20:02:40 <Rockyg> #startmeeting log_wg
20:02:40 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep  2 20:02:40 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Rockyg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:41 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:43 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'log_wg'
20:02:54 <Rockyg> dhellmann, bknudson ?
20:03:00 <bknudson> hi
20:03:04 <Rockyg> I'd like this one to be quick.
20:03:07 <Rockyg> Hey!
20:03:10 <jokke_> hi Rockyg, bknudson Nikolay_St o/
20:03:29 <Rockyg> thansk for the additional pings!
20:03:56 <Rockyg> #topic carryovers/info from previous meetings
20:04:26 <Rockyg> jokke_, anything I or the group should know about, be reminded of?  Action items, etc.
20:05:03 <jokke_> there was change proposed into oslo.log that might be in interest
20:05:46 <jokke_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/218139/
20:06:06 <Rockyg> Ah.  Ok.  I saw a patch in flight that hasn't made it as yet.  That one, I see.
20:06:12 <bknudson> that seems like a bad idea, just from the example in the commit message
20:06:17 <Rockyg> But I didn't have the link so that's good.
20:06:19 <bknudson> too much flexibility
20:07:42 <Rockyg> From the commit message, I'm tending to agree with bknudson
20:08:00 <jokke_> I'm not sure if I follow you?
20:08:03 <bknudson> the example in the commit message is just removing some fields.
20:08:28 <bknudson> which if everybody does that we're just going to get logs with random fields in them or not in them.
20:08:42 <bknudson> rather than more consistency
20:09:34 <jokke_> I think this is one of those things where it matters if we dash the empty fields or not
20:09:35 <Rockyg> yeah.  It seems to be adding fields that can then be randomly set.
20:10:44 <Rockyg> It's adding five fields that can each be on or off or none
20:10:49 <jokke_> I tend to be more on the freedom supporter as long as defaults sticks reasonable
20:11:28 <bknudson> it's open source. they can fork the code if they want to mess with this.
20:11:32 <jokke_> well it's not exactly adding anything, it's just moving that default format string form constant to configurable
20:12:49 <jokke_> bknudson: I was more thinking of attitude, "Oh you changed that? Well please set to default, reproduce and then you can come back to us" ;)
20:13:36 <Rockyg> One thing I hope to do is participate in the docs sprint for oslo and documenting log config options is the top priority.
20:13:47 <jokke_> but tbh that debate wasn't exactly my point bringing this up
20:14:15 <Rockyg> Since this seems to be delayed until M, we can query the operators and with more config info, we can see how this fits (or doesn't)
20:14:52 <Rockyg> maybe you brought it up because this didn't pass through this group?
20:15:16 <jokke_> my point was what I have been saying for a while ... if you want something changed in openstack, don't file a cross project spec or spec in the individual project. Propose a change to oslo and most probably it's in there before you have finished spelling the neighbours cat's name
20:16:01 <bknudson> oslo is very quick to approve changes.
20:16:56 <jokke_> that change has not been discussed on any of these groups, they made bunch of changes, approached the oslo folks who were like "Looks messy and all" Then they combined it to nice and simple change and response was "How about we merge this first thing in M" No questions asked
20:17:23 <Rockyg> Yeah.  So, maybe that's a good approach for a number of our needs.  Like adding a config option for Error Code that defaults to none but will print a placeholder if print all fields is turned on.
20:17:37 <jokke_> ^^
20:18:00 <Rockyg> blueprint doesn't seem to exist.
20:18:22 <jokke_> blueprints are merely used anymore to link specs to launchpad
20:19:29 <jokke_> another thing I liked to query from this group
20:19:53 <jokke_> should we ask if Thierry has spare work room session for us?
20:20:07 <jokke_> I think the summit plans has not been fixed just yet
20:21:01 <Rockyg> I think maybe so.
20:21:42 <jokke_> I'm sure we will not get fishbowl and I doubt we would get nor really have a use for the half day meetup session for the last day
20:21:59 <jokke_> but one small room slot could be useful in the agenda
20:22:14 <Rockyg> small room would definitely be best.
20:22:35 <Rockyg> #topic tokyo summit plans
20:22:41 <jokke_> I can poke him tomorrow during the office hours and ask for it
20:23:37 <Rockyg> cool
20:24:01 <Rockyg> Huh.  Back on flexibility bp.  There's a spec that was merged back in July.
20:24:14 <jokke_> so, are we all going to meet in Tokyo? I got my travels confirmed so looks heavily that I will be there
20:24:18 <Rockyg> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196752/
20:24:31 <bknudson> I'll be there.
20:25:31 <Rockyg> I've got hotel and registration.  And the company expects me to be there.
20:26:12 <Rockyg> I'm on two panels, I think.
20:26:41 <jokke_> gr8
20:27:02 <jokke_> please take lots of duct tape and cable ties with you :P
20:27:36 <Rockyg> ok, missed the reference....huh?
20:27:52 <jokke_> just in case we need to voluntold some people to attend our hypothetical worksession :P
20:27:56 <Rockyg> #topic oslo sprint
20:28:10 <Rockyg> Quick one, then I have a work meeting...
20:28:20 <Rockyg> Oslo doc sprint is happening sometime this month
20:28:43 <bknudson> I'm signed up to help with the oslo docs... I use them enough.
20:28:49 <Rockyg> I plan on documenting the log config options, where they get set, etc. and doing full coverage for Ops docs.
20:28:58 <Rockyg> Would love some reviewers.
20:29:16 <Nikolay_St> Rockyg: you can add me as reviewer
20:29:26 <jokke_> I can do that much as review, but thats probably the best I can spare cycles
20:29:26 <Rockyg> Figure first step is to get the info out there.  Next is to fix what's broken in it.
20:30:20 <jokke_> we have this product thing we're working on at HP and quite hectic release in Glance so I'm quite well booked up
20:30:31 <Rockyg> Not a problem.  Just a cou[le more sets of eyes than just me and docs.  I hope dhellmann  will help me if I miss something, but the patch you highlighted has all the info I need, I think (pointer to crucial files)
20:30:50 <jokke_> cool
20:31:01 <Rockyg> Thanks, Nikolay_St !
20:31:11 <Rockyg> We good to go? can I end the meeting?
20:31:22 <jokke_> before you need to run do you have any treats for us from ops meetup ... I heard that there was some good discussions going around
20:31:26 <Nikolay_St> oh
20:31:40 <Nikolay_St> I have one problem to talk about
20:31:40 <jokke_> or do you need to run?
20:31:44 <bknudson> I've got an item.
20:31:49 <Nikolay_St> I'll be quick
20:31:52 <Rockyg> Yes.  But lemme put them together for you this week.
20:31:57 <Rockyg> Nikolay_St, go
20:32:07 <jokke_> Rockyg: if you need to run, feel free to chair me and I'll close
20:32:24 <Rockyg> ok.  How do I do that?)
20:32:25 <Nikolay_St> sure
20:32:36 <jokke_> Rockyg: #chair jokke_
20:32:43 <Rockyg> #chair jokke_
20:32:44 <openstack> Current chairs: Rockyg jokke_
20:33:03 <Rockyg> I'll read the scroll back when I get back.  Discuss away!
20:33:38 <Nikolay_St> I implement logging spec in sahara and murano projects. in the adapted spec we was agree to use pep3101 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3101/
20:33:42 <jokke_> Nikolay_St & bknudson: do you have topics for me or do I change to open discussion?
20:33:59 <Nikolay_St> open discussion is fine, I think
20:34:03 <Nikolay_St> for me
20:34:04 <bknudson> jokke_: open discussion works
20:34:08 <Nikolay_St> jokke_: ^^
20:34:15 <jokke_> #topic open discussion
20:34:30 <bknudson> I proposed a change to keystone to log the request ID: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/218511/
20:34:43 <bknudson> Looks like it won't make L.
20:34:52 <Nikolay_St> so, earlier we try to implement this patch in sahara: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164755/
20:35:08 <jokke_> #link https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3101/
20:35:09 <jokke_> #
20:35:21 <jokke_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164755/
20:35:39 <Nikolay_St> thanks, jokke_ . I forgot about it :(
20:36:01 <Nikolay_St> so, I suggest to implement this kind of stuff into oslo.log
20:36:07 <jokke_> Nikolay_St: you got yours first so mind to give quick reference around that so we don't spend next 30min reading through it
20:36:15 <Nikolay_St> ok
20:36:48 <Nikolay_St> pep3101 is about string formatting. it propose to use .format() instead of %s syntax
20:37:42 <jokke_> ok, do you have specific reason why you want those two projects being inconsistent with pretty much rest of openstack?
20:38:03 <Nikolay_St> the patch I mentioned up before is about added/extend logging adapter in the way we don't need to use .format() explicitly
20:38:10 <Nikolay_St> jokke_: for sure
20:38:15 <jokke_> My interest is because I've been beating freezer guys not to use .format() as it not consistent with anyone else
20:39:37 <Nikolay_St> as far as it was partially my idea. in sahara we wanted unified style for string formatting at all. and pep3101 is looking for a future.
20:40:06 <bknudson> is pep 3101 approved? I don't know how pep's are approved.
20:40:21 <Nikolay_St> I might be wrong but in py3 '%s' syntax will be deprecated.
20:40:27 <Nikolay_St> or it was just plans
20:40:39 <jokke_> as far as I know it hasnt
20:40:46 <Nikolay_St> I try to find out but don't have great success in it
20:40:54 <Nikolay_St> it's kinda 'plan'
20:41:46 <Nikolay_St> so, the main reason was 'a look into the future'
20:42:31 <jokke_> Nikolay_St: have you spoken with the translation folks how well their tools supports that?
20:43:05 <Nikolay_St> jokke_: when I refactoring logs I see that .format was used here and there
20:43:15 <Nikolay_St> but it's a good question
20:43:26 <jokke_> and while looking into the future might be good idea on this big workload, it would be really good idea to probe the OpenStack community wider if they are willing to or considering the same
20:44:25 <jokke_> I personally value consistency magnitudes more than predicting future :P
20:45:01 <Nikolay_St> :D
20:45:09 <Nikolay_St> you're right
20:45:28 <Nikolay_St> so
20:45:45 <Nikolay_St> my suggestion is to take it to the next week agenda
20:46:17 <Nikolay_St> I will take an answer from translation team
20:46:34 <jokke_> sounds like a plan ... ready for giving the floor for bknudson?
20:46:40 <Nikolay_St> yeap
20:46:48 <Nikolay_St> bknudson: you're welcome :)
20:47:10 <jokke_> #action Nikolay_St checks the .format() compliance with translations, discussion continues next week
20:47:25 <jokke_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/218511/
20:47:38 <jokke_> bknudson: please
20:48:22 <bknudson> jokke_: that was it, just an announcement.
20:48:33 <bknudson> trying to get request IDs in keystone logs, too.
20:48:38 <jokke_> ah ok :)
20:48:49 <jokke_> were you using olso.context?
20:49:07 <bknudson> the change is to use oslo.context
20:49:20 <jokke_> uuh ... suites you sir
20:49:35 <jokke_> would you expect it to land in time for Liberty?
20:51:33 <bknudson> Liberty is tomorrow, I think
20:51:41 <bknudson> so I don't think it's going to land in time for libery
20:51:45 <bknudson> would require cores to review it.
20:51:54 <jokke_> l3 is going to be tagged this week
20:52:21 <jokke_> it does not stop stuff merging into it, specially if keystone takes stuff like this in as bugfixes
20:52:42 <jokke_> liberty release is at October so there is month still to merge
20:52:57 <bknudson> y, maybe it's considered a bug
20:53:42 <bknudson> adds a new dependency to keystone so that might stop it from merging post l-3
20:54:32 <jokke_> yeah ... really depends how the cores values it ... it doesn't need change to global requirements 'though?
20:54:50 <bknudson> no, just uses the oslo.context that's already used by everything else.
20:55:12 <jokke_> most teams I've been talking with are really reluctant after RC1 l3 is not dead frozen yet
20:55:49 <jokke_> so maybe with little marketing of the benefits it might fit in ;)
20:56:08 <jokke_> it's also really small and clean change
20:58:04 <jokke_> anything else?
20:59:30 <bknudson> nothing for me.
20:59:35 <jokke_> ok, thanks guys. Next week, same time same place!
20:59:42 <jokke_> #endmeeting