's actually 30 little races that all interact | 21:40 |
| markmc | sdague, "trust to make good judgement" does not start with "all non-deterministic bugs, no matter how rare, are automatically Critcial" IMHO :) | 21:40 |
| russellb | markmc: big +1 | 21:40 |
| dolphm | russellb: understood, that's why i'm asking! might affect my opinion on the larger issue | 21:40 |
| lifeless | so perhaps, if its the set of things that is the problem | 21:41 |
| sdague | markmc: ok, well I've been staring at this one for a while. And the problem is we're actually getting killed by a thousand paper cuts. | 21:41 |
| lifeless | we can talk about the criticality of making that set be below some threshold | 21:41 |
| sdague | however, it will take some more time to be able to easily visualize that fact | 21:41 |
| lifeless | and if we agree about that, then we can say - whenever it's over that threshold, *all the members* count as critical until it's below the threshold. | 21:41 |
| sdague | which is basically my top dev priority at this point | 21:41 |
| markmc | sdague, making them a thousand Critical bugs won't fix it :) | 21:41 |
| dolphm | markmc: ++ | 21:42 |
| lifeless | markmc: what do you think will fix it? | 21:42 |
| ttx | lifeless: I think we could use Tag + High/Critical (as a way to prioritize amongst them) | 21:42 |
| dhellmann | how many of these things do we actually have open right now? | 21:42 |
| lifeless | markmc: also it's 100 bugs spread over a dozen code bases. | 21:42 |
| russellb | i think we should focus on the goal ... making people want to work on this | 21:42 |
| sdague | markmc: well let me reverse it. Do you think that what myself, jog0, and clarkb have done so far has made things better or worse? | 21:42 |
| ttx | i.e. if all critical, it might be hard to prioritize which one should be fixed first | 21:42 |
| markmc | lifeless, the kind of work and awareness raising going on this week | 21:42 |
| lifeless | markmc: thats what - 10 per code base. | 21:42 |
| jeblair | for those that haven't seen it, i imagine these bugs would be a subset of the bugs here: http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ | 21:42 |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:42 | |
| jeblair | i don't think it's 100 bugs... | 21:42 |
| lifeless | So lets not extrapolate out to infinity on the data we have | 21:42 |
| jog0 | right now we are tracking 9 gate bugs with e-r http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ | 21:42 |
| dolphm | not all bugs on /rechecks/ are actually transient issues at all | 21:42 |
| lifeless | jog0: we have 110 tracked rechecks today, if I counted right | 21:43 |
| russellb | what gets more people interested in helping with these things? | 21:43 |
| dolphm | (maybe they are at the moment, but it's not always true) | 21:43 |
| sdague | dolphm: these aren't trusting the user provided bugs | 21:43 |
| jog0 | lifeless: recehck vs elastic-recheck | 21:43 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: I count about 18 | 21:43 |
| jgriffith | TBF it's not just 3 or 4 individuals making things better | 21:43 |
| jeblair | lifeless: the rechecks page has a lot of garbage data | 21:43 |
| lifeless | jeblair: ok! | 21:43 |
| jgriffith | and it's not just 3 or 4 that are going to address it | 21:43 |
| markwash | if they are critical, is there a good way to get help understanding and duplicating the bugs? I often cannot make heads or tails of the bug reports for things in the rechecks list | 21:43 |
| lifeless | so elastic-recheck is our source of truth? | 21:43 |
| jgriffith | it's a scaling problem | 21:43 |
| sdague | this is elastic recheck | 21:43 |
| jeblair | dhellmann: and at looks like 5 of them are ready to be removed | 21:43 |
| jgriffith | tags, priorities etc aside | 21:43 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: progress! | 21:43 |
| markmc | sdague, oh, far better ... totally - my input is basically that bumping a big number of bugs to Critical will hurt your progress | 21:43 |
| sdague | which means that a set of us have found a fingerprint, and found that it shows up more than once | 21:43 |
| dhellmann | markwash: +1 | 21:44 |
| jeblair | so that puts us at about a dozen or so on the e-r page, but if jog0 says 9 i believe him :) | 21:44 |
| jeblair | lifeless: for this conversation, i think so. elastic-recheck is made up of bugs that have gone through human review and we know are gate-affecting | 21:44 |
| *** ArxCruz has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| *** fkak_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| russellb | is there a good dashboard of the e-r bugs? | 21:45 |
| jeblair | lifeless: /recheck is sadly full of people rechecking things against nonsense bugs. it will eventually be replaced with the e-r page | 21:45 |
| russellb | nm i see the URL now | 21:45 |
| sdague | markmc: ok, fair. :) But we are talking about a finite set here - http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ | 21:45 |
| jeblair | russellb: that's sdague's big project for the next bit, to improve http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ and make it more dashboardy | 21:45 |
| dolphm | sdague: cool! this is new to me | 21:45 |
| jd__ | so problem number one is people, noted. :) | 21:45 |
| mriedem | sdague: jog0: the elastic-recheck page is only for those that are in the yaml query file though right? | 21:46 |
| russellb | i think the improved dashboard will make a *much* bigger impact than changing bug priorities | 21:46 |
| sdague | russellb: I 100% agree | 21:46 |
| russellb | k :) | 21:46 |
| sdague | unfortunately, had these other things take the last two weeks of my time | 21:46 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:46 | |
| sdague | so diving back in right after thanksgiving ont hat | 21:46 |
| jeblair | russellb: here's the problem i want to solve -- we are able to fix these bugs only when we get people aware of them and working on them. i'm trying to find the best process to do that. | 21:46 |
| russellb | there was just a whole lot of focus on bug priority ... | 21:46 |
| russellb | jeblair: a good dashboard, and people regularly reporting status to the -dev list, and in meetings | 21:47 |
| russellb | IMO | 21:47 |
| mriedem | jeblair: i think it might help to show people how easy it is to get a bug into the e-r query.yaml file | 21:47 |
| mriedem | jeblair: once the bug is in the query and e-r is checking and reporting on it, you should stop seeing so many 'recheck no bug' | 21:47 |
| russellb | like jog0's report recently ... would love to see that regularly | 21:47 |
| mriedem | and it's pretty easy to push patches to add queries to -er | 21:47 |
| russellb | here are the current issues and their status | 21:47 |
| dhellmann | russellb: I think the point is giving devs a whole other place to look when deciding what to work on might be less effective than just setting the priority so they show up at the top of the list in the usual place | 21:47 |
| sdague | russellb: agreed, honestly, the sequence would have been better to hit this first | 21:47 |
| russellb | and which ones need more attention | 21:47 |
| sdague | russellb: yes, that's completely the intention | 21:47 |
| jeblair | russellb: i'm not sure we should wait for a good dashboard. i anticipate that's a while out yet, and it depends on people incorporating 'wake up and check the dashboard' into their workflow | 21:47 |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| lifeless | dhellmann: +1 | 21:48 |
| lifeless | dhellmann: thats precisely my point | 21:48 |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| ttx | frankly, I think we are getting better at this, not worse. | 21:48 |
| lifeless | folk are bad at pulling together widely disparate information sources in their inner loop of 'what to work on next' | 21:48 |
| russellb | a weekly email then | 21:48 |
| dolphm | could elastic-recheck leave comments on bugs as a starting point? | 21:48 |
| salv-orlando | I think it already does? | 21:48 |
| russellb | or more frequent when there are severe issues | 21:48 |
| sdague | dolphm: it already does | 21:48 |
| markmc | sdague, cool stuff - that page looks far more useful to people want to help with this than bug priorities | 21:48 |
| jog0 | russellb: we plan on it | 21:48 |
| dhellmann | I like the weekly email and I like a tag ("gate"?) and I like setting the priority | 21:48 |
| russellb | ok all good stuff | 21:48 |
| ttx | the recent events have been quite well communicated imho | 21:48 |
| dolphm | i guess i'm lucky in that i haven't experience that yet lol | 21:49 |
| russellb | ttx: yep | 21:49 |
| markwash | critical isn't quite "where I look for stuff to work on" its more like "oh crap what is ttx gonna yell at me about?" | 21:49 |
| jeblair | markmc: thank you. | 21:49 |
| sdague | dolphm: yeh, honestly, keystone isn't really subject to this much by not having an rpc bus | 21:49 |
| dhellmann | markwash: +1 | 21:49 |
| lifeless | markmc: I don't understand why you (seem to) think bug priorities aren't helpful | 21:49 |
| lifeless | markmc: but we can sidebar that if you like | 21:49 |
| jog0 | so the recent gate issues have shown that we were just two bugs away from a massive gate wedge -- something we never want to have again | 21:49 |
| ttx | markwash: that's one benefit/problem of using "critical" for that. That reuses my nagging | 21:49 |
| russellb | i think markmc's point is to be careful not to dilute the value of bug priorities | 21:50 |
| ttx | nagging-as-a-service | 21:50 |
| russellb | marking a ton of stuff critical is counter-productive | 21:50 |
| sdague | so, honestly, I'm completely ok with the resolution of "go make the dashboard better first" and if it's not working talk about bug priorities later | 21:50 |
| jeblair | and we've only been able to fix these issues by getting people on it. | 21:50 |
| russellb | so just want some reasonable line | 21:50 |
| lifeless | so there are 18 such bugs | 21:50 |
| russellb | and then i'd be Ok with it | 21:50 |
| markmc | lifeless, just that marking obviously not-obviously-critical bugs as critical will be (yeah, as russellb says) counter-productive | 21:50 |
| *** maxdml has quit IRC | 21:50 | |
| jeblair | sdague: i don't see how getting a better dashboard will get people to commit to fixing bugs | 21:50 |
| lifeless | maybe 14 once fixed ones are gc'd | 21:50 |
| ttx | how about we use tag + high / critical depending on how urgent the fix is ? | 21:50 |
| markwash | ttx: lol :-) | 21:50 |
| russellb | i don't see how marking bugs will either on its own | 21:50 |
| lifeless | markmc: russellb: ok, understood on dilution. | 21:50 |
| jeblair | sdague: right now, sdague and jog0 go and bother people until someone starts working on it | 21:50 |
| ttx | (that's already what we do, btw) | 21:51 |
| jeblair | there has to be a better way to communicate | 21:51 |
| markmc | sdague, easy to use the dashboard as data to ask bug triage teams to bump the priority of bugs | 21:51 |
| lifeless | so the bug database is our shared understanding of defects | 21:51 |
| russellb | i think we'll always need people making this a higher priority on their list to look afer | 21:51 |
| sdague | I guess here's the question - what is the right and consistent signaling mechanism to the PTLs to get people to look at bugs | 21:51 |
| dolphm | ttx: and i think that's a sane approach! | 21:51 |
| russellb | and then report status to the rest of the community | 21:51 |
| lifeless | my point is that storing stuff elsewhere is a bit crazy | 21:51 |
| jeblair | sdague: exactly | 21:51 |
| russellb | sdague: more regular reports | 21:51 |
| russellb | list posts | 21:51 |
| russellb | meeting topics | 21:51 |
| lifeless | because it dminishes the authority of the shared database of bugs. | 21:51 |
| ttx | sdague: how about raising them at this meeting weekly ? | 21:51 |
| sdague | and the answer can't involve me or jog0 having to ping people regularly, because it doesn't scale | 21:52 |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| lifeless | how about each project has an item to touch on them ? | 21:52 |
| russellb | need to scale a team that makes this a priority to look after | 21:52 |
| jeblair | russellb: these can't wait a week. they need people working on them quickly. | 21:52 |
| russellb | list post for the critical ones | 21:52 |
| sdague | russellb: so I disagree, I think we need folks from the core teams that make it a priority | 21:52 |
| markmc | mark critical ones as critical :) | 21:52 |
| russellb | someone needs to take ownership over tracking it and pushing toward the solution, sort of like a VMT member does for a vulnerability | 21:52 |
| ttx | sdague: (if setting them High/Critical didn't trigger the right response) | 21:52 |
| lifeless | jeblair: all of them? AIUI there are 'zomg this alone is a killer' + 'we have a background level of noise that is a real problem' | 21:52 |
| stevebaker | lifeless: a sharp pointy item to touch on them? ;) | 21:52 |
| *** vkozhukalov has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| mriedem | is it fair to say that all bugs on http://status.openstack.org/rechecks/ should have checks on http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ ? | 21:52 |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| sdague | mriedem: /rechecks/ is kind of broken right now | 21:53 |
| lifeless | jeblair: It seems to me that 'zomg X' is drop-everything, and handled already, and 'background noise' is what we're trying to solve here | 21:53 |
| ttx | OK, we ahve a couple of other points to touch in this meeting. There is a calm thread on the ML, please hit it now | 21:53 |
| jeblair | lifeless: a lot of them, certainly. i mostly want to indicate that many can't wait a week. | 21:53 |
| russellb | wish i had time for all the threads i'm interested in :( | 21:53 |
| mriedem | sdague: ok, point is, i think people have gotten used to finding a bug or opening one to recheck against, but not to adding e-r queries on them | 21:53 |
| lifeless | jeblair: ack | 21:53 |
| russellb | tough to keep up | 21:53 |
| ttx | moving on | 21:53 |
| sdague | mriedem: yes, that's true, we'll get better at this. | 21:54 |
| mriedem | if we have e-r queries on these things, they show up in patches and the e-r page | 21:54 |
| russellb | so each project could have a gate czar that is making this a priority? | 21:54 |
| ttx | #topic Red Flag District / Blocked blueprints | 21:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Red Flag District / Blocked blueprints (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:54 | |
| sdague | russellb: +1 | 21:54 |
| russellb | what a naughty topic this is. | 21:54 |
| ttx | We have no blocked blueprints that I know about | 21:54 |
| ttx | Any blocked work that this meeting could help unblock ? | 21:54 |
| russellb | (is what i think when ttx says red flag district) | 21:54 |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** ildikov has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| russellb | hrm, could consider deprecating nova-network as a blocked thing ... but that could be deserving of its own meeting topic each week | 21:54 |
| ttx | russellb, salv-orlando: I haven't looked carefully into the neutron roadmap, do we have anything there to hope for icehouse ? | 21:55 |
| russellb | summary of blockers: feature parity (there are icehouse plans, but then again, there were havana plans, and grizzly plans ...) | 21:56 |
| russellb | and CI / general quality parity | 21:56 |
| *** Toshi has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| russellb | not sure on the progress there | 21:56 |
| salv-orlando | on the deprecation issues, that goes far beyond my reach. On the specific parity items | 21:56 |
| ttx | neutron suffers a bit from too much tactical, not enough strategic contributions yet | 21:56 |
| russellb | and to be clear, i've started saying that i'd like to re-evaluate nova-network's status after icehouse-2 | 21:57 |
| ttx | and the very few that do strategic contributions are totally overwhelmed | 21:57 |
| russellb | depending on progress, i may propose un-freezing nova-network | 21:57 |
| ttx | and get a lot of blame | 21:57 |
| russellb | ttx: yep ... | 21:57 |
| salv-orlando | ttx: don't understand what you mean by tactical and strategic. Can you explain? | 21:57 |
| ttx | so that do not encourage other people to go all in | 21:57 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| ttx | salv-orlando: tactical = feature in a vendor plugin | 21:58 |
| ttx | strategic = test coverage, feature gap | 21:58 |
| russellb | strategic = anything beneficial to the project overall | 21:58 |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| salv-orlando | cool I get it - I think we're all aware of this issue. Thankfully the strategic contributor team is gathering new members | 21:59 |
| ttx | oldie but still relevant: http://fnords.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/the-next-step-for-openstack/ | 21:59 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: project)" | 21:59 | |
| ttx | markwash: wanted to quickly raise the client lib thread ? | 22:00 |
| markwash | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-November/019911.html | 22:00 |
| *** DennyZhang has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| ttx | sorry not much time left | 22:00 |
| russellb | so no updates on that? :( | 22:00 |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| markwash | just wanted to mention, we've got some rough consensus approaching there I think | 22:00 |
| markwash | in case folks want to (struggle to) review the thread | 22:00 |
| ttx | russellb: we might want to make it a full topic at another meeting | 22:00 |
| markwash | I can summarize what it seems to me later today | 22:01 |
| *** markvoelker1 has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| ttx | russellb: although markmcclain might be traveling a lot on next Tuesdays | 22:01 |
| russellb | ok | 22:01 |
| ttx | markwash: yeah, maybe summarize what you intend to do basd on the outcome of that thread... that might trigger new answers | 22:01 |
| markwash | ttx: deal | 22:01 |
| *** pub_tap is now known as hub_cap | 22:01 | |
| *** sparkycollier has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| ttx | markwash: "WAT! defintely DONT do that" | 22:01 |
| *** lsell has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| markwash | yeah | 22:01 |
| markwash | haha | 22:01 |
| *** twoputt has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** twoputt_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| ttx | And we are out of time | 22:02 |
| dolphm | regarding QA team having triaging abilities on LP, is there someway PTL's can opt into that short of making all those people *-core? | 22:02 |
| dolphm | boo | 22:02 |
| jeblair | open bug teams | 22:02 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 22:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 22:02:37 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:02 |
| markmc | dolphm, well, e.g. nova-bugs is an open team | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-11-26-21.02.html | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-11-26-21.02.txt | 22:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-11-26-21.02.log.html | 22:02 |
| jeblair | most projects have open bug teams already :) | 22:02 |
| *** bknudson has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** markmc has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| jeblair | keystone does not | 22:03 |
| ttx | and all should have. There was some silly resistance last time I proposed it | 22:03 |
| jeblair | and neutron does not | 22:03 |
| markwash | glance does | 22:03 |
| markwash | booya | 22:03 |
| dolphm | ttx: why doesn't keystone? | 22:03 |
| markwash | (very recently, thanks jeblair) | 22:03 |
| jeblair | markwash: thank you! | 22:03 |
| ttx | https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg11678.html | 22:03 |
| sdague | markwash: yes, thanks ! | 22:03 |
| *** matty_dubs has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| sdague | dolphm: because you haven't set the permissions. you've got the power. | 22:04 |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| hub_cap | ttx is a mail history ninja :) | 22:04 |
| ttx | sdague: see my proposal in the link there | 22:04 |
| jeblair | dolphm: or i can do it if you want, i have the page open. :) | 22:04 |
| ttx | david-lyle: feel free to kick us out and start your meeting | 22:04 |
| david-lyle | #startmeeting Horizon | 22:04 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Nov 26 22:04:44 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is david-lyle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:04 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 22:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Horizon)" | 22:04 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'horizon' | 22:04 |
| david-lyle | Hello Horizon folks! | 22:05 |
| jtomasek | o/ | 22:05 |
| lsmola | hello | 22:05 |
| jomara | hello everyone | 22:05 |
| jpich | Hello | 22:05 |
| devlaps | o/ | 22:05 |
| mrunge | o/ | 22:05 |
| amotoki | hi | 22:05 |
| * stevebaker lurks if needed | 22:05 | |
| *** pdmars has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| matty_dubs | Ahoy! | 22:06 |
| david-lyle | Icehouse-1 feature freezes on Dec 3, everything scheduled for it is up for review. | 22:06 |
| david-lyle | https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/icehouse-1 | 22:06 |
| *** boden has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| david-lyle | and only 2 have been merged | 22:06 |
| david-lyle | so reviews are needed, by all | 22:06 |
| david-lyle | #topic Review IA proposal | 22:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Review IA proposal (Meeting topic: Horizon)" | 22:07 | |
| *** IlyaE has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| david-lyle | So, I don't want to do the review today, but Jarda and I have spent a little time collaborating on an IA diagram based on the summit talks | 22:08 |
| david-lyle | http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/1/openstack-ui-information-architecture/ | 22:08 |
| *** ruhe has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| david-lyle | This is still a proposal and feedback is requested in the ux askbot tool | 22:08 |
| *** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:09 | |
| *** macjack has left #openstack-meeting | 22:09 | |
| david-lyle | There will be actual documentation that goes along with this once finalized and some blueprints to support reorganization | 22:09 |
| *** michchap has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| *** dperaza has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| *** ArxCruz has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| *** ArxCruz has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:10 | |
| david-lyle | #topic (lsmola)Deleting of resource usage page tables: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1249279 | 22:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "(lsmola)Deleting of resource usage page tables: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1249279 (Meeting topic: Horizon)" | 22:10 | |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1249279 in horizon "Resource Usage Page table views shows statistics in a wrong way" [Medium,In progress] | 22:10 |
| lsmola | yes | 22:10 |
| david-lyle | lsmola | 22:10 |
| lsmola | so it is described here https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1249279 | 22:10 |
| lsmola | thing is, the tables were very buggy, so I am deleting them | 22:11 |
| lsmola | if anybody thinks they should stay, speak now :-) | 22:11 |
| david-lyle | in the review you are not only deleting the view, but the API calls as well? | 22:12 |
| *** michchap has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:12 | |
| lsmola | plan is to rather spread those stats through all dashboards table as sparklines | 22:12 |
| jpich | Having tried to explain what "Network duration" meant in the table context, I agree they are hard to understand and confusing at the moment. Removing them until the improved version (tm) makes sense to me | 22:12 |
| jomara | sparklines are fancy! | 22:12 |
| mrunge | so why are you removing API calls as well | 22:13 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, the basic api call stayed, just the concrete were deleted | 22:13 |
| david-lyle | ok, so what's left in the page, some charts? | 22:13 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, yes, linechart showin all stats | 22:13 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, that could be moved somewhere else, if it should be only thing left there, like a tab of overview page | 22:14 |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:14 | |
| david-lyle | lsmola: ok. if the data is incorrect or buggy anyway, I don't see a reason to keep them | 22:14 |
| jpich | We've usually not included API calls if they're not used anywhere in our codebase, which makes sense to me. The ones that make sense can be brought back later if needed | 22:14 |
| lsmola | mrunge, those were specialized API calls for the tables, it doesn make sense to keep without the tables | 22:14 |
| lsmola | jpich, yes | 22:15 |
| mrunge | lsmola, yeah. got that | 22:15 |
| mrunge | lsmola, still I'd love to see replacements | 22:15 |
| lsmola | somebody needs to step in, and document all Ceilometer metrics on ceilometer side, apparently each metric is special | 22:15 |
| lsmola | that somebody will probably be me | 22:15 |
| lsmola | though feel free to sign up :-) | 22:16 |
| david-lyle | ha | 22:16 |
| lsmola | mrunge, well the point is whether we need it centralized into one table | 22:16 |
| *** IlyaE has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| lsmola | mrunge, or rather spread as sparklines | 22:16 |
| *** mrodden has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| lsmola | mrunge, so e.g. table with instances will also contain sparklines like cpu_util, memory use, etc. | 22:17 |
| lsmola | mrunge, so the data that was originally here | 22:17 |
| mrunge | lsmola, we agreed in Portland in April, we don't want graphics centralized, but spread throughout the dashboard | 22:17 |
| lsmola | mrunge, not in the form of sparklines though | 22:17 |
| lsmola | mrunge, yes | 22:17 |
| mrunge | lsmola, yes, got that ;-) | 22:17 |
| lsmola | mrunge, it will make the whole dashboard more beautiful | 22:18 |
| lsmola | :-) | 22:18 |
| david-lyle | and are page loads blocked on the api calls to ceilmeter for each sparkline? | 22:18 |
| mrunge | lsmola, we had a proposal back in April, just showing all graphics on one page. Somehow that was not appreciated | 22:19 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, nope | 22:19 |
| *** casanch1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:19 | |
| lsmola | david-lyle, right now, each chart take care of itself via ajax | 22:19 |
| david-lyle | lsmola: very good | 22:19 |
| mrunge | yupp, great! | 22:19 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, later there will be manager that will group them, with some enhancements of Ceilometer and API. I can make more queries in one using group by | 22:20 |
| david-lyle | I think the understanding was the existing ceilometer page was a first pass at integration to have something to show for the Havana efforts in that direction | 22:20 |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:20 | |
| lsmola | david-lyle, yes | 22:20 |
| david-lyle | since the integration is maturing, we want to move it to the proper location | 22:20 |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:21 | |
| lsmola | cool | 22:21 |
| david-lyle | The remaining meters are cross-project measurements then | 22:21 |
| david-lyle | err, I guess global | 22:21 |
| david-lyle | cross cloud? | 22:22 |
| lsmola | ehm | 22:22 |
| lsmola | what do you mean by remain ing meters? | 22:22 |
| *** mriedem has left #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| *** vipul is now known as vipul-away | 22:22 | |
| *** vipul-away is now known as vipul | 22:22 | |
| david-lyle | on the existing view if you remove the table | 22:22 |
| *** maxdml has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| david-lyle | charts | 22:22 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, yeah those vere aggregates, grouped by project | 22:23 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, though they are tracked per resource | 22:23 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, so I think implementation of sparklines will start on project tab, as it shows the resources | 22:24 |
| david-lyle | the latter thing you said scales, how does the first? | 22:24 |
| *** fkak_ has quit IRC | 22:24 | |
| lsmola | david-lyle, then we will see how to show the agregates for admin | 22:24 |
| david-lyle | aggregate per project? | 22:24 |
| lsmola | yes | 22:24 |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:24 | |
| david-lyle | 10000 projects? | 22:24 |
| *** SergeyLukjanov has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| lsmola | well, that is the other thing, we will probably have to paginate the chart | 22:25 |
| lsmola | for sparklines, tables will be paginated | 22:25 |
| david-lyle | alright, we can take the second part offline, but it worries me | 22:26 |
| david-lyle | I think removing the existing tables and concentrating on spark lines is a valid approach | 22:26 |
| lsmola | yeah we were speaking with jcoufal and other how to scale the resource usage page linechart for more projects | 22:26 |
| david-lyle | anyone disagree? | 22:26 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, yes itś a good start | 22:27 |
| david-lyle | alright, sounds good | 22:27 |
| david-lyle | #topic Updates from I18N team | 22:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Updates from I18N team (Meeting topic: Horizon)" | 22:27 | |
| david-lyle | amotoki? | 22:27 |
| amotoki | hi | 22:27 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:28 | |
| amotoki | as i wrote on wiki, i18n team plans to update translations for 2013.2.1 | 22:28 |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| jpich | which is awesome :) | 22:28 |
| david-lyle | indeed | 22:29 |
| amotoki | there are some patches to fix strings. I hope they are merged soon :-) | 22:29 |
| david-lyle | looks like 1 is merged and 3 are still pending | 22:29 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| amotoki | yes. | 22:29 |
| amotoki | for havana update, i don't propose POT files update patch . Instead i directly update transifex. | 22:30 |
| * jpich didn't know one could do that | 22:31 | |
| jpich | amotoki: Does that mean the strings can be changed ahead of the patch landing? | 22:31 |
| amotoki | jpich: it can, but we need to maintain private branch to do that :-( | 22:31 |
| *** dperaza has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:32 | |
| amotoki | i think it is not a good idea. | 22:32 |
| david-lyle | ok, so we need to find another stable branch maintainer other than mrunge | 22:32 |
| david-lyle | I can work on that | 22:32 |
| *** dvarga has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| mrunge | david-lyle, I'd love to see someone from another company, different to Red Hat | 22:33 |
| mrunge | *hint* | 22:33 |
| jpich | amotoki: Probably - I'm not sure what you are proposing then? Also, did we create the new horizon_havana repo yet? (Sorry I didn't follow the latest updates) | 22:33 |
| *** thedodd has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:33 | |
| mrunge | david-lyle, if it's urgent, I know who to contact | 22:33 |
| * david-lyle totally oblivious to process | 22:33 | |
| jpich | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Joining_the_Team | 22:33 |
| david-lyle | of course there's a wiki page :) | 22:34 |
| jpich | People interested in joining should start including a comment on "why this is an appropriate, safe backport" when +1ing stable patches | 22:34 |
| jpich | ...though it's actually a good habit to pick up for everyone :) | 22:34 |
| jpich | there's always a wiki page | 22:34 |
| jpich | somewhere | 22:34 |
| mrunge | definitely! | 22:34 |
| jpich | :-) | 22:34 |
| * david-lyle enlightened | 22:35 | |
| mrunge | :P | 22:35 |
| david-lyle | if only there was a search on the wiki... oh wait | 22:35 |
| amotoki | jpich: to update transifex before landing a patch, we need to collect proposed patches. this is "private branch" i mean. | 22:36 |
| david-lyle | amotoki: ok, we'll work to get those merged | 22:36 |
| *** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:36 | |
| jpich | amotoki: Ok! Hopefully we can avoid this. Thank you :) | 22:36 |
| amotoki | that's all from me. | 22:36 |
| amotoki | jpich: any addition? | 22:37 |
| david-lyle | thanks for tracking this amotoki | 22:37 |
| jpich | Nope... You mentioned the timeline, we should have a translation patch up before Dec 5th when the stable branch will be frozen and the latest patches merged | 22:37 |
| *** lexx has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| jpich | Yes, thanks a lot amotoki! | 22:38 |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 22:38 | |
| david-lyle | #topic Open Discussion | 22:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion (Meeting topic: Horizon)" | 22:38 | |
| david-lyle | btw: really enjoying agendas, thanks for posting them ahead of time | 22:38 |
| lsmola | yaay | 22:39 |
| jpich | david-lyle: I was wondering: if there a keystone bug or blueprint you know of, for tracking read access to RBAC policies? | 22:39 |
| jpich | We might want to include the meeting date in the agenda, I always wonder first if it's last week's or next... maybe just me :-) Still love having them! | 22:39 |
| mrunge | +1 for having agendas! | 22:40 |
| david-lyle | not that I am aware of, had conversations with ayoung in Hong Kong, but I haven't made it beyond that | 22:40 |
| ayoung | LIES! | 22:40 |
| ayoung | what are we talking about? | 22:40 |
| lsmola | jpich, true, I havent noticed date is missing | 22:41 |
| *** radsy has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:41 | |
| david-lyle | policy read access | 22:41 |
| david-lyle | policy management in general | 22:41 |
| david-lyle | ayoung | 22:41 |
| ayoung | david-lyle, as I recall, the real issue was figuring out which policy to hand to which endpoint. Who can read it is probably a related but different problem. | 22:42 |
| ayoung | And..since horizon does everything as the end user... | 22:42 |
| david-lyle | ayoung: yes, making the policy available to horizon | 22:43 |
| ayoung | no bug that I am aware of. BUt I'm heads down in other things ATM | 22:43 |
| ayoung | please file. | 22:43 |
| *** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:43 | |
| *** kevinconway has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| david-lyle | ayoung: will do | 22:43 |
| david-lyle | thanks | 22:43 |
| jpich | david-lyle: Please send me the bug # afterwards so I can subscribe too :-) | 22:44 |
| david-lyle | absolutely | 22:44 |
| david-lyle | and the date was missing out of laziness :) | 22:44 |
| jpich | hehe | 22:44 |
| david-lyle | so much to update | 22:45 |
| david-lyle | any other items | 22:45 |
| *** rdxc has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:45 | |
| casanch1 | hi, I'm new in the community and have been working in a couple of bugs to add client-side validations | 22:45 |
| david-lyle | link? | 22:46 |
| dolphm | jpich: GET /v3/policies <-- but we don't have a policy engine to consume from that API, yet | 22:46 |
| *** galstrom_zzz is now known as galstrom | 22:47 | |
| casanch1 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1125232 | 22:47 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1125232 in horizon "Object Upload is validated after object upload" [Medium,In progress] | 22:47 |
| david-lyle | dolphm: we just wanted read access to the blobs, that noone is uploading | 22:47 |
| devlaps | casanch1: thanks for doing this. would also be useful for this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1253791 | 22:48 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1253791 in horizon "create an image leaks tmp file if name not specified" [Undecided,In progress] | 22:48 |
| david-lyle | and a way to tie it to the endpoint | 22:48 |
| *** dkranz has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| jpich | dolphm: Oh, thank you! Is the related work tracked/documented somewhere? | 22:48 |
| casanch1 | I've noticed that there's no client-side validations, but in cases like that bug, I think it make sense, so to avoid file uploads | 22:48 |
| dolphm | jpich: it would be in oslo, if anything -- but i'm not aware of it | 22:48 |
| david-lyle | casanch1: I agree a client side check makes sense | 22:49 |
| dolphm | jpich: it'd be an extension of the existing policy engine that pulls the policy blob from keystone and caches it rather than from disk | 22:49 |
| david-lyle | casanch1: will definitely take a look at your approach | 22:50 |
| dolphm | jpich: keystone doesn't pretend to understand the policy documents though -- and doesn't dictate the use of JSON or a particular language | 22:50 |
| casanch1 | so, I proposed a quick fix by adding HTML5 required attribute to some fields. This might be enough for now, but for sure it'll be needed a common approach for that kind of validations | 22:50 |
| casanch1 | david-lyle: ok, thanks | 22:50 |
| dolphm | jpich: so what you pull from keystone might be service/PEP specific | 22:50 |
| david-lyle | dolphm: are your referring to the mailing list item re: policy as a service? | 22:51 |
| david-lyle | or a third thing? | 22:51 |
| dolphm | david-lyle: oh no, there's that too! | 22:51 |
| jpich | dolphm: Interesting, thanks. Obviously I need to do some more reading around policies | 22:51 |
| dolphm | david-lyle: i haven't gotten my head around congress at all | 22:51 |
| david-lyle | dolphm: an endpoint specific policy blob is fine | 22:51 |
| jtomasek | casanch1, david-lyle: Angular has good means for client side validations, I think there is a good reason to check that out, once angular is in... | 22:52 |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** hartsocks1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:52 | |
| dolphm | jpich: keystone's policy API is intentionally lightly defined... https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identity-api/v3/src/markdown/identity-api-v3.md#policy | 22:52 |
| lsmola | jtomasek, yeah | 22:52 |
| david-lyle | but, if it's not based on the json rules that the oslo policy engine uses, we're lost | 22:53 |
| dolphm | jpich: there's no relation to services, endpoints or domains because we didn't have a strong use case to dictate any of that | 22:53 |
| dolphm | jpich: so a new policy engine would basically have to know the policy ID, or really just URL, to fetch the policy from | 22:53 |
| casanch1 | jtomasek: I agree, but if angular is not in... I think it's worth it to have a temporal solution which will prevent waste of resources to upload unnecessary files | 22:53 |
| jtomasek | casanch1: definitely agree | 22:54 |
| david-lyle | dolphm: which makes it unusable by Horizon, unless we want to upload our own policy blob to store and read, as an admin | 22:54 |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_ | 22:55 | |
| david-lyle | but it seems our use case came late to the party | 22:55 |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:55 | |
| *** hartsocks has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| lsmola | casanch1, yes, as long as it is a few lines patch, it is alright to have it as temporary solution | 22:55 |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** denis_makogon has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** lsell has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** vijendar has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| jpich | dolphm: I see. There's lot of things I forgot to consider, thanks for the extra information | 22:56 |
| *** galstrom is now known as galstrom_zzz | 22:56 | |
| lsmola | casanch1, jtomasek I guess proper general client side vaidations in angular, integrated to horizon framework will take some time :-) | 22:56 |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:57 | |
| casanch1 | lsmola: it's only one line patch for each field to be marked as required with HTML5 attributes | 22:57 |
| jomara | not that much time | 22:57 |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| lsmola | casanch1, yes, I have just checked, thank you for that patch :-) | 22:57 |
| jpich | david-lyle: I need to level up my grasp of policy before I try to review your patches again :-) I forgot about the headaches around e.g. different policy files on different compute nodes | 22:57 |
| jomara | angular is just one core review away from being in right? | 22:58 |
| lsmola | jomara, sooner the better :-) | 22:58 |
| *** jcooley_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:58 | |
| jomara | probably not worth implementing a stop gap before that | 22:58 |
| lsmola | jomara, not sure, this is really like few lines of code, that can be easily wiped out | 22:59 |
| david-lyle | jpich: yes, there are lots of potential holes, but I designed in a fail safe in the settings files to just ignore policy | 22:59 |
| lsmola | jomara, yep angular should be in very soon | 22:59 |
| *** jmontemayor has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** rongze has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** tims has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:00 | |
| *** dolphm is now known as dolphm_afk | 23:00 | |
| david-lyle | jomara: thanks for the angular jump start | 23:00 |
| lsmola | david-lyle, do i see client side validations as a topic for the next meeting? | 23:01 |
| lsmola | jomara, casanch1 ^ | 23:01 |
| *** burt has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| david-lyle | lsmola: I think so | 23:01 |
| casanch1 | when angular is in, I can for sure work on another implementation to add those client-side validations | 23:01 |
| jomara | david-lyle: np | 23:01 |
| david-lyle | looks like times up | 23:01 |
| david-lyle | thanks everyone | 23:01 |
| jomara | casanch1: just stay tuned, itll be soon:) | 23:01 |
| david-lyle | #endmeeting | 23:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 23:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Nov 26 23:01:49 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 23:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-11-26-22.04.html | 23:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-11-26-22.04.txt | 23:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-11-26-22.04.log.html | 23:01 |
| *** tims has left #openstack-meeting | 23:01 | |
| lsmola | thanks everyone, have a good night | 23:02 |
| jpich | Thanks everyone, enjoy the rest of the day | 23:02 |
| devlaps | thanks all! | 23:02 |
| *** raghu_rao has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| casanch1 | thanks all | 23:02 |
| david-lyle | btw: holiday in US this Thurs so less activity from my end later this week | 23:02 |
| amotoki | bye all, thanks | 23:02 |
| david-lyle | if that was possible | 23:02 |
| jpich | Enjoy the holiday :) | 23:02 |
| david-lyle | Thanks | 23:02 |
| *** matty_dubs has left #openstack-meeting | 23:03 | |
| jtomasek | thanks all | 23:03 |
| *** hartsocks1 has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** hemna is now known as hemnafk | 23:04 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| jomara | later guys | 23:06 |
| *** lsell has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** lsmola has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** neelashah has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 23:08 | |
| *** kspear has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:08 | |
| *** hartsocks has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:08 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 23:09 | |
| *** casanch1 has quit IRC | 23:09 | |
| *** pcm_ has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** lsell has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:10 | |
| *** oubiwann_ has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** ivasev has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** gokrokve has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** nono1_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:12 | |
| *** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:12 | |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** Swami has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** rakhmerov has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** eharney has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** lsell has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 23:22 | |
| *** epim has quit IRC | 23:22 | |
| *** nono1_ has quit IRC | 23:23 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:24 | |
| *** reaper has quit IRC | 23:26 | |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:26 | |
| *** armax has left #openstack-meeting | 23:28 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:28 | |
| *** cyclicflux has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:29 | |
| *** cyclicflux is now known as Guest50255 | 23:30 | |
| *** sacharya has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** Guest50255 has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** kspear has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** Guest50255 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:31 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:31 | |
| *** boris-42 has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
| *** Guest50255 has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
| *** cyclicflux_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:32 | |
| *** Linz has quit IRC | 23:34 | |
| *** Linz has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:34 | |
| *** cyclicflux_ is now known as CyclicFlux | 23:36 | |
| *** vipul has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** vipul has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:44 | |
| *** vkmc has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
| *** epim has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:47 | |
| *** weshay has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** MarkAtwood has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** rongze has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:56 | |
| *** epim has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:56 | |
| *** jcooley_ has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!