16:00:10 #startmeeting api-wg 16:00:11 Meeting started Thu Jan 26 16:00:10 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is edleafe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg' 16:00:16 o/ 16:00:25 o/ 16:00:31 #chair cdent elmiko etoews edleafe 16:00:32 Warning: Nick not in channel: elmiko 16:00:33 Current chairs: cdent edleafe elmiko etoews 16:00:46 I'm present, but also on a voice call, so may experience latency 16:00:53 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda 16:01:13 #topic previous meeting action items 16:01:17 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2017/ 16:01:29 No action items from last week 16:01:41 #topic open mic and new biz 16:01:51 Updating stability/compatibility guidelines: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421846/ and http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-January/110384.html 16:02:15 my efforrts to engage the commonweal are not progessing as I hoped :( 16:02:30 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421846/ 16:02:32 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-January/110384.html 16:03:07 I keep meaning to comment on them, but I keep getting distracted by the FF pressures 16:03:15 the usual suspects showed up :) 16:03:21 edleafe: FF? 16:03:26 fantastic four? 16:03:33 etoews: sorry - Feature Freeze 16:03:57 etoews: I would prefer the Fantastic Four! 16:04:06 especially human torch 16:05:26 cdent: you had the note in the agenda: "What about projects that don't use microversions or version boundaries of any kind." 16:05:51 that seems to be one of the sticking points in the current discussion 16:06:22 Can we just add "if not, you're hosed" 16:06:29 pretty much 16:06:41 versioning software. terrible idea. 16:07:28 the issue there is that some people want the stability concept to apply globally but it's hard to do without some versioning, unless you never change 16:07:33 but since some projects don't microversion they struggle (e.g. glance) 16:07:50 on the flip side, because some projects microversion, they change all the freaking time 16:08:04 which runs rather contrary to the concept of real stability 16:08:20 instead that's backwards support capability, which is not really the same thing 16:08:27 but is perhaps what people really mean 16:08:40 stability for whom becomes the question 16:08:50 "We won't break old clients" 16:09:09 ...except if your client doesn't understand how to request a microversion 16:09:16 backwards support i definitely at the top of most people's minds 16:09:18 stevelle: you're a good example of someone who ought to jump into that thread :) 16:09:35 s/i/is/ 16:10:11 cdent: Your other note was "Anything formal for PTG?" 16:10:13 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ptg-architecture-workgroup 16:11:05 yeah, so it turns out thanks to the good graces of the foundation, I will be at the PTG. I think there's plenty of cross project stuff we can probably horn in on (like the service catalog stuff scottda wants to get rolling) but I wondered if we needed or wanted to have an official schmooze 16:11:06 We'll see if there is any interest for that 16:11:32 "that" being the architecture wg topic 16:11:43 hi 16:11:47 * scottda is late 16:11:49 heyo 16:12:57 i won't be at the ptg but something formal might be helpful to drive some of the more contentious guidelines forward 16:13:45 hell, just pick exactly one contentious guideline and attempt to drive resolution/consensus 16:13:57 capabilities will probably come up 16:14:15 that certainly meets the definition of 'contentious' 16:14:33 'xactly 16:14:44 that, pagination, or change guidelines are all good candidates 16:14:51 yes 16:15:05 * etoews stops offering opinions on an event he won't be attending 16:15:25 etoews: no worries; we'll just assign everything we decide on to you 16:15:36 I think it will be interesting to see how the the unconference style of orchestrating the whole week is going to work out 16:15:47 it all seems a bit chaotic, but that's perhaps good 16:15:53 So the API WG doesn't have a formal space assigned 16:16:19 Do we a) horn in on another group, or b) ask ttx for our own space (if available) 16:16:57 i'm not sure I can commit to be in any particular space at any particular time 16:17:15 sort of amorphous? 16:17:27 i have taken on the form of an amoeba 16:18:04 Looks-wise, it's gotta be an improvement 16:18:05 :) 16:18:16 duh amn 16:19:33 ok, so we'll just kinda join the architecture wg? Maybe send them a note? Or mention it at their next meeting? 16:19:49 i'll be at their next meeting, so yeah, I'll do that 16:20:09 #action cdent schmooze with arch-wg for ptg party time 16:20:15 That's today at 4pm CST 16:20:22 Kinda late for you? 16:21:19 I started late today. I start late on tuesday and thursday to hang with those cool west coast kids 16:22:02 gotcha 16:22:12 I'll try to make it too, but no promises 16:22:32 My daughter gets out of school at different times every day 16:23:54 anyway, let's move on 16:24:04 #topic guidelines 16:24:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z 16:24:07 What's ready to freeze? Or what's not, what's missing? 16:24:10 What's ready to merge? 16:24:26 nothing 16:24:34 cuz nothing is frozen 16:24:48 For freeze, I think these are ready 16:24:51 - Clarify the status values in versions 16:24:51 - Add guideline for invalid query parameters 16:24:51 - Add guidelines on usage of state vs. status 16:25:02 no objections there 16:25:11 yeah, that sounds right 16:25:24 There is still some back-and-forth on 'Add guidelines for boolean names' 16:25:25 who wants to do the freezing (and notifying) honors? 16:25:42 not me, since I'm not sure of the process 16:25:54 a) I'll do it, b) remind me to tell you at some point 16:26:17 #action edleafe to remind cdent to show him how to freeze + notify 16:26:35 edleafe: here's the process http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/process.html 16:26:42 i think that's mostly up-to-date 16:26:45 If others can weigh in on the boolean naming, that would be awesome 16:27:10 Monty's preference sounds odd to me, but apparently it works for them 16:27:21 I'd like others' input 16:27:51 etoews: thanks for the link 16:28:11 lemme look at the boolean guideline. i'm a bit behind on reviews. :( 16:28:58 the pagination and capability discovery patches could also use some input/discussion 16:30:29 I think those will likely stay a bit stalled through FF time 16:30:37 probably get a reboot at PTG? 16:30:59 they would be good to discuss, although pagination is pretty close 16:31:28 IAC, please add your comments to the reviews 16:31:32 Let's move on 16:31:33 #topic bug review 16:31:35 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg 16:31:57 nada new? 16:32:13 Nothing jumps out at me 16:32:44 Reminder to anyone who wants to start to contribute: these bugs are a great place to start! 16:33:01 Most are just tracking missing parts of guidelines 16:33:45 #topic weekly newsletter 16:33:46 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter 16:33:55 cdent: you up for that one? 16:34:21 yup sure, but will be a bit slow 16:34:46 will ping when I need some proofreading 16:34:48 I don't think that time is of the essence here 16:35:07 So... anything else from anybody? 16:35:28 Or do we let cdent get down to just one meeting at a time? 16:35:34 nope. i'm +1 on the boolean guideline. 16:35:48 it's lonely on this other meeting, you guys are _much_ more fun 16:36:18 cdent: Glad we could entertain you 16:36:23 #endmeeting