22:01:13 <adrian_otto> #startmeeting containers
22:01:14 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb 10 22:01:13 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:01:15 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:01:17 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'containers'
22:01:19 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Containers#Agenda_for_2015-02-10_2200_UTC Our Agenda
22:01:23 <adrian_otto> #topic Roll Call
22:01:27 <adrian_otto> Adrian Otto
22:01:40 <apmelton> Andrew Melton
22:01:40 <sdake> o/ steak here
22:01:49 <wkharold> wkharold
22:01:56 <pradk> o/
22:01:59 <yuanying-alt> OTSUKA Yuanying
22:02:09 <rpothier> o/
22:02:18 <adrian_otto> good morning Yuanying
22:02:40 <thomasem> Thomas Maddox
22:02:43 <thomasem> o/
22:03:00 <adrian_otto> and hello apmelton sdake wkharold pradk rpothier and thomasem
22:03:05 <thomasem> howdy
22:03:36 <thomasem> Sorry I missed last week's. Was knee deep in a production issue.
22:03:48 <adrian_otto> thomasem: np. We have a lot on the agenda today, so let's get started…
22:03:54 <hongbin> Hongbin Lu
22:04:02 <adrian_otto> hi hongbin
22:04:10 <adrian_otto> #topic Announcements
22:04:14 <adrian_otto> (1) adrian_otto will be away on 2015-02-17 and 2015-02-24 for our 1600 UTC meeting. Our pro-tem chair will be sdake for these two meetings.
22:04:30 <adrian_otto> the week after that is our Midcycle meetup
22:04:34 <sdake> yar
22:04:36 <adrian_otto> should we hold an IRC meeting or not?
22:04:53 <adrian_otto> I marked the calendar as no meeting for 2015-03-03
22:04:57 <sdake> during the midcycle?  I'd say no
22:05:24 <adrian_otto> yeah, we will be in the team IRC channel during the midcycle
22:05:33 <adrian_otto> but I don't think we need the IRC meeting.
22:05:42 <adrian_otto> (2) The Magnum Midcycle Meetup will be on 2015-03-02 and 2015-03-03.
22:05:50 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum/Midcycle Magnum Midcycle
22:05:56 <adrian_otto> (more on this later)
22:06:13 <adrian_otto> (3) Please welcome @madhuri to our team as a full-time contributor. She is joining the Magnum team from NEC and works with yuanying in Japan.
22:06:26 <thomasem> Welcome!
22:06:27 <adrian_otto> it's 07:06 in Japan right now
22:06:55 <adrian_otto> so maybe we will see her a bit later
22:07:05 <yuanying-alt> She can not connect this channnel because some error
22:07:34 <yuanying-alt> She is trying to connect now
22:07:45 <adrian_otto> ok, we can come back to it a bit later.
22:08:01 <adrian_otto> but I will say that I'm really pumped to see the team growing.
22:08:10 <sdake> yar :)
22:08:15 <adrian_otto> #topic Review Action Items
22:08:26 <adrian_otto> we had two
22:08:32 <adrian_otto> (1) adrian_otto to follow up with yuanying about ironic-heat-template
22:08:46 <adrian_otto> I was able to discuss this with yuanying-alt breifly
22:08:57 <adrian_otto> Implementation Status is slow due to lack of familiarity with pxe/ironic/image-building. Support from other Stackers desired.
22:09:17 <adrian_otto> if you can help with this, let's arrange for you and yuanying-alt to work together
22:09:45 <yuanying-alt> Now, I can boot ironic instance (kube minion)
22:09:57 <yuanying-alt> but there is some problems
22:10:32 <yuanying-alt> Please see my patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154437/
22:11:59 <yuanying-alt> that's all
22:12:02 <adrian_otto> sdake: is this something you think you might be able to help with?
22:12:16 <sdake> overloaded atm
22:12:22 <sdake> I handed it off to yuanying in teh first place
22:12:27 <adrian_otto> aha
22:13:06 <adrian_otto> ok, so feel free to discuss on the ML
22:13:16 <adrian_otto> maybe we can pull in others who can help
22:13:29 <adrian_otto> our next action item was:
22:13:33 <adrian_otto> (2) adrian_otto to initiate an ML thread for discussion of native Docker scheduling support for Magnum
22:13:44 <adrian_otto> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056273.html ML Thread about Magnum Scheduling
22:13:58 <adrian_otto> that thread got numerous replies
22:14:12 <adrian_otto> diga: yt?
22:14:30 <adrian_otto> it's like 02:15 where he lives
22:15:00 <wkharold> so, I managed not to subscribe to the ML somehow ...
22:15:11 <adrian_otto> at any rate, we did discuss the topic, and most of us semed happt to pursue a point solution for the native docker backend
22:15:31 <wkharold> real quick, what would integrating swarm provide that k8s doesnt?
22:15:45 <adrian_otto> while aiming for a generic scheduler option to leverage Gantt when it reaches suitable matuity
22:16:25 <adrian_otto> wkharold: the difference is that we would not expect to be interacting with a docker backend in the k8s case
22:16:37 <adrian_otto> whereas we would in the case of the native docker backend
22:16:56 <wkharold> k8s is built on/for Docker, no?
22:17:10 <adrian_otto> k8s has it's own REST API
22:17:21 <adrian_otto> and tha's what our k8s backend interacts with
22:18:18 <adrian_otto> it would not make sense to surface the Docker API on an individual node of a k8s cluster
22:18:34 <adrian_otto> where that would make sense if you are using Magnum to get a single container running on a docker host
22:18:35 <wkharold> not sure why it matters whether backend talks k8s or Docker API
22:18:49 <wkharold> magnum clients see neither
22:19:01 <wkharold> it's still Docker at the end of the day
22:19:06 <adrian_otto> actually, we discussed surfacing the native API endpoints
22:19:24 <adrian_otto> to allow for existing tooling to interact with the container using the native API
22:19:54 <wkharold> existing tooling?
22:19:57 <adrian_otto> so you would Use Magnum as the control plane, but you might put the container into different backend states by interacting directly with it's API
22:20:12 <adrian_otto> say you wanted to use cAdvisor or something
22:20:36 <adrian_otto> and that -something- were integrated with the container API
22:20:56 <adrian_otto> we want to provide a control surface abstraction to get the container entity
22:21:05 <sdake> I think in some cases, for VIF for example, we need to not surface the native api for k8s
22:21:22 <adrian_otto> but you might select a different backend handler depending on what you want Magnum to link you to from that.
22:21:32 <wkharold> the Docker API is always there
22:21:41 <wkharold> even k8s or not
22:21:53 <adrian_otto> but you may be unable to reach it
22:22:15 <adrian_otto> say for example if k8s sets up a TLS token keypair
22:22:25 <adrian_otto> and the client token is held by k8s
22:22:31 <adrian_otto> it can talk to docker, but other clients can not.
22:22:53 <sdake> the k8s tls token problem can be solved by an api addtion to retrieve the client's keypair
22:22:57 <adrian_otto> if you use a native docker backend, we could make the client key part of the OCNtainer resource
22:23:08 <wkharold> does it do that? Docker would have to be a participant in that scheme
22:23:35 <adrian_otto> it does not yet, but these are examples of some of the points of differentiation between the two backends
22:24:02 <adrian_otto> let's park this to revisit in open discussion
22:24:08 <wkharold> sure
22:24:19 <adrian_otto> that concludes action itmes
22:24:23 <adrian_otto> #topic Administrative
22:24:33 <adrian_otto> Reviews to include links to "Implements blueprint BLUEPRINT" or "Closes-Bug: #NNNN" on the last line of the commit message.
22:24:43 <adrian_otto> Rationale: This allows for more accurate tracking of our progress in each release to be included in our release notes.
22:24:48 <apmelton> +1
22:24:50 <adrian_otto> NOTE: The bug does not need to be previously approved to be linked to a review.
22:24:54 <sdake> +1 for better commit logs
22:25:15 <hongbin> +1
22:25:26 <adrian_otto> if you find reviews that link to neither a BP or a bug ticket, please vote -1 and direct the committer to add one
22:25:41 <adrian_otto> also, I have routinely commented on commit messages
22:25:56 <adrian_otto> ideally the commit message will answer the question about "Why are we doing this?"
22:26:18 <adrian_otto> "Who cares?"
22:26:23 <sdake> the commit log is the most important point of the changei mo :)
22:26:29 <adrian_otto> so we are getting better at that
22:26:36 <adrian_otto> sdake: agreed
22:26:55 <adrian_otto> a really good commit message signals to me that your patch is well reasoned
22:27:03 <adrian_otto> even in cases where you have a 1 line patch
22:27:06 <sdake> that can be gamed ;-)
22:27:11 <adrian_otto> I'd still like to see a sensible commit message
22:27:15 <jay-lau-513> sorry for late
22:27:21 <sdake> hey jay
22:27:26 <jay-lau-513> hey sdake
22:27:33 <adrian_otto> I'm trusting this team not to play games
22:27:44 <adrian_otto> welcome Jay
22:27:55 <jay-lau-513> thx ;)
22:28:02 <adrian_otto> ok, any more discussion on the Administrative topic?
22:28:13 <sdake> launchpad admin
22:28:14 <adrian_otto> the last change we made in this area was a policy to require unit tests
22:28:17 <sdake> see stuff in discussion
22:28:21 <sdake> what is the trigger to approved
22:28:39 <adrian_otto> I will comb through those
22:28:51 <sdake> most of them have estimates now
22:29:06 <adrian_otto> if discussion has happened, and dispute is absent, then I will approve as long as there is enough detail in the BP to actually work against it
22:29:30 <adrian_otto> thanks to all of you who added estimates.
22:29:38 <adrian_otto> we will get to this in Task Review
22:29:50 <adrian_otto> #topic Release Schedule Discussion
22:29:58 <adrian_otto> Next planned release date is 2015-02-16 is there value in aligning our release date with our Midcycle meetup?
22:30:21 <adrian_otto> keep in mind that we can release as often as we want
22:30:25 <apmelton> as in pushing 2-16 back to just before 3-2?
22:30:42 <apmelton> or releasing 2-16 then quickly again before/after the mid cycle?
22:31:30 <adrian_otto> my question is if we should push out a release date
22:31:34 <sdake> i think just push out a week
22:31:57 <adrian_otto> we do have 25+ open bugs, several of them are Criticals
22:31:57 <wkharold> +1
22:32:11 <apmelton> adrian_otto: that's a good point
22:32:13 <adrian_otto> so I'd like to see us draw down the critical list a lot
22:32:17 <jay-lau-513> +1 to push out
22:32:24 <jay-lau-513> some bp also under development
22:32:45 <hongbin> +1 fine with me
22:32:48 <adrian_otto> That would make the proposed release date Feb 23
22:32:49 <apmelton> I see no reason to not push back the date, so +1 from me
22:33:15 <yuanying-alt> +1
22:33:26 <adrian_otto> ok I will record that as a #agreed
22:33:50 <adrian_otto> #agreed our next target date to tag a release is 2015-02-23
22:34:29 <adrian_otto> if you have a moment, I'd like us all to find a bug in the queue that has Assignee set to None, and take it.
22:34:37 <adrian_otto> or take a few
22:35:13 <adrian_otto> I will revisit that in a moment as well.
22:35:26 <adrian_otto> but now, I'd like to welcome our new team member madhuri__
22:35:45 <madhuri__> Hi all!
22:35:50 <apmelton> welcome madhuri__
22:35:54 <hongbin> welcome
22:35:55 <wkharold> howdy
22:35:55 <adrian_otto> madhuri__: welcome to eh Magnum team!!
22:36:00 <madhuri__> Thank you!
22:36:02 <jay-lau-513> welcome madhuri_
22:36:02 <yuanying-alt> welcome!
22:36:23 <madhuri__> I am happy to join this team.
22:36:34 <adrian_otto> madhuri__: have you worked on other OpenStack projects before, or will this be your first?
22:36:37 <thomasem> welcome!
22:37:00 <madhuri__> Yes. I have worked on swift.
22:37:13 <adrian_otto> sweet!
22:37:14 <apmelton> I'd argue this isn't a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/magnum/+bug/1405356
22:37:14 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1405356 in Magnum "Tech Debt: Fix endpoint configuration on docker handler" [High,Triaged]
22:37:39 <adrian_otto> ok, so your learning curve will be much easier with Gerrit and such
22:37:48 <madhuri__> More of an improvement. Right?
22:38:08 <madhuri__> Yes. I am familiar with it.
22:38:51 <adrian_otto> let's cover the Midcycle for a moment
22:38:55 <adrian_otto> #topic Mid-Cycle Meetup
22:39:08 <adrian_otto> If you can attend, please RSVP:
22:39:10 <adrian_otto> #link https://www.eventbrite.com/e/magnum-midcycle-meetup-tickets-15673361446 Midcycle RSVP Tickets
22:39:17 <adrian_otto> if you can not attend, take no action
22:39:32 <adrian_otto> regardless, please review the agenda topics
22:39:33 <adrian_otto> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-midcycle-topics Midcycle Agenda Items
22:39:49 <jay-lau-513> adrian, I think someone does want to join remotely
22:40:16 <adrian_otto> yes, the next step in planning will be to get all the topics, and build a schedule for them
22:40:34 <sdake> for remote attendees, what is the process?
22:40:38 <adrian_otto> if you want to join the discussion on one of the topics, please label it
22:40:40 <sdake> how does it work?
22:40:46 <adrian_otto> and put an asterisk by your name if you are remote
22:41:00 <adrian_otto> and anchor that asterisk to the timezone you wnat to attend from
22:41:11 <adrian_otto> and I will see what I can do to allow remote participation
22:41:18 <adrian_otto> we have a room with a very good VC system in it
22:41:31 <adrian_otto> and I have held midcycles there before
22:41:49 <adrian_otto> Google Hangouts worked well, as well as projecting up the IRC channel
22:41:52 <sdake> cool, might document how to connect for the midcycle then if we haveremotees
22:42:07 <adrian_otto> good idea
22:42:18 <adrian_otto> I will put that on the wiki page for the Midcycle linked above
22:42:28 <sdake> cool thx
22:42:31 <adrian_otto> again for your convenience:
22:42:32 <adrian_otto> •	#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum/Midcycle Magnum Midcycle
22:42:51 <adrian_otto> I will plan to sponsor lunches for us
22:43:08 <adrian_otto> so if you have dietary constraints, please contact me individually
22:43:40 <adrian_otto> any other questions or concerns regarding the meetup?
22:44:00 <adrian_otto> #topic Blueprint/Task Review
22:44:08 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/milestone-2 M2 Blueprints
22:44:22 <adrian_otto> I will be advancing several of these from discussion to approved today
22:44:33 <adrian_otto> are there any that you think I should leave in discussion?
22:44:38 <adrian_otto> if so, LMK.
22:45:00 <adrian_otto> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/magnum/+bug/1418719 replication controller created pods don't show up in pod-list output
22:45:00 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1418719 in Magnum "replication controller created pods don't show up in pod-list output" [High,Triaged]
22:45:11 <adrian_otto> this bug struck me as important, but it has no owner
22:45:24 <adrian_otto> it might actually be a critical
22:45:35 <sdake> what is m2-docs?
22:45:38 <adrian_otto> and it might actually be related to another open bug
22:45:46 <jay-lau-513> yes, we did not put pod data in DB when creating with rc
22:45:51 <adrian_otto> all documentation work items for the upcoming rleease
22:46:25 <wkharold> re: 1418719 ... not clear that the DB is a good place for that info
22:46:25 <adrian_otto> jay-lau-513: so you are confirming that 1418719 is a unique defect?
22:46:53 <jay-lau-513> adrian_otto yes
22:46:54 <adrian_otto> if the source of truth is in the rc resource, then we do not need to duplicate it
22:47:03 <adrian_otto> that will not be a high frequency request
22:47:05 <wkharold> just so
22:47:05 <jay-lau-513> I'm also thinking if DB is a good place for such case
22:47:28 <wkharold> it will be difficult to keep it in sync
22:47:45 <adrian_otto> so we are short on time today, but I wanted to bird dog that particular bug.
22:47:46 <wkharold> better to talk to k8s or maybe etcd
22:48:06 <adrian_otto> We have ~15 bugs that have no owner assigned
22:48:17 <adrian_otto> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/magnum/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.structural_subscriber=&
22:48:31 <jay-lau-513> I have taken 1418719
22:48:40 <adrian_otto> so please adopt them as you find ones you can solve
22:49:06 <adrian_otto> any other work items that should be discussed as a team today?
22:49:32 <adrian_otto> #topic Open Discussion
22:51:03 <adrian_otto> wkharold did you have more questions about docker native backend?
22:51:20 <apmelton> I'd like to comment on that a little bit
22:51:27 <wkharold> I need to read thru the e-mail thread to get a full context
22:51:48 <adrian_otto> apmelton: you have the floor
22:52:09 <apmelton> the way I see it, providing the docker/kubernetes endpoint allows power users to continue to use their tools
22:53:30 <apmelton> I think that's pretty important in the container world
22:53:41 <adrian_otto> that would of course come with a "use at your own risk" warning
22:54:25 <apmelton> yes
22:54:38 <wkharold> apmelton: what are the tools that power users are using?
22:54:47 <apmelton> the docker cli
22:54:52 <apmelton> kube client
22:55:29 <jay-lau-513> apmelton, I think we did have have the plan to support this, sdake please confirm
22:55:38 <jay-lau-513> https://github.com/stackforge/magnum/blob/master/specs/containers-service.rst
22:55:50 <wkharold> whether we support it or not, users are going to do it
22:55:50 <jay-lau-513> Take a look at use case 9
22:56:08 <sdake> jay yup
22:56:10 <sdake> confirmed
22:56:36 <sdake> this is exposing the native ReST APIs via the bay
22:56:42 <sdake> that can be shown via bay-show
22:56:53 <adrian_otto> right
22:56:57 <jay-lau-513> yes
22:57:12 <adrian_otto> we would expect some different output depending on the backend
22:58:10 <adrian_otto> for example, I may want to emulate the behaviour of docker-machine when using the native docker backend
22:58:20 <adrian_otto> which would be different than what I expect for the k8s backend
22:58:39 <adrian_otto> we are approaching the end of our scheduled time for today's meeting
22:58:59 <adrian_otto> I'm happy to discuss further in #openstack-containers
22:59:32 <adrian_otto> Our next meeting is 2015-02-17 at 1600 UTC.
22:59:37 <wkharold> k
22:59:40 <adrian_otto> thanks everyone for attending today!!
22:59:44 <jay-lau-513> bye everyone
22:59:48 <adrian_otto> #endmeeting