22:00:55 <danwent> #startmeeting
22:00:56 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec  6 22:00:55 2011 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:00:57 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
22:01:09 <danwent> #link  Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings
22:01:24 <danwent> #status melange status
22:01:29 <danwent> #topic melange status
22:01:33 <danwent> man, did it again :)
22:01:44 <danwent> I need to stop typing exactly what I'm thinking
22:01:45 <danwent> troy?
22:02:03 <troytoman> have the code in github/gettit now
22:02:18 <troytoman> spent this week working on docs and notifications
22:02:20 <danwent> is gettit like gerrit but doesn't suck?
22:02:42 <troytoman> unfortunately it still sucks. just more tolerant of typos
22:02:47 <danwent> :)
22:03:07 <troytoman> we're hoping to cut an initial release as close to E-2 as possible.
22:03:12 <danwent> btw, on the docs.  are you planning any kind of an "admin guide" (per Anne Gentel's email?)
22:03:25 <danwent> wow, sweet.  that's a great turn-around time.
22:03:42 <troytoman> I would say I intend to do one. but don't have it planned :-)
22:04:06 <troytoman> i think most of the basic functionality we view as necessary is now there.
22:04:10 <danwent> fair enough.  when you do, definitely get a oxygen license from Anneā€¦ makes creating docbook much easier
22:04:19 <troytoman> ok
22:04:41 <troytoman> otherwise, we would love to get more feedback and involvement if anyone is interested.
22:04:54 <danwent> great, and to confirm, the right place for people to ask questions is on launchpad: https://answers.launchpad.net/melange
22:05:23 <troytoman> yes. already had our first question asked and answered.
22:05:32 <danwent> sweet!
22:05:46 <danwent> anything else on melange?  any questions?
22:06:17 <danwent> #topic quantum status
22:06:31 <danwent> Ok, a lot of get done for essex-2, which branches in a week.
22:06:57 <danwent> Particularly, we have a lot of reviews to take care of.  Salv's framework review just needs ying and I to do a quick re-review.
22:07:09 <danwent> but there's also the operational status code, which just arrived for review
22:07:28 <danwent> #link: please focus on reviews for e-2: https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:openstack/quantum,n,z
22:07:45 <danwent> as well as a host of other smaller reviews for bugs we need squashed.
22:08:06 <danwent> any reviews folks feel a need to call out in partcular?
22:08:36 <salv> api-framework-essex is still out for review...
22:08:40 <bhall> a few of the ones in the list you just pointed to are small
22:09:11 <danwent> salv: yup.  I will re-review, and hopefully ying can as well.  Your changes since last review were pretty small right?  I remember only minor nits on the code.
22:09:52 <salv> The diff between the last two changsets is less than 20 lines
22:10:00 <danwent> sweet
22:10:01 <danwent> salv:  thanks for sending out email on operational status.  Anything else to add on that feature.  To confirm, we're pushing API filters to e-3, so no need to review.
22:10:33 <salv> confirming filters for e-3. Discussion to be started on mailing list this week.
22:10:48 <danwent> great, thanks.
22:10:51 <salv> Operational status is not yet explicitly supported in CLI.
22:11:02 <danwent> I see carlp lurking, not sure if he's around
22:11:03 <salv> But that's another story...
22:11:32 <danwent> salv: yes, agreed with that point on the email.
22:12:08 <danwent> Ok, on the jenkins setup, I haven't heard back from carlp and the bug was stuck in "unknown", so I'm bumping that item and my bug blocked on it to e-3, thought I'd REALLY love to get jenkins up and running soon.
22:12:32 <danwent> #TODO  #danwent contact #carlp about jenkins integration for quantum
22:12:51 <danwent> bhall, nova-parity for L3, NAT, and metadata server are in nova now, correct?
22:13:03 <bhall> all in
22:13:13 <danwent> great.
22:13:28 <danwent> I will be bugging you about documenting that as well :)
22:13:38 <danwent> in the admin guide
22:13:47 <bhall> ok, no prob
22:14:03 <danwent> Is edgar here?
22:14:13 <edgarmagana> I am here!
22:14:51 <danwent> Hi, can you give an update on your blueprint?  status is still 'started' and branching date is one week out.  if its a big patch, may be hard to review in time.
22:15:13 <edgarmagana> i have the code almost ready
22:15:31 <edgarmagana> keep testing some functionality, this is not conflicting with any other module, so it should be an easy review
22:15:40 <danwent> ok, great.
22:15:56 <danwent> best to have tests included as well, if possible.
22:16:22 <edgarmagana> of course, wait for the check in between today and tomorrow
22:16:30 <danwent> great
22:16:53 <danwent> and finally, there are a LOT of open bugs for e-2.  this is a good thing, as it means people are really using (and breaking quantum)
22:17:32 <danwent> hopefully a lot of them are already in review, but if there's a bug assigned to you, please update it indicating that you are still targeting for e-2, or move it to e-3 if you won't make it.
22:17:49 <danwent> Any critical issues anyone needs to call out?
22:18:19 <danwent> Ok, that should be it for e-2.  There are a couple other issues in the agenda for quantum
22:18:55 <danwent> first, as discussed last week with mtaylor, we need to figure out our strategy for whether we are going to split quantum into multiple repos.
22:19:49 <salv> before deciding on a strategy let's decide whether we want to split the repos or not! :)
22:20:02 <mtaylor> danwent: re that: we've got openstack.common going now - so perhaps quantum.common can live there?
22:20:03 <danwent> we can have the detailed discussion on the ML, but the high-level options seem to be (1) keep as is, all one repo (2) split into two repos, client and server, but potentially duplicate the little bits of shared code and (3) split into three repos, client, server, and common
22:20:09 <salv> Splitting in which way exactly? client and server components?
22:20:30 <danwent> mtaylor: I was thinking something very similar myself, if we decide to go with #2
22:20:57 <danwent> salv: up for discussion
22:21:14 <danwent> #TODO: #danwent, start ML thread for splitting repos, include #mtaylor as well
22:21:17 <bhall> my vote is for #2  (client and "the rest")
22:21:19 <mtaylor> #2 with some elements in openstack.common would be the thing that matches the other projects more closely
22:21:55 <danwent> if anyone else wants to comment now, go ahead, otherwise i'll forward this content to start a thead on the ML
22:22:58 <danwent> on an unrelated topic, there was some confusion in a blog post that I wanted to clarify.  Quantum applied for incubation status just prior to the Essex development period, so Quantum will not be "core" for the main Essex release.
22:23:16 <bhall> do you have a link to the blog post?
22:23:18 <danwent> we can (and I think should) apply to be core for the F-series.
22:23:49 <danwent> http://robhirschfeld.com/2011/12/06/openstack-cloud-seattle-hp-dell-rackspace-meetup-notes/#comment-1686
22:23:57 <danwent> Rob was nice enough to correct this already.
22:23:58 <bhall> gracias
22:25:01 <danwent> and lastly, I just started a thead on the ML to discuss whether we should consider shifting to more standardized HTTP error code for our API.  wwkeyboard mentioned this during the nova meeting.
22:25:20 <danwent> Ok, any other discussion for Quantum, or open discussion?
22:25:35 <salv> Thanks for sending email on the ML for error codes.
22:25:53 <salv> This was one of my dilemmas during the implementation of API 1.0
22:25:56 <danwent> salv: I wasn't sure of the original motivation, so I guessed.  If I was wrong, please correct me.
22:26:57 <salv> motivation is more than correct, but it is also true that people don't want to mess with codes they don't understand. Anyway, I'm more than happy to tackle this issue,
22:27:22 <danwent> salv:  great.  and wwkeyboard said he might pitch in as well.
22:27:40 <salv> That would be great
22:27:53 <wwkeyboard> danwent: salv, I'm brewing an response email with some suggestions,
22:28:01 <danwent> Ok, so please review, review, review this week, and don't forget to participate in the ML discussions.
22:28:15 <wwkeyboard> I'd like to continue the discussion, but I don't have answers for all of those status codes
22:28:17 <danwent> Also, I should point out that somik sent an email out for review on a simple Authz proposal
22:28:29 <salv> wwkeyboard: thanks!
22:28:42 <danwent> and that debo-os is planning on sending one out soon on nova-parity-vpn work.
22:28:46 <danwent> k, have a good week folks!
22:29:00 <danwent> #endmeeting