21:35:50 <jaypipes> #startmeeting
21:35:51 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul 12 21:35:50 2011 UTC.  The chair is jaypipes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:35:52 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
21:35:57 <jaypipes> OK, we're back on.
21:36:00 <notmyname> when do keystone and dashboard (incubated projects) start giving reports?
21:36:11 <jaypipes> notmyname: very good question.
21:36:33 <notmyname> I don't have an answer, but I'd love to see at least periodic updates
21:36:38 <jaypipes> notmyname: first off for keystone would be getting the devs at this meeting ;)
21:37:01 <jaypipes> devcamcar: for dashboard, when would you feel comfortable giving status reports in this weekly meeting?
21:37:22 <devcamcar> jaypipes: sure, i'd be happy to do that
21:37:24 <jaypipes> devcamcar: I'm assuming you are the defacto PTL for dashboard?
21:37:39 <devcamcar> jaypipes: indeed
21:38:06 <jaypipes> devcamcar: OK, cool. I'll make sure you're added to the agenda. I'll ping Ziad about Keystone. notmyname, I agree it would be really helpful to get status reports from them both.
21:38:18 <annegentle> Doc meeting roundup: the framework for openstack.org is now available as a Github repo for people who want to fix any bugs they find, https://github.com/toddmorey/openstack-org
21:38:29 <jaypipes> rock on.
21:38:53 <notmyname> annegentle: nice.I found a broken link earlier. who handles that?
21:38:55 <annegentle> We're looking at a staging area for the site as well, working with team CI.
21:39:14 <jaypipes> annegentle: is mtaylor or jeblair working with you on that?
21:39:19 <annegentle> notmyname: we're working on the bug reporting for the site also
21:39:28 <annegentle> jaypipes: yep, both of 'em
21:39:45 <jaypipes> annegentle: do we have a deadline for keystone docbookXML being transferred to openstack-manuals?
21:39:54 <notmyname> annegentle: convirture link on http://openstack.org/community/companies/ is broken
21:39:56 <annegentle> ah, getting to that.
21:40:20 <annegentle> the Keystone Dev Guide is now in incubation, see http://docs.openstack.org/incubation/identitydevguide/content/index.html
21:40:34 <jaypipes> notmyname: so there's this thing on GitHub called Issues...
21:40:38 * jaypipes runs for cover :)
21:40:39 <annegentle> notmyname: yep, reported the broken link via email until we resolve the correct bug reporting system
21:41:23 <jaypipes> annegentle: awesome work on the dev guide for keystone. has the docbookXML already been removed from the GH repo then?
21:41:33 <annegentle> That's all to report I think, meeting logs are always available at http://wiki.openstack.org/Documentation/MeetingLogs.
21:41:58 <annegentle> jaypipes: Ziad will need to do that last removal step I believe. He knows of the need to do that and also knows that the docs are snugly tucked into openstack-manuals.
21:42:04 <jaypipes> annegentle: If you don't mind, I'd like to add your status report to this weekly meeting's agenda as well?
21:42:19 <annegentle> jaypipes: yes, please, I apologize for forgetting to do so.
21:42:30 <jaypipes> annegentle: OK, I can put in a pull request for that; I did the RST docs for keystone anyway...
21:42:33 <annegentle> jaypipes: but there will only be updates from our meeting monthly
21:42:54 <annegentle> jaypipes: right, guess I could do the pull request too but it's probably fast for you to do so
21:42:58 <jaypipes> annegentle: ok, no worries. the status report can be "nothing to tell" :)
21:43:09 <annegentle> jaypipes: ok, add it weekly then, sounds great.
21:43:26 <jaypipes> any other topics for open discussion?
21:43:37 * jaypipes might have had too much coffee today...
21:43:53 <Vek> if we had a "sucks" report, I'd submit launchpad...
21:44:21 <vishy> Vek; :p
21:44:33 <jaypipes> Vek: good to know. I've never heard that before... I'll make a note of it.
21:44:37 <Vek> :)
21:44:48 <jk0> lol
21:45:05 <jaypipes> Oh... I suppose I should give a status report on the GitHub migration...
21:45:08 <jaypipes> So....
21:45:55 <jaypipes> mtaylor and jeblair have the Gerrit server set up and integrated properly with jenkins and GitHub. It's currently being run through a set of tests to verify our review and dev process can be kept as-is while moving all code hosting to GitHub.
21:46:16 <jaypipes> The test server is at http://review.openstack.org for those interested
21:46:22 <jaypipes> the Gerrit server, that is.
21:46:26 <creiht> if we aren't going to use the tools github provides, why not just host our own git?
21:46:57 <Vek> easy forking?
21:47:00 <jaypipes> creiht: sorry, I don't quite follow you... you are referring to GitHub, or changin our dev process to fit GitHub?
21:47:24 <jaypipes> creiht: are you familiar with Gerrit?
21:47:34 <creiht> nm
21:48:12 <jaypipes> creiht: seriously, could you answer my question? We're trying to find a solution here, and if the solution is going to just be met with more criticism, I'd like to know now.
21:48:19 <vishy> creiht: having the code on github makes for a nicer visibility / user experience, even if we don't use it for actual code reviews
21:49:04 <creiht> It seems like if all we are hosting on github is for git, and none of the other advantages that github offers, then why not just host it yourself?
21:49:18 <creiht> if visibility is big enough, then ok
21:49:31 <creiht> just curious
21:49:39 <jaypipes> creiht: having an automted patch queue manager manage merges and not humans is the point...
21:49:45 <soren> One of these days, I wish someone would actually substantiate those sorts of statements ("putting stuff on github is nicer/better/whatever").
21:50:00 <soren> Not now.
21:50:06 * creiht sighs
21:50:09 <jaypipes> Please, I don't want to get into the GH vs. LP debate.
21:50:19 <creiht> that's why I said nm
21:50:25 <creiht> no use in going down this rabbit hole
21:50:26 <vishy> creiht: I'm not a huge fan of gerrit's ui i have to say
21:50:41 <vishy> but I'm hoping that we can improve the integration points
21:50:43 <heckj> I take it that github didn't have anything to offer us in Issues 2.0 that would allow "approval" or positive code review for inclusion?
21:50:46 <jaypipes> this is more about process and review policy than UI.
21:50:47 <soren> jaypipes: I'm just with you in that I don't want to come up with a solution that turns out to be rejected anyway because it's not Github enough.
21:51:11 <jaypipes> heckj: no, it did not.
21:51:11 <soren> jaypipes: And to that end, it would really help if we actually understood the problems we're actually trying to solve.
21:51:12 <vishy> heckj: it isn't quite good enough, we've reached out to them to add the features that we need but no dice so far...
21:51:38 <creiht> It is amazing other large projects can work on it
21:51:40 <creiht> :P
21:51:43 <jaypipes> vishy: we've reached out to them?
21:52:03 <vishy> jaypipes: is it possible to do line comments on github and have them synced somehow into the gerrit review?
21:52:24 <jaypipes> vishy: uh, gerrit supports per-line comments..
21:52:39 <jaypipes> vishy: just double-click on the line...
21:52:41 <vishy> jaypipes: yes, termie has contacted people at gh that he knows to try and get stuff approved
21:53:04 <heckj> jaypipes: I think the point vishy is making is to be able to leverage the GitHub tools that are already in place and reasonably well known
21:53:07 <jaypipes> vishy: really? last I heard termie say "why should they change anything? OpenStack doesn't mean anything to GitHub."
21:53:11 <vishy> jaypipes: i understand that, but the gh ui is much nicer..
21:53:23 <vishy> jaypipes: yes that was because he already tried
21:53:57 <vishy> jaypipes: since gerrit is open source, I'm hoping we can add those types of integrations over time, but I wasn't sure if it was already in there...
21:54:19 <termie> jaypipes: i didn't say "doesn't mean anything" but i did say we aren't their biggest project and are unlikely to decide the direction of their product more than friendly requests can do
21:54:26 <jaypipes> vishy: again, this is about review policy not UI... I get that GitHub is prettier and has a better UX, but this is about the fact that you cannot enforce our review policy with GH Issues. So we either change our review policy, or find a solution (which Gerrit is...)
21:55:02 <soren> What is their biggest project (I'm genuinely curious)?
21:55:20 <jaypipes> soren: please, let's not...
21:55:38 <vishy> jaypipes: I"m not suggesting that we don't use gerrit, i'm suggesting that we could add syncing that would allow us to review/comment in gh issues, and have it synced into the gerrit system for the approval / jenkins portion
21:55:40 <soren> It's a simple question, isn't it? IT even has a verifiable answer.
21:55:42 <soren> But ok.
21:55:47 * soren butts out
21:55:52 <termie> soren: https://github.com/repositories
21:55:55 <jaypipes> vishy: ah, sorry, understood now.
21:55:57 <termie> soren: you can sort that a few ways
21:56:10 <creiht> Who geninely wants to use launchpad (other than those that came from Canonical) (I'm genuinely curious)
21:56:13 <jaypipes> vishy: OK, I will see what jim can do.
21:56:27 <termie> soren: i would guess rails
21:56:27 <jaypipes> oh ffs.
21:56:29 <creiht> that was a retorical question
21:56:37 <vishy> jaypipes: imo this is a post-move feature
21:56:42 <jaypipes> can we please try and keep this constructive?
21:56:47 <vishy> jaypipes: in other words a nice to have
21:57:06 <jaypipes> vishy: it's a nice to have that I want documented as a task for our team to work on...
21:57:16 <jaypipes> vishy: so I'll get it into our redmine..
21:57:35 <jaypipes> alright, anything more on this?
21:58:19 <jaypipes> ok, going once...
21:58:24 <jaypipes> twice...
21:58:31 <creiht> redmine?
21:58:31 <jaypipes> g'day.
21:58:37 <creiht> I hope that is a joke
21:58:49 <jaypipes> creiht: yes... we use redmine for some internal team stuff.
21:59:00 <jaypipes> creiht: and customer-specific projects.
21:59:10 <jaypipes> #endmeeting