15:00:27 <rhochmuth> #startmeeting monasca
15:00:29 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jul 27 15:00:27 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rhochmuth. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:32 <rhochmuth> o/
15:00:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'monasca'
15:00:46 <rhochmuth> Agenda is at, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/monasca-team-meeting-agenda
15:00:55 <rbak> o/
15:01:02 <rhochmuth> Agenda for Wednesday July 27, 2016 (15:00 UTC)
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 1.	OpenStack Barcelona Summit Voting
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 2.	Number of reviews or various organizations/contributors.
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 3.	Java deprecation plan
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 4.	Reviews
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 1.	https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343905/
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 2.	https://review.openstack.org/#/c/347481/
15:01:03 <shinya_kwbt> o/
15:01:03 <rhochmuth> 3.	https://review.openstack.org/#/c/347532/
15:01:04 <rhochmuth> 4.	https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332731/
15:01:04 <rhochmuth> 5.	https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334856/
15:01:05 <rhochmuth> 3. Colorado Openstack Meetup 6th Birthday party:
15:01:05 <bklei> o/
15:01:10 <Fdaisuke_> o/
15:01:18 <tomasztrebski> o/
15:01:19 <ddieterly> o/
15:01:20 <hosanai> o/
15:01:23 <rhochmuth> hi everyone
15:01:56 <rhochmuth> #topic OpenStack Barcelona Summit Voting
15:02:00 <iurygregory> o/
15:02:18 <rhochmuth> The voting opened yesterday for the OpenStack Summit in Barcelona
15:02:45 <rhochmuth> As usual, you can search for topics as well as use the categories
15:02:48 <rhochmuth> For example, https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/vote-for-speakers/presentation/15929/?q=monasca
15:02:58 <rhochmuth> give all the Monasca sessions
15:03:13 <rhochmuth> It would be good to see folks vote on these based on interest
15:03:40 <rhochmuth> Does anyone know about the Masakari 2.0 project
15:04:07 <rhochmuth> that is listed as a session, and they mention Monasca and their interest/TODO collaboration
15:04:34 <rhochmuth> I guess not.
15:04:58 <bklei> i don't
15:05:17 <rhochmuth> So, please take a look and vote for topics you are interested in. There are a number of session on monitoring, Vitrage, Watcher and Kubernetes that look interesting
15:05:47 <bklei> will do
15:05:49 <rhochmuth> #topic Number of reviews or various organizations/contributors.
15:06:12 <rhochmuth> So, I've been looking at the overall numbers of reviews occurring by various organizations and individuals
15:06:47 <rhochmuth> My concern is that there is a huge dissaproportinate number of reviews from my team mostly at HPE
15:07:19 <bklei> but your team is so good at it
15:07:53 <rhochmuth> Going forward I'm trying to figure out what to do, but new code submissions is going to have to take a back seat
15:07:59 <rhochmuth> to reviews
15:08:18 <rhochmuth> So, here is a good review to take a look at
15:08:20 <rhochmuth> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334688/
15:08:48 <witek> hpe 65% new lines of code, 73% reviews
15:08:50 <rhochmuth> It was posted on June 27th, and other than Tomasz, I don't see any other reviewers
15:09:05 <bklei> apologies, will look
15:09:10 <rhochmuth> However, I see code showing up from other companies
15:09:46 <rhochmuth> and I constantly get pressure to priortize those reviews higher than others that are doing reviews
15:10:03 <rhochmuth> that probably needs to change and become a more equitable mix
15:10:15 <rhochmuth> Additionally, I'm reviewing the list of core members
15:10:32 <rhochmuth> Reviews is one of the primary reasons for being core
15:10:49 <rhochmuth> Being core is not lifelong position
15:12:27 <rhochmuth> So, I think folks just need to be aware of the amount of code that is going through the system and the need for taking part in more reviews to balance the load a little more
15:12:42 <bklei> sounds like a good idea
15:13:31 <witek> agree
15:14:21 <rhochmuth> #topic Java deprecation plan
15:14:49 <bklei> we briefly talked about ^^ at the midcycle
15:15:17 <bklei> should we set a goal for deprecation at least?
15:15:19 <bklei> thoughts?
15:15:36 <witek> yes, we should plan the steps to deprecate java
15:15:57 <rhochmuth> i would like to see a goal too
15:16:11 <tomasztrebski> by deprecate you mean: 'hey java is deprecated' or 'rm -rf */java' ?
15:16:19 <iurygregory> there is a plan to have packages to install monasca? just wondering =)
15:16:20 <rhochmuth> cassandra seems to be key to this plan
15:16:44 <rhochmuth> or a replacment for influxdb
15:17:07 <bklei> if we at least get it to be 'deprecated', then we could stop maintaining java with new features -- i could see even only doing cassandra in python
15:17:09 <rhochmuth> iurygregory: There are packages for monasca
15:17:38 <iurygregory> rhochmuth, like apt-get install monasca?
15:17:42 <witek> I think we agreed on doing cassandra only in python
15:17:42 <iurygregory> O.o
15:17:53 <tomasztrebski> maybe not apt...but they are on python pypi
15:18:03 <rhochmuth> iurygregory: i see. No we don't have a plan for that
15:18:23 <iurygregory> oh my idea is to impro puppet-monasca and this would be good  =)
15:18:27 <iurygregory> improve*
15:18:51 <shinya_kwbt> Oh. So should I stop writing java cassandra?
15:18:51 <bklei> maybe even that is part of the java deprecation plan iurygregory
15:19:07 <bklei> you could add install of the python api/persister to puppet-monasca
15:19:26 <iurygregory> bklei, yeah
15:19:59 <bklei> shinya_kwbt it's a suggestion
15:20:37 <witek> shinya_kwbt: I agree with bklei, cassandra in Java is only additional effort
15:21:07 <rhochmuth> If support for Vertica and Cassandra was added to the persister, then we could deprecate the Java persister today.
15:21:42 <rhochmuth> The reason I mention that is that the persister is relatively simple
15:21:50 <ericksonsantos> sounds good
15:22:03 <bklei> good first step, would save shinya_kwbt java dev
15:22:34 <rhochmuth> Similar for the API
15:22:42 <rhochmuth> but i was thinking about staging development
15:22:58 <rhochmuth> althoguh if only the persister supports cassandra, then the api has to too
15:23:28 <witek> is anyone from DT here?
15:23:41 <bklei> i can't think of a reason to add cassandra support for java for api or persister
15:24:44 <tomasztrebski> if we are at the topic of open changes - there's also notification-story to think of, at the moment already having impl in java and python from what I saw
15:25:47 <witek> I agree with Roland, we have to make sure that Cassandra is the right way for Monasca first
15:25:59 <witek> and make progress with that
15:26:17 <bklei> even more reason to do the 'pilot' only in python
15:27:14 <shinya_kwbt> I agree too.
15:27:38 <rhochmuth> If we had support for Vertica in the Python implementation, then HPE and TWC could switch to the Python implementation completely
15:28:03 <rhochmuth> We would essentially have parity at that point
15:28:05 <bklei> * boom *
15:28:24 <rhochmuth> Then we could add support for Cassandra and hopefully deprecate InfluxDB
15:28:57 <rhochmuth> If Cassandra was a suitable replacemnt for Vertica, then we don't need to add support for Vertica to Python
15:29:34 <bklei> hmm -- not sure on that -- existing deployments have the issue of data migration
15:29:39 <tomasztrebski> so, shall we say: 'brace yourself - python is hissing' ? Personally still having both languages makes things harder, maybe not from POV of new features, but still any bugfixing and so on
15:29:42 <bklei> i'd like to see vertica in python
15:30:40 <rhochmuth> So, if we added Vertica to Python, we have parity with what we have today, and we can stop development on Java
15:30:52 <rhochmuth> at least the Java API and Persister
15:31:35 <rhochmuth> That work woudl fall on HPE and TWC since we are the only one's using it today
15:31:42 <rhochmuth> using Vertica that is
15:31:52 <bklei_> yes -- we could split that work
15:32:20 <rhochmuth> ok, i'll have to look into that, but seems like a reasonable proposal/start
15:32:30 <bklei_> we should be GA for MaaS by 9/1, then i'll have some time
15:32:34 <rhochmuth> The Threshold Engine would remain in Java
15:33:05 <tomasztrebski> threshold could be in python, but that would require writing that with spark I guess, like monasca-transform ? and that's also a lot of work
15:33:05 <rhochmuth> Then in parallel we could add support for Cassandra
15:33:19 <witek> wouldn't it be better to join the power and concentrate on Cassandra instead of Vertica?
15:33:33 <tomasztrebski> + not realty sure if that is possible
15:34:06 <rhochmuth> witek: i would love to say yes, i just dno't know how well cassandra will compare to Vertica
15:35:16 <rhochmuth> also i don't know how long cassandra will really take
15:35:17 <witek> rhochmuth: we answer that question only if we check
15:35:48 <witek> i mean comparison with vertica
15:36:39 <shinya_kwbt> I don't know how speed and use space too. > i just dno't know how well cassandra will compare to Vertica
15:37:23 <rhochmuth> so, i think the vertica discussion is primarily a hpe/twc discussion
15:37:46 <bklei_> yup
15:37:46 <rhochmuth> i think we shoudl focus on a plan for cassandra with the greater community
15:38:26 <rhochmuth> i'll look into resources that are available to work on this over the next few months
15:38:35 <rhochmuth> and get back to you next week
15:38:40 <witek> great
15:38:45 <rhochmuth> from an hpe stand-point
15:38:47 <bklei_> i'll get approval for some of my time in sept rhochmuth
15:38:53 <rhochmuth> thx
15:39:24 <rhochmuth> i'll also follow-up with DT
15:39:44 <rhochmuth> witek: do you know from your end what would be available
15:39:45 <witek> rhochmuth: i could write them
15:39:52 <rhochmuth> thx
15:39:54 <rhochmuth> sounds good
15:40:38 <witek> rhochmuth: we should have some resources for cassandra, don't know exact numbers
15:41:05 <rhochmuth> so, if we could get resources and focus on this from everyone starting up in sept or sooner and lasting a few months we might be able to get over this hurdle
15:41:44 <rhochmuth> 1 from HPE, TWC, DT, Fujitsu and NEC is a pretty serious effort
15:41:54 <rhochmuth> hope i didn't leave anyone out
15:42:00 <rhochmuth> i usually do
15:42:04 <witek> :)
15:42:42 <rhochmuth> so, how about we reconvene on this next week after everyone checks back with headquarters
15:42:57 <witek> good idea
15:43:06 <bklei_> sounds good -- and we have to train rhochmuth to say CHARTER, not TWC :)
15:43:13 <witek> hehe
15:43:20 <rhochmuth> you'll always be TWC to me
15:43:24 <bklei_> :)
15:43:53 <rhochmuth> #topic Colorado Openstack Meetup 6th Birthday party
15:44:00 <rhochmuth> http://www.meetup.com/OpenStack-Colorado/events/231949941/?gj=co2&rv=co2
15:44:00 <rhochmuth> Thursday 7/28 6:30 pm
15:44:00 <rhochmuth> CableLabs, 858 Coal Creek Circle, Louisville, CO, US, 80027
15:44:12 <rhochmuth> thought i woudl drop that in before the reviews
15:44:31 <rhochmuth> sounds like bklei_ is going
15:44:51 <bklei_> yes -- just want CO folks to know they are invited
15:45:00 <bklei_> beer, food, giveaways
15:45:05 <rhochmuth> thanks, i don't hink I'm going to make this
15:45:08 <rhochmuth> what, free beer
15:45:12 <rhochmuth> maybe
15:45:14 <bklei_> :)
15:45:33 <rhochmuth> #topic reviews
15:45:42 <rhochmuth> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343905/
15:45:53 <rbak> That's mine.
15:45:56 <rhochmuth> yup
15:46:16 <rbak> I was hoping to get this merged since it's been sitting around for a while, but there's been a flurry of comments I need to address now.
15:46:36 <witek> :)
15:46:47 <tomasztrebski> roland said nobody is doing any reviews, so I thought I will post some buster there ]:->
15:47:33 <rhochmuth> tomasztrebski: thanks for all your reviews
15:47:41 <rhochmuth> :-)
15:48:04 <rhochmuth> rbak: so it sounds like this is getting some attention
15:48:27 <rbak> right.  I'll address those comments today.
15:48:36 <rhochmuth> i gave a +1, but didnt review closely, as JS isn't my area
15:48:49 <rhochmuth> i'll try and take another look though
15:49:19 <rhochmuth> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/347481/
15:49:36 <tomasztrebski> I think I will also try to spend some time on JS there, maybe I will find something else to comment about
15:50:00 <bklei_> that review is just me, just want to advertise the change
15:50:06 <rhochmuth> It looks like this one is getting attention
15:50:06 <rbak> I'd rather not fix every issue in that repo right now.  We've been using this code for a while, this is just the repo move.
15:50:11 <bklei_> i have a bit more tempest testing to do
15:50:45 <rhochmuth> rbak: sounds like you want to get merged, and then start making improvements
15:50:56 <rhochmuth> as well as getting others involved
15:51:09 <rhochmuth> bklei_: yup
15:51:47 <rhochmuth> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/347532/
15:52:40 <rhochmuth> shouldn't the other review go first?
15:53:23 <rhochmuth> Moving onto: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332731/
15:54:03 <rhochmuth> tomasztrebski: that is yours
15:54:27 <witek> looks like I have to look at this
15:55:00 <rhochmuth> it looks like you are free to merge that one
15:55:19 <tomasztrebski> sorry, was writing a comment for previous one
15:55:44 <tomasztrebski> yes, it sits there for some time and basically I'd like to know if anyone is fine with that or is there something that should be fixed
15:55:55 <rhochmuth> i'm fine with it merging
15:56:53 <rhochmuth> last one
15:56:54 <rhochmuth> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334856/
15:57:31 <rhochmuth> looks good to me
15:59:02 <tomasztrebski> I don't see any room for improvement by my eye
15:59:19 <tomasztrebski> but if someone would like to test a bit or review a code, it is always welcomed
15:59:54 <rhochmuth> thx tomasztrebski
16:00:02 <rhochmuth> i meant to have tsv look at this
16:00:18 <rhochmuth> and we might want to integrate into our helion distribution
16:00:35 <tsv> rhochmuth, sure, will review
16:00:54 <rhochmuth> so, i need to end the meeting
16:01:01 <witek> thank you
16:01:21 <rhochmuth> #endmeeting monasca