13:59:40 <fifieldt> #startmeeting ops tags
13:59:41 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jul 21 13:59:40 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is fifieldt. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:59:43 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:59:45 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ops_tags'
13:59:51 <fifieldt> Anyone here for the ops tags team meeting?
14:00:04 * fifieldt waits 5 minutes
14:01:46 <shamail> hi!
14:02:21 <fifieldt> hi shamail :)
14:02:38 <fifieldt> I kicked off the meetbot stuff already, so we're being logged :)
14:02:38 <shamail> I hope you’ve been well fifieldt
14:02:46 <fifieldt> for the most part :)
14:02:54 <fifieldt> ask sparkycollier about the ailments :)
14:03:04 <shamail> will do !
14:03:10 <fifieldt> and yourself?
14:03:41 <shamail> Pretty good, been extremely busy but going away tomorrow for a week
14:03:45 <shamail> looking forward to it
14:03:50 <fifieldt> saw that, congratulations!
14:03:53 <shamail> thanks
14:04:17 <fifieldt> shall we smash through this meeting so you're ever closer to your holiday?
14:04:36 <shamail> That would be great
14:04:38 <shamail> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2016-July/011070.html
14:04:43 <fifieldt> #topic Review Open Changes
14:04:47 <fifieldt> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ops-tags-team,n,z
14:04:56 <fifieldt> so, we have 3 open changes
14:05:11 <shamail> aye
14:05:11 <fifieldt> for the install guide, a new tag for HA and a new tag for containerizable
14:05:21 <fifieldt> the latter two haven't made progress for a couple of months
14:05:46 <fifieldt> the install guide is a nice improvement to allow recognition of more ways that install guides can be provided
14:05:47 <shamail> I do have a question on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200128/
14:05:58 <fifieldt> ya
14:06:01 <shamail> but we can come back to it since install guide is the most important
14:06:18 <fifieldt> at your option, sir
14:06:37 <shamail> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/341933/
14:06:47 <shamail> so I did see your latest comment on this one
14:07:11 <shamail> I was hesitant for similar reasons originally but you described it so much better
14:07:19 <fifieldt> ok
14:07:35 <fifieldt> to paraphrase briefly what I think the intent behind this change is:
14:07:49 <shamail> I was worried about the fact that there are other docs available (from distros) and we wouldn’t necessarily want to lose that information
14:07:58 <fifieldt> If a project goes to the effort to make an install guide, the tag should recognise it
14:08:06 <shamail> +1
14:08:38 <fifieldt> the tag as currently written does not allow a project which has made a guide using source, rather than packages, to attain the tag
14:08:51 <fifieldt> That's a problem for new projects and creates a catch-22 situation
14:09:07 <fifieldt> since distros are only likely to package more 'mature'/'adopted' projects
14:09:15 <shamail> Did the solution we discussed in Austin (but haven’t implemented) help solve for this?
14:09:18 <fifieldt> and users might only adopt a project if there's an install guide
14:09:32 <shamail> We had discussed creating a way to link the various guides
14:09:48 <fifieldt> For new projects, if they do go to the nontrivial effort of  making a decent install guide
14:10:03 <fifieldt> we're standing in their way of getting a tick :)
14:10:13 <shamail> Agreed
14:10:17 <fifieldt> So I think this proposal at its heart is a good one
14:10:29 <fifieldt> However the current implementation needs some tweaks
14:10:31 <fifieldt> hence that comment
14:10:33 <fifieldt> anyway
14:10:38 <fifieldt> what _did_ we say in Austin? :D
14:10:45 <fifieldt> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/AUS-ops-Ops-tags
14:11:07 <shamail> lines 12-14
14:11:09 <fifieldt> so we want to provide links to the guides from the tag
14:11:43 <shamail> Yeah, this would allow us to list an install guide as “available” and then link to source even
14:11:53 <fifieldt> yup
14:12:08 <fifieldt> our syntax there is actually broad enough that it isn't locked to specific distros which is good, I guess
14:12:37 <shamail> Yeah, the reason for going this route was due to keeping the parsing rather simple for navigator
14:12:42 <fifieldt> Indeed
14:12:49 <fifieldt> It was a request from the designers of the Project Navigator that we did have install guide links
14:13:01 <fifieldt> but as you note, syntax needs to be simple
14:13:18 <fifieldt> and I think we concluded in Austin that "link" attributes could either be a string or a list
14:13:27 <fifieldt> and that would mean we could generalise the syntax
14:13:29 <shamail> Yep!
14:13:37 <fifieldt> phew, I feel caught up now
14:13:48 <shamail> We were supposed to research whether using the same key multiple times is valid JSON
14:13:57 <fifieldt> ah, yes
14:14:21 <fifieldt> OK
14:14:33 <fifieldt> so, but does that linking have bearing on this current patch we've got open?
14:14:59 <fifieldt> I suppose in the way that if the patch as currently proposed went in, it would prevent that from happening?
14:15:10 <shamail> The combination of the two changes (your comment in the review) along with adding links (to any source) is probably an ideal solution since it allows docs-team to focus on supported projects but allows new teams to create guides and users will still find them
14:15:19 <shamail> I think so
14:15:27 <fifieldt> ok
14:15:33 <shamail> due to the definition being limited to “Guide exists, for all doc-team supported releases,”
14:15:54 <fifieldt> so, just thinking about how not to confuse the lovely people who are working on the current patch (yay contributors!)
14:16:23 <fifieldt> do you think waiting for a reply to my latest comment is the best course for now, and if that is accepted and we go on to merge ... then we can start workiong on the link stuff?
14:16:31 <shamail> +1
14:16:52 <shamail> I think we should ask the team on this patch to let us be broader in what defines “available”
14:17:12 <fifieldt> right, because there has to be some level of quality
14:17:12 <shamail> then we (ops tags) will do the work on the actual tag for Mitaka+ to change its format and add the source links
14:17:30 <fifieldt> making a blank document entitled "Install Guide" could be seen as being "available" if not :P
14:17:37 <fifieldt> right
14:17:42 <shamail> lol true
14:18:06 <fifieldt> ok, so this one seems wrapped up?
14:18:10 <shamail> +1
14:18:21 <fifieldt> you mentioned the HA tag just now?
14:19:09 <shamail> Yes so for the HA tag, I had updated the tag description before the summit and I think most people agreed with it.  The -1 currently there is for the tag as defined for Kilo.
14:19:44 <shamail> I wanted to ask whether it makes sense to change this patch to include the tag description and build a new tag for Mitaka (with notmyname’s feedback included as well)
14:20:11 <fifieldt> re-reading the tag description now
14:20:36 <fifieldt> so, again we rely on our friends in the doc team
14:20:43 <fifieldt> it's either HA guide, no docs, or not HA
14:20:48 <fifieldt> I think that works
14:21:18 <fifieldt> The tag application process bit might be able to do with some boilerplate copypasta from more recent stuff
14:21:23 <fifieldt> but generally, I think it works?
14:21:31 <fifieldt> the caveats listed in the kilo file are good
14:21:34 <shamail> Essentially the tag relates HA Guide and general advertised capabilities by the project itself
14:21:34 <fifieldt> and look maintainable
14:21:39 <fifieldt> right
14:22:08 <shamail> Yep
14:22:23 <fifieldt> cool
14:22:32 <fifieldt> Think maishsk is interested in updating?
14:22:34 <shamail> When we update, I will add the cross project liaisons as reviewers so they can re-affirm the caveats
14:22:39 <fifieldt> yay
14:22:39 <shamail> or challenge them if things have changed
14:23:02 <fifieldt> feedback is excellent
14:23:15 <fifieldt> ok, so ... next?
14:23:26 <shamail> I can ask him when I speak with him, I had done the last update since it was last touched in 7/2015
14:23:33 <fifieldt> righto
14:23:52 <shamail> one topic left: revisit tags discussed in Austin and build an action plan
14:23:59 <fifieldt> #topic Revisit tags discussed in Austin and build an action plan
14:24:02 <fifieldt> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/AUS-ops-Ops-tags
14:24:08 <shamail> or at least determine which ones are still interesting now
14:24:21 <fifieldt> the distro status one was a good one
14:24:28 <shamail> So we had discussed a SDK tag, production-use, and distro status
14:24:41 <shamail> fifieldt: +1, we spent a good amount of time on it and had a good working plan
14:24:46 <fifieldt> I suspect if we got the structure up for distro status, our distro friends would provide the data
14:24:58 <shamail> Totally agree
14:25:17 <shamail> I can bring it up at the product WG meeting with the product managers from the distros
14:25:28 <fifieldt> yeah, sucking in some resources would be nice
14:25:35 <fifieldt> needs a bit of education though :)
14:25:37 <fifieldt> up for that? :P
14:25:58 <shamail> Yep, this tag will be really useful once it gets in
14:26:12 <fifieldt> sweet
14:26:39 <fifieldt> was the SDK tag a new tag, or just asking for something we can automate?
14:26:42 <shamail> SDK tag is already there
14:26:46 <fifieldt> ya
14:26:51 <shamail> but there were a couple of things:
14:27:21 <shamail> 1) Could we update it to include source links for SDK documentation (if it exists) similar to what we are considering for install guide
14:27:44 <maishsk> Did I hear my name?
14:27:50 <fifieldt> we miss you maishsk :)
14:28:02 <shamail> 2) The other thing we had discussed was trying to get the data source for SDKs in a public space so we can automate the tag creation in the future (right now, projects have to tell us or we have to use a google doc)
14:28:10 <shamail> Hi maishsk!
14:28:24 <fifieldt> for #1 it's a bit of a challenge. Take a look at the links at http://developer.openstack.org/ :)
14:28:41 <fifieldt> #2 yes, the AppEcoWG should totally do this for us :)
14:29:00 <shamail> Agreed on #2!
14:29:28 <shamail> I see what you mean with the links…
14:29:35 <raghu_> hi
14:29:44 <shamail> there is no common documentation type (e.g. getting started, API doc, etc.)
14:29:47 <shamail> hi raghu_
14:29:52 <fifieldt> yeah
14:30:18 <shamail> We can skip this idea for now
14:30:24 <fifieldt> ok
14:30:41 <shamail> maybe revisit after we get help on #2 :)
14:30:45 <fifieldt> +1
14:31:04 <raghu_> are any one having knowledge on heat template launching
14:31:05 <shamail> That’s pretty much all I had.
14:31:15 <fifieldt> and me too
14:31:33 <fifieldt> since it's just us, perhaps we can close early :)
14:31:36 <shamail> raghu_: Do you have a general question about using heat?  I would recommend the #openstack channel
14:31:53 <shamail> Sounds good fifieldt
14:32:02 <fifieldt> alrighty then
14:32:03 <shamail> I did want to comment on the AUC stuff before you leave
14:32:06 <fifieldt> #endmeeting