14:01:26 <jokke_> #startmeeting glance
14:01:30 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun 28 14:01:26 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jokke_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:33 <jokke_> #topic roll-call
14:01:34 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:01:36 <abhishekk> ./
14:01:38 <McClymontS> o/ but in and out
14:01:39 <jokke_> o/
14:01:46 <rosmaita> o/
14:02:24 <jokke_> cool, we have almost full room :)
14:02:37 <jokke_> #topic updates
14:03:12 <smcginnis> o/
14:03:29 <jokke_> 10mile high view of PTG schedule is out
14:03:34 <jokke_> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-June/131881.html
14:04:07 <abhishekk> great
14:05:13 <jokke_> That's all of non-release related updates I have atm.
14:05:16 <rosmaita> i need to start reading the ML again
14:05:41 <rosmaita> looks like foundation travel support closes tomorrow, if anyone needs it
14:05:48 <jokke_> oh, that
14:05:55 <jokke_> thanks rosmaita
14:05:57 <McClymontS> Cost is high for the PTG in general
14:06:02 <jokke_> yup!
14:06:10 <McClymontS> 599 is the base price right?
14:06:52 <jokke_> $399 is the registration price atm.
14:07:05 <McClymontS> Thought that was only early bird, not a bad deal
14:07:19 <jokke_> the $599 is after Aug 23rd/on-site
14:07:24 <McClymontS> Ah okay my bad
14:07:25 <abhishekk> early bird was $199 i guess
14:07:30 <jokke_> yeap
14:08:09 <jokke_> ok, lets move on
14:08:16 <jokke_> #topic release updates
14:08:38 <smcginnis> PTG does include two Summit passes, so if you are going to go to Summits that does make the price a little nicer.
14:08:47 <rosmaita> not much has changed since last week
14:09:07 <rosmaita> one failure on glance periodic jobs, but just once and this morning
14:09:21 <rosmaita> i will keep an eye on it over the next few days, info is on the agenda
14:09:30 <rosmaita> client and store are both green
14:09:34 <jokke_> rosmaita: ok, lets keep eye on it and dig deeper if it keeps failing
14:09:37 <jokke_> thnx
14:09:43 <rosmaita> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:10:03 <rosmaita> upcoming deadlines are on the agenda too
14:10:10 <rosmaita> same as last week except one week closer
14:10:18 <rosmaita> that's all from me
14:10:45 <jokke_> About the deadlines
14:11:10 <jokke_> lets try to aim releasing 0.25 glance_store at least week early
14:11:31 <rosmaita> ok, makes sense
14:11:40 <rosmaita> also that addresses the next item
14:11:43 <jokke_> so we have bit leverage _if_ for any reason the multi back-end stuff breaks the world
14:11:51 <jokke_> I don't see it happening but just in case
14:11:58 <abhishekk> makes sense
14:12:09 <jokke_> which means we need to get those patches reviewed
14:12:20 * rosmaita hides
14:12:46 <jokke_> I did my first round of reading them through instead of just eyeballing them yesterday
14:12:56 <abhishekk> I have tried to keep it simple (atleast I think so :P)
14:12:58 <jokke_> they look pretty good fwiw
14:13:23 <rosmaita> i did some eyeballing also, but need to buckle down and actually review
14:13:38 <rosmaita> i agree with jokke_ , code looks good at first glance
14:13:40 <jokke_> which leads us to next topic
14:13:50 <jokke_> #topic glance_store version
14:14:01 <jokke_> I guess I answered the question already ;)
14:14:07 <abhishekk> yeah
14:14:09 <rosmaita> yeah, so we have some flexibility with version numbering on the store
14:14:18 <jokke_> So the release containing the multi store stuff will be .25
14:14:19 <rosmaita> basically, we can do whatever we want
14:14:29 <abhishekk> and I kept it 0.25 in the doc so no need to change
14:14:37 <rosmaita> ok, i will update launchpad
14:14:45 <rosmaita> it makes sense to me
14:14:56 <rosmaita> unless smcginnis sees a problem?
14:15:06 <jokke_> I think once we get to removing the old configs, will be when we push that to 1.0.0 due to backwards incompatibility
14:15:58 <smcginnis> rosmaita: I'll double check, but sounds reasonable.
14:16:09 <jokke_> Unless we _want_ to release the multi back-end stuff stable in Stein as 1.0
14:16:33 <rosmaita> we can decide that in Stein
14:16:41 <smcginnis> We have some flexibility until we get to a 1.0 release, but I do think it's a good idea to get there soon.
14:16:49 <jokke_> but the changes are definitely big enough that 0.24.1 is not an option
14:17:10 <smcginnis> ++
14:18:00 <jokke_> abhishekk: you had something under this topic as well
14:18:04 <abhishekk> ok, I have send a mail to driver maintainers to make them aware about our work
14:18:17 <abhishekk> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-June/131877.html
14:18:56 <abhishekk> I asked for help in testing cinder, vmware and sheepdog drivers or way to configure them using devstack so that I can do that testing
14:19:28 <abhishekk> I am 99% sure that it will not break though
14:19:44 <smcginnis> Cinder and sheepdog are probably reasonable for us to test, but we would probably need VMware to set up third party CI to get coverage there.
14:20:19 <abhishekk> smcginnis, yes
14:20:49 <abhishekk> that's it for this topic
14:21:36 <jokke_> So the VMWare driver maintainer has changed (need to update the wiki once I get into contact with the new person) I'll forward your mail directly to the new maintainer as well
14:21:52 <abhishekk> jokke_, thanks
14:22:05 <rosmaita> abhishekk: nice job on that email
14:22:33 <abhishekk> rosmaita, you only suggested that
14:22:49 <jokke_> ok
14:22:52 <rosmaita> yes, but nice implementation!
14:23:06 <jokke_> indeed
14:23:06 <abhishekk> thank you :d
14:23:15 <jokke_> #topic open discussion
14:23:30 <rosmaita> sorry, back to sean's point
14:23:45 <rosmaita> i think VMware already has 3rd party cli on glance
14:23:50 <rosmaita> or is it on glance_store
14:23:53 <rosmaita> it's on something
14:24:09 <rosmaita> so maybe won't be too hard for them to config multistore test
14:24:57 <abhishekk> ok
14:24:59 <jokke_> I think it's glance as we really did not have any functional tests in glance_store when that was built
14:25:37 <rosmaita> you are correct, it's on glance
14:25:45 <jokke_> which is one of the reasons I'd like to get the release out bit ahead of time as I'm not sure if they use release of glance_store or tip of the repo
14:26:05 <rosmaita> it's showing failure on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/574582/,  btw
14:27:13 <jokke_> it's been on/off broken for a while ... I need to figure out if the new driver maintainer is also looking after that or if I need to find someone else stabilizing it
14:28:03 <jokke_> I hope/assume they have someone maintaining it as it does get fixed when there is unrelated breakages
14:28:20 <abhishekk> me too
14:28:40 <abhishekk> I have couple of questions related to hide old images
14:28:46 <jokke_> shoot
14:29:07 <abhishekk> 1. In specs it is mentioned that for queens update call with hidden attribute will rejected with 400 Bad request, but as per current code it is returning 409 conflict saying "Property 'hidden' does not exist", so do I change it to return 400?
14:29:23 <abhishekk> https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/api/v2/images.py#L245
14:29:44 <rosmaita> no, let's change the spec to reflect reality
14:29:53 <abhishekk> ok
14:30:01 <jokke_> what rosmaita just said
14:30:04 <rosmaita> though 409 seems weird for that
14:30:10 <rosmaita> but, too late
14:30:21 <jokke_> indeed
14:30:32 <abhishekk> ok
14:30:37 <abhishekk> 2. if hidden=true is passed to GET v2/images call then it should return only hidden images or it should return all images (hidden + other)?
14:30:41 <jokke_> well it's kind of justifiable as it's filtering
14:30:48 <McClymontS> I don't mind a 409 there
14:30:54 <jokke_> abhishekk: only hidden
14:31:07 <abhishekk> great,
14:31:18 <rosmaita> no objection from me
14:31:37 <jokke_> it's filtering option (I don't think we allow wild card filtering)
14:31:49 <abhishekk> 3. For show image call if it is hidden then is it required to show hidden=True in the output (this is not considered in the specs, and also I don't think it makes sense to show it)
14:32:13 <rosmaita> i think we do want to show it
14:32:24 <rosmaita> otherwise, how do you know it's hidden?
14:32:24 <jokke_> I mean we do not allow hidden=[*|any|all] type of filtering at which point it would be reasonable to return all images
14:33:15 <rosmaita> i mean, if someone does an update image call setting hidden=true, the response should show that
14:33:24 <jokke_> 3. yes
14:33:31 <rosmaita> so i think hidden=true on regular image-show is correct
14:33:40 <abhishekk> yes response shows it
14:33:55 <rosmaita> ok, maybe i misunderstood your question
14:34:12 <jokke_> in general we do not hide image properties from the user without good reason and I don't see good reason for hiding this
14:34:25 <abhishekk> but image show does not show it as of now so I need to make that change
14:35:13 <jokke_> abhishekk: ok, is it server not returning it or client not showing it?
14:35:16 <rosmaita> someone went through at some point and revised the schema so that "empty" core image properties have null JSON value if they are empty
14:35:40 <jokke_> and was that something you did on implementation or why does that happen?
14:36:13 <abhishekk> jokke_, server is returning this but client is not showing it
14:36:46 <jokke_> rosmaita: no, that is fine. If it's not set we can omit it. If it's set 'though we definitely should show it
14:36:59 <rosmaita> agreed
14:37:26 <abhishekk> ok, got it I will modify my patch accordingly
14:38:38 <jokke_> I'm gonna be completely hones with this. I'm not gonna spend time reviewing this feature before the multi back-end and v1 removals are in
14:38:41 <abhishekk> Also we need to document this right, means I also need to change docs and api-ref
14:39:14 <abhishekk> jokke_, makes sense (I will just keep it ready in spare time)
14:39:20 <jokke_> ohhh ... regarding documentation. I think we need to be clear about the Experimental status of multi back-end in the docs
14:39:41 <abhishekk> yeah, I have added a note in the docs mentioning the same
14:39:46 <rosmaita> good point, i missed that
14:40:05 <jokke_> also I did not check if the doc patch was depending the implementation, but lets not merge it before the feature lands
14:40:07 <abhishekk> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/576075/6/doc/source/admin/multistores.rst@19
14:40:28 <abhishekk> jokke_, its depending on the implementation
14:40:45 <jokke_> abhishekk: indeed, thanks
14:41:05 <rosmaita> i don't think the api-ref mentions experimental?
14:41:14 <abhishekk> :D
14:41:22 <abhishekk> rosmaita, no
14:41:27 <jokke_> that likely was where I was missing it
14:41:49 <rosmaita> we can dig up the old import patch and see how we did it for pike
14:41:53 <abhishekk> do we need to add it there as well, if yes please point out the exact position
14:41:58 <jokke_> also we need to do the experimental dance on the glance/api/versions.py on the glance patch of that feature which is not there
14:42:31 <abhishekk> for pike we have added it in the docs only I guess not in the api-ref
14:43:19 <jokke_> the api ref should pick it up from the versions.py, right?
14:43:29 <jokke_> or do we need to do it manually?
14:43:38 <rosmaita> no, has to be done manually
14:43:53 <jokke_> ok, then we have next problem
14:44:35 <abhishekk> what is it?
14:44:49 <rosmaita> we did mention experimental in pike api-ref
14:44:51 <jokke_> if we flag 2.7 EXPERIMENTAL and it's returned only if the multi back-end configs are used, what do we do about the hidden images if it lands in Rocky?
14:44:54 <rosmaita> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/glance/commit/?id=8005ee994cbbfb25575d13cd2d243e510c5e33d1
14:45:25 <jokke_> that is API change that needs version bump
14:45:56 <rosmaita> may have to land multistore last
14:45:57 <abhishekk> can we mark that experimental as well?
14:47:10 <abhishekk> rosmaita, thank you for the link, I will modify the api-ref based on it
14:47:20 <rosmaita> may have to do hidden + multihash = 2.7, multiple-backends = 2.8 EXP
14:47:22 <jokke_> rosmaita: that's what I was thinking as well, we might need to land the glance part of multi store at the very end and provide 2.7 stable 2.8 experimental in Rocky
14:47:37 <rosmaita> kind of sucks, but i don't see what else to do
14:47:53 <jokke_> in that note, Please do not merge the glance patch yet then
14:48:05 <rosmaita> ok
14:48:09 <jokke_> also please make sure we're ok with the state of the spec
14:48:10 <abhishekk> it will not get merge unless glance_store patches get merged
14:48:18 <abhishekk> it has a dependency
14:48:28 <jokke_> we should merge the spec amendment once we're in agreement of the implementation
14:48:35 <rosmaita> we need to merge the store patches soon, though
14:49:00 <rosmaita> but that's ok, we can have support in store and not use it yet
14:49:07 <rosmaita> (in glance)
14:49:13 <jokke_> yeah, we need to merge the store patches way earlier to be able to release the glance_store in 4 weeks or so
14:49:42 <abhishekk> jokke_, its better if we manage to release it before that
14:50:19 <jokke_> abhishekk: Oh I totally agree ... I would not like to see those patches hanging on review for next month you rebasing them
14:50:19 <abhishekk> I guess most of the people will be on leave in next week (mostly who stays in US)
14:50:28 <abhishekk> :D
14:50:49 <rosmaita> i'll just be taking one day
14:50:52 <jokke_> I know how painful it is
14:51:27 <abhishekk> actually, I have decided that I will never create a chain of dependent patches :D
14:51:42 <smcginnis> :)
14:51:42 <rosmaita> it is a world of pain
14:52:05 <abhishekk> (but if patch is to large then its actually gets difficult to review it in a one go)
14:52:14 <abhishekk> s/to/too
14:52:51 <abhishekk> So in document should I mention api version 2.8?
14:53:10 <abhishekk> we have only 8 minutes remaining
14:53:11 <jokke_> Not yet
14:53:15 <abhishekk> ok
14:53:28 <jokke_> we get there once we see what is landing this cycle and if we need it
14:54:00 <abhishekk> ack
14:54:28 <jokke_> ok, anything else?
14:54:44 <abhishekk> jokke_, I will shortly make store_description related change and upload new patches (may be after an hour)
14:54:53 <abhishekk> nothing
14:55:15 <jokke_> abhishekk: amazing, I don't mind if it's tomorrow, I know it's getting late for you
14:55:54 <abhishekk> jokke_, ok will try if possible otherwise will push it tomorrow
14:56:08 <jokke_> ok, clets close up. there is always #openstack-glance if something pops up
14:56:11 <jokke_> Thanks all!
14:56:13 <abhishekk> thank you all, have a nice time ahead
14:56:17 <jokke_> -c
14:56:18 <rosmaita> bye!
14:56:23 <jokke_> #endmeeting