21:01:44 <markmc> #startmeeting project
21:01:45 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 28 21:01:44 2012 UTC.  The chair is markmc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:01:46 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:01:47 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'project'
21:01:56 <bcwaldon> markmc: I'm here!
21:02:00 <markmc> ttx has put me in charge, run away :)
21:02:03 <markmc> bcwaldon, thanks
21:02:03 <jgriffith> Howdy
21:02:07 <gabrielhurley> markmc: I'll be representing Horizon today.
21:02:08 <markmc> who else?
21:02:17 <markmc> gabrielhurley, cool
21:02:34 <markmc> heckj, vishy, notmyname, ?
21:02:35 <annegentle> o/
21:02:46 <markmc> #info We are under FeatureFreeze for everything but Swift, so please take extra care in reviews
21:02:46 <markmc> #info Core reviewers should flag changes that add a new feature, modify the behavior without fixing a bug, modify translatable strings or add/modify a configuration option
21:02:46 <markmc> #link http://wiki.openstack.org/FolsomReleaseSchedule
21:02:49 <heckj> o/
21:02:53 <vishy> o/
21:02:54 <notmyname> here
21:02:58 <markmc> awesome
21:03:00 <markmc> #topic Actions from previous meeting
21:03:07 <markmc> ok, these were all project specific
21:03:13 <markmc> will cover them in the project sections
21:03:22 <markmc> oh ... anyone with time constraints that want to go first?
21:03:38 <markmc> ok
21:03:38 <markmc> #topic Keystone status
21:03:45 <markmc> action - heckj to go through keystone buglist and target release blockers to RC1 where appropriate
21:03:52 <heckj> will do
21:04:01 <markmc> looks like you've made progress on that?
21:04:05 <heckj> currently working against a security fix that will be going in (and backported to essex/stable)
21:04:08 <markmc> that was last weeks action
21:04:15 <markmc> cool
21:04:20 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:04:23 <heckj> reviewed, but doing it each week to keep track of new bugs reported
21:04:37 <markmc> cool
21:04:48 <markmc> there's a bunch of high priority bugs not targeted
21:04:56 <markmc> should any of those be targeted to rc1?
21:05:13 <heckj> markmc: many of those can't be resolved without API changes I'm afraid
21:05:30 <markmc> heckj, ah, interesting
21:05:48 <markmc> heckj, incompat API changes, or just API additions?
21:05:53 <heckj> we've got two criticals that are in flight - those will be targeted
21:05:59 <heckj> incompat API changes
21:06:05 <markmc> ah
21:06:14 <markmc> we've been talking about how to handle them for nova too
21:06:26 <markmc> maybe a blueprint for the next major API version to coallate them
21:06:39 <markmc> would be nice to figure out how to get them off the high priority list
21:06:46 <heckj> markmc - that's exactly where we have them targetted now - feature branch is in progress with V3 API to resolve
21:06:55 <markmc> cool, ok
21:07:08 <markmc> anything else of concern?
21:07:16 <markmc> solid progress towards rc1?
21:07:20 <markmc> any help needed?
21:07:53 <heckj> uncertain of the doc status for deployment style documentation - need to review that deeply. Could definitely use some help there
21:08:05 <markmc> heckj, got a link?
21:08:09 <heckj> i believe raphael has been doing some of that
21:08:20 * heckj looking
21:08:35 <annegentle> #help keystone deployment style documentation needed
21:08:48 <heckj> yeah - no blueprint or link
21:08:48 <markmc> thanks annegentle :)
21:08:54 * markmc moves on
21:08:57 <markmc> thanks heckj
21:08:58 <markmc> #topic Swift status
21:09:01 <markmc> notmyname, hey
21:09:04 <notmyname> hi
21:09:08 <markmc> last weeks action - notmyname to send an email to openstack-dev with 2.0 thoughts
21:09:13 <markmc> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-August/000919.html
21:09:17 <markmc> that's it ^^ ?
21:09:20 <notmyname> yup, done
21:09:26 <markmc> cool
21:09:34 <markmc> so 1.7.0 targetted mid september?
21:10:08 <notmyname> tentatively schedule for sept 13 for the folsom RC. I'm not sure how QA will go. but QA takes priority over the date
21:10:35 <markmc> cool, ok
21:10:43 <notmyname> "how it will go" == "potential scheduling difficulty"
21:10:48 <markmc> how far could QA push the date out potentially? a week? more?
21:11:07 <markmc> also, planning on adding a milestone page and targeting bugs etc. ?
21:11:18 * markmc isn't sure if swift uses such things
21:11:46 <notmyname> I don't know right now. since the QA is RAX internal for now, it's up to the internal schedules of RAX cloud files team
21:11:47 * annegentle notes last week's hint at a 1.6.1 from ttx
21:12:10 <annegentle> 21:15:40 <ttx> if there are so many changes it might make sense to include 1.6.1 in Folsom
21:12:22 <markmc> ah, good point
21:12:29 <markmc> notmyname, is that feasible as a backup plan?
21:12:38 <annegentle> does anyone here know if 1.7 is acceptable by packagers?
21:12:42 <notmyname> as of right now, folsom would include either 1.6.0 or 1.7.0 with a strong preference to 1.7
21:12:52 <notmyname> there is no such thing yet as 1.6.1
21:13:26 <markmc> likely to have a more clear picture next week?
21:14:20 <notmyname> I would hope so
21:14:31 <markmc> at some point soon I guess we'd have to just say it'll be 1.6.0
21:14:40 <markmc> since folks will need some notice of what to expect in folsom
21:14:51 <markmc> ok, revisit next week then
21:14:55 <markmc> anything else?
21:15:29 <notmyname> I don't think so.
21:15:41 <markmc> ok, thanks
21:15:44 <markmc> #topic Glance status
21:15:49 <markmc> mr bcwaldon
21:15:54 <bcwaldon> markmc: yes sir
21:15:56 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:16:09 <markmc> glance seems in good shape?
21:16:16 <bcwaldon> markmc: yes, very
21:16:28 <bcwaldon> I could use some help on the oustanding review, though!
21:16:33 <bcwaldon> reviews*
21:16:33 <bcwaldon> !
21:16:46 <markmc> #help glance needs review help!
21:16:58 <markmc> bug #1039818 has no assignee - is that something you'd like nova folks to handle?
21:16:58 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1039818 in glance "v2 API should provide image properties Nova depends on" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1039818
21:17:25 <bcwaldon> markmc: if somebody wants to take it on, I'd be more than happy
21:17:43 <markmc> #help someone from nova could help with bug #1039818
21:17:50 * markmc hands gold star to bcwaldon
21:17:53 <markmc> anything else?
21:17:56 <bcwaldon> markmc: aw, thanks
21:17:58 <bcwaldon> markmc: not from me
21:18:02 <markmc> cool
21:18:09 <markmc> #topic Quantum status
21:18:17 <markmc> last weeks actions ...
21:18:19 <markmc> danwent/ttx to discuss XML support FFE status
21:18:19 <markmc> danwent and team to triage all bugs and build the RC bug list
21:18:27 <markmc> danwent, oh hai - forgot to ask are you there?
21:18:29 <danwent> done and one
21:18:31 <danwent> done
21:18:36 <danwent> i am now :)
21:18:39 <markmc> cool
21:18:45 <markmc> so no FFE for XML support?
21:19:07 <danwent> nope.  we did a purge of a lot of things that were iffy yesterday so we could focus on core functionality and docs
21:19:11 <danwent> that was one of the victims
21:19:14 <markmc> #info no FFE for XML support
21:19:16 <markmc> ok
21:19:18 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:19:25 <markmc> only one bp remaining ... test-agent?
21:19:54 <danwent> yes, an that is testing only, so not a big deal.  we need it to get better devstack coverage though, which is why we're keeping it in folsom
21:20:04 <danwent> there is one bug that i wanted to highlight though: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1039400
21:20:05 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1039400 in quantum "nova security groups issues with quantum-v2-api integration" [Critical,Confirmed]
21:20:23 <danwent> the complexity of the interaction between quantum + nova security groups is worse than we thought
21:20:54 <danwent> Salvatore is working on this.  The change should be contained to quantum-specific code in nova, but I wanted to give the nova folks a heads up
21:21:44 <markmc> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1039400 - nova security groups issues with quantum-v2-api integration
21:21:56 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1039400 in quantum "nova security groups issues with quantum-v2-api integration" [Critical,Confirmed]
21:22:00 <markmc> ok, a bit much to digest at first glance, but sounds scary
21:22:07 <markmc> eta on patches?
21:22:20 <danwent> hoping by thursday
21:22:25 <markmc> ok
21:22:31 <markmc> how bad is it if it doesn't make it?
21:22:37 <danwent> pretty bad :)
21:22:52 <markmc> yeah, especially since this is the first release with quantum in core
21:22:57 <danwent> yup.
21:23:03 <markmc> anything else of concern on the nova integration front?
21:23:10 <danwent> this is very do-able, i just feel bad b/c nova core devs will have to reivew
21:23:10 * markmc sees some good discussion on-list
21:23:43 <danwent> other than that, docs are actually my biggest concern
21:24:01 <markmc> quantum docs in general, or nova/quantum integration docs?
21:24:20 <danwent> quantum docs in general.  so much has changed since essex.
21:24:34 <danwent> garyk, salvatore and I are point on this.
21:24:47 <markmc> ok, and you're looking for more help?
21:24:51 <annegentle> danwent: you do have a nice outline going for the admin docs. But I share your concerns, esp. since nova-network has to remain documented in the Compute Admin guide.
21:25:06 <danwent> annegentle: agreed.
21:25:21 <annegentle> danwent: your API guide looks to be in good shape, is that a  good assessment?
21:25:26 <danwent> markmc: i'll be pinging core devs for help on sections that they wrote the feature
21:25:30 <danwent> just mentioning it as a risk
21:25:41 <markmc> ok, thanks
21:25:43 <danwent> annegentle: yes, salv-orlando rocked on that one.
21:25:57 <danwent> this is more admin guide that i'm concerned about.  install, setup, basic use cases, etc.
21:26:01 <markmc> on the test-agent bp, are you looking to extend FFE by another week?
21:26:08 <annegentle> #help admin and deployment docs for Quantum needed (install, setup, basic use cases, etc.)
21:26:13 <markmc> FFE technically ends today
21:26:19 <markmc> but as you said, it's for testing
21:26:21 <danwent> no.  i've told nati that it has to be merged by thursday, or its out.
21:26:27 <markmc> ok, good
21:26:41 <markmc> anything else?
21:26:49 <danwent> not that i can think of
21:26:53 <gabrielhurley> quick note related to quantum-nova integration, this review is blocking a possible FFE blueprint for horizon (public network support): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/11796/  I know people are working on it, I just wanted to call it out.
21:27:32 <danwent> gabrielhurley: thanks for pointing that out
21:27:55 <markmc> #info https://review.openstack.org/#/c/11796/ blocking horizon's public network support
21:28:26 <markmc> ok
21:28:29 * markmc moves on
21:28:36 <markmc> #topic Cinder status
21:28:44 <markmc> last weeks action ...
21:28:44 <jgriffith> :)
21:28:45 <markmc> jgriffith and Cinder team to triage new bugs and come up with a list of release blockers
21:28:57 <markmc> looks like you've done some of that?
21:29:01 <jgriffith> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1038062
21:29:02 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1038062 in cinder "TgtAdm is broken" [Undecided,In progress]
21:29:13 <jgriffith> That's the last blocker (for now)
21:29:30 <markmc> jgriffith, blocker but unprioritized and not targeted? :)
21:29:30 <jgriffith> We're closer, but not where I want it yet
21:29:40 <jgriffith> markmc: Doh.. fixing now
21:29:42 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:30:03 <jgriffith> done
21:30:11 <markmc> #info https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1038062 "TgtAdm is broken" is a blocker
21:30:12 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1038062 in cinder "TgtAdm is broken" [Critical,Confirmed]
21:30:22 <markmc> jgriffith, how concerned are you about #1038062?
21:30:41 <jgriffith> I'll have it fixed in the next 24 hours
21:30:51 <jgriffith> Just how much it's going to take to fix it
21:30:54 <markmc> ok, cool
21:30:59 <jgriffith> I may end up dropping the iscsi_targets table
21:31:05 <jgriffith> depending on the screams that result
21:31:20 <markmc> implications of dropping the table?
21:31:24 <jgriffith> I should probably get with vishy offline and advice
21:31:34 <jgriffith> Means changing the way we manage iscsi connections
21:31:46 <jgriffith> specifically the delete aspect
21:32:01 <jgriffith> trouble is the new persistent targets won't let us specify a tid on creation
21:32:22 <markmc> ok, not following the detail here
21:32:33 <jgriffith> So in a nutshell:
21:32:36 <markmc> hope we have something figured out by next week, sounds scary
21:33:01 <jgriffith> I have it figured out, just hoping to find a less disruptive fix
21:33:05 <markmc> doh
21:33:22 <gabrielhurley> markmc: lol... so scary you had to leave? ;-)
21:33:26 <jgriffith> LOL
21:33:29 <markmc> heh
21:33:37 * markmc blames gnome :)
21:33:45 <jgriffith> I can provide more detail if desired, or offline
21:33:48 <markmc> jgriffith, btw, https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1041334 is targeted but not prioritized
21:33:49 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1041334 in tempest "lvremove failure on volume delete when creating and deleting volumes with the same name" [Undecided,In progress]
21:34:12 <jgriffith> This is actually the same bug
21:34:18 <jgriffith> same root cause at any rate
21:34:24 <jgriffith> I'll update to reflect that
21:34:25 <markmc> heh, ok
21:34:45 <markmc> also, there's 8 untriaged bugs still which is a fairly high proportion
21:35:00 <markmc> would be good to make sure there's nothing terrifying in there
21:35:14 <markmc> ok, cool stuff
21:35:16 <markmc> anything else?
21:35:20 <jgriffith> there minimal issues, all in review
21:35:35 <jgriffith> nope... just telling people NO on new features now :(
21:35:47 <markmc> that's a good plan
21:36:05 <jgriffith> If Ben doesn't fix his two I'll just fix them end of week and close them
21:36:27 <markmc> jgriffith, by untriaged, I meant these: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New
21:36:48 <jgriffith> yep, I'll clean those up as well
21:36:56 <markmc> cool, ok
21:37:03 <markmc> thanks jgriffith
21:37:09 <markmc> #topic Nova status
21:37:10 <jgriffith> thank you!
21:37:12 <markmc> vishy!
21:37:21 <markmc> last weeks actions ...
21:37:28 <markmc> 1) nova-core and ttx to review FFE for entry point stuff by Thursday
21:37:38 <markmc> that's done, decided to delay until grizzly
21:37:44 <markmc> 2) vishy to find a way to get untriaged bugcount to 0
21:37:58 <markmc> we've made solid enough progress, but still have ~50 untriaged
21:38:04 <markmc> down from ~110 last week AFAIR
21:38:12 <markmc> #help nova needs bug triagers!
21:38:20 <markmc> vishy, there?
21:38:45 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:38:57 <vishy> hi
21:39:02 <markmc> ok, we had 2 FFEs
21:39:12 <markmc> os-api-network-create and project-specific-flavors
21:39:16 <markmc> both merged, right?
21:39:38 <vishy> yes
21:39:44 <vishy> just marked the other implemented
21:39:53 <markmc> great, thanks
21:39:55 <vishy> we are past feature freeze and into bug fixing now
21:40:10 <markmc> awesome
21:40:16 <markmc> how are we looking on the bugs front?
21:40:29 * markmc notes 7 unassigned targeted bugs
21:41:12 <markmc> the unfixed high/critical ones look mostly related to quantum
21:41:49 <vishy> these are mostly new
21:41:53 <vishy> I haven't looked over them yet
21:42:26 <markmc> ok, well only 1 critical is promising
21:42:34 <markmc> bug triage seems to be the big concern
21:42:42 <markmc> anything else you're particularly concerned about?
21:42:45 <markmc> or need help with?
21:42:51 <vishy> xml :)
21:43:11 <markmc> that clown show?
21:43:22 <markmc> ok, I guess we cover that in the thursday meetings
21:43:27 <markmc> do you see it as a release blocker?
21:43:33 <markmc> we're not talking regressions here, are we?
21:43:55 <vishy> markmc: not regressions
21:44:08 <vishy> markmc: just trying to find out what works and fix the broken parts
21:44:21 <markmc> ok, well that probably moves it out of release blocker territory
21:44:31 <markmc> i.e. if we could release essex with broken xml ... :)
21:44:39 <markmc> but would be awesome to have it in good shape
21:45:10 <markmc> vishy, how aware of you about what's going on on the quantum integration front?
21:45:19 <markmc> that sounds like release blocker territory
21:45:24 * markmc hasn't been following closely
21:45:36 <vishy> markmc: I agree. I need to sync up with danwent and find out
21:45:44 <markmc> vishy, ok, cool
21:46:03 <markmc> vishy, and note jgriffith's cinder/iscsi issue above
21:46:26 <markmc> ok, good
21:46:35 <markmc> overall, not terrifying
21:46:41 <markmc> which is probably as good as it gets with nova :)
21:46:43 <danwent> vishy: its not all that serious.  just that there will be a non-trivial review headed your way later this week.
21:47:02 <vishy> danwent: ok
21:47:07 <danwent> vishy: wil ping you offline
21:47:13 <vishy> danwent: great
21:47:16 <markmc> anything else?
21:47:47 <markmc> cool
21:47:49 * markmc moves on
21:47:52 <markmc> #topic Horizon status
21:47:55 <markmc> gabrielhurley, hey
21:47:56 <gabrielhurley> Aye sir
21:48:17 <markmc> any FFEs? you mentioned the quantum public network support?
21:48:25 <markmc> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:48:30 <gabrielhurley> yep, there's a review pending for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/quantum-public-network
21:48:36 <gabrielhurley> blocked by the nova review I linked earlier
21:48:50 <gabrielhurley> it's pretty minor as far as an FFE, so if the others land I'll see to it that it's good
21:49:02 <markmc> cool
21:49:11 <markmc> are you happy to land it before the nova patch?
21:49:19 <markmc> e.g. if we know the nova API for it won't change?
21:49:30 <gabrielhurley> no, if that doesn't go in the horizon feature is a no-go
21:49:42 <markmc> ok
21:49:46 <gabrielhurley> so I'd rather see everything else land first just to be safe
21:50:13 <markmc> sounds like there's good progress there, so hopefully it and the horizon patch will land by this time next week
21:50:19 <gabrielhurley> that's my impression
21:50:20 <jgriffith> ls
21:50:28 <markmc> cool
21:50:34 <gabrielhurley> bug-wise, we didn't fix as many this week as I'd have liked, but new ones aren't being reported at any alarming rate and what's left are minor, so that's a positive sign.
21:50:46 <markmc> yeah, was about to say
21:50:54 <markmc> a bunch targeted but no critical/high
21:50:54 <gabrielhurley> I've been on top of the triage as they come in
21:50:57 <gabrielhurley> yeah
21:51:03 <gabrielhurley> the list is only +1 since last week
21:51:13 <gabrielhurley> I've spent more time supporting people on Essex, lol
21:51:22 <markmc> the high priority bugs are all grizzly?
21:51:22 <markmc> https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bugs?search=Search&field.importance=High&field.status=New&field.status=Incomplete&field.status=Confirmed&field.status=Triaged&field.status=In+Progress&field.status=Fix+Committed
21:51:30 <markmc> uggh, nasty link
21:51:34 <gabrielhurley> that's a n awful URL
21:51:51 <markmc> just clicked on the "High importance bugs" link
21:51:52 <gabrielhurley> yeah, those are all for later
21:51:59 <gabrielhurley> one of those is fixed...
21:52:04 <gabrielhurley> that needs to be bumped into Folsom
21:52:21 <gabrielhurley> target fixed
21:52:44 <markmc> just a bit odd for high priority bugs to not be targeted :)
21:52:55 <markmc> e.g. https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/961761 has been around for 6+ months
21:52:56 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 961761 in horizon "If nova-network is down, Access and Security panel hangs" [High,Confirmed]
21:52:58 <markmc> anyhow
21:52:59 <gabrielhurley> what, you expect long-term planning? ;-)
21:53:03 <markmc> awesome job on triaging :)
21:53:09 <markmc> want to help with nova triaging? :)
21:53:24 <gabrielhurley> 961761 is one of those "there's not really much to do about it" bugs.
21:53:29 <gabrielhurley> ha, no thanks
21:53:33 <markmc> anything else on horizon?
21:53:39 <gabrielhurley> not that I can think of. things are good.
21:53:43 <markmc> thanks
21:53:45 <markmc> #topic Other team reports (docs, CI...)
21:53:53 <annegentle> o/
21:53:56 <markmc> hey
21:54:09 <annegentle> Our bug/task list is triaged for folsom
21:54:15 <markmc> got a link?
21:54:17 <annegentle> about 24 bugs/tasks marked High
21:54:34 <annegentle> #link https://launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+milestone/folsom
21:54:50 <annegentle> I want to note that 10 of them are noting the lack of Compute API extension documents.
21:54:57 <annegentle> I'm also seeking design work on api.openstack.org to give it navigation and direct links.
21:55:07 <annegentle> #help design work on api.openstack.org to give it navigation and direct links
21:55:34 <annegentle> #help review docs at https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/openstack-manuals,n,z
21:55:37 <annegentle> that's all I got!
21:55:40 <markmc> ok, cool stuff
21:55:53 <markmc> things are in good shape? or desperately need help?
21:56:21 <annegentle> oh I'm a worrier so I tend towards the desperately need help :)
21:56:44 <markmc> heh, ok
21:56:52 <markmc> thanks annegentle
21:56:56 <annegentle> we're relying heavily on projects (Quantum, Keystone, and Cinder) to do their own doc work and reviews
21:57:27 <markmc> ok - danwent and heckj did mention that
21:57:38 <markmc> jgriffith, you aware that you guys are on the hook for cinder docs?
21:57:44 <jgriffith> Oh yes
21:57:49 <markmc> heh, ok
21:57:52 <jgriffith> :)
21:58:01 <markmc> any other teams to report?
21:58:16 * markmc has nothing much on stable branch or openstack-common front
21:58:28 <markmc> both need help with reviews
21:58:43 <markmc> ok, moving on ...
21:58:44 <markmc> #topic Open discussion
21:58:51 <markmc> anybody?
21:59:24 <annegentle> 8/30 is the deadline for proposals for the non-blueprinty side of the Summit
21:59:41 <markmc> #info 8/30 is the deadline for proposals for the non-blueprinty side of the Summit
21:59:47 <markmc> indeedy
21:59:55 <annegentle> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/san-diego-2012/call-for-speakers/
22:00:06 <markmc> so, I guess there was non-blueprinty stuff at last years summit
22:00:23 <markmc> should that kind of stuff move to this part of the conf?
22:00:24 * annegentle is allergic to "conference"
22:00:30 <markmc> or is it roughly the same as last year?
22:00:52 <annegentle> it's all the Summit this time, just different ways to propose talks and more tracks
22:01:17 * markmc admits to being slightly confused :)
22:01:26 <annegentle> #info tax will open proposal system for blueprint talks around Sept. 7th
22:01:40 <annegentle> not tax. anyway. :)
22:01:42 <markmc> #info ttx will open proposal system for blueprint talks around Sept. 7th
22:01:43 <markmc> :)
22:01:54 <markmc> ok, thanks
22:02:08 <markmc> meeting over, except I should go back over and add action items
22:02:15 <markmc> thanks everyone
22:02:19 <markmc> is there another meeting now?
22:02:44 <markmc> meh, I'll add action items to the wiki :)
22:02:47 <markmc> #endmeeting