16:00:17 <jpich> #startmeeting Horizon
16:00:18 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 17 16:00:17 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jpich. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:19 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:22 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
16:00:36 <jpich> Hi, everyone o/
16:00:41 <tzumainn> hiya!
16:00:42 <rdopieralski> hi
16:00:45 <santib> hi!
16:00:46 <gary-smith> hi
16:00:50 <yzuo> Hi
16:00:51 <Clu__> Hi
16:00:53 <jrist> o/
16:00:54 <jrist> hi jpich
16:01:02 <jgravel> Hi
16:01:07 <jcoufal> o/
16:01:08 <crobertsrh> Hello
16:01:13 <jtomasek> hi
16:01:14 <akrivoka> \o
16:01:15 <akrivoka> hey
16:01:25 <lsmola__> hola
16:01:29 <doug-fish> hi all
16:01:37 <lcheng> hello
16:01:43 <rhagarty> hi
16:02:03 <jpich> I'll be chairing the meeting this week too, David should be back for the next one
16:02:10 <jpich> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon
16:02:27 <lblanchard> hi all
16:02:38 <jpich> #topic Juno-2
16:02:40 <jpich> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-2
16:03:06 <jpich> I put this here because we usually have a general status/progress update but it's still early in the milestone
16:03:34 <jpich> There's probably way too much in the milestone, though since many already have code for review please consider sparing a few cycles for reviews
16:03:42 <jpich> especially for the higher priority stuff
16:04:04 <crobertsrh> +1 for reviews :)
16:04:58 <jpich> #topic Reminder: Review Keystone spec that impacts Horizon
16:05:02 <jpich> lcheng?
16:05:22 <jpich> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96867/5/specs/juno/saml-web-authn.rst
16:05:28 <lcheng> crobertsrh: do you have something to help us visualize sahara dashboard? something like a demo video?
16:05:34 <jpich> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96648/
16:05:57 <crobertsrh> sorry, that was something I meant to add to the blueprint the other day.  I'll dig up 1 (or maybe more) youtube videos to link to
16:05:59 <jpich> lcheng: There's a Sahara related topic in the agenda, maybe we can dig into it then?
16:06:18 <lcheng> jpich: oops, okay :-)
16:06:31 <jpich> lcheng: You put up the Keystone topic on the agenda, did you have anything to add or a general summary of what's happening to share?
16:06:41 <lcheng> yeah, so I just wanted everyone to be aware of those two patches
16:06:56 <lcheng> it will impact horizon at some point when implemented
16:07:10 <lcheng> related to how horizon will support federation
16:07:47 <jpich> I guess that will involve django_openstack_auth changes / blueprints of its own?
16:08:11 <lcheng> if anyone has some background in federation, it would be helpful to review those stuff and make sure it is feasible.
16:08:35 <ericpeterson> definitely, also obtaining the scoped token too will change.... the navigation project picker
16:08:35 <lcheng> yes, eventually there would be a blueprint for horizon for that.
16:08:55 <jpich> That should be interesting...
16:09:18 <lcheng> at the moment, there are still hashing out the interaction between keystone, horizon and identity provider
16:10:05 <lcheng> anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. In case, anyone is interested in this topic.
16:10:22 <jpich> Thanks lcheng! Definitely important stuff to keep an eye on
16:10:38 <jpich> Questions or shall we move to the next topic?
16:11:08 <jpich> #topic Sahara merge
16:11:25 <jpich> I put the topic in the agenda though crobertsrh can probably talk about it better than I can :-)
16:11:47 <crobertsrh> Sure.  The merge is still largely stuck on reviews.
16:11:48 <jpich> What I learnt from the logs of the last Cross Project meeting is that the Sahara dashboard needs to merge in Horizon by j-2 or it won't get in at all
16:11:54 <jpich> which would suck
16:12:07 <jpich> One of Horizon's stated goals is that we support integrated projects out of the box
16:12:21 <jpich> So please, all review help is very much appreciated
16:12:22 <crobertsrh> Yes.  We've had some good comments from people when they have looked at the code.  We just need more of that.
16:12:35 <jpich> From what I can tell crobertsrh is very responsive to feedback :) (Thanks!)
16:12:46 <crobertsrh> Yes, I'm generally very nice :)
16:13:21 <crobertsrh> I did just add a link to a  youtube video showing the sahara dashboard
16:13:28 <crobertsrh> ...to the blueprint
16:13:35 <crobertsrh> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ha_3oEcgJ8
16:13:45 <jpich> Thanks!
16:13:50 <jpich> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/merge-sahara-dashboard
16:14:34 <crobertsrh> If anyone has questions while reviewing.  Please feel free to ping me directly anytime.  It's my #1 priority right now, so I'll be happy to help any way I can.
16:14:46 <lcheng> crobertsrh: cool, thanks for that
16:14:48 * akrivoka makes a note to look at Sahara stuff
16:14:58 <jrist> :)
16:15:05 <tmazur> crobertsrh, thank you
16:15:38 <jpich> Thanks, crobertsrh!
16:15:42 <jpich> Anything else to add or questions?
16:15:49 <crobertsrh> Thanks in advance for all your +2's :)
16:15:57 <jpich> :P
16:15:58 <tmazur> crobertsrh, I still have a few questions so I think we could discuss it at review page
16:16:39 <crobertsrh> No problem.  I constantly refresh my page of reviews.  I'll be waiting for your questions, tmazur :)
16:17:34 <jpich> Cool
16:17:36 <jpich> #topic Horizon library name poll (rdopiera)
16:17:40 <tmazur> crobertsrh, ok :)
16:17:54 <jpich> rdopieralski?
16:18:34 <jpich> Are you around? It was your topic
16:18:51 * jpich voted but doesn't have a handy link to the results anymore
16:19:07 <jcoufal> jpich: I think he is not around atm
16:19:18 <jcoufal> oh he is
16:19:20 <jcoufal> my bad
16:19:27 <tzumainn> http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_ea99af9511f3f255
16:19:31 <tzumainn> has the results, I thikn
16:19:32 * jcoufal is going to poke him :)
16:19:37 <rdopieralski> jpich: I'm here
16:19:45 <tmazur> http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_ea99af9511f3f255
16:19:45 <jpich> rdopieralski: woot
16:19:54 <jpich> Looks like the boring horizon_lib won :)
16:20:02 <jcoufal> booooriiing
16:20:02 <rdopieralski> so bascially the poll is here: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_ea99af9511f3f255
16:20:10 <rdopieralski> and as you can see there is no dispute :)
16:20:12 <akrivoka> the more boring the better
16:20:23 <rdopieralski> I also don't think we need to check for trademark violation in this situation
16:20:46 <jpich> Sounds reasonable to me :-)
16:20:56 * jcoufal is sad that schwarzschild didn't make it :(
16:21:07 <rdopieralski> as an aside, and personal plug, the xstatic jquery patch is finally clear to be merged :)
16:21:09 <tqtran> wow.... horizon_lib... zzzz
16:21:17 <jrist> yay horizon_lib
16:21:24 <jpich> rdopieralski: Great, thanks!
16:21:28 <ericpeterson> horizon_lib_w_cheese ?
16:21:32 <rdopieralski> that's all, I'm going to write an e-mail about the end of voting to the mailing list
16:21:46 <tmazur> jcoufal, really? You like this? ^^ I was afraid nobody liked...
16:21:48 <mrunge> wtf. what a lame name.
16:21:49 <jpich> That's great, thanks
16:21:56 <doug-fish> ericpeterson:  you should have submitted that earlier!
16:22:00 <jpich> rdopieralski: I think you can stay around since you proposed the next topic too :-)
16:22:02 <mrunge> who voted for that sh***?
16:22:11 <mrunge> and who proposed it?
16:22:20 <jrist> :)
16:22:27 <doug-fish> I confess to nothing.
16:22:44 <tmazur> mrunge, that was me ^^
16:22:55 <rdopieralski> ok, so there was a question of whether we want to do a mid-cycle meeting
16:23:01 <jpich> And a majority of people voted for it
16:23:01 <rdopieralski> possibly with a sprint
16:23:08 <jpich> so that's it, ok rdopieralski is ahead of me with topics
16:23:13 <jpich> #topic Mid-cycle meeting? (rdopiera)
16:23:43 <rdopieralski> and since finding the best time and place is a pain, there was a proposition to just meet at the sprint in Paris
16:24:06 <jpich> It's still a bit late to organise one though, since some key people will likely have to arrange travel halfway across the world to try and make it
16:24:06 <rdopieralski> the problem is, this is in 2 weeks
16:24:18 <rdopieralski> right
16:24:28 <rdopieralski> so I thought I will just throw it here for discussion
16:24:41 <jpich> while later is not really "mid-cycle" anymore
16:25:11 <rdopieralski> I've been told that RH would be happy to host a meeting in Brno
16:26:02 <tzumainn> can I ask what the focus of the mid-cycle meeting would be?
16:26:26 <jpich> The topic would also benefit from PTL input, it would be worthwhile poking him about it when he's back later this week
16:26:47 <rdopieralski> tzumainn: I have no idea :)
16:26:50 <jpich> I can see it as being useful for a focused team effort on the big things like the split and the sahara merge but it is late to be organising this
16:27:05 <tzumainn> rdopieralski, lol, but you'll buy the beers? :D
16:27:19 <jrist> I vote no on mid-cycle. Not enough significant changes?
16:27:22 <rdopieralski> tzumainn: I can buy some of the beers
16:27:47 <jpich> jrist: The split seems pretty significant and far reaching to me?
16:28:00 <jrist> fair point
16:28:04 <rdopieralski> I'm also working on a config change that is going to touch a lot of things
16:28:18 <rdopieralski> and feedback on that would be nice too
16:28:24 <rdopieralski> but we can do it online if you ask me
16:28:34 <jpich> rdopieralski: Maybe better to have the discussion on list so people who can't make it to this meeting can have some input too?
16:28:49 <rdopieralski> jpich: ok, I will send an e-mail
16:29:01 <jpich> Though if you don't believe there is a strong need for it either... :)
16:29:05 <jcoufal> tmazur: sorry, I got distracted by my colleague - yeah I love it :)
16:30:17 <jpich> rdopieralski: Ok, cool
16:30:41 <jcoufal> I personally would vote no for organising one and meet in Paris if we get people who can get there
16:30:58 <tmazur> jcoufal, :)
16:31:18 <jcoufal> so maybe question to the mailing list who would be willing and able to join Paris meetup?
16:31:43 <jpich> Sounds good, let's bring it up in the thread as well
16:31:44 <akrivoka> jcoufal: I agree, that makes sense
16:32:09 <ericpeterson> subquestion:  will rdopieralski still owe us beer if we are in paris?
16:32:18 <tzumainn> might want to set an endpoint for responses as well
16:32:20 <rdopieralski> jcoufal: would you like to bring it up? I suck at human interaction :)
16:32:20 <jcoufal> ericpeterson: i think he can't take it back ;)
16:32:28 <jpich> #topic Reminder: Review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64103/, basis for additional cinder work (gary-smith)
16:32:43 <gary-smith> Just a reminder there to review that change when you can
16:32:45 <jcoufal> rdopieralski: you want to take the initiative to write the email to the ML or should I do that?
16:32:48 <rdopieralski> ericpeterson: only if I'm also there
16:33:00 <rdopieralski> jcoufal: it would be great if you could do it
16:33:03 <jcoufal> rdopieralski: I see now, yes, I can do that
16:33:06 <rdopieralski> jcoufal: sorry
16:33:20 <jcoufal> sorry for interrupting another topic already
16:33:25 <jrist> will do
16:33:34 <jpich> gary-smith: What is it blocking?
16:33:53 <gary-smith> another blueprint I have to implement qos-specs
16:34:33 <gary-smith> which is intended to use the same type of UI interaction, and I wanted to verify that the approach in the change was acceptable before building on it
16:34:50 <jpich> Sounds reasonable, do you have a link to the other blueprint as well?
16:35:05 <jpich> ah, here it is https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/cinder-qos-specs
16:35:11 <gary-smith> you beat me to it
16:35:32 <santib> gary-smith: I'm working on a blueprint to create a generic widget to add key=value pairs metadata or extra specs: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/key-value-metadata-widget
16:35:56 <gary-smith> santib: when is that planned?
16:36:11 <gary-smith> sorry, I see: juno-3
16:37:07 <jpich> Perhaps you could collaborate on it so that it's ready early enough for gary-smith to build his work on top of it?
16:37:38 <gary-smith> sounds reasonable, presuming there are no objections to santib's approach
16:37:59 <santib> jpich: definitely. I've already submitted a patch. no objections at all :)
16:38:12 <jpich> I haven't look at the patch yet but it is something we do want to genericise/widgetise
16:38:18 <jpich> santib: Ah nice! Thanks
16:38:33 <santib> jpich: u r welcome.
16:38:35 <jpich> I see there's some feedback already
16:38:44 <gary-smith> regardless, my cinder peers are interested in having that extra-specs patch land for their users
16:38:51 <santib> jpich: there is. I'm already working on it
16:39:52 <jpich> santib: Great!
16:41:24 <jpich> gary-smith: I understand. You can help review santib's patch and perhaps rebase yours on top of it, if it makes sense? I've added the patch to my List Of Things To Review, hopefully it'll also get some core attention shortly
16:41:27 <jpich> Anything else on this?
16:41:35 <gary-smith> jpich, will do
16:41:41 <jpich> Cheers
16:41:45 <jpich> #topic Specs repo - do we want it? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037797.html (akrivoka)
16:41:54 <akrivoka> I was wondering what everyone's opinion is on having a horizon-specs repo
16:42:11 <rdopieralski> akrivoka: that would replace blueprints, right?
16:42:13 <akrivoka> many other projects have already introduced a specs repo
16:42:13 <jpich> That's another one I was waiting for our esteemed PTL to return, I know there was a discussion at some point
16:42:39 <jpich> I think the conclusion was that the specs system is fairly heavyweight and seems to make more sense in terms of creating/designing new APIs
16:42:49 <akrivoka> rdopieralski: not replace BPs - my understanding is that it would introduce a formal review process for BPs
16:43:04 <rdopieralski> akrivoka: I see, thanks
16:43:18 <akrivoka> jpich: oh, was there a discussion already? I must have missed it
16:43:20 <jpich> Many of our blueprints tend to be straightforward and along the lines of adding support for something that already exists
16:43:42 <jpich> akrivoka: I did too, which is why I was hoping to get david-lyle's take/summary on it :)
16:44:13 <akrivoka> jpich: ok, that sounds good, let's see what he has to say about it when he returns
16:44:14 <jpich> Still worth voicing opinions if people feel strongly one way or the other?
16:44:38 <akrivoka> absolutely, everyone feel free to chime in on the ML: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037797.html
16:45:06 <tzumainn> I will say that the spec review cycle in tripleo is pretty long, so it does feel like it adds a considerable amount of time - but that may be appropriate for certain blueprints
16:45:18 <absubram_> I think managing blueprint ideas via gerrit is actually nice.. just like a code review - it makes it easier to post questions/commetns and approve/disapprove.. even for non-cores to comment :)
16:45:39 <jpich> Although I can't wait for Storyboard to be there in order to have proper history/subscriptions for blueprints, it seems too heavyweight for Horizon at this point
16:46:23 <jpich> absubram_: I hope everyone feels like they can comment on regular blueprints currently too, comments/feedback/thoughts are always quite welcome
16:46:33 <gary-smith> I prefer the current lightweight approach, too, especially since it already takes a while to get bp's approved as it is
16:47:32 <jpich> I guess we can collect our varied opinions in the ML thread and see what happens next :)
16:47:37 <jpich> #topic Open Discussion
16:47:40 <akrivoka> jpich: +1
16:48:42 <rdopieralski> I just wanted to mention that we have a new person working on Horizon from today
16:48:58 <rdopieralski> Please say hi to regebro_
16:49:04 <tzumainn> hiya regebro_!
16:49:06 <regebro_> Hi all!
16:49:08 <akrivoka> hello regebro_ !
16:49:19 <doug-fish> Hi regebro_!
16:49:20 <boltR> hi regebro_
16:49:20 <jcoufal> heya regebro_
16:49:31 <absubram_> jpich: in the current launchpad mechanism.. for bp unlike bugs, there isn't a comment section no? Unless one adds comments to the whiteboard I suppose.. anyway.. we can have the discussion in the thread that's out :)
16:49:38 <lcheng> welcome regebro_
16:49:59 <absubram_> hey reg
16:49:59 <jpich> absubram_: Yeah the whiteboard is for discussion, just people need to remember to add their names when they make a comment
16:50:02 <jpich> cf last of history
16:50:23 <clu_> hi regebro_!
16:50:25 <absubram_> gotcha
16:50:32 <jpich> welcome regebro_ and all the new contributors we've been having lately :) It's awesome. Please do lots of reviews :-)
16:50:40 <jpich> er I meant "lack of history"
16:52:20 <jpich> Anything else anyone wanted to discuss / bring up / highlight / chat about ?
16:52:41 * jpich cautiously starts hoping we'll finish a meeting before the full hour for once
16:53:19 <rdopieralski> bye
16:53:40 <jpich> So efficient :-)
16:53:41 <ericpeterson> good job jpich, I think your wish is granted
16:53:50 <jpich> \o/
16:53:53 <jpich> Thanks everyone! Chat next week
16:53:55 <akrivoka> bye everyone!
16:53:57 <gary-smith> bye
16:53:57 <jpich> #endmeeting