22:01:50 <david-lyle> #startmeeting Horizon
22:01:50 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec 10 22:01:50 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is david-lyle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:01:51 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:01:54 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
22:02:00 <jcoufal> o/
22:02:00 <david-lyle> Hello Horizon folks!
22:02:02 <lsmola_> hello
22:02:05 <lblanchard> hi all!
22:02:05 <MaxV> o/
22:02:07 <jtomasek> hi
22:02:07 <mrunge> hello!
22:02:25 <bdehamer> hi
22:02:50 <jomara> howdy
22:03:00 <david-lyle> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon
22:03:27 <ohnoimdead> hi!
22:03:46 <david-lyle> No general announcements today
22:03:52 <david-lyle> so let's jump in
22:04:12 <david-lyle> #topic Discuss integration of TripleO UI
22:04:41 <david-lyle> So this item was added to the agenda based on a mailing list thread
22:04:54 <lsmola_> david-lyle, so what are the conditions for the merge?
22:05:33 <lsmola_> david-lyle, given that make sense, cause all UIs belongs in Horizon
22:05:39 <david-lyle> The general question posted was would it make more sense for the UI component of Tuskar to merge into the Horizon program rather than the TripleO program
22:06:21 <david-lyle> I think from a code make-up perspective and an eventual home perspective this makes perfect sense, however..
22:06:28 <jtomasek> a note: on the TripleO meeting we agreed that yes.
22:06:34 <jpich> So far we've carried UIs in our own tree when a project gets integrated
22:06:58 <david-lyle> I'm not sure what the organization structure would be
22:07:21 <david-lyle> jpich, to be fair the aims of tuskar UI is much larger than say Trove as far as Horizon is concerned
22:07:22 <lsmola_> david-lyle, not sure either
22:07:48 <kgriffs> russellb: o/
22:07:59 <jcoufal> I am torn to pieces as well
22:08:08 <jpich> If I understood correctly a big part of Tuskar was a new "Infrastructure" dashboard, at the same level than project and admin? Maybe my information is outdated
22:08:10 <mrunge> I think it will fit there
22:08:22 <david-lyle> yes, It's a well populated dashboard
22:08:23 <lsmola_> david-lyle, well I do see it as separate panel, that just shows when Tuskar is present
22:08:26 <lblanchard> jpich: that's my understanding
22:08:26 <jcoufal> at one side it all make sense to be part of UI project
22:08:42 <jtomasek> jpich: correct
22:09:01 <mrunge> we have had several requests about adding features, which belong to infrastructure
22:09:02 <jpich> lblanchard, jtomasek: Thanks!
22:09:11 <david-lyle> I do think it makes sense, but I think it would still have to be a separate code base for now
22:09:18 <mrunge> so it would make sense for horizon to have it
22:09:38 <david-lyle> and there will be a need for core-reviewer overlap
22:09:48 <jcoufal> david-lyle: +1
22:09:49 <lsmola_> david-lyle, so do you mean separate codebase placed under Horizon program?
22:09:49 <jtomasek> david-lyle: +1 if that is not an issue from Horizon point
22:10:13 <jpich> david-lyle: Until when?
22:10:15 <david-lyle> lsmola_: yes, until TripleO/Tuskar is an intergrated part of the release
22:10:21 <jcoufal> I think this sounds very reasonable
22:10:22 <jpich> That makes sense to me
22:10:39 <lsmola_> david-lyle, I am not really sure how that can be done, but yes that seems to be reasonable
22:10:48 <david-lyle> The code base will be what I image it is today, an extension of the current Horizon repo
22:10:58 <mrunge> we even could add it now or very soon
22:11:06 <jcoufal> yes please
22:11:08 <mrunge> and make tuskar a config option
22:11:14 <jcoufal> the sooner the better
22:11:23 <lsmola_> david-lyle, ok
22:11:30 <mrunge> rdopieralski had the plugin concept merged today
22:11:46 <lsmola_> mrunge, well yeah, we could add it now, and it would stay hidden unless user will have Tuskar
22:11:47 <david-lyle> mrunge, that's right
22:11:53 <mrunge> and a demo option is about configuring tuskar
22:11:55 <lsmola_> mrunge, which they wont
22:12:04 <mrunge> switch on/off
22:12:09 <david-lyle> less overhead for the tuskar folks then
22:12:18 <mrunge> exactly
22:12:48 <jomara> that sounds good
22:12:54 <david-lyle> So, this jumps topics a bit, but review backlog worries me a lot
22:13:00 <david-lyle> even with the current scope
22:13:03 <mrunge> and we don't get any evil surprises, when tuskar becomes official
22:13:33 <david-lyle> adding more core-reviewers from tuskar should help, but I think patches are languishing much too long now
22:13:35 <lsmola_> mrunge, I have to check that plugin patch
22:13:44 <mrunge> so, david-lyle should we move to topic #2?
22:13:52 <mrunge> (reviews)
22:14:07 <david-lyle> well, I think it effects #1
22:14:17 <mrunge> yes, I agree
22:14:26 <david-lyle> So let's circle back to #1 in a sec
22:14:27 <jtomasek> david-lyle: I thing good amount of tripleo-core reviewers working on tuskar-ui will jump to Horizon reviews right away (me included)
22:14:38 <david-lyle> #topic Reviews
22:14:53 <mrunge> that was brought by me
22:15:03 <jpich> I would appreciate a general rule from when we accept new components' UI into our tree. We've turned away code before because the project was incubated but not integrated, a clear guideline would help being fair and treating everyone the same way
22:15:21 <mrunge> and I'm currently concerned about a long review queue
22:15:28 <mrunge> jpich +1
22:15:48 <david-lyle> according to russell's stats we have:
22:15:59 <david-lyle> New patch sets in the last 30 days: 545 (18.2/day)
22:16:48 <jpich> We are getting a lot more patches and contributors than before, which also very cool - even if it means reviews are taking longer at the moment (which sucks)
22:17:23 <mrunge> still I see very few core reviews during the last days
22:17:23 <david-lyle> yes, which means we need more reviewers, hopefully these new contributors are willing to lend some review time
22:17:45 <jpich> Personally I've had less time for reviews since the Summit though I hope to be back to normal in the new year - sorry for not helping picking up much of the slack at the moment
22:17:51 <david-lyle> I think several new contributors have jumped right in
22:17:57 <ohnoimdead> and some old contributors as well :)
22:18:02 <mrunge> but in general, we'd love to see more folks doing reviews
22:18:03 <jpich> Yep we should definitely encourage people to review :)
22:18:23 <lsmola_> david-lyle, we have been blessed today to make mor reviews, 6 more people from tuskar should do at least a review per day
22:19:01 <david-lyle> I think the current review load has no margin of error, that is if a core goes on vacation has a work commitment we fall terribly behind
22:19:04 <lsmola_> david-lyle, to make things moving :-)
22:19:05 <mrunge> good news lsmola_
22:19:18 <david-lyle> so, in that light I would love to see a larger review pool
22:19:26 <david-lyle> s/review/reviewer/
22:19:44 <jpich> so all the patches are perfect by the time a core reviewer gets to it :-)
22:20:00 <lsmola_> :-)
22:20:01 <mrunge> ha! I'd love to see it
22:20:11 <jpich> I believe ;)
22:20:45 <david-lyle> So, to the current tuskar folks, do you worry about the latency for your incubating project?
22:21:08 <david-lyle> incubating projects require a faster turn around time then we currently provide
22:21:08 <jomara> we do have blazing review turnaround right now
22:21:10 <lsmola_> david-lyle, yes
22:21:13 <jomara> so it is a concern
22:21:36 <mrunge> how many of you tuskar guys have been core at tripleO?
22:21:50 <jcoufal> mrunge: for UI?
22:21:51 <lblanchard> is there something that the tripleo team is doing that speeds up their review time? Or is it simply the number of patches vs. reviewers?
22:21:53 <lsmola_> david-lyle, we have to make a lot of patches for tuskar-ui and also for horizon in coming months
22:21:54 <mrunge> yes
22:22:10 <lsmola_> mrunge, me
22:22:17 <jcoufal> mrunge: I think 5-6
22:22:21 <jomara> me, jtomasek, lsmola
22:22:22 <lsmola_> mrunge, jomara, jtomasek
22:22:26 <lsmola_> hehe
22:22:40 <mrunge> ok, I see.
22:23:06 <mrunge> in my eperience, not answering to reviewers requests has been an issue in the past
22:23:16 <mrunge> esp. from you tuskar guys
22:23:23 <david-lyle> hate to bring this up, but all tuskarUI folks are RedHat?
22:23:28 <mrunge> that slowed the process down a bit
22:23:46 <jcoufal> david-lyle: that's correct
22:23:47 <jomara> yeah
22:23:49 <lblanchard> david-lyle: yep
22:23:55 <jomara> just the tuskar-ui guys, not all tripleo
22:24:22 <lsmola_> mrunge, tzumainn, lsmola, jtomasek, jomara + non core akrivoka, rdopieralsky
22:24:23 <david-lyle> I ask merely because we try not to have all 3 people, author, 2 core be from the same company, a working principle in general
22:24:49 <david-lyle> I'm not sure how that changes for an incubated project
22:24:56 <david-lyle> not sure that it bothers me either
22:25:05 <jpich> I think it's a good rule
22:25:08 <mrunge> I was tuskar core?
22:25:10 <jpich> *principle
22:25:17 <lsmola_> mrunge, (though rdopieralsky have kickass python skills, he just came late)
22:25:32 <jcoufal> mrunge: you don't know about that?
22:25:34 <lsmola_> mrunge, no the mesage is to you :-)
22:25:35 <jcoufal> :)
22:25:35 <mrunge> no
22:25:46 <mrunge> hahaha
22:26:03 <jomara> mrunge: lsmola_ uses an odd IRC client that puts a comma when he tab completes
22:26:07 <jomara> mrunge: shame him!
22:26:25 <lsmola_> jomara, hehe
22:26:32 <ohnoimdead> +1 on the general concept of reviews not all coming from the same company for any specific patch (although i must admin nebula has been guilty of that in the past, but it was a smaller project then)
22:26:44 <mrunge> +1 ohnoimdead
22:27:02 <mrunge> that's rule I like
22:27:13 <jpich> Agreed
22:27:23 <ohnoimdead> admin=admit fyi
22:27:28 <mrunge> but in the past, that has not be a problem
22:28:07 <ohnoimdead> stupid question: where does the tusker-ui code currently live?
22:28:13 <jtomasek> ohnoimdead: you mean +2 reviews, right?
22:28:18 <jomara> seems fair to have at minumum 1/3 of (reviewr1+reviewer2+author) not be from the same company
22:28:20 <lsmola_> ohnoimdead, as part of tripleo program
22:28:22 <ohnoimdead> jtomasek: yeah
22:28:31 <mrunge> ohnoimdead, https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/tree/master/tuskar_ui
22:28:38 <ohnoimdead> mrunge: thanks!
22:28:39 <mrunge> if I'm not terribly wrong
22:29:20 <lsmola_> david-lyle, well that could slow things down in few coming months, though won be a problem later I guess
22:29:47 <jomara> it will
22:29:52 <lsmola_> david-lyle, we are currently rebuilding it due to feedback from the conference
22:30:02 <david-lyle> I think we have some logistics to work out, but I would be in favor of adding tuskar ui
22:30:09 <mrunge> so, would it be possible for you tuskar guys to make a plan, how the code shall be merged into our code base?
22:30:29 <mrunge> ... just to discuss this at the next meeting?
22:30:38 <mrunge> is that too quick?
22:30:52 <lsmola_> mrunge, can we sit on that tomorrow with rdopieralsky, seems like you already have a plan :-)
22:31:16 <mrunge> I was just thinking about reading a 20k lines of code patch
22:31:22 <jpich> :|
22:31:22 <mrunge> and I don't like the idea
22:31:39 <david-lyle> jpich, I think the main difference here between tuskar and other service UIs is that Tuskar is a more fundamental change to the direction of Horizon
22:31:45 <lsmola_> david-lyle, would it be possible to allow to only Redhat people for the Infrastructure tab?
22:32:05 <david-lyle> I'd rather not react late to such a scope change
22:32:06 <mrunge> lsmola_, is there a reason for this?
22:32:06 <lsmola_> david-lyle, before other people will get to pace of what Tuskar-Ui is
22:32:25 <ohnoimdead> Ismola_: O.o
22:32:49 <david-lyle> lsmola_: not sure, I think there may need to be some mechanics before the two core teams merge
22:32:55 <jpich> I think lsmola mean, is it ok if for a while the +2 reviews happen to come from the same company for this specific part of the code
22:33:07 <ohnoimdead> ah
22:33:16 <lsmola_> jpich, yes, thank you for rephrasing :-)
22:33:18 <mrunge> that sounds different
22:33:19 <david-lyle> jpich: that would be fine
22:33:47 <mrunge> I was worried about prohibiting other contributors to patch there something...
22:34:12 <lsmola_> jpich, :-) thanks for understanding me
22:34:14 <david-lyle> There certainly will be a ramp up phase
22:34:38 <jpich> lsmola: No worries... though I had to read twice too :o)
22:34:57 <lsmola_> david-lyle, also itś not entirely easy to run development env for tuskar UI
22:35:07 <jpich> Is the assumption that the core teams will be merged straight away?
22:35:18 <lsmola_> david-lyle, also costs at least 12GB ram, preferably 16GB
22:35:20 <david-lyle> I think that needs to be discussed as well
22:35:39 <david-lyle> lsmola_: you may be doing it wrong ;)
22:35:56 <lsmola_> david-lyle, we are running to many openstacks :-)
22:36:28 <lsmola_> david-lyle, itś the minimal required env with simulatin 4 baremetals
22:36:28 <jpich> david-lyle: Fair enough, re: fundamental change. I'm realising this as I read more :) (/me was thinking, well it's a new dashboard/tab right, just coming with a bit more code than usual)
22:36:48 <ohnoimdead> another stupid question: does tusker work with devstack?
22:36:49 <lsmola_> david-lyle, well core merge would be welcome
22:37:08 <jomara> ohnoimdead: not a stupid question at all
22:37:13 <lsmola_> ohnoimdead, no, tuskar is for deployment
22:37:31 <lsmola_> ohnoimdead, so it also does what devstack do (tuskar+tripleo)
22:37:49 * mrunge is not using devstack at all....
22:38:02 <ohnoimdead> gotcha. makes sense.
22:38:02 <jpich> It sounds like leveraging our new plugin mechanism is also an option, even if the project/repo moves under the horizon umbrella
22:38:29 <lsmola_> ohnoimdead, think of openstack as an regular application(like wordpress), you will use openstack to deploy the application (meaning it will deploy itself :-))
22:38:42 <mrunge> jpich +1
22:38:56 * ohnoimdead needs to go read a lot more about tusker+triple-o
22:39:49 <lifeless> ohnoimdead: you could use devstack to bring up a baremetal/ironic cloud
22:40:02 <lifeless> ohnoimdead: and run tuskar on that to deploy a KVM cloud separately
22:40:41 <ohnoimdead> very cool. i'm a little behind on some of the new os projects.
22:40:58 <ohnoimdead> new being within the last 6 months. :p
22:41:00 <lsmola_> lifeless, I think I have tried similar crazines from start :-) but failed
22:41:12 <mrunge> david-lyle, let's make an action item, the tuskar guys should come up with a merge plan ?
22:41:16 <lifeless> lsmola_: yeah, *I* wouldn't try it, but in principle...
22:41:21 <lsmola_> hehe
22:41:34 <david-lyle> Is there anyone who wants to express a strong opinion against bring tuskar into the Horizon program?
22:41:35 <lsmola_> lifeless, yeah I get you :-)
22:42:25 <david-lyle> if not, I'd like to see a plan for the merging of code that is not a massive code drop
22:42:38 <jpich> +1 to bringing it under the Horizon umbrella - although should we still wait for it to be integrated? Can a program have both incubated and integrated elements?
22:42:59 <mrunge> +1 for the merge in smaller pieces
22:42:59 <lsmola_> jpich, good question
22:43:00 <lifeless> jpich: a program can
22:43:13 <lifeless> jpich: in fact programs don't have to have any incubated or integrated elements.
22:43:22 <david-lyle> that's why I initially was thinking separate code bases
22:43:25 <lifeless> jpich: infra, devstack for instance.
22:43:28 <lsmola_> mrunge, yes it should be perfectly doable, as the tuskar part will be hidden by default
22:43:36 <jpich> Ok!
22:43:49 <lifeless> jpich: the integrated gate is specifically the set of things that get released every 6 months and their direct deps
22:43:55 <lifeless> ish
22:43:56 <lifeless> :)
22:45:08 <david-lyle> ok, who wants to own the merge plan?
22:45:26 <jpich> lifeless: Yes, ok. It just seems programs have had a general set of repos usually that are either all not integrated, or all incubated, or all integrated - to my knowledge
22:45:26 <lifeless> lsmola_ volunteered on the TripleO side already :)
22:45:42 <lsmola_> david-lyle, i took it from tripleo side, so me? ;-)
22:45:51 <mrunge> congrats lsmola_ !
22:45:53 * lifeless throws lsmola_ into the lion pit
22:45:59 <david-lyle> thanks lsmola
22:46:07 <lsmola_> david-lyle, I will put heads together with mrunge and rdopieralsky to figure this out
22:46:08 <lblanchard> hahaha
22:46:17 <lsmola_> lifeless, hehe
22:46:18 <mrunge> no, no no
22:46:20 <david-lyle> bringing mrunge down with you
22:46:21 <mrunge> ;-)
22:46:36 <lsmola_> lol :-)
22:47:15 <david-lyle> let's see a plan, I'll work on a plan for core-reviewer merge, no-merge, 3 from a company, but only on the second Tuesday logistics
22:47:30 <jpich> haha
22:48:13 <david-lyle> So, let's just note for the record that we're accepting Tuskar-UI and we're working on the details
22:48:15 <jomara> +1 to all that including 2ndtuesday
22:48:23 <lsmola_> excellent
22:48:28 <jcoufal> awesome
22:48:39 <jtomasek> great news
22:48:45 <david-lyle> Welcome, bring friends :)
22:48:52 <lsmola_> :-D
22:48:53 <ohnoimdead> (thumbsup)
22:48:55 <mrunge> and beer
22:48:57 <lblanchard> friends who like to review!!
22:49:08 <jpich> haha
22:49:16 <david-lyle> #topic Ceilometer integration (lsmola)
22:49:17 <jcoufal> lsmola started to get more folks in (teaching his son django already)
22:49:39 <david-lyle> lsmola_
22:49:41 <lblanchard> jcoufal: his son is 3 weeks old, right?
22:49:43 <mrunge> his son can't even sit.
22:49:44 <lsmola_> david-lyle, given we dont have much time, the agenda sums it pretty good
22:49:47 <lblanchard> lol
22:50:05 <lsmola_> lblanchard, please if you could look on 1. and .2, it would be great
22:50:22 <lsmola_> lblanchard, we need to have some great wireframes for that :-)
22:50:22 <david-lyle> so lsmola_ you do have a bp that depends on a ceilometer bp that is not owned by anyone
22:50:34 <lblanchard> lsmola: will do
22:50:37 <jpich> Is it also on the UX AskBot?
22:50:38 <lsmola_> david-lyle, it is
22:50:44 <david-lyle> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/ceilometer-api-enhancements
22:50:56 <lsmola_> david-lyle, and it should land in I2, that shift this to I3
22:50:59 <jcoufal> jpich: there is first version to review
22:51:04 * jpich admires the dependency tree
22:51:04 <jcoufal> we need to get more focus on that
22:51:07 <david-lyle> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/statistics-order-by-and-limit-for-grouped-query
22:51:08 <jpich> Cool!
22:51:14 <david-lyle> is the ceilo bp
22:51:28 <lsmola_> david-lyle, this one expecially https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/complex-filter-expressions-in-api-queries
22:51:40 <lsmola_> david-lyle, that will bring big changes to ceilometer
22:51:55 <david-lyle> so, do we need the other ceilo item?
22:51:57 <lsmola_> david-lyle, they are willing to prioritize things we need in Horizon
22:52:31 <david-lyle> confused, is one replacing the other?
22:52:38 <lsmola_> david-lyle, yeah, but itś not a blocker I guess, we can have non-optimal version just with that one
22:53:17 <lsmola_> david-lyle, the others are more about optimization of queries. With more data i will bomdard the server with queries
22:53:24 <david-lyle> since the non-owned one is not likely to land, until someone actually owns it, will you split your bp to reflect the work for each
22:53:44 <david-lyle> makes release planning a bit easier :)
22:53:44 <lblanchard> lsmola: I envisioned that Admin users would see a similar Overview page as other users...
22:53:47 <lsmola_> david-lyle, yes, I should change the deps a bit
22:53:57 <david-lyle> lsmola_: thanks
22:54:01 <lsmola_> david-lyle, things ae changing so fast :-)
22:54:15 <lsmola_> david-lyle, ok, we can go to next
22:54:42 <david-lyle> #topic update from I18N (amotoki)
22:55:06 <jpich> amotoki can't attend, but the translation update for stable was a success, thanks everyone
22:55:25 <david-lyle> excellent
22:55:25 <lsmola_> lblanchard, yes, could be, though they might be interested in diferent stats. Risght now the overview pages differ
22:55:48 <jpich> Most patches got merged a bit late but the stable-maint team has agreed it makes sense to have a freeze exception for translations in general, 3 days after the stable freeze
22:55:49 <david-lyle> thanks to all who provided reviews
22:56:05 <david-lyle> #topic Open Discussion
22:56:13 <MaxV> few questions here
22:56:24 <jpich> This is enough for stable updates which have few strings, the process for new release tbd
22:56:24 <MaxV> do we start forcing people using angular?
22:56:50 <david-lyle> MaxV, I just noticed the Jasmine target got removed from the agenda, apologies
22:56:56 <lsmola_> MaxV, I guess only when they want to write javascript libs
22:56:58 <david-lyle> s/target/topic
22:57:03 <MaxV> thiswas my second question
22:57:34 <david-lyle> MaxV: force seems strong
22:57:54 <jomara> i think force is reasonable, if the option is "large pile of jquery" vs angular
22:58:11 <david-lyle> I think there is going to be a bit of time getting most of the existing coder base up to speed on angular
22:58:15 <jomara> ie, dont let people write new interactionsw ith a bunch of jquery
22:58:24 <david-lyle> new functionality makes sense, but fixes etc, not so much
22:58:31 <jomara> ya
22:58:32 <jtomasek> david-lyle: +1
22:58:38 <MaxV> agreed
22:58:39 <lblanchard> lsmola: agreed…I will look into these both further and we can discuss more this week about designs!
22:58:40 <lsmola_> exactly
22:59:00 <lsmola_> lblanchard, excellent, thank you very much
22:59:19 <david-lyle> We do have at least two whole views that are primarily javascript
22:59:26 <jomara> MaxV: were you going to talk about jasmine too?
22:59:32 <MaxV> my second question was about jasmine
22:59:43 <david-lyle> I'm not sure forcing a rewrite to augment the network topology screen makes sense either
22:59:52 <david-lyle> eventually
23:00:07 <MaxV> to correctly test angular we need a javascript mocking library
23:00:13 <MaxV> at least
23:00:24 <lsmola_> david-lyle, agreed, same for the heat topology
23:00:39 <david-lyle> lsmola_: yes that was the other of the two
23:00:42 <david-lyle> :)
23:00:56 <lsmola_> :-)
23:01:09 <david-lyle> I spent a little time looking into Jasmine, I didn't see a big issue with it
23:01:17 <david-lyle> Did anyone have any concerns?
23:01:23 <MaxV> maybe we can keep qunit
23:01:30 <MaxV> for old things
23:01:37 <david-lyle> jpich: did you do the qunit implementation?
23:01:39 <MaxV> and force jasmine on angular testing
23:01:54 <ohnoimdead> +1 for jasmine. it's dope.
23:01:54 <jomara> MaxV: id happily rewrite my tests in jasmine
23:02:00 <jpich> david-lyle: It was already there when I came on board, I believe
23:02:16 <david-lyle> jpich: ok
23:02:37 <mrunge> david-lyle, as far as I can remember, it's good old code, at least a year old, probably more
23:02:47 <mrunge> more 1.5 years now
23:02:52 <lsmola_> :-)
23:03:12 <ohnoimdead> qunit stuff has been around forever, since we started
23:03:16 <mrunge> ohnoimdead, might know it
23:03:20 <david-lyle> I don't have a problem moving forward then.  If we are going to have more javascript then we need to have better testing of it and since we're moving to angular, let's optimize for that
23:03:21 <mrunge> ha ;-)
23:03:34 <MaxV> I propose to keep qunit for old testing
23:03:43 <mrunge> I'd love to unify all that stuff
23:03:50 <ohnoimdead> i'm less enthusiastic about angular, but that's a different topic. :p
23:03:54 <lsmola_> +1 to have jasmine for angular
23:04:24 <david-lyle> alright, let's get the Jasmine patch reviewed and let the testing progress
23:04:29 <david-lyle> overtime
23:04:41 <david-lyle> Thanks everyone!
23:04:41 <jpich> Thanks everyone
23:04:46 <mrunge> david-lyle, thank you!
23:04:51 <david-lyle> good to see you ohnoimdead
23:04:53 <jcoufal> o/
23:04:57 <david-lyle> #endmeeting