14:01:53 <blogan> #startmeeting neutron lbaas
14:01:54 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct 16 14:01:53 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is blogan. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:55 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:57 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_lbaas'
14:02:04 <rm_work> o/
14:02:23 <ptoohill> o/
14:02:47 <johnsom> o/
14:03:00 <blogan> this is probably goign to be a quick meeting
14:03:07 <evgenyf> hi
14:03:10 <blogan> dougwig you around?
14:04:12 <blogan> #topic ssl termination status
14:04:29 <ptoohill> Is evgeny around?
14:04:32 <blogan> evgenyf: you have any updates on this?
14:04:35 <evgenyf> I'm here
14:04:38 <ptoohill> cool
14:04:53 <evgenyf> Just pushed patch with some migration script change
14:05:55 <ptoohill> Awesome!
14:06:05 <evgenyf> is there update for Barbican integration?
14:06:32 <ptoohill> rm_work ^ ?
14:06:58 <ptoohill> I know hes been updating specs/white boards, not sure about actual code as of yet
14:07:14 <rm_work> err
14:07:18 <ptoohill> but
14:07:22 <rm_work> yeah, so basically it is done
14:07:26 <ptoohill> awesome!
14:07:28 <rm_work> but
14:07:37 <blogan> done with trusts?
14:07:39 <rm_work> python-barbicanclient v3 isn't released yet
14:07:42 <ptoohill> o
14:07:52 <rm_work> so it only works with the version from github
14:07:58 <evgenyf> Is barbican out of incubation?
14:08:02 <rm_work> also no
14:08:18 <blogan> is it being out of incubation a requirement for us to use?
14:08:23 <rm_work> ALSO ALSO, as blogan points out, it is currently implemented with Keystone Trusts
14:08:53 <rm_work> which will not actually be what we use, it is now looking like we will use a different mechanism to share user secrets
14:09:07 <rm_work> Barbican is working to implement a system internally to accomodate us better
14:09:24 <blogan> ah that would be great
14:09:24 <ptoohill> Rackspace internal?
14:09:35 <rm_work> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127353/
14:09:41 <rm_work> no
14:09:55 <ptoohill> oh
14:10:13 <rm_work> just internal to barbican, instead of relying on keystone
14:10:28 <ptoohill> gotcha
14:10:32 <rm_work> so yeah, this is good news
14:10:38 <rm_work> should be much less complicated
14:10:55 <blogan> will that be done by kilo?
14:10:58 <blogan> any idea?
14:11:08 <rm_work> so I guess I should revise to "barbican integration is there, but will be changing again" >_>
14:11:14 <rm_work> blogan: targetted for kilo yes
14:11:39 <rm_work> I'll probably be the one that ends up writing it
14:11:48 <blogan> no
14:11:51 <rm_work> whether during work hours or not >_>
14:12:06 <blogan> they're using you!
14:12:19 <blogan> only jorgem can use you
14:12:21 <rm_work> anyway, that's my update on that
14:12:26 <blogan> okay
14:12:27 <ptoohill> Eh, we really want this out, it is what it is, do what we gotta do
14:12:56 <blogan> #topic v2 reviews
14:13:02 <blogan> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123468/
14:13:14 <blogan> still need to get +1 (and more importantly, +2's) on that review
14:13:20 <blogan> +1's will make it more visible though
14:13:43 <blogan> markmcclain, mestery: any chance we can get the first +2 on that soon? if one of you are around
14:13:57 <ptoohill> I need to update this a bit also, if its still something we care to work on. The barbican integration points in the plugin most likely need tweaking with rm_works changes. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126381/
14:13:59 <mestery> blogan: I'll take a peek sir!
14:14:01 <evgenyf> blogan: What is the policy for approving patch set in branch? Should it be just one +2?
14:14:20 <blogan> evgenyf: still two +2's
14:14:36 <blogan> evgenyf: then benefit is that the feature does not need to be fully complete
14:14:37 <mestery> blogan: markmcclain is on vacation today/tomorrow, I'll work with another core to get this in
14:14:51 <blogan> mestery: thanks mestery
14:14:55 <blogan> lol
14:14:58 <blogan> too early for me
14:15:15 <mestery> lol
14:15:16 <ptoohill> :P
14:16:34 <blogan> #topic open discussion
14:16:49 <evgenyf> blogan: I meesed some previous meetings, what is the procedure of merging the LBaaS v2 package back to master when it's ready?
14:16:55 <evgenyf> *missed
14:17:43 <blogan> evgenyf: there's still a "graduation" process, so it will still need to be approved by core reviewers and it must be complete
14:18:43 <evgenyf> blogan: will there be a need to make new change sets on master branch and abondon current change sets?
14:19:25 <blogan> evgenyf: you mean another huge review on master with everything implemented in the feature branch?
14:19:50 <evgenyf> yes
14:20:17 <rm_work> i feel like that's what they've bought for themselves with this <_<
14:20:22 <blogan> i believe they'll just merge the branches, but that I am sure is subject to change because that can bring up merging nightmares, especially with migrations
14:20:58 <rm_work> welcome to the largest review in history, as we do a review for a merge of our entire branch
14:21:11 <evgenyf> migrations sequence cana be changes according to master just before the merge
14:21:25 <blogan> from what I can tell there is no concrete process, we're probably the guinea pigs on this
14:21:36 <evgenyf> :(
14:21:38 <rm_work> yeah I imagine we'll have to pull new code from master into our branch periodically
14:21:53 <TrevorV> rm_work which arguably should be done anyway
14:21:54 <blogan> yeah and I believe markmcclain said he'd be the one who does that
14:23:57 <blogan> anything else anyone wants to bring up?
14:24:48 <blogan> alright
14:24:54 <blogan> thanks for coming, have a good day
14:24:57 <blogan> #endmeeting