14:01:15 <rhochmuth1> #startmeeting monasca
14:01:17 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jul 26 14:01:15 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rhochmuth1. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:18 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'monasca'
14:01:29 <rhochmuth1> o/
14:01:36 <witek> hello
14:01:42 <koji> o/
14:01:48 <arturb_> o/
14:01:49 <rhochmuth1> sorry, was running slightly behind this morning
14:02:27 <rhochmuth1> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/monasca-team-meeting-agenda
14:02:57 <rhochmuth1> #topic Events API - separate or add to monasca-api?
14:03:13 <witek> that's leftover from last time
14:03:15 <rhochmuth1> i still need to discuss with some folks here on this topic
14:03:25 <rhochmuth1> i'll try and tee that up today
14:03:54 <witek> our preference would be to keep it separate, right arturb_ ?
14:04:10 <arturb_> yes
14:04:19 <rhochmuth1> ohhh, i thought you were more interested in combining it
14:04:22 <arturb_> this is the best idea t keep it separate
14:04:31 <rhochmuth1> what was the motiivation
14:04:40 <rhochmuth1> reasons?
14:04:51 <witek> I wanted to reuse the persister for events
14:05:11 <witek> that was the starting point for the discussion
14:05:14 <arturb_> I already implemented oslo.policy for events-api
14:06:28 <rhochmuth1> if you would like to keep teh events api separate then i don't see a reason that i need to follow-up with folks here
14:06:34 <rhochmuth1> that was the original plan anyway
14:06:58 <rhochmuth1> the only reason i would need to check would be to make sure that they are OK with a different architecture
14:07:15 <witek> agreed, I think it's easier to work on it separately
14:07:46 <rhochmuth1> OK, i think we can all agree right now then that the events-api will remain a separate repo
14:07:52 <rhochmuth1> approved!
14:08:01 <arturb_> +1
14:08:05 <rhochmuth1> i don't get to say that very often these days
14:08:19 <rhochmuth1> +1
14:08:22 <witek> we would like to add events persisting to monasca-persister though
14:08:36 <rhochmuth1> i was afraid to ask
14:08:48 <witek> :)
14:09:00 <rhochmuth1> OK, i'll check with team on that issue then
14:09:32 <witek> ok
14:09:41 <rhochmuth1> i don't have any major arguments why that wouldn't be OK
14:09:50 <arturb_> there is already a change providing events to persister: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485113/
14:09:59 <rhochmuth1> right
14:10:20 <rhochmuth1> thx arturb_
14:10:37 <arturb_> no problem :)
14:11:03 <rhochmuth1> i guess we can close on that topic if you believe we are done with it
14:11:14 <witek> yes, thank you
14:11:24 <rhochmuth1> #topic survey
14:11:34 <rhochmuth1> https://www.openstack.org/user-survey
14:12:35 <witek> we would like everyone to forward the info to anyone who uses Monasca in OpenStack
14:13:13 <witek> as far as I know it used as input for Project Navigator
14:13:36 <rhochmuth1> hmmm, not sure how to do that
14:13:41 <rhochmuth1> how to forward on
14:13:51 <rhochmuth1> we have our email list group
14:14:00 <rhochmuth1> but that probably isn't very representative
14:14:06 <rhochmuth1> of real users
14:14:11 <witek> what about Helion folks?
14:14:40 <rhochmuth1> hmmm, it might be possible
14:14:52 <rhochmuth1> that would result in potentially a lot of users
14:15:00 <rhochmuth1> good idea
14:15:40 <witek> I guess Stefano Canepa could help
14:15:53 <witek> sc
14:15:57 <sc> I'm sending the survey to all the customer I know
14:16:03 <rhochmuth1> thx sc
14:16:04 <witek> cool, thanks
14:16:27 <sc> even the one that are switch from Helion '(
14:16:48 <rhochmuth1> sc: just got your email with the monasca stickers. thx for sending, the team liked them.
14:17:36 <rhochmuth1> sc: which one's are switching from helion, and are they moving to suse?
14:17:43 <rhochmuth1> or something else?
14:17:57 <sc> rhochmuth1: it took a while to get there
14:17:59 <rhochmuth1> maybe that is confidential
14:18:06 <sc> rhochmuth1: SUSE and RH
14:18:21 <rhochmuth1> thx
14:18:28 <sc> rhochmuth1: but at least 2 of them asked to have monasca on RH
14:19:06 <rhochmuth1> sc: that's good news
14:19:53 <sc> I'm studing different ways to deploy (I have lots of code to look at thanks to witek and his colleagues :-) )
14:21:30 <witek> yes, we have ansible roles for RedHat here https://gitlab.com/monasca-installer
14:21:43 <witek> but it was not maintained lately
14:22:44 <witek> also, it's just a mirror of private repos and submodule references do not work, so manual cloning is necessary
14:24:46 <witek> I guess, we can move on
14:26:05 <rhochmuth1> sure
14:26:18 <rhochmuth1> #topic Vote for presentations in Sydney
14:26:27 <rhochmuth1> https://www.openstack.org/summit/sydney-2017/vote-for-speakers/
14:27:26 <witek> we have many Monasca sessions proposed
14:27:40 <witek> everyone wants Australia trip :)
14:27:55 <rhochmuth1> hmm, looks like some intersting sessions
14:28:11 <witek> yes, some are really interesting
14:29:03 <rhochmuth1> yeah, nice to see some names i've never heard of before
14:29:11 <rhochmuth1> if we could only get them to come to our weekly meetings
14:29:26 <rhochmuth1> and start becoming more involved with development
14:29:39 <sc> rhochmuth1: you are invite to this one https://www.openstack.org/summit/sydney-2017/vote-for-speakers/#/19672 ;-)
14:30:24 <rhochmuth1> sc: thanks
14:30:50 <rhochmuth1> i know those folks
14:30:56 <witek> oh no
14:31:01 <witek> :)
14:32:18 <rhochmuth1> #topic Release dates
14:32:56 <rhochmuth1> so, i'm guessing that we are on-track
14:33:13 <witek> I have tagged python-monascaclient for final release
14:33:21 <rhochmuth1> there was a question around py35 support in the monasca-api recently
14:33:32 <witek> the stable branch should be created tomorrow
14:33:52 <rhochmuth1> thx witek
14:34:13 <witek> rhochmuth1: you mean failing the Ocata goal?
14:34:40 <rhochmuth1> right
14:35:24 <witek> well, I guess we have to communicate that we will not manage to do it for agent and api in Ocata release
14:35:55 <witek> they want to see that we work on this and make progress
14:36:41 <rhochmuth1> in pike, isn't this a requirement
14:36:58 <witek> pardon, Pike
14:37:17 <witek> it is the goal, not requirement
14:38:25 <rhochmuth1> i guess we are ok then
14:38:47 <rhochmuth1> #topic monasca presence in service-types-authority
14:38:59 <efried> Howdy folks, sorry to gate-crash, but I happened to notice the meeting and monasca was in my forebrain because of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/486739/ (CC: dhellmann mordred)
14:39:10 <efried> A little background: service-types-authority is a small repository that houses what's supposed to be a definitive/authoritative list of service types known to OpenStack.  Its main component is this file: https://github.com/openstack/service-types-authority/blob/master/service-types.yaml
14:39:20 <efried> Consumers of this repository would be any client of the APIs listed therein.  They can e.g. use it to (programmatically) find the official service type name based on any historical aliases for that service type; or to find the docs for the service.
14:39:33 <efried> While reviewing the aforementioned patch, it came out that monasca actually has three APIs; but there's only one listed in that service-types.yaml.
14:39:39 <efried> So what I think we need is for all three entries to be listed in there.
14:39:46 <efried> Now, I'm led to understand that the doc repositories for these three projects are somewhat in flux, which is fine; but wherever they settle out ought to eventually be reflected in there.
14:39:53 <efried> What would be nice is if someone from the monasca team proposed the patch to the service-types-authority repo, cause it's y'all who know what those three APIs are called, what their aliases might be, where their docs live, etc.
14:40:44 <rhochmuth1> efried: thx
14:40:57 <rhochmuth1> witek: is this something that you can work on?
14:41:34 <witek> yes, I'll add it
14:41:34 <rhochmuth1> or is this at area that tomasz should address
14:41:42 <rhochmuth1> thx witek
14:42:12 <efried> Thanks folks.  Please add me to that review whenever it's up.
14:42:21 <rhochmuth1> efried: thx
14:42:35 <witek> rhochmuth1: how should we name the services?
14:42:44 <efried> Find me in -dev if you have any questions
14:43:11 <witek> efried: thanks
14:43:27 <rhochmuth1> monitoring
14:43:32 <rhochmuth1> logging
14:43:33 <rhochmuth1> events
14:44:01 <rhochmuth1> i think "monitoring" covers it for now
14:44:12 <efried> Please note naming conventions/suggestions in https://github.com/openstack/service-types-authority/blob/master/README.rst
14:44:17 <witek> events is an alias for panko
14:44:25 <rhochmuth1> i see
14:44:43 <efried> And yes, also keep in mind that the names need to be universal and not conflict with others.
14:45:04 <witek> monasca-log-api has monitoring-log-api registered now
14:45:39 <witek> we also have related discussion with Tomasz on that
14:45:48 <witek> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480030/8/api-ref/source/conf.py
14:46:52 <rhochmuth1> service-type should be a generic
14:46:59 <witek> my sugestion for naming would be: monitoring, monasca-log-api, monitoring-events-api
14:47:06 <rhochmuth1> monasca-log-api is as a service ty pe is the same as the project
14:47:17 <witek> s/monasca-log-api/monitoring-log-api
14:47:37 <efried> Do we need -api?
14:47:56 <witek> efried: not really, I guess
14:47:56 <rhochmuth1> no
14:48:27 <efried> For the existing entry, monitoring-log-api, we can move that to an alias and make the official service type `montioring-log` (or `monitoring-logging`)
14:49:01 <witek> +1
14:49:02 <rhochmuth1> monitoring-logging sounds good to me
14:49:08 <rhochmuth1> should we add events?
14:49:41 <rhochmuth1> i types that out and it looked rather long
14:50:06 <efried> Wouldn't worry about length.
14:50:20 <efried> We have e.g. container-infrastructure-management ;-)
14:50:34 <efried> This is for programmatic consumption
14:50:39 <witek> rhochmuth1: you don't like the name, or do you mean we should wait until implementation is ready
14:50:41 <witek> ?
14:50:57 <rhochmuth1> ok, let's just stick with monitoring-logging
14:51:26 <efried> So the official set would be `monitoring`, `monitoring-logging` (+alias `monitoring-log-api`), and `monitoring-events` ?
14:52:01 <witek> sounds good to me
14:52:04 <rhochmuth1> +1
14:52:13 <witek> we could also wait with events until ready, if you prefer
14:52:45 <efried> Probably not a terrible idea.  Not a problem to propose -events in a separate patch later.
14:53:09 <rhochmuth1> waiting until it is ready sounds good to me
14:53:42 <efried> Thanks all.
14:53:45 * efried out
14:53:59 <rhochmuth1> thx
14:54:21 <rhochmuth1> i think we are done with the agenda for today
14:54:31 <rhochmuth1> i'll check on the monasca-persister
14:54:37 <rhochmuth1> to see what folks here think
14:54:40 <witek> could you look at this review?
14:54:47 <witek> https://review.openstack.org/480030
14:55:11 <witek> it's about publishing monasca-api documentation to docs.openstack.org
14:55:28 <rhochmuth1> wow, you are taking care a lot of loose-end, thx
14:55:35 <rhochmuth1> i'll look at it
14:55:56 <witek> rhochmuth1: thanks
14:56:26 <rhochmuth1> should we end for the day then
14:56:34 <rhochmuth1> i have to go vote for some presentations
14:56:39 <witek> :)
14:57:04 <rhochmuth1> #endmeeting