| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 00:07 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 00:07 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 00:07 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:10 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:28 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-tc | 00:48 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc | 00:49 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:52 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 00:52 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has quit IRC | 00:56 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:02 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-tc | 01:03 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 01:07 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-tc | 01:08 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 01:13 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:24 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc | 01:24 | |
| *** mriedem1 has joined #openstack-tc | 01:40 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 01:42 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 01:56 | |
| *** mriedem1 has quit IRC | 01:58 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 02:32 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 04:36 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 04:47 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-tc | 05:51 | |
| *** gcb has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 07:11 | |
| *** notmyname has quit IRC | 07:49 | |
| *** notmyname has joined #openstack-tc | 07:52 | |
| * ttx grabs a coffee | 08:57 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:01 | |
| cdent | morning tc-members and everyone else, it's office hours time | 09:02 |
|---|---|---|
| ttx | tc-members assemble | 09:02 |
| * ttx quickly updates the tracker | 09:02 | |
| ttx | I wanted to discuss stuck items and find people to help push them to a conclusion | 09:03 |
| ttx | Like the interop / testing discussion | 09:03 |
| cdent | Is there anyone here besides you and me ttx? | 09:04 |
| ttx | cdent: looks like not, or at least not yet | 09:05 |
| cdent | I'm probably a bad choice on help to push the interop thing as I have a fairly strong position | 09:05 |
| ttx | that is true | 09:05 |
| ttx | The other stuck one is the Python PTI specific/explicit change | 09:05 |
| ttx | (not counting the driver team stuff) | 09:06 |
| ttx | oh makes me think -- did you make progress on the neutron driver / stadium situation ? | 09:06 |
| cdent | related the driver team stuff, miguel did make ... | 09:06 |
| cdent | jinx | 09:06 |
| ttx | ISTR you were tracking that | 09:06 |
| cmurphy | morning | 09:07 |
| cdent | ... some progress, with some position conversations with "Sam from Cisco" and some rules for handling testing and the like | 09:07 |
| cdent | It's unclear how much of that landed in any official capacity, but I can get an update from miguel. Last there was email on the topic (to several private participants) everyone seemed pretty happy but in terms of formals results, I suspect some stuff still needs to be written down | 09:08 |
| cdent | mornin' cmurphy | 09:09 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 09:09 | |
| ttx | cdent: morning Colleen | 09:09 |
| ttx | err | 09:09 |
| ttx | -cdent | 09:09 |
| ttx | cdent: sounds good. We might be able to abandon those driver team patches after all | 09:10 |
| ttx | cmurphy: would you be interested in raising a thread to get any of the other two stuck proposals to a conclusion ? | 09:11 |
| cdent | I suspect that in order for dhellmann's concerns to be fully (and suitably) addressed we'll need to have something like those patches | 09:11 |
| ttx | (Interop testing and Python CTI one) | 09:11 |
| openstackgerrit | Thierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Remove the extra-atcs section for trove https://review.openstack.org/531860 | 09:12 |
| flaper87 | o/ | 09:12 |
| cmurphy | sure, I can try to start a thread about the interop/testing one | 09:13 |
| ttx | cmurphy: both basically need wider input, should not be a TC-only discussion | 09:13 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add charm-interface-designate project https://review.openstack.org/517339 | 09:13 |
| ttx | especiall as some of us don't have a strong opinion on it | 09:13 |
| cmurphy | indeed | 09:13 |
| ttx | while others in the community do | 09:13 |
| ttx | I'll resurrect the longer cycle thread and bring it to a temporary conclusion | 09:14 |
| ttx | (which is likely to be that we need to take the time to discuss those issues further, which we'll do in Dublin and Vancouver) | 09:14 |
| flaper87 | ttx: that'd be great. It feels like the thread died without a clear understanding on what's going to happen next | 09:15 |
| ttx | yes. been a bit busy yesterday but planning to post today | 09:15 |
| flaper87 | awesome | 09:15 |
| ttx | any volunteer to push the "Update Python PTI for tests to be specific and explicit" proposal ? | 09:16 |
| ttx | This one also needs wider discussion on the ML | 09:16 |
| * cdent is currently stretched a bit thin | 09:17 | |
| cdent | maybe mtreinish can give it a boost himself? | 09:17 |
| flaper87 | ditto! Would love to help here but can't commit right now. | 09:18 |
| ttx | maybe, otherwise I'll ask again at another office hour | 09:18 |
| flaper87 | mtreinish: you da' man! | 09:18 |
| flaper87 | :D | 09:18 |
| ttx | The other thing I wanted to cover is the Rocky goals | 09:18 |
| ttx | EmilienM is coordinating the selection, but we don't have many candidates | 09:19 |
| ttx | only one actually, and one that is not a great 6-month target at this point imho | 09:19 |
| ttx | so we should review the backlog and/or find other ideas | 09:19 |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:20 | |
| cdent | Is there any sense/value in goals that are based on trying to achieve alignment with api-wg guidelines? A recent one that came up was inconsistency in pagination links in collection resources. | 09:21 |
| cdent | In the past we've not done much in the way of trying to make those happen, prefering a "should" instead of "must" approach. | 09:21 |
| ttx | cdent: I think that would be a great use for a goal, yes, if there are good targets there | 09:21 |
| ttx | cdent: I see goals as "should, and if not doing it documenting why" | 09:22 |
| flaper87 | Agreed, although, have we considered what would happen if we have a cycle without community wide goals? Would that be considered a bad thing? I'd be surprised if there wasn't something that could be translated into a ocmmunity goal but, just asking for the sake of discussion | 09:22 |
| *** flwang1 has quit IRC | 09:22 | |
| ttx | cdent: so it's a good complement to guidelines that should be widely accepted | 09:22 |
| cdent | flaper87: If I had to guess, loss of momentum | 09:22 |
| ttx | flaper87: I think that would be a bad sign. I'd rather introduce a concept of a multi-cycle goal if we can't find anything that can be done in 6 months | 09:23 |
| flaper87 | ttx: oh, mmh, for some reason I thought we had that already | 09:23 |
| ttx | flaper87: we don't, all the goal tracking is scheduled within a cycle | 09:24 |
| flaper87 | right | 09:24 |
| *** eumel8 has joined #openstack-tc | 09:24 | |
| *** flwang has joined #openstack-tc | 09:24 | |
| ttx | The easy way to do it would be to define a S goal today | 09:24 |
| ttx | basically goving everyone a 6-month heads-up before we actually start tracking it | 09:25 |
| ttx | giving* | 09:25 |
| cmurphy | there are a few in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goals that seem reasonable and achievable, but we need champions for them | 09:25 |
| cdent | I'll add a stub in there about links, for a reminder | 09:25 |
| ttx | The difficult way would be to sprinkle goal tracking deadlines over two cycles instead of one, which would be confusing if mixed with other goals | 09:25 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Upgrade assertion tags only apply to services https://review.openstack.org/528745 | 09:26 |
| ttx | ok tracker updated | 09:26 |
| * ttx looks up backlog | 09:26 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: grammar corrections https://review.openstack.org/531395 | 09:26 |
| ttx | We could ask mikal about privsep migration | 09:28 |
| ttx | he was pushing it in nova and tracknig where everyone else was | 09:28 |
| ttx | Zun just landed support for it | 09:28 |
| * flaper87 reads the list of goals again | 09:28 | |
| ttx | We could ask mordred about the version discovery stuff, if it would make a good goal now | 09:29 |
| eumel8 | Good morning, tc! | 09:30 |
| flaper87 | ttx: ++ | 09:30 |
| flaper87 | also, the mutable configuraion and the oslo.privsep ones look good | 09:30 |
| flaper87 | IPv6 support everywhere sounds simple enough (last famous words) | 09:30 |
| flaper87 | but I believe most services support them by now | 09:31 |
| ttx | I was wondering if we could not get everyone to support basic upgrade. Like “assert:supports-upgrade” level | 09:31 |
| flaper87 | eumel8: good morning | 09:31 |
| ttx | eumel8: hi! | 09:32 |
| flaper87 | ttx: do you know how many services are missing that tag? | 09:32 |
| flaper87 | I could check, just wondering if you have the number at hand | 09:32 |
| cdent | What about "default to python3 in tox and gate"? We already _can_ do python3 lots of places, but the appearance is that it is secondary. | 09:32 |
| ttx | flaper87: a lot, but they are probably not that far away... more of procrastinating on proper testing | 09:32 |
| eumel8 | If there is time I want to talk about project doc translation and what we need before as requirements from tc | 09:32 |
| flaper87 | Remove mox/mox3 <- this one sounds easy too. I'm actually surprised there are projects still using it | 09:33 |
| ttx | eumel8: there is time, we are just brainstorming | 09:33 |
| eumel8 | good | 09:33 |
| flaper87 | eumel8: this is the perfect time for that convo | 09:33 |
| flaper87 | :D | 09:33 |
| ttx | eumel8: explain | 09:33 |
| eumel8 | most of the documentation is now moved in project repos. The idea of the I18n is to start translating this things there | 09:34 |
| * cmurphy thinks of ttx as https://i.imgur.com/lUIlU4l.gif | 09:34 | |
| eumel8 | this requires some no jobs and a prio list of projects | 09:34 |
| ttx | This person looks exactly like me | 09:35 |
| eumel8 | for example openstack-ansible has the most progress in documentation | 09:35 |
| ttx | eumel8: as far as priority goes, i would start with the "openstack" bucket from http://www.openstack.org/openstack-map | 09:39 |
| ttx | start with the bold stuff, then from bottom of that box to top | 09:40 |
| ttx | hmm actually | 09:40 |
| ttx | starting with openstack-user bucket might make more sense, more international users there | 09:40 |
| ttx | eumel8: is there anything to translate on the openstackSDK/openstackclient / Shade side ? | 09:41 |
| eumel8 | ttx: not yet, so far. I would focus on documentation. That's more international stuff. | 09:42 |
| eumel8 | ttx: but the map is nice, thx for the link | 09:43 |
| ttx | eumel8: it's the "official" map that will be used on the website / software navigator soon | 09:44 |
| ttx | opinionated obviously, but all maps are | 09:44 |
| ttx | reminds me I need to write a blogpost about this one | 09:44 |
| eumel8 | ttx: really good | 09:45 |
| ttx | eumel8: so what do you need from the TC ? A list of priorities ? some blessing to get review work on the jobs prioritized up ? | 09:46 |
| eumel8 | so, if there are no special other requirements from the tc for this plan, we could start with the first project as a PoC to see how it will work? | 09:47 |
| ttx | flaper87: on the "basic cold upgrade capabilities" goal, it requires someone with time and grenade/QA experience to drive it, but otherwise would make a great goal | 09:47 |
| ttx | eumel8: I don't have requirements... If you can't cover everything I would prioritize like mentioned above, using the map as a guideline. But to be fair, whoever translates should decide based on their interest / personal / org needs | 09:48 |
| ttx | All else being equal I would start with the most deployed stuff | 09:49 |
| flaper87 | sorry, got distracted. | 09:49 |
| flaper87 | mmh, mtreinish again? :D | 09:49 |
| flaper87 | wish sdague could help with this goal :/ | 09:50 |
| eumel8 | ttx: We've made a small survey and there are some few projects mentioned. But to cover the prios from the map sounds as a good plan. | 09:50 |
| ttx | flaper87: the QA team has attracted a number of new people, we should stop thinking about it as mtreinish + sdague | 09:50 |
| ttx | and provide opportunities to step up, like chandankumar did for the tempest goal | 09:51 |
| ttx | eumel8: so yes, just doing it sounds like the best thing to do :) | 09:51 |
| flaper87 | ttx: well, I was not suggesting that mtreinish and sdague are/were the only members of the team *shrugs* | 09:51 |
| eumel8 | ttx: ok, thx :) | 09:52 |
| flaper87 | I'm aware of the new folks and I also know chandankumar :D | 09:52 |
| ttx | flaper87: I don't blame you, I fall guilty to it too... mostly because I didn't look into those teams recently to see who is active there | 09:52 |
| ttx | OK, so next steps on goals... I'll reach out to mikal on the privsep stuff, in case he would feel like driving a goal there (or at least check if he thinks it's time for one) | 09:55 |
| ttx | I can also ask mordred about the version discovery stuff | 09:55 |
| ttx | Maybe cdent can look into API-WG guidelines to see if there is anything that would make a good target | 09:55 |
| cdent | ttx I've already added something to the etherpad, and will talk to the rest of the group | 09:56 |
| ttx | cool | 09:56 |
| ttx | Any other champion-hunting activities ? | 09:56 |
| cdent | since mordred is the most recent sufferer he might want to hold that one too | 09:56 |
| ttx | Let's sync with EmilienM at the other office hours this week | 09:57 |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 13:13 | |
| * chandankumar scrolls up! | 13:15 | |
| fungi | looks like i missed the first really active office hour of 2018 | 13:26 |
| fungi | but i did get some good sleep, so i don't feel _too_ guilty | 13:27 |
| openstackgerrit | Dai Dang Van proposed openstack/governance master: Update policy goal for trove https://review.openstack.org/529447 | 13:39 |
| * smcginnis finishes reading scrollback | 13:41 | |
| smcginnis | Several good goal ideas discussed. I think all were better than the one currently proposed. | 13:41 |
| smcginnis | Also wondering, kind of related to the longer cycle discussion, if we should make most goals span two cycles. | 13:41 |
| smcginnis | Things like wsgi kind of felt rushed to get in just to complete the goal. | 13:42 |
| * smcginnis goes back to making breakfast | 13:42 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:54 | |
| EmilienM | good morning | 13:57 |
| EmilienM | ttx: I'll read irc backlog in a few, meetings first | 13:58 |
| cdent | fungi: is there any way back from the *-dev *-ops split, or is volume a killer? | 14:00 |
| cdent | (in your opinion, caveat, disclaim, etc) | 14:01 |
| ttx | MLs are defined by their subscription, and -ops attracted a lot of ops who didn't feel like sorting the occasional ops topic in the middle of -dev discussions and other calls for help in the general ML | 14:02 |
| fungi | we first split openstack-dev from the general openstack ml, right? | 14:03 |
| ttx | yes | 14:03 |
| ttx | then -ops was split from the general openstack ML as well | 14:04 |
| fungi | i feel like the mistake may have been splitting on specific demographic lines that could lead to a schism, though i don't know how possible it is to predict that in advance | 14:05 |
| ttx | fungi: it was back when they were being created, havign their own ML was seen as something you need to have to differentiate your community | 14:06 |
| fungi | and yeah, really no idea how to unroll that split at this point (aside from the volume problem, the groups developed separate identities for themselves in the ensuing years) | 14:06 |
| cdent | I've wondered if creating new lists, more topical, might work, but they would need pioneers (people and topics) to populate them | 14:07 |
| ttx | the only way would be to redesign our ML portfolio entirely and ask everyone to resubscribe so that everybody is affected | 14:07 |
| cdent | sigs list is kind of like that, but not taken off | 14:08 |
| fungi | it's possible there was already some "operator" vs "developer" group identities forming before the ml splits, but segregating them to separate lines of communication certainly deepens the divide | 14:08 |
| cdent | ttx, jbryce is it too late to "provide input to OpenStack 2017 annual report". The email say jan 5, but it looks like perhaps it is still in progress and I have some input for the api-sig | 14:11 |
| cdent | diablo_rojo: I see you're looking at it, perhaps you know? | 14:12 |
| ttx | cdent: I don't think it's too late | 14:14 |
| cdent | thanks | 14:14 |
| ttx | cdent: I'd say they no longer can guarantee it will make it (although I can say in confidence that that it most likely will) | 14:15 |
| cdent | roger that | 14:15 |
| *** jroll has quit IRC | 14:19 | |
| *** jroll has joined #openstack-tc | 14:19 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 15:27 | |
| dmsimard | fungi: from my perspective, I'm not sure it's such a bad idea to split openstack-dev and openstack-operators -- the topics discussed (and signal to noise) is very different for the two | 15:28 |
| fungi | it does however seem to unnecessarily reinforce that people are either developers or operators | 15:29 |
| dmsimard | However, openstack and openstack-operators are perhaps closer in terms of audience and subscribers | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | Has it been an issue to have separate -dev and -ops, or is the concern that we are enforcing a division that we would rather not have? | 15:32 |
| smcginnis | My feel working with the ops team is the ones that have the interest and bandwidth for it subscribe to -dev, but those that do not are happy with just -ops. | 15:35 |
| cdent | I think for some the concern is that devs are "allowed" to keep themselves separate | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | Are there specific cases of missed communication being raised or is it a general concern? | 15:39 |
| smcginnis | It seems to me we've been fairly good about cross-posting where appropriate. | 15:39 |
| cdent | dhellmann: the topic came back up today because of general comments fungi made about the creation of zuul lists | 15:39 |
| ttx | the issue is taht lists should be based on topics rather than current membership | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | I noticed jeblair's well-reasoned comments about not having separate lists | 15:40 |
| ttx | i.e. they should both have devs and ops | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | ideally, yes | 15:40 |
| fungi | yeah, the zuul project is proposing to have zuul-announce@lists.zuul-ci.org and zuul-discuss@lists.zuul-ci.org, the former for low bandwidth announcements redirected to the latter for general discussions | 15:40 |
| ttx | that is why I think crosspostnig is evil | 15:41 |
| dhellmann | I feel like we say "should" a little more often than it's true | 15:41 |
| smcginnis | My feel is we need both - the general -dev and -ops type lists, along with topic specific ones. | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I added a proposed goal to review our dependency list to eliminate unmaintained tools. | 15:42 |
| fungi | i mentioned in my reply that i feel like the separate discussion channels we've formed fairly early in the life of the openstack community allowed us to evolve a somewhat unhealthy division between "developers" and "operators" | 15:42 |
| ttx | If you cross-post, you use the lists in a membership-centric manner rather than a topic-centric manner | 15:42 |
| smcginnis | There are general issues that affect one group or the other, then there are specific things like SIGs and various efforts that could benefit from targeted communication. | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : maybe we need an openstack-new-features list | 15:43 |
| ttx | you basically discourage devs from joining -ops list and the other way around | 15:43 |
| fungi | perhaps the difference for me is that i don't think there should have been "two groups" but rather just a healthy mix of people writing and using software (some of whom do one or the other but many of whom do both) | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | I suspect the mail volume on the zuul lists is going to make it significantly easier to have a small number of lists there | 15:43 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 15:44 | |
| fungi | for what it's worth, i feel like the debian community set a fairly bad example with debian-devel and debian-user mailing lists, basically telling users to ask questions on their own mailing list and not bother the devs... end result being almost a wasteland of misinformation because the people who have teh answers are telling the people who need answers to go ask other people who need answers | 15:45 |
| ttx | there is no good solution I think | 15:45 |
| smcginnis | I'm definitely for more targeted lists, but I would actually hate to see -dev and -ops go away. | 15:46 |
| fungi | the real answer is to get people to ask smart questions, file bugs and get involved in productive discussions, but it's far easier to just tell them to go away | 15:46 |
| ttx | fungi: the worse is when you have a -private list where devs can quietly speak to themselves :) | 15:46 |
| *** rosmaita_ has joined #openstack-tc | 15:46 | |
| fungi | ttx: yeah, don't even get me started on that | 15:46 |
| ttx | It exists more often than not | 15:47 |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| fungi | ahh, you mean in general. i first thought you were just referring to the debian-private ml | 16:11 |
| fungi | but yes, an anathema | 16:11 |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 16:17 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** alex_xu_ has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 17:08 | |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 17:08 | |
| *** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc | 17:08 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 17:23 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 17:26 | |
| *** eumel8 has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:06 | |
| EmilienM | flaper87: hey, I'm catch-up scroll-back from the last TC office hour; I saw your proposal about IPv6 goal, I think it's "just" about converting some existing CI jobs (based on devstack I guess) to deploy on ipv6. The only question I have is for fungi / clarkb : would it be possible to have a nodepool group of resources that we're sure are running on ipv6 network? | 18:13 |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 18:17 | |
| EmilienM | ttx: I'm preparing a summary of Goals discussion and post it on ML | 18:26 |
| jroll | ironic gets super tricky on ipv6, fwiw :( | 18:26 |
| jroll | in short: pxe booting only works on v4 | 18:26 |
| cdent | jroll: I'm still not quite used to you being around. Every time I see you around I have a bit of a start | 18:39 |
| jroll | :grin: | 18:39 |
| * persia thought PXE on 6 worked, but required special firmware (so doesn't work with nearly all hardware shipped with default configurations) | 18:40 | |
| fungi | flaper87: v6-only nodes won't really solve the testing problem | 18:49 |
| fungi | we had "v6-only" nodes in osic and jobs ran on them just fine | 18:50 |
| fungi | most jobs are relying on local networking over the loopback interface or through layer-2 tunnels between nodes in a multinode job anyway | 18:51 |
| fungi | worth noting, "v6-only" implementations usually still have rfc 1918 ipv4 addresses with v4 egress via overload nat/pat | 18:52 |
| openstackgerrit | Chandan Kumar proposed openstack/governance master: Mark the completion of tempest plugin split goal for Blazar https://review.openstack.org/532283 | 18:52 |
| EmilienM | fungi: thanks for answering, it was actually my question | 18:52 |
| fungi | so that they can reach v4-only resources on the internet at large (for example, github.com is v4-only) | 18:52 |
| EmilienM | I guess what we want to test is the control plane working well on ipv6 | 18:53 |
| fungi | yeah, that's entirely up to job configuration. we can't really prove v6 readiness by "taking away" v4 | 18:53 |
| EmilienM | I don't care much about github, etc, I'm more interested by if nova-conductor can schedule a VM if the mysql db is on ipv6, etc | 18:53 |
| EmilienM | well, nova conductor doesn't schedule VMs, but you get my point | 18:53 |
| EmilienM | I meant to say, let's test a real scenario where the control plane communicate via Ipv6 | 18:54 |
| EmilienM | like we do in Puppet OpenStack CI and TripleO CI | 18:54 |
| fungi | sounds great to me, but it's not really an infra question. we've had the ability to do full ipv6 testing even in environments which only have global ipv4 networking, just needs people interested in writing jobs to do it | 18:55 |
| EmilienM | ok | 18:55 |
| EmilienM | so that is the goal I guess | 18:55 |
| EmilienM | write the jobs and run them | 18:55 |
| fungi | we already recommend jobs generalize above the node-level network constructs anyway because they're inconsistent from environment to environment | 18:55 |
| fungi | we can't guarantee a node will have a specific number of actual network interfaces, what sorts of addresses each of those will have, et cetera | 18:56 |
| fungi | so using loopback interfaces and the provided tunnels between nodes is the only real consistency you can count on, and you can make those v6-only traffic if you want | 18:57 |
| EmilienM | true | 18:57 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 19:10 | |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 19:33 | |
| *** harlowja_ has joined #openstack-tc | 19:41 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** harlowja_ has quit IRC | 19:55 | |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 19:55 | |
| dhellmann | jroll : hi! are you back?! | 19:56 |
| jroll | dhellmann: hi! yes, not 100% upstream, but I'm around :) | 19:57 |
| jroll | I'll even be in dublin | 19:57 |
| dhellmann | nice :-) | 19:57 |
| fungi | woah, someone make sure i buy jroll a whiskey in dublin | 19:58 |
| jroll | wow, I get drinks just for joining irc channels, I love it | 19:58 |
| dhellmann | heh, that could get dangerous fast | 19:58 |
| fungi | well, you get drinks for coming to ireland. pretty sure that's just a feature of their fair country. mugsie can hopefully confirm? | 20:04 |
| jroll | ha, fair enough | 20:19 |
| TheJulia | I have been told several times over the years that it should always be expected when visiting Ireland | 21:10 |
| TheJulia | Well, specifically Guinness, unless in Cork which then it should be Murphy's | 21:11 |
| persia | For the avoidance of doubt, the water in Dublin has been considered safe for human consumption for over 50 years | 21:16 |
| TheJulia | persia: Good to know! | 21:17 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| mtreinish | EmilienM: for cross project goals next cycle, what about the follow on to https://review.openstack.org/519751 and making everything follow that? | 21:50 |
| * mtreinish notes he needs to rev that to remove the quotes around posargs | 21:50 | |
| EmilienM | mtreinish: it's a good option I guess | 21:53 |
| mugsie | persia: the water may be safe, but why take the risk. Whiskey and Guinness are completely safe | 22:09 |
| persia | Yes, that is the traditional view :) | 22:10 |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 23:30 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:35 | |
| *** ianw has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
| *** ianw has joined #openstack-tc | 23:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/governance master: Add Rocky goal to remove mox https://review.openstack.org/532361 | 23:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
