16:01:27 <jgriffith> #startmeeting cinder
16:01:27 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Oct  3 16:01:27 2012 UTC.  The chair is jgriffith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:28 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:29 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
16:01:38 <jgriffith> Hey everyone!
16:02:03 <bswartz> hi
16:02:21 <jgriffith> Hey bswartz
16:02:29 <DuncanT> Hey
16:02:34 <jgriffith> There's DuncanT
16:02:38 <jgriffith> rnirmal: around?
16:03:08 <jgriffith> hmmm
16:03:23 <jgriffith> I was hoping to go through summit seesion proposals
16:03:39 <bswartz> small meeting today?
16:03:58 <bswartz> were the meetings this small back in the nova-volume days?
16:04:15 <rnirmal> jgriffith: yes
16:04:26 <DuncanT> bswartz: 4 was not unusual in those days
16:04:52 <jgriffith> bswartz: The usually didn't happen :)
16:05:15 <jgriffith> #topic summit sessions
16:05:28 <jgriffith> bswartz: Yeah... too many side conversations going :)
16:05:44 <jgriffith> So we have 10 proposals so far for 7 slots :(
16:06:12 <bswartz> too many is better than too few!
16:06:20 <DuncanT> We've 5 things we want to talk about, but 4 of them should take a minute or two each I believe...
16:06:30 <jgriffith> bswartz: yes, unless your the owner of the ones that get cut :(
16:06:36 <DuncanT> I was wondering if there was a sessino for small stuff like that?
16:06:43 <jgriffith> DuncanT: two options
16:06:53 <jgriffith> 1. Make a combined session
16:06:59 <jgriffith> 2. unconference session
16:07:21 <jgriffith> Depending on the topic there might be good opportunity to combine with something that's already proposed
16:07:38 <bswartz> jgriffith: what is the decision process for what gets in/gets cut?
16:07:52 <rnirmal> jgriffith: the volume resize can be combined with api 2.0
16:08:07 <jgriffith> bswartz: Just like everything in the OpenStack community we decide as a group for the most part
16:08:09 <rnirmal> essentially it's new functionality
16:08:22 <jgriffith> rnirmal: agreed
16:08:28 <DuncanT> The list is iops billing/meeting, glace metadata retention, secure attach, list bootable volumes and volume backup
16:08:29 <bswartz> jgriffith: just this group? or the wider community?
16:08:41 <jgriffith> bswartz: Mostly this group, core cinder group
16:09:07 <jgriffith> bswartz: Those that participate and work on Cinder on a regular basis should obviously have a little more control over design sessions wouldn't you think?
16:09:17 <DuncanT> I propose we make the choice by a mad-max style cage fight...
16:09:17 <bswartz> yes that makes sense
16:09:25 <creiht> yeah that's how the other projects do it
16:09:26 <creiht> hah
16:09:32 <jgriffith> +1 on cage fights!
16:09:51 <creiht> I wish there was a way to just see the cinder proposed talks
16:09:57 <bswartz> there is
16:10:03 <bswartz> http://summit.openstack.org/
16:10:06 <rnirmal> creiht: sort on topic
16:10:06 <bswartz> sort by topic
16:10:12 <creiht> oh there
16:10:12 <creiht> heh
16:10:13 <jgriffith> :)
16:10:34 <jgriffith> creiht: Any objection to combining 2.0 API and volume-resize?
16:11:17 <bswartz> for those that don't know, the one propsed by Robert Esker is mine
16:11:20 <rongze> volume-resize is increase size ?
16:11:25 <rnirmal> rongze: yes
16:11:28 <jgriffith> The other option would be to meld it in with types, extra-specs and QoS as a "features discussion"
16:11:52 <jgriffith> That one would surely go over!
16:11:56 <DuncanT> I think the types one is going to be big enough as is
16:11:58 <rnirmal> jgriffith: the volume_types may not be title right... but I'd like to keep it focused around scheduling
16:12:25 <jgriffith> rnirmal: I'm fine with the title because we need to clarify that and the summit is a good time to do it
16:12:25 <rnirmal> jgriffith: we might need more than a full session for that :P
16:12:31 <jgriffith> The other option is...
16:12:38 <bswartz> are all 7 slots 1-hour long?
16:12:47 <jgriffith> 50 minutes
16:12:58 <jgriffith> new format this year, all are the same length of time
16:13:03 <creiht> jgriffith: what if we had a more general new features session?
16:13:18 <jgriffith> creiht: That's where I was heading
16:13:19 <creiht> I would like the api talk to mostly cover where the current api gaps are
16:13:25 <creiht> ahh cool... just catching up sorry
16:13:44 <jgriffith> creiht: Ok... and I think I'd like to have the features discussion prior to the API agree?
16:14:01 <creiht> yeah that would be good
16:14:05 <DuncanT> That makes sense
16:14:21 <jgriffith> the tricky thing is that most of what's proposed are all features :)
16:14:26 <creiht> hah
16:14:36 <rnirmal> maybe group smaller items
16:14:44 <bswartz> this "Living in a world without Iscsi" topic doesn't make sense to me
16:14:46 <rnirmal> leave the larger ones as is
16:14:56 <jgriffith> bswartz: I was actually thinking of combining that with yours :)
16:15:14 <bswartz> is Chuck Short in here?
16:15:21 <DuncanT> rnirmal: It looks like multibackend is part of types/scheduling to me... does that make sense to you?
16:15:26 <zul> lurking in the background
16:15:43 <rnirmal> DuncanT: yes and no... I'm worried that might take longer than an hr
16:15:53 <jgriffith> Ok... let's back up a second
16:15:54 <rnirmal> as in combining those
16:16:12 <jgriffith> First... is there anything on the list that can obviously be cut or easily moved to unconf?
16:16:26 <jgriffith> zul: You'll hate me but I think I'd propose yours is moved
16:16:49 <jgriffith> zul: The reason is that even though iSCSI isn't necessary in some of those cases
16:17:03 <jgriffith> it is required for instance if your cinder node isn't the same as your compute node
16:17:36 <jgriffith> zul: managing the whole node thing adds complexity that I'd rather not have special cases for all over the place
16:17:44 <jgriffith> Unless there's something you have in mind that I'm missing
16:17:50 <zul> jgriffith:  cool...
16:18:00 <jgriffith> zul: Wow!  Really, that was easy :)
16:18:08 <zul> jgriffith: it just looked like to me that you need icssi everywhere
16:18:11 * jgriffith will live in fear of zuls revenge
16:18:31 <bswartz> jgriffith: I'm not opposed to combining, but zul's talk doesn't seem to fit in with what I'm proposing
16:18:34 <jgriffith> zul: I think you do as soon as you deal with multi nodes
16:18:47 <jgriffith> bswartz: depends on your point of view :)
16:18:53 <DuncanT> Ceph doesn't require iscsi at all I think?
16:19:08 <DuncanT> As an example
16:19:10 <jgriffith> DuncanT: I'm talking LVM, Ceph is another animal
16:19:34 <DuncanT> Ah, yes, you'll need iscsi or similar for LVM for sure
16:19:37 <zul> i think that you can use the the libvirt driver for ceph and not hook into iscsi in order to use it, i need to do more research though
16:20:06 <DuncanT> Sounds more and more like a candidate for unconf
16:20:07 <jgriffith> zul: I believe you're correct, as is true with LVM etc, BUT again iSCSI won't go away regardless
16:20:24 <jgriffith> Ok... I move that one goes to unconference:
16:20:30 <zul> jgriffith: true im thinking right interface for the right job
16:20:59 <jgriffith> zul: I'm with you there and have no problem with for example Ceph using it's own driver and not inheriting the iSCSI driver
16:21:23 <zul> jgriffith: cool i just need to learn more about ceph
16:21:27 <jgriffith> Ok.. anybody second the motion?
16:21:30 <DuncanT> +1 on unconf
16:21:38 <creiht> +1
16:21:42 <rnirmal> +1
16:21:42 <bswartz> +!
16:21:46 <bswartz> +1 even
16:21:50 <jgriffith> ok...
16:21:52 <jgriffith> next
16:22:00 <creiht> zul: ceph should be able to work, just needs a little different driver, and can't rely on the stuff that the iscsi driver already provides
16:22:15 <zul> creiht: right
16:22:17 <jgriffith> types, extra_specs and QoS
16:22:17 <creiht> it worked before (or so I heard) with nova-volume, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work with cinder?
16:22:50 <DuncanT> types & scheduling I think is an important one
16:22:55 <jgriffith> I'd propose those two and Multi-backend support are moved around into two sessions
16:22:56 <creiht> agreed
16:23:27 <rnirmal> I'm good with that
16:23:34 <winston-d> +1
16:23:37 <rnirmal> probably have them as back to back sessions
16:23:48 <bswartz> jgriffith: what are the 2 sessions?
16:23:50 <DuncanT> Sorry, those two and multi-backend?
16:24:07 <bswartz> scheduling & multi-backend?
16:24:08 <jgriffith> bswartz: Two sessions
16:24:15 <jgriffith> bswartz: Take three and merge them into two
16:24:24 <bswartz> oh I get it
16:24:28 <rongze> how many cinder sessions in openstack summit ?
16:24:34 <DuncanT> I don't. Exactly which 3?
16:24:38 <jgriffith> rongze: 7 maybe more
16:24:38 <rnirmal> jgriffith: I don't think we have 3 proposed... just 2
16:24:59 <rnirmal> but including discussion of scheduling within those topics
16:25:02 <jgriffith> DuncanT:1. types, extra-specs, Qos
16:25:04 <winston-d> types, scheduling, multi-backend
16:25:08 <jgriffith> 2. volume resize
16:25:12 <jdurgin> just to clarify: ceph has no relation to iscsi, and the rbd driver does not need it to be installed, and the driver still works in nova-volume and cinder
16:25:13 <jgriffith> 3. multi-backend
16:25:37 <creiht> jdurgin: cool, thanks for the clarification :)
16:25:41 <DuncanT> jgriffith: Got you.
16:25:56 <jgriffith> Those were the 3 sessions I was thinking of collapsing into 2
16:26:04 <DuncanT> I think resize is a totally separate discussion, but I guess 2 hours for 3 topics is not unreasonable
16:26:20 <rnirmal> jgriffith: volume resize fits more with a new features session than the other 2
16:26:21 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Logically yes, but do we need 50 minutes for resize?
16:26:31 <creiht> actually isn't volume resize going to be backend dependent? so is it more about having an api for it, or are you suggesting there should be implementation in cinder?
16:26:36 <DuncanT> I think resize is a small part of new features discussion
16:26:42 <jgriffith> creiht: That's my thought
16:26:48 <jgriffith> creiht: It's almost a no-op in my book
16:26:53 <creiht> yeah agreed
16:27:10 <jgriffith> rnirmal: Any problem with moving that to unconf?
16:27:12 <rnirmal> agreed... I just put it out there
16:27:35 <creiht> cool
16:28:01 <jgriffith> Ok, that puts us in good shape
16:28:22 <jgriffith> I'm going to use any extra slots for general feature discussions
16:28:22 <DuncanT> Still 8 on the list
16:28:44 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Yeah, Horizon is likely to give us a slot or two
16:28:50 <jgriffith> DuncanT: So we should be good
16:28:53 <DuncanT> Ah, cool
16:29:18 <DuncanT> I guess we can try to have a fairly quorate unconf slot if necessary
16:29:20 <jgriffith> One other thing I need to look back at is a Cinder state of the unioon type thing
16:29:35 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Hell we did all of our work at unconf last time :)
16:29:51 <DuncanT> Aye
16:30:10 <creiht> hah
16:30:19 <creiht> you can get a lot done in the unconf :)
16:30:30 <jgriffith> creiht: TBH they were more effective
16:30:38 <creiht> I bet
16:30:48 <creiht> that's where all the people that realy care show up
16:30:49 <DuncanT> Well, the fact that only people who were going to be writing code turned up helped massively I think
16:31:04 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Yup
16:31:31 <johnpur_> agree
16:31:46 <bswartz> is there are tentative schedule posted somewhere already?
16:32:01 <rnirmal> bswartz: for the unconference?
16:32:05 <jgriffith> bswartz: http://openstacksummitfall2012.sched.org/
16:32:35 <bswartz> jgriffith: thanks that's what I meant
16:32:56 <jgriffith> Our stuff will show up there when it's set
16:34:00 <rnirmal> so cinder is just all day wednesday.. and jgriffith you mentioned we might get some time Thur?
16:34:26 <jgriffith> rnirmal: yeah, actually may juggle around so were still all Wed
16:35:27 <jgriffith> Does anybody plan to submit anything that's not there already?
16:35:52 <creiht> I think we are good
16:36:04 * clayg checks for logs
16:36:27 <DuncanT> As I mentioned, we a bunch of small things for the features session
16:36:31 * winston-d checks the logs
16:36:55 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Get it in as soon as you can
16:37:03 <rnirmal> DuncanT: I don't see a features session... looks like we need to add it
16:37:37 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Put together what you want and submit it, then I can combine it with other things if needed
16:37:45 <DuncanT> Am doing so now
16:40:24 <rongze> how about the topic 'Local Storage Volume plugin for Cinder' ?
16:41:30 <bswartz> rongze: I read that one, and it looks interesting -- not sure how it fits in with Cinder though
16:41:39 <bswartz> looks like cloudstack+swift for the most part
16:41:53 <rongze> yes
16:42:04 <DuncanT> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/edit/137
16:42:18 <DuncanT> Will add more blueprint links as I find them
16:42:23 <bswartz> ^ broken link
16:42:23 <uvirtbot> bswartz: Error: "broken" is not a valid command.
16:42:41 <rongze> I am developing it
16:42:42 <jgriffith> bswartz: DuncanT works for me
16:42:56 <DuncanT> s/edit/details/ might help maybe?
16:43:00 <winston-d> doesn't work for me
16:43:08 <clayg> ok, i'm all caught up - but I didn't see anyone call me out specifically for the two sessions I purposed - does that mean there's intrest?   Or did y'all all silently agree to ignore me before hand :P
16:43:17 <winston-d> details works
16:43:21 <DuncanT> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/137
16:43:26 <jgriffith> Ahhh... forgot I have the *magic* auth :)
16:43:52 <DuncanT> Clayg: Definitely interested in your lunr talk
16:44:09 <jgriffith> DuncanT: perfect, and we can grow this if needed
16:44:20 <DuncanT> Clayg: And I guess the status discussion needs to be had at some point, though if you can fill 50 minutes with it I'll be impressed
16:44:31 <clayg> lol @ DuncanT
16:44:33 <creiht> hehe
16:44:43 <clayg> i can go *on* and *on* :P
16:44:46 <creiht> DuncanT: you haven't seen clayg when he gets on a roll :)
16:44:51 <jgriffith> clayg: but should it be a Cinder track?
16:44:55 <clayg> i'm kidding, I agree it should be a no brainer
16:44:55 <jgriffith> clayg: Just kidding :)
16:45:47 <jgriffith> Ok, we're at 9.  I believe we can get two sessions to cover the gap
16:45:54 <jgriffith> If not I'll combine some things and make it fit
16:46:03 <jgriffith> Anything else on summit topics?
16:46:15 <jgriffith> Going once....
16:46:22 <jgriffith> Going twice....
16:46:24 <clayg> jgriffith: so can volume state/status be combined elsewhere?  DuncanT is right, i don't think it's a 50 min discussion?
16:46:28 <jgriffith> Doh!!
16:46:58 <jgriffith> clayg: DuncanT What about dropping it into the "new features" session
16:47:07 <DuncanT> Seems fine to me
16:47:25 <clayg> it may tie well together if some of the new features require new states/status?  i.e. "resizing"
16:47:34 <jgriffith> cool!
16:47:37 <jgriffith> Let's go with that
16:47:53 <DuncanT> Going once....
16:47:53 <jgriffith> I'll fix put it in there and update things later
16:47:57 <jgriffith> hehe
16:48:04 <clayg> that was honestly what I wanted to hear most - if this is the set of statuses does it cover all of the features you want to implement?
16:48:33 <jgriffith> clayg: That ties in well then I believe
16:48:44 <jgriffith> very cool
16:48:47 <clayg> perfecto!
16:48:54 <jgriffith> Sweetness!!
16:49:29 <jgriffith> I think 8 sessions should be MORE than sufficient and we can use Unconf to continue discussions where needed
16:49:42 <jgriffith> So I'm going to propose we wrap up this topic....
16:50:24 * clayg twiddles thumbs
16:50:34 <jgriffith> If possible I'll make new features two back to back sessions, but I suspect the highly discussed ones will be more around types, QoS etc
16:50:43 <jgriffith> Alright Done
16:50:48 <jgriffith> #topic docs
16:50:55 <rnirmal> :(
16:51:02 <clayg> YAY DOCS!
16:51:10 <jgriffith> Anybody have anythign here ^^
16:51:17 <annegentle> rnirmal! Turn that frown upside down!
16:51:24 <bswartz> :-)
16:51:26 <jgriffith> annegentle: HA!
16:51:32 <annegentle> :)
16:51:32 <rnirmal> annegentle: :) I'm due for some docs
16:51:47 <bswartz> jgriffith: I have a partial implementation of some netapp docs in my tree
16:52:03 <jgriffith> bswartz: Coolness.. get it checked in as soon as you can please
16:52:04 <annegentle> how does your plan for API doc work with the upcoming summit? That is, ar eyou going to upload the draft now?
16:52:20 <bswartz> my time is getting squeezed by conference-related things so no guarantees on when it will be submitted
16:52:34 <cp16net> brb
16:52:36 <jgriffith> bswartz: wait... what?
16:52:51 <bswartz> the netapp docs are started but not done
16:53:02 <jgriffith> Folsom released, we really should have associated docs
16:53:18 <jgriffith> Or as some would say, it's not really *done* until the docs are done
16:53:50 <bswartz> well, I'll do my best to get them done today
16:54:07 <jgriffith> bswartz: Not pressuring or antyhing
16:54:11 <jgriffith> bswartz: Not even today
16:54:20 <jgriffith> bswartz: Just next week if you can
16:54:40 <jgriffith> bswartz: I'm not singling you out either... I'm guilty as well
16:55:25 <jgriffith> annegentle: Which API doc were you referring to there?
16:55:41 <jgriffith> anderstj: I'm assuming the general openstack/api/docs no?
16:56:02 <jgriffith> Ooops  s/anderstj/annegentle/
16:56:08 <annegentle> jgriffith: the one you got from David Hendler than can be posted to docs.openstack.org/api
16:56:22 <annegentle> jgriffith: than/that
16:56:26 <jgriffith> annegentle: Ohhh, I promised David I would have that today
16:56:36 <annegentle> jgriffith: ok, great
16:56:37 <jgriffith> At least the first round
16:56:50 <annegentle> jgriffith: stick it into volume-api so we can all review please?
16:56:54 <jgriffith> actually I promised him last week, but apparantly I lied
16:57:04 <annegentle> jgriffith: hee
16:57:23 <jgriffith> Ok, I'll edit and get it to David TODAY!
16:57:32 <jgriffith> And when he's good we'
16:57:54 <jgriffith> ll get it in volume-api
16:58:04 <jgriffith> Is anybody else working on docs?
16:58:10 <jgriffith> jdurgin: anythign for ceph?
16:58:26 <jgriffith> Anybody present for StorWiz?
16:58:35 <rnirmal> jgriffith: I'm working on a driver doc
16:58:38 <rnirmal> or atleast need to be
16:59:30 <jgriffith> rnirmal: cool, was hoping you were still up for it
16:59:33 <jdurgin> jgriffith: yeah, I've been working on some driver docs in the ceph tree, will get them into openstack-docs as well when they're ready
16:59:42 <jgriffith> excellent
16:59:51 <jgriffith> Ok, I'll stop badgering on that topic
17:00:12 <jgriffith> I will say again, anybody who has knowledge/time take a look and see what you can add or fix on the docs side
17:00:23 <jgriffith> #topic open discussion
17:00:45 <jgriffith> Anybody have anything they want to talk about this week?
17:01:03 <clayg> someone click this one -> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13816/
17:01:27 <clayg> we've been carrying this one in our builds for awhile now -> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13327/
17:01:58 <clayg> this is so old, I don't even know if it'll still merge -> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/12076/
17:02:00 <jgriffith> ON it
17:02:10 <jgriffith> DOH DuncanT beat me to it
17:02:41 <clayg> fwiw, I have no idea how to contribute to the Windows Server and HP San reviews :\
17:02:53 <jgriffith> clayg: Me neither
17:02:58 <jgriffith> clayg: The HP one I can fake
17:02:59 <rnirmal> is there a HP san review pending?
17:03:06 <jgriffith> clayg: The Windows one I have NO idea
17:03:27 <clayg> rnirmal: something about snaphosts?
17:03:29 <jgriffith> clayg: I guess we have to trust them and just look for general coding issues?
17:03:35 <rnirmal> jgriffith: I can test the HP snapshot
17:03:47 <rnirmal> jgriffith: I'll take that
17:03:49 <jgriffith> rnirmal: That would be awesome!
17:04:27 <jgriffith> What do folks think on the Windows one?
17:05:00 <DuncanT> Haven't had time to look at it, but I guess we have to trust them on funtionality at the moment
17:05:19 <jgriffith> DuncanT: yeah, it's a HUGE patch
17:05:30 <jgriffith> but the good thing is most of it is test files
17:05:30 <DuncanT> Actually, automated functional testing of cinder would make a great summit session....
17:05:40 <clayg> I'm so confused about those gz/pickled mocks - what is going on with that?
17:06:03 <clayg> DuncanT: do we get devstack/exercise/volumes ?
17:06:04 <jgriffith> clayg: NAICT they're simulated responses from the MS servers
17:06:12 <rnirmal> yeah even if they are mock objects.... I don't think they should be checked in pickled
17:06:38 <clayg> jgriffith: but why all the obfuscation?  Why not just show me what the responses look like with real mock objects written in plain python?
17:06:47 <jgriffith> clayg: because it's MS
17:06:48 <jgriffith> :)
17:07:06 <jgriffith> clayg: Have you ever worked with .Net :)
17:07:29 <jgriffith> Ok... seriously, I couldn't tell ya.  Feel free to review -1 and ask those very questions
17:07:40 <DuncanT> clayg: There's loads missing from devstack exerciser, though adding more is on my (long) list, and some way of having it run regularly on various implementations automagically would be great
17:08:01 <jgriffith> DuncanT: clayg We need work on tests for sure
17:08:16 <jgriffith> DuncanT: clayg I'd like to do unconf for that at the session
17:08:28 <DuncanT> I vaguely propose an unconference / beer session for testing
17:08:33 <jgriffith> Also we need things like Grenade in an ongoing fashion
17:08:38 <jgriffith> BEER!!!!
17:08:44 <DuncanT> Grenade?
17:08:46 <winston-d> does tempest work with cinder?
17:08:51 <jgriffith> winston-d: yes
17:09:02 <winston-d> good to know
17:09:02 <jgriffith> DuncanT: github/nebula/grenade
17:09:26 <jgriffith> DuncanT: does an Essex->Folsom test
17:09:37 <jgriffith> Includes upgrading nova-vol --> Cinder
17:09:55 <DuncanT> FWIW I've been doing some work on spinning up multi-node folsom clouds in the cloud, and it works great... not done much on automating it though
17:10:10 <DuncanT> Oooo, grenade looks really useful
17:10:25 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Tis
17:10:39 <jgriffith> DuncanT: That's awesome news
17:10:52 <jgriffith> DuncanT: Used Cinder in that scenario yet?
17:11:28 <DuncanT> Yup
17:11:44 <DuncanT> Had a load of conf file issues but got it working in the end
17:12:10 <DuncanT> I'll see if I can have a demo for you at the summit
17:12:55 <jgriffith> Nice!  We're working on one as well for the summit
17:12:59 <jgriffith> First thing Monday morning :)
17:13:18 <jgriffith> Alrighty... we should probably call it a meeting at this point
17:13:22 <jgriffith> Thanks everyone!!!
17:13:29 <jgriffith> Looking forward to seeing you all at the Summit!
17:13:30 <rongze> I have a question . the status of cinder session in http://summit.openstack.org/  is Unreviewed , what is the mean?  Unreviewed is Preapproved ?
17:13:53 <jgriffith> rongze: It means I haven't gone through all of them and said yes/no yet :)
17:14:06 <jgriffith> rongze: I'll be doing that at the end of the week
17:14:33 <rongze> thank you, john
17:14:38 <jgriffith> rongze: No problem
17:14:44 <jgriffith> Any other questions?
17:14:56 <jgriffith> Alrighty... thanks again!
17:14:58 <jgriffith> #endmeeting