20:00:28 #startmeeting Horizon 20:00:30 o/ 20:00:31 Meeting started Wed May 6 20:00:28 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is david-lyle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:00:36 The meeting name has been set to 'horizon' 20:00:50 o/ 20:01:13 o/ 20:01:30 o/ 20:02:01 hello 20:02:53 letting people trickle in 20:03:06 I think they're trickled 20:03:52 I don't have any general announcements today 20:04:01 I'm going to jump into the agenda 20:04:40 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon 20:04:55 #topic Drop Django14 support and gate (lhcheng) 20:05:08 hey 20:05:11 hey 20:05:18 got somethin' to say 20:05:20 ? 20:05:37 so rob found out that django14 support is going to be dropped oct 2015 20:05:45 Hi 20:06:13 with that, we should probably drop django14 support for L 20:06:39 should we publicize it first in operators before doing it? 20:07:02 we need to support the next LTS 1.8 before we drop 1.4 20:07:08 but both should happen in L 20:07:57 probably should publicize 20:08:16 curious, why do we have to wait for LTS1.8? do we need to support last four releases? 20:08:51 lhcheng: I think 1.5-1.6 aren't actually supported any more 20:09:01 1.7 is for now 20:09:27 1.8 is out, we just have to make sure it works with horizon 20:09:44 (it doesn't) 20:09:49 *spoiler alert 20:09:57 david-lyle: lol 20:10:05 * david-lyle may have done that in the wrong order 20:10:10 in general, it works 20:10:11 and the gate gate-horizon-python27-django14 moves to django17 then? 20:10:29 lhcheng: yeah 20:10:48 once we have 1.8 we could look at dropping 1.5 and 1.6 as well 20:10:58 mrunge: just a few more issues to work out in d-o-a 20:11:09 david-lyle, yes- 20:11:20 we may rework our permissions system 20:11:30 hmm 20:11:31 s/may/may need/ 20:11:50 I meant to do that anyway 20:12:04 with policy and has_perm in the same place now 20:12:18 we can take that offline 20:12:26 yes 20:12:35 any opinions on how many release we should stop supporting? 20:12:41 but this is something, I'm committed to 20:12:42 mrunge: i'm interested in that as well. 20:12:53 cool! 20:12:58 1.7 introduces a lot of new features 20:13:02 sounds good 20:13:23 spanning so many releases makes us do strange things 20:14:12 since we're gating on them, it's not that bad 20:14:19 we'll start with fixing up 1.8, drop 1.4 and see where we end up on 1.5 and 1.6 20:14:45 sounds like a plan 20:15:07 lhcheng: is there a bp to drop 1.4? 20:15:11 david-lyle: sounds good, that question could also go with the django14 drop announcement 20:15:16 david-lyle: don't think so 20:15:24 sure 20:15:30 let's add one 20:15:31 does dropping 1.4 for Liberty affect anything for Juno/Kilo? 20:15:53 doug-fish, I wouldn't think so 20:15:56 shouldn't, except certain backports will become trickier 20:16:10 gate jobs? 20:16:12 but since we're not adding features in backports 20:16:23 the risk of conflict should be minor 20:16:28 david-lyle, it doesn't hurt us, if we're still gating on 1.4, right? 20:16:52 I was wondering more if it mattered with the "drop 1.4" part of the plan 20:16:54 mrunge: not in d-o-a IIRC 20:17:21 david-lyle, I mean, for juno 20:17:32 shouldn't effect juno 20:17:37 1.4 job will still run 20:17:44 mrunge: yeah, we should keep those job 20:18:09 #topic Session data cleanup (lhcheng) 20:18:34 lhcheng++ on this! 20:18:44 can we remove the "allowed" cache thing from the session? 20:18:47 for the session data, we keep on hitting the cookie limit 20:18:57 allowed? 20:19:05 oh, for nav? 20:19:09 ugh! that hurts 20:19:09 the cached permission thing, yep 20:19:12 david-lyle: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120790/ 20:19:30 so I've been playing around to reduce the session size 20:19:53 the "allowed" cache thing, takes 34% of the session size 20:20:11 that's rediculous 20:20:11 that's less betta' 20:20:13 I suggest to move the caching from session to the django cache instead 20:20:19 or maybe just drop it? 20:20:47 you know how often that's called per page view? 20:21:00 should be once per page view 20:21:12 but the number required should be dropping 20:21:14 without caching 10-20 times 20:21:31 I tried earlier today 20:21:51 mrunge: you mean building the cache? 20:22:01 or how many times the cache is read? 20:22:09 david-lyle, I mean, times read 20:22:11 all the nav items in the layout stuff, are hiting that a bunch of times 20:22:34 yes, we should keep the cache 20:22:35 we want to move to a model where we don't rebuild the nav on ever panel load 20:22:47 only on rescope 20:22:57 sounds better 20:23:13 what is the perf difference with that disabled mrunge? is it noticeable? 20:23:29 ducttape_, I can't really tell 20:23:33 ducttape_: I really think it was for testing 20:23:39 I didn't measure that 20:23:45 ok, thanks 20:23:52 david-lyle: if the user rescope, this cache does not get reset. you just found a bug. :P 20:23:55 in the interim, could a localstorage be used instead of django cache? just thinking of future nav work here ;) 20:24:29 lhcheng: i just saw your comment and was starting reply on it in the patch. 20:24:35 r1chardj0n3s: no, it needs to reside on server for current template to use 20:24:41 on the angular side there is also caching 20:24:44 once per page load 20:24:53 ok 20:24:57 r1chardj0n3s: I would believe that the nav component of the page will no longer need to reload 20:25:06 thus the purpose of the cache would be gone 20:25:11 david-lyle: that's the intention, yes 20:25:19 but one of the things I tore my hair out over was how would I be notifiied when token rescope. 20:25:22 lhcheng - you said you had another place to store that cache? 20:25:26 well, we can still use localStorage to store things like "last visited page" 20:25:28 only the panel part of the page is loading 20:25:29 someplace besides the session? 20:25:54 ducttape_: yeah, just store it in django's built-in cache framework 20:26:13 could be by process, file cache, memche 20:26:14 and that would have a unique spot for each user / token then? 20:26:45 yeah, just need to use a unique key for that user/token 20:27:30 ok, I think we're all for reducing session size, we can discuss the particulars in a couple of weeks 20:27:32 +1 lhcheng, our session stuff is a constant hassle. ship it 20:28:15 yes, session size issues are hard to debug 20:28:17 so got the size drop by 75% on my local 20:28:25 cool 20:28:49 david-lyle: sure, we can discuss the details later 20:28:55 #topic Summit Scheduling (david-lyle) 20:29:03 I wanted to make sure we have enough time for this 20:29:20 session size/storage happens to be one of the proposed topics too 20:29:33 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-liberty-summit 20:29:39 can we also talk about session size then? 20:29:46 ducttape_: no 20:29:49 :P 20:30:19 let's talk session allocation 20:31:04 someone did a nice job sorting through these, I assume either doug-fish or robcresswell 20:31:06 not sure 20:31:18 I took a shot at it 20:31:22 thanks doug-fish 20:31:26 sure np 20:31:45 So doug-fish split out topics starting about line 37 20:32:04 the topics you put at top are down to a single word, so now sure what is meant by some of them 20:32:18 I need to publish a schedule so I started trying to figure out what are fishbowl and what are working sessions 20:32:35 TravT: they reference the topics starting on 37 20:32:59 my lazin^H^H^H^H^Hshorthand 20:33:26 line 63, I don't think websockets applies 20:33:34 to that topic 20:33:47 I think it would go more with messaging 20:33:48 yeah 20:33:53 if anything 20:34:09 it's just a q, if we want to go that route 20:34:20 there were so many issues to be solved with that 20:34:26 there is a small aspect of websockets aspect to what I'd like to show / talk about with elastic search. 20:34:47 but is not the main point, so separating them is fine with me. 20:35:40 do people agree with the fishbowl topics? 20:35:44 I wouldn't think, *any* messaging infrastructure should take a whole session 20:36:09 Hi all, I put down my request all the way at the bottom L-194 a couple days back.. not sure if anyone got a chance to look at it.. this is to request a better solution to some of the vendor specific code we have in the dashboard section.. 20:36:12 so plugins is really broad. 20:36:14 mrunge: I think better error messages and websockets could share a working session ? 20:36:22 do we want UX in a bigger plenum? 20:36:27 david-lyle, yes! 20:36:42 Rob C will probably end up doing the work.. but we don’t have a solution just yet.. and we would like to talk about it.. don’t think it warrants an entire session to itself though.. 20:37:10 david-lyle it seems like there could be a plugins from the context of which projects are core or not and that would probably take a whole fishbowl 20:37:11 some time in the contributor meetup is fine too.. unless others have a different opinion? mrunge? :) 20:37:27 TravT: absubram so for plugins 20:37:44 I think it's a fishbowl and a worksession 20:37:51 but does that cover tech discussion? 20:37:54 ah, ok 20:38:13 absubram, that would be fishbowl number one 20:38:37 ok.. that’s fine! 20:38:52 I want to describe the proposed split and structure 20:38:52 david-lyle, do we have the possibility to have working sessions after fish bowls? 20:39:10 in the fishbowl and then use a working session to plan on implementation 20:39:27 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VsFdRYGbX5eCde81XDV7TrPBfEC7cgtOFikruYmqbPY/edit#gid=569963128 20:39:29 david-lyle, which one does dependencies refer to? 20:39:41 is that packaging? 20:40:22 mrunge: looks like yes 20:40:27 TravT: yes 20:41:09 we'll have to see how the cross-project session goes, I suppose 20:41:58 So angular 101 is really broad. 20:42:10 TravT: yes indeed 20:42:21 we need more than 1 angular session 20:42:50 that one was the 101 to get people up to speed that haven't been neck deep in it 20:43:15 yeah, it'll be tough to cover in 40 minutes that topic. 20:43:55 Maybe the other topic could be an overview of our ideas for moving forward with angular in liberty 20:44:05 good idea 20:44:17 TravT: it's not a tutorial or class, just a pointer to where we are and how to get started 20:44:34 OR we could move the angular chatter to Friday 20:44:41 we have all day Friday 20:44:45 david-lyle: should cover the styles, rules and layout we've developed for horizon 20:45:40 maybe Friday morning is a better angular time? 20:45:57 yeah, when we're all fresh ;) 20:46:04 haha 20:46:45 do we want a prioritization work session? 20:47:08 makes sense 20:47:10 That was a good discussion in the contributors meetup in Paris 20:47:42 As FYI, a number of HP'ers working on angular have to depart shortly after noon on Friday. :( 20:48:05 friday afternoon then 20:48:07 :P 20:48:11 TravT: is that leave-the-venue depart or fly-out depart? 20:48:13 :) 20:48:24 leave the venue 20:48:33 I have to leave the venue at about 2. 20:48:42 ok, so we get a solid morning to hassle^H^H^H^H^H^Hwork with you 20:48:54 Keystone could be meetup topic too 20:49:32 giving merlin a session would be good 20:51:13 mrunge put a topic up that would be good at some point. Moving forward with functions / deprecating old 20:51:41 TravT, yes! 20:52:03 TravT, more interesting: how to fix older releases then 20:52:19 since it's expected to fix in master branch first 20:52:23 straight patch i guess. no cherry picking 20:52:29 we already discussed that 20:52:57 TravT, still that bears the risk of patching an issue in master-1 which is still existent in master 20:54:14 I wonder, if we really need a whole session for this 20:54:44 I've been editing away 20:54:58 numbering is not priority btw 20:55:16 feel free to comment inline or pull something up 20:55:42 do we need a session for discussing karma and jasmine tests? 20:55:49 or just jasmine 101? 20:56:09 i think that may be part of angular 101 20:56:39 so that 40 minutes is filling up quite nicely then ;) 20:56:45 tqtran: matt-borland also can help give a great overview of that and demo stuff related to karma 20:57:15 r1chardj0n3s: moved it to Friday morning 20:57:19 for continuity 20:57:25 sake 20:57:48 plus I have a feeling more people will show up than just the 28 or so the working session supports 20:58:07 28 people... that's small 20:58:13 mmm 20:58:21 we should have a backup plan 20:58:22 i guess we all better get in line and camp out overnight 20:58:22 hence working session 20:58:29 a second topic 20:58:50 and just capture a different room 20:59:09 times up 20:59:25 I have yet to decide how descriptive the topics for the working sessions will be 20:59:33 don't want too many people 20:59:40 observing 20:59:49 i think we had about 40 in the contributor's meetup 21:00:08 I'll let the etherpad sit for another day or so then publish a schedule 21:00:24 continue to comment on the proposed allocation of spots. 21:00:29 Thanks everyone! 21:00:32 #endmeeting