17:00:42 #startmeeting ironic_qa 17:00:43 Meeting started Wed Aug 17 17:00:42 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jlvillal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:45 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:47 The meeting name has been set to 'ironic_qa' 17:00:55 Hello everyone 17:01:00 As always the agenda is at: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic-QA 17:01:13 #topic Announcements 17:01:15 o/ 17:01:18 o/ 17:01:43 #info IPA post jobs are showing up on status.openstack.org/openstack-health now. 17:01:55 Any other announcements? 17:02:02 o/ 17:02:05 o/ 17:02:15 Okay moving on then 17:02:31 #topic Multi-node Grenade testing of Ironic 17:02:43 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ironic-newton-grenade-whiteboard 17:03:15 #info Progress is being made. Big thanks to Vasyl Saienko for all of his work on this. 17:03:42 #info master testing patch at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/296432/ 17:03:56 \o 17:04:23 #info Current status is that the SSH keys need to be propagated. A test run is in progress to see if a potential fix works. 17:04:46 nice work! 17:05:09 #info jlvillal and vsaienko have started doing daily sync-ups to allow each to continue work in their time zones. 17:05:12 jroll: Thanks 17:05:17 That's all I got so far. 17:05:28 Any questions/comments before moving on? 17:05:42 yes, could you just reuse the existing test ssh key instead? 17:06:08 clarkb: I could investigate that. Do you have a pointer? Sounds like a good idea. 17:06:11 that may make the setup simpler (since we already configure ssh to allow communication among all the test nodes and for eg nova live migration) 17:06:57 https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/project-config/tree/nodepool/scripts/multinode_setup.sh#n29 17:07:02 clarkb: Thanks! 17:07:09 I will check it out today 17:07:18 Any other questions/comments? 17:07:44 Moving on 17:07:57 #topic 3rd Party CI presented to you by krtaylor 17:08:18 krtaylor: The floor is yours. Let me know when you are done please. 17:08:33 jlvillal, sure thing 17:08:41 \o 17:09:04 so email has been sent to systems that need to get their CI going asap or get moved out 17:09:53 the stackalytics driver patch is making progress, I thought it was there, but jroll brought up a question about the wiki links 17:10:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330270/ 17:10:07 yeah, that's my only nit 17:10:35 * jroll wants to point out a thing after krtaylor is done speaking 17:10:36 so, I looked that over and I think it should actually be the required wiki page 17:10:58 oh? why is that? 17:11:02 (I'm fine with that, just curious) 17:11:04 the ThirdPartySystems wiki 17:11:52 that makes the most sense, this is for info and contacts, and it would be consistent since all are required to have it anyway 17:12:04 ok 17:12:29 krtaylor: some of the drivers have links to docs, so let's fix those instead I guess :) 17:12:41 the only catch is for community drivers, since those are not third party, they would point to docs? 17:12:53 its not clean either way 17:13:12 unless we require all ironic drivers to also have doc pages 17:13:52 right 17:13:58 (which we totally should) 17:14:02 I listed all the ThirdPartSystems links I could find in the drivers page 17:14:05 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic/Drivers#3rd_Party_CI_required_implementation_status 17:14:57 jroll, so if we require docs pages (which I'm fine with) , we can stub out those that aren't there I guess 17:15:07 * devananda fails at calendaring, comes in late ... 17:15:25 krtaylor: yeah, I guess it depends on what driverlog is intended to do 17:15:31 if it's to list drivers, it should be docs pages 17:15:37 if it's to track CI, it should be wikis 17:17:04 heh, it tries to be all things, but in this case, I think it is to just make sure they are listed in the marketplace, real useful status is tracked elsewhere in third party CI working group tools 17:17:23 ok, let's make it doc pages then, if users will be seeing this in the marketplace :) 17:17:57 well I was leaning toward wiki links, but now docs make more sense, thanks for discussing 17:18:17 I'll make that change today (tonight) 17:18:58 the only other thing I wanted to bring up is the CI documentation patch 17:19:01 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/353102/ 17:19:27 ah yeah, I need to review that 17:19:44 I am proposing the location and outline be merged first, then we can start writing sections and spread the work a bit, hopefully 17:20:12 krtaylor>+1 17:20:15 sounds good 17:20:23 I will have a section that references all the agreed wording in the spec, so this will become the requirements documentation going forward 17:20:34 krtaylor: ++ 17:20:43 * jroll has a thing to bring up 17:20:50 maybe next patch after outline, if everybody is fine with that 17:21:00 ++ 17:21:06 so folks have been re-thinking this approach in cinder 17:21:09 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/101428.html 17:21:09 thats all I had, jroll? 17:21:23 it's a looong thread, so don't read it during this meeting :) 17:21:38 yes, I saw that, some softening of the requirements 17:21:40 but it makes me wonder if we want to rethink how we do this as well 17:21:44 even if it's super late :( 17:22:18 how about we do that when we get a patch pushed for the requirements section of the doc? 17:22:20 we need to spin up an email thread or something, I think, a few other cores are re-considering after reading this 17:23:06 * jroll has been procrastinating on that 17:23:11 I'm fine with email thread, as long as it gets translated into patch comments at some point 17:23:38 yeah, just needs a broader discussion 17:23:47 jroll: would you like to summarize / discuss the change in our policy that you're envisioning? 17:24:02 devananda: I am not envisioning things yet 17:24:17 but I don't want to nuke a bunch of drivers and then next cycle have the same conversation 17:24:21 ya know? 17:24:26 so we should have that conversation now 17:25:09 same conversation? about new ones to nuke or ? 17:25:28 the conversation cinder is having 17:25:36 "is this really the right way to do this" 17:26:38 hmm 17:26:54 gotcha, yeah, we can revisit our requirements with this in mind, I don't see a problem with that 17:26:59 jroll: if you want to punt on that until everyone's had time to catch up on the cinder thread, that wfm 17:27:34 devananda: yeah, I'm not sure if it's changed my mind, but a couple other ironic cores said they kind of agree 17:27:50 We do have the 3rd party drivers repo. If that makes us any different from Cinder. 17:27:57 devananda: so I want to email the list by like, friday, and have the discussion 17:28:10 jlvillal: "we" have no such thing. a couple people in the community have that thing. it isn't official 17:28:35 Ah okay. 17:28:43 so, mjturek1 and I will get the doc outline skeleton finished this week, we could push a requirements proposal early next week and maybe clarify some sections via comments 17:29:00 yeah, sounds good 17:29:09 discussion first via email 17:29:15 sounds like a plan 17:29:17 yep, sounds good 17:29:53 ok, anything else for CI? 17:30:22 else, I'll turn it back over to jlvillal 17:30:30 Thanks krtaylor 17:30:39 #topic Open Discussion 17:30:48 The floor is open 17:31:22 * jroll has nothing 17:31:39 * devananda also has nothing QA-specific right now 17:31:44 Okay, I think we are done. 17:31:48 Thanks everyone! 17:31:51 thanks jlvillal 17:31:53 #endmeeting