16:00:12 #startmeeting defcore 16:00:17 Meeting started Wed Aug 10 16:00:12 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is eglute. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:19 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'defcore' 16:00:23 markvoelker: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress. Use #endmeeting first. 16:00:30 #chair markvoelker hogepodge 16:00:31 Current chairs: eglute hogepodge markvoelker 16:00:44 beat markvoelker by 1 sec! :) 16:00:51 =) 16:00:55 :-) 16:00:56 o/ 16:01:04 o/ 16:01:12 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreLunar.13 16:01:17 eglute: let's have you drive the meeting today then. I may have to step out briefly anyway. 16:01:17 #topic agenda 16:01:28 thansk markvoelker 16:01:40 o/ 16:01:43 #topic Follow up from Summer Sprint 16:02:07 thanks everyone for coming out to San Antonio, was great having you all here! 16:02:15 eglute: thanks for having us :D 16:02:35 we did a lot of things! 16:02:50 now that the spec has landed, whats next? 16:03:23 eglute: I think hogepodge was looking into getting some of our docs published on docs.oo.o (or somewhere). Maybe this is a good candidate? 16:03:41 Also, we have some poeple going to the QA midcycle I think, and they were going to discuss it with the QA folks. 16:03:49 (hogepodge again?) 16:03:59 when is the QA midcycle, and who is going? 16:04:00 yeah, I can take it to the next qa meeting 16:04:29 #link Sept 19 in Frankfurt https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints 16:04:38 I'm going 16:04:43 o/ 16:05:00 nice. 16:05:04 I am also going 16:06:16 #action hogepodge gema to discuss defcore spec at the QA midcycle 16:06:49 regarding our docs published on docs- markvoelker hogepodge have you spoken to anyone so far? 16:07:10 eglute: no, not yet 16:07:32 ok, i will start the conversation then 16:07:45 eglute: I could possibly get to it on Monday next week, I'm on travel again starting this afternoon, but I'm happy to have you take it 16:08:05 #action eglute contact the docs team regarding moving defcore docs to docs 16:08:45 so we want the docs moved from our own repo to be under the docs repo, correct? 16:09:07 eglute: I think we just want to get published versions out on the website 16:09:27 markvoelker do you mean the guidelines? 16:09:33 no movement is necessary, it's just a job to publish to docs.openstack.org 16:09:33 We can leave the actual files in our repo. 16:09:38 ah ok 16:09:48 thanks hogepodge and markvoelker 16:09:53 Yes, Guidelines and also some of our other docs that we point people to regularly (the test spec may be one of those going forward) 16:10:11 sounds good 16:10:12 it may need moving to the right folder in our repo, though 16:10:16 since it is in the working folder 16:10:24 sure 16:10:39 thats ok, shouldnt be too hard 16:10:54 gema: +1 to moving it to our official docs 16:11:01 next topic: Major issues report status 16:11:05 #topic Major issues report status 16:11:06 hogepodge: will do that 16:11:31 I got most of the first cut done on the plane on the way home from Texas 16:11:44 I should have a first cut posted up to gerrit tonight or possibly tomorrow 16:11:48 thanks markvoelker! 16:11:56 look forward to seeing it 16:12:05 +1 16:12:19 Once that's posted we can iterate in gerrit per the norm 16:12:21 anything else on this subject? i am really excited about this report 16:12:49 eglute: +1, same here 16:12:54 yep 16:12:59 I should mention: I'm doing the formatting in RST since that's our usual doc format 16:13:13 thanks markvoelker 16:13:16 That means we could publish it to the websites, transform it to other formats, etc. 16:13:17 * shamail just realized +1 == same here, doh. 16:13:36 lol 16:13:43 #topic DefCore name change status 16:14:07 so we voted to have the name changed to Interop Working Group 16:14:14 One of my action items from the midcycle was to update the POC patch I already have out with the name "Interop Working Group" 16:14:32 I haven't gotten to it yet. =) But it's a trivially small change, so I'll add it to my queue for this afternoon. 16:14:45 We will also want to get that on the Board agenda 16:14:52 thanks markvoelker 16:15:04 #action eglute to add name change to the board agenda 16:15:35 next board meeting is on August 23rd 16:15:35 so we have a little time 16:15:45 Just to be clear, I think it's likely that the name won't change immediately...we'll want to coordinate messaging with the Foundation/BoD. 16:16:14 right 16:16:23 But the patch will at least show what's changing and what the name will be so we can work on the next steps 16:16:30 :) 16:16:55 talking of the board, we will also need the board to approve 2016.08 json document 16:16:58 (in other words: review it, but don't worry about workflow+1 yet =p) 16:17:08 right :) 16:17:18 or markvoelker could -1 workflow 16:17:34 eglute: I already marked it WIP and will do so again when the new patchset goes up 16:17:37 :) 16:17:40 thank markvoelker! 16:18:08 gerrit makes it very easy to +1 workflow. i try hard not to click it accidentally 16:18:45 did we have any defcore process docs changed in the last couple months? 16:18:54 besides the name change? 16:19:12 I set time on the agenda for DefCore at the August meeting. 16:19:20 eglute: 2016A hasn't actually been approved 16:19:24 thank you AlanClark! 16:19:32 https://github.com/openstack/defcore/blob/master/doc/source/process/2016A.rst (note "draft" status) 16:19:49 #action eglute to add 2016A to the board report for approval 16:20:22 markvoelker i thought it was-- but i will double check 16:21:19 anything else from midcycle? we got a lot done 16:21:40 * gema still recovering from all the food :D 16:21:40 I agree eglute, he new version of Gerrit makes it really easy. 16:21:43 there are a lot of action items in the ehterpad 16:21:44 the* 16:22:00 gema hope you enjoyed it :) 16:22:06 eglute: absolutely 16:22:34 #topic 2016.08 Guideline Final Reviews 16:22:40 eglute: I have an AI to work on updates to HACKING. I made a start on it, but backburned it in favor of the 2016.08 and major issues report. ETA next week probably. 16:22:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351339/ 16:22:50 thank markvoelker 16:23:00 ^^thank you! 16:23:25 ditto for the FAQ-on-configuring-tempest-for-refstack thing 16:24:03 thanks! 16:24:36 Ok, on the 2016.08 patch: I made a couple of additions today to pick up changes we had in flight in next.json when we created teh 2016.08 draft 16:24:49 we can go over all the AIs next meeting. I didnt think people would have too much time to get to them between travels and this meeting 16:25:11 Those include dropping some tests for networking that (genuinely) need admin, and the image sharing stuff that needs multiple user accounts 16:25:34 thank you markvoelker 16:25:40 i will review it later today 16:25:52 everyone else please review it as well! 16:26:04 It would be good if someone could check flags vs 2016.01 and see if there's anything that looks out of place 16:26:19 I think we should land https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338609/ before the 2016.08 16:26:23 (e.g. flags we unintentionally dropped or unintentionally carried when we meant to drop them) 16:27:00 catherine_d|1: yeah, I just saw your new patchset on that one. Will review shortly 16:27:08 catherine_d|1 you are right! will review it today 16:27:30 we will not merge 2016.08 until the board approves it 16:27:46 the new addition here is we remove images-v2-remove since it has no test 16:27:50 I think it does for next.json exactly what one of my last patchsets did for 2016.08, so we're in sync...just need to actually land it. 16:28:41 yea they are in sync ... 16:29:01 #action eglute to review flags between 2016.01 and 2016.08 and make sure none were dropped 16:29:59 eglute: would also be good to double check test aliases in 2016.08 16:30:19 #action eglute to double check test aliases in 2016.08 16:30:37 everyone else are welcome to check aliases and flags as well 16:30:50 will do 16:30:54 or if you see something that should not be there. or if you dont see something that should be there :) 16:31:05 thank you catherine_d|1 16:31:54 catherine_d|1 already talked about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338609/ 16:32:00 everyone please review it 16:32:23 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/353287/ 16:32:50 both markvoelker and i have already +2, it is ready to merge unless someone brings up any concerns 16:33:57 Talking of reviews, please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351363/ 16:34:21 hogepodge i think it needs something to make the ghost of Jenkins happy 16:34:57 eglute: I probably messed up the dependency chain, it needs 2016.08 to exist to work 16:35:12 ah ok 16:35:31 From the log: "2015.08.json: : [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '2015.08.json'" 16:35:36 Notice 2015.08 vs 2016.08 16:36:01 nice catch markvoelker 16:36:02 markvoelker: ah ha, a tpyo 16:36:19 I'll update 16:36:35 thank you hogepodge 16:36:41 anything else regarding 2016.08 Guideline? 16:37:10 #topic v2.0 of Guideline Format 16:37:14 just one thing 16:37:29 go ahead markvoelker 16:37:33 There's the still the matter of a few neutron tests that use admin creds *unnecessarily*. 16:37:57 I have a patch up for to fix that in tempest that needs some more work. But if it doesn't land, we need to drop those back to advisory 16:38:03 Before 2016.08 is approved 16:38:12 do we have a launchpad for this? 16:38:13 So I'll plan on putting up a backup patch to do that 16:38:17 I would suggest that we include them flagged or advisory for now, unless the changes land before the update 16:38:40 either way they wouldn't be required if they don't work before approval 16:38:52 hogepodge: Ok, that's probably reasonable...given that we only have a couple weeks that's probably the more likely scenario 16:39:04 once we incldue them as flagged we can not un-flagged them .. 16:39:26 on an approved guideline 16:39:33 So I'll update my 2016.08 review with another patchset with that change and we can unflag them before 2016.08 goes from draft to approved if the tempest patch lands in time 16:40:45 ok, we just need to be sure to do final review of 2016.08 before taking it to the board 16:40:59 catherine_d|1: correct. The idea here would be basically flag them now since we think the tempest change may not make it in time. 16:41:12 If it does, we'll update 2016.08 before we send it up to the board for approval 16:41:36 But if the tempest change doesn't land, they'll stay flagged until next Guideline. 16:41:49 that is good 16:43:06 markvoelker will they be advisory and flagged if patch doesnt land? 16:43:43 eglute: in cases where that would leave no tests for an entire capability I'll leave it as advisory. For cases where there are still good tests, I'll flag them. 16:44:00 ok 16:44:03 thank you! 16:44:14 anything else on the guideline? 16:44:31 markvoelker: should that statement be capture in the hacking file? 16:44:58 catherine_d|1: I'll look into that with the HACKING updates I have in flight. 16:45:35 thanks markvoelker 16:45:52 markvoelker: thx 16:45:55 #topic v2.0 of Guideline Format 16:46:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310621/ 16:46:20 hogepodge any changes since last week? 16:46:31 There's not a whole lot to say about this. I spoke with Andrey yesterday, and he's ok with me landing our changes on top of his patch 16:47:09 It's going to take a bit of work to capture all of the design we did last week. I'm planning on sending the revision on Friday. 16:47:18 thank you hogepodge 16:47:31 do you need anything from us before then? 16:47:43 Neat. And I think we decided we'll plan on using 1.6 for 2016.08 still since we don't actually plan to add any new target programs in 2016.08, right? 16:48:30 yeah 16:48:32 (err....1.5 I mean) 16:49:11 1.5/1.6. The difference is 1.6 is more restrictive to prevent some things from sneaking in like we found at the sprint. 16:49:39 and 2016.08 will be updated to 1.6 correct? 16:49:45 eglute: yes 16:50:09 Ok, right...sorry, couldn't remember which number was in flight for a sec there. =) 16:50:36 eglute: Yeah, my patch is written with 1.5, hogepodge has a patch that's dependent on mine that will take it up to 1.6 16:50:50 great! thanks markvoelker and hogepodge 16:51:01 (hogepodge's patch also creates 1.6...it doesn't actually exist in our repo yet =p) 16:51:33 anything else on this topic? 16:51:42 no 16:51:50 #topic name change 16:51:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/327086/ 16:52:10 we already talked a little bit about it 16:52:27 anything in addition to what was already discussed? 16:52:52 Yeah, I think we basically already covered this. In a nutshell: I'll post a new patchset, people will review it, we won't merge it until we coordinate with the Foundation/BoD 16:53:49 sounds good to me. anyone else want to add anything? 16:54:20 if not, we have a few minutes left. 16:54:33 anybody want to discuss anything? 16:54:36 or end now? 16:54:57 I'm good. 16:55:00 good here 16:55:08 me too 16:55:14 thanks everyone!! 16:55:18 * markvoelker is also hungry and would totally use that extra 5 minutes to go get a sammich 16:55:18 #endmeeting