16:00:09 <mattmceuen> #startmeeting Airship
16:00:11 <openstack> Meeting started Tue May  7 16:00:09 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mattmceuen. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:12 <mattmceuen> #topic Rollcall
16:00:15 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'airship'
16:00:19 <mattmceuen> GM / GE everyone!
16:00:28 <alexanderhughes> o/
16:00:29 <dwalt> o/
16:00:30 <michael-beaver> o/
16:00:30 <mattmceuen> here's our agenda for today: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/airship-meeting-2019-05-07
16:00:33 <ian-pittwood> o/
16:00:35 <aaronsheffield> o/
16:00:37 <levmorgan> o/
16:00:41 <mattmceuen> please go ahead and add any topics you'd like to discuss to it
16:00:51 <mattmceuen> and we'll give folks a few minutes to join
16:02:28 <openstackgerrit> Arun Kant proposed airship/treasuremap master: Increase default logging for openstack services  https://review.opendev.org/657631
16:02:52 <jamesgu__> o/
16:02:53 <arunkant> o/
16:03:20 <openstackgerrit> Sean Eagan proposed airship/armada master: [v2 docs] Overhaul wait API  https://review.opendev.org/636440
16:03:31 <mattmceuen> Ok, let's get started
16:03:34 <mattmceuen> #topic PTG Recap
16:04:03 <mattmceuen> Hopefully folks who did the full summit+ptg week are all recovered :)
16:04:09 <roman_g> o/
16:04:23 <mattmceuen> First thing is, I want to make sure everyone gets to see the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/airship-ptg-train
16:04:40 <mattmceuen> I attempted to take lots of notes to help catch up folks who couldn't be there in person
16:05:02 <mattmceuen> Please review offline.  I will point out a couple of things in today's meeting though:
16:05:12 <mattmceuen> Post-1.0 Roadmap (~L133)
16:05:44 <mattmceuen> rodolfo made some good pictures that helps outline our transition to Airship 2.0
16:06:03 <mattmceuen> definitely take a look at those first and then read up on the details in the etherpad
16:06:15 <mattmceuen> Airship 2.0 Work Efforts (~L239)
16:06:41 <mattmceuen> ^this was an attempt to start drilling down on actual work efforts that will need to be accomplished to get us to v2.0
16:07:08 <mattmceuen> As well as an opportunity to start expressing interest in contributing to certain deliverables
16:07:35 <mattmceuen> Note that these things aren't quite ready to start on yet -- the next step is to continue the conversation in the weekly design calls
16:07:42 <mattmceuen> Which rodolfo plans to make bi-weekly :)
16:08:00 <mattmceuen> So if you're interested in contributing code, would invite you to also participate in the design around those things
16:09:02 <roman_g> bi-weekly -> twice per week?
16:09:29 <mattmceuen> yup, that's the idea - to help us get through some of this design.  After that, we'll probably roll back down to once per week
16:09:45 <roman_g> Thought he wanted to have 2 design calls per week.
16:09:54 <roman_g> okok
16:09:58 <mattmceuen> ++
16:10:14 <mattmceuen> Yeah, noone should ever say bi-weekly, too ambiguous!
16:10:25 <mattmceuen> Also for folks who weren't there:  just to point out we had really great participation in the PTG, with a lot of different individuals and companies represented.  There are a lot of use cases and end users for Airship in the works - that's very exciting
16:10:37 <roman_g> Haven't seen anything about ipv6 in notes - has this topic been discussed?
16:10:53 <roman_g> Or no plans yet?
16:11:21 <mattmceuen> Was not discussed at the PTG in particular.  As an integration-focused project Airship should make sure all the configs to support ipv6 are exposed in k8s, openstack, etc
16:11:42 <mattmceuen> And then we can incorporate into treasuremap as a reference at some point - I think that would be a good idea roman_g
16:12:15 <mattmceuen> That's all I wanted to call out on the PTG at this time, I'll pause for anyone else?
16:13:05 <mattmceuen> #topic Click CLI bug
16:13:20 <mattmceuen> I'm not sure whose topic this is - anyone know?
16:13:24 <mattmceuen> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/svtbYI4q/
16:13:30 <ian-pittwood> That is me
16:13:38 <mattmceuen> ahh thanks ian-pittwood
16:13:57 <mattmceuen> interesting bug
16:14:13 <ian-pittwood> Alex and I discovered a bug in the Click CLI that causes help messages to not be printed on subcommands. We were just wondering if it was something we want to fix
16:14:25 <mattmceuen> Yeah, that would definitely be good to get fixed
16:14:39 <ian-pittwood> Kinda outside of our scope, but it is rather annoying for end users
16:15:21 <mattmceuen> I'm not aware of any bug to track that one -- can you put one in storyboard perhaps?
16:15:30 <ian-pittwood> I was also curious if anyone had ever experience that issue before and maybe had come up with a workaround
16:15:39 <mattmceuen> Is it only pegleg that has that issue?
16:15:53 <ian-pittwood> Sure I can. Click already has a bug report on it in their repo too
16:16:15 <mattmceuen> Oh I see - I was misunderstanding
16:16:17 <mattmceuen> Gotcha
16:16:18 <ian-pittwood> No I think it probably affects any project using a command that is nested deeper than one group with an option
16:17:01 <alexanderhughes> so as an example if you wanted to do a pegleg site secrets encrypt, because site requires options you can't do a --help on encrypt without specifying those options first
16:17:19 <alexanderhughes> the workaround is pretty cumbersome, we'll post details to the storyboard
16:17:50 <mattmceuen> Cool.  If the fix is fairly clear in the click codebase, it might be easier just to fix the root cause than do the workaround
16:18:00 <mattmceuen> Which of course would fix it for everyone :)
16:18:06 <ian-pittwood> That's what we were thinking too
16:18:29 <mattmceuen> yup - I'd suggest taking a look and seeing if it's clear how to fix, without getting a phd in click
16:18:52 <ian-pittwood> Unfortunately it seems like no one else here has seen this yet. Yeah we can look into it more and see if we can find a solution
16:19:04 <mattmceuen> good one, thanks for bringing it up
16:19:10 <mattmceuen> Ok, next topic:
16:19:17 <mattmceuen> #topic Be aware that implementation of multi-os support is changing :latest tags to :latest-ubuntu_xxx
16:19:25 <mattmceuen> Just to make sure folks are aware
16:19:48 <mattmceuen> Not sure to what extent folks are using the :latest tags, since we're so pinning-oriented
16:20:20 <mattmceuen> But per the multi-os spec, the latest ubuntu-based airship project images are being tagged using the new :latest-ubuntu_xxx format
16:20:28 <mattmceuen> (where xxx is xenial, bionic, etc)
16:21:09 <mattmceuen> That's all I have for that
16:21:24 <mattmceuen> #topic Docs on RTD website
16:21:39 <mattmceuen> Who wants to run with this topic?
16:21:41 <roman_g> me
16:21:52 <mattmceuen> all yours roman_g
16:22:14 <roman_g> Need to get control on remaining RTD repos: treasuremap, spyglass, maas, governance, tempest-plugin, utils
16:22:37 <roman_g> and need help with quickly approval of patches for RTD builds for the deckhand
16:22:43 <roman_g> who could help and when?
16:22:52 <roman_g> *with quick
16:23:20 <roman_g> quick approval - because there is almost no way to test it. our docs builds work, but RTD fails to build them
16:23:36 <mattmceuen> This would be a good way for a new contributor to get up-to-speed on both the projects and the documentation around them
16:24:00 <roman_g> RTD folks say there is no way we can simulate theit build process completely. It will still vary a bit.
16:24:02 <mattmceuen> Would encourage anyone looking to get involved (or anyone who knows anyone looking to get involved) to ping roman_g on this
16:24:17 <roman_g> I mean I need Core developer to approve patches )
16:24:30 <mattmceuen> ah - that too :)
16:24:41 <roman_g> New contributor with Core privs? We don't have them.
16:24:46 <mattmceuen> lol
16:24:48 <kskels> I can def help with docs
16:25:14 <roman_g> kskels: what about this Thursday morning (your time)?
16:25:39 <kskels> Thursday is the design call - so I'm not sure if that's good day
16:25:45 <kskels> maybe 1h or so before though
16:25:46 <roman_g> Fri?
16:25:50 <roman_g> ah, ok.
16:26:07 <roman_g> Will ping you on Thursday, and see if you are available.
16:26:11 <roman_g> Thank you.
16:26:35 <kskels> Fri is also good
16:26:41 <kskels> we can take this private :)
16:27:03 <mattmceuen> thanks kskels & roman_g for working this
16:27:10 <mattmceuen> #topic Are i18n translations needed at this stage of development
16:27:17 <mattmceuen> Thanks roman_g, I'd missed that email
16:27:58 <mattmceuen> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005881.html
16:28:16 <roman_g> Vote for no need for now.
16:29:51 <openstackgerrit> James Gu proposed airship/treasuremap master: Enable service specific version of helm toolkit used in OSH services  https://review.opendev.org/657638
16:29:52 <mattmceuen> I'm not 100% following whether that is referring to machine-translation or human-translation; how did you understand it roman_g?
16:30:28 <roman_g> human
16:30:46 <roman_g> well, we don't have machine-translated docs on openstack.org
16:31:19 <mattmceuen> We definitely have an expanding user/contributor base
16:31:36 <mattmceuen> But if we're asking for help, we also want to time it right
16:31:46 <roman_g> Translations would not be needed until Airship is productized to be sold on international market. We are not that far yet, and probably would not be.
16:31:46 <mattmceuen> I suggest we think on this a bit
16:32:25 <roman_g> E.g. there is fully translated RHEL, because it is sold as a product on an international market.
16:32:50 <mattmceuen> But we're talking about openstack doc translations, right?
16:33:03 <mattmceuen> rather than vendor-specific distributions
16:33:18 <roman_g> Yes.
16:33:32 <roman_g> I doubt anyone uses translated versions of those docs.
16:33:39 <mattmceuen> ok
16:33:48 <roman_g> They are usually outdated.
16:34:04 <mattmceuen> We can at least wait for interest/proven need to present themselves before asking for help on it, that makes sense
16:34:24 <roman_g> Openstack docs have good updated docs only when those docs are maintained by RH or e.g. SUSE Gmbh.
16:34:36 <mattmceuen> That'll also allow us to align our docs a bit first (there are some notes on that in the PTG etherpad as well)
16:34:49 <mattmceuen> gotcha
16:35:13 <mattmceuen> Anything else on this topic team?
16:35:15 <roman_g> jamesgu__: do you agree?
16:36:47 <mattmceuen> Let's keep moving for now, we can always opt-into the i18n effort when we decide we're ready
16:37:08 <mattmceuen> #topic PTG decision:  cores for "new projects"
16:37:11 <openstackgerrit> Ian Pittwood proposed airship/pegleg master: [WIP] Allow decryption of directories  https://review.opendev.org/657405
16:37:34 <mattmceuen> At the PTG it was acknowledged that becoming a core reviewer for "all of airship" is a very high bar to meet
16:38:04 <mattmceuen> especially as we start new projects, which are often staffed with folks outside the existing core reviewer team
16:38:51 <mattmceuen> So going forward, we'll add Core Reviewers on a project-by-project bases, and seed new projects with folks who have the right competencies (but who may or may not be part of the existing core team)
16:39:24 <mattmceuen> Note:  it'll still be a matter of proving one's self prior to being nominated as a core reviewer on a new project
16:40:07 <mattmceuen> I will be proposing a couple of folks for the Pegleg and Spyglass projects to catch those projects up, on the mailing list
16:41:00 <mattmceuen> Note that folks who have existing core reviewer responsibilities aren't having them taken away as part of this -- feel free to "bow out" of core status for any projects you don't feel are appropriate for you
16:41:22 <mattmceuen> We can revisit  / refine / nitpick this as time goes on, but that's the gist of it.
16:41:25 <mattmceuen> Any questions?
16:41:55 <roman_g> no
16:42:04 <mattmceuen> Cool beans - final topic
16:42:07 <kskels> sounds great! this is def good thing in my view to speed up process especially for components like spyglass
16:42:11 <mattmceuen> ++
16:42:13 <evgenyl> ++
16:42:27 <mattmceuen> Also a good thing as more contributors come to the Airship project :)
16:42:42 <mattmceuen> #topic Requests for Review
16:42:49 <mattmceuen> we have one so far:  https://review.opendev.org/#/c/649452/
16:44:29 <mattmceuen> please give that some eyes today
16:44:41 <mattmceuen> any others that would really benefit from reveiw, team?
16:45:22 <mattmceuen> alrighty
16:45:36 <mattmceuen> In that case, I'll give you 15 min back -- thanks everyone!
16:45:40 <mattmceuen> #endmeeting