08:01:27 <ttx> #startmeeting ptl_sync
08:01:28 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 24 08:01:27 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:01:29 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:01:32 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync'
08:01:35 <ttx> #topic Nova
08:02:05 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/juno-2
08:02:23 <ttx> #info 25 blueprints, nice progress
08:02:45 <mikal> :)
08:02:58 * ttx glances at the -specs review backlog
08:03:00 <mikal> Is that list of bugs only those targetted?
08:03:07 <mikal> Not those closed since last milestone?
08:03:28 <ttx> only the targeted
08:03:41 <ttx> closed since last milestoen = fixCommitted
08:03:42 <mikal> I assume we target the ones closed since last milestone at some point?
08:03:48 <mikal> Perhaps with a magic scriipt?
08:03:52 <ttx> some point being when we tag the milestone yes
08:03:58 <mikal> Cool
08:04:00 <ttx> magic script indeed
08:04:03 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-specs,n,z
08:04:11 <mikal> We have a spec review day lined up for Wednesday this week by the way
08:04:31 <mikal> Specs are a bit out of hand at the moment
08:04:37 <ttx> about 80 of them
08:05:16 <ttx> err
08:05:19 <johnthetubaguy> thats down for over 100 a few weeks back, but yes, its getting crazy
08:05:28 <ttx> no more than that
08:05:42 <ttx> 154
08:05:52 <ttx> #info Spec backlog at 154
08:06:09 <ttx> #info Nova spec review day lined up for Wednesday this week
08:06:26 <johnthetubaguy> right, that sounds more like it
08:06:44 <ttx> I think juno-2 is mostly defined now though
08:06:44 <johnthetubaguy> so… do we expire the specs reviews like code reviews?
08:06:53 <ttx> so most of those 154 would end up in j3
08:06:59 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: API stuff and some ironic stuff is missing
08:07:24 <mikal> I don't think we can land 154 specs in j-3
08:07:27 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: I hope most will turn out to be invalid, or in K… but
08:07:29 <mikal> We should be honest about setting expectations
08:07:39 <ttx> mikal: I expect a lot of them should just be -2/expired
08:07:40 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, we are thinking about a spec proposal cut of date for juno
08:07:54 <ttx> and you can approve and target some of them to next
08:08:00 <johnthetubaguy> like a week tomorrow
08:08:11 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, going to open a k folder or something
08:08:20 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: it's tricky, because some of them are single-review with code ready
08:08:46 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: yeah, very true, those we can let through I think
08:08:54 <johnthetubaguy> well, until we hit the end of J-2
08:09:00 <mikal> And if we miss one of those people can always appeal on the mailing list
08:09:25 <ttx> johnthetubaguy, mikal: spec2bp script to use for approving blueprints on spec approval: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/
08:09:32 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: yeah, and have a nova-meeting slot to debate your case, etc
08:09:44 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: apologies, not tried that out yet
08:09:52 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: agreed
08:09:57 <mikal> Much like a FFE exception
08:10:02 <mikal> Well, FFE
08:10:05 <johnthetubaguy> yeah
08:10:10 <ttx> I'm considering using the review link as the way to designate the spec, instead of file. Would that be more convenient ?
08:10:44 <johnthetubaguy> we do enforce the file name thing at the moment, in theory, so either could work I guess
08:11:09 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: depends on your workflow.. where you are when you approve the spec
08:11:20 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: true
08:11:57 <ttx> are you in the specs repo pulling master, or are you on the web browser setting +2
08:12:23 <ttx> anyway, if you've feedback on it, ple�ase comment on that review
08:13:25 <ttx> OK, that's all I had... anything you wanted to raise ?
08:13:27 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: it feels like a suck it and see sort of change, looks reasonable, but probably want to play with it a bit
08:13:42 <ttx> A topic for discussion for the meetign tonight, maybe ?
08:13:49 <mikal> I have a PTL webinar coming up, but that's not really news. Just an informational (!).
08:15:04 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: that could work, but I am kinda blocked from attending that
08:15:30 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: the blueprint proposal freeze, do you think that makes sense?
08:15:48 <johnthetubaguy> the idea being draw a line for juno in a week or so
08:15:53 <johnthetubaguy> then come up with priorities
08:15:56 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: yes it makes sense
08:16:19 <ttx> One deadline for "spec must be proposed", one for spec must be approved
08:16:27 <ttx> one for spec code must be proposed
08:16:37 <ttx> and one for spec code must be landed (Feature freeze)
08:16:37 <johnthetubaguy> right, thats a good point
08:16:42 <johnthetubaguy> right
08:16:50 <ttx> with exceptions at every stage
08:17:02 <johnthetubaguy> right
08:17:04 <ttx> so we have FF on Sept.4
08:17:19 <ttx> We have FPF (feature code proposal freeze) about 2 weeks before
08:17:37 <ttx> makes sense to have SpecApprovalFreeze around j2
08:17:44 <mikal> So about Aug 21?
08:17:55 <ttx> so SpecProposalFreeze about 2 weeks before j2
08:18:08 <ttx> which is like July 10
08:18:18 <mikal> I think we were saying July 3
08:18:20 <mikal> IIRC
08:18:23 <ttx> tat's fine
08:18:26 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, so thats close
08:18:31 <ttx> gives you 3 weeks to parse them
08:18:36 <ttx> won't be too long
08:18:46 <johnthetubaguy> I think we said July 3rd, so we have a week to do priorities etc
08:18:52 * mikal realizes we need to publish a lsit of these dates
08:18:52 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, thats makes sense
08:19:07 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: +1 I think we do that in the email for tomorrows review day?
08:19:19 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: works for me
08:19:27 <mikal> Let's nail it down in an etherpad after this
08:19:44 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: +1, then I will let you send the email :)
08:19:52 <mikal> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nova-release-dates
08:19:57 <ttx> mikal: i'll mention them in others 1:1s
08:20:03 <ttx> in case others want to align
08:20:18 <mikal> Sure
08:20:28 <mikal> We should have something solid in the etherpad by your next 1:!
08:20:28 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: do we want to add them into your release schedule, I guess only if there are a few projects aligning?
08:20:33 <mikal> 1:1 even
08:20:38 <ttx> mikal: anything to add to agenda for meeting today ?
08:20:49 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: yes, only if there is some common dates
08:20:51 <mikal> ttx: not that I can think of
08:21:25 <ttx> ok then, ttyl
08:21:33 <mikal> Cool, thanks man
08:21:36 <mikal> Have a good day
08:21:59 <ttx> Have a good evening:)
08:23:43 <johnthetubaguy> catch you all later
08:32:08 <therve> ttx, Hi!
08:32:14 <ttx> #topic Heat
08:32:17 <ttx> therve: o/
08:32:38 <therve> ttx, What's up!
08:32:39 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-2
08:32:51 <ttx> #info 6 blueprints, good progress
08:33:38 <ttx> #info Spec backlog at 14
08:34:00 <therve> That part is worrying
08:34:02 <ttx> therve: how "complete" would you say the j2 list is ?
08:34:12 <ttx> therve: well, nova has a backlog of 154.
08:34:21 <ttx> so i wouldn't worry that much.
08:34:26 <therve> :)
08:35:00 <therve> ttx, I expect several to sneak, especially if we manage to start on convergence work
08:35:28 <ttx> Do you have plans to address the spec backlog and make it part of j2/j3 soon ?
08:35:37 <ttx> like a spec review day ?
08:36:10 <therve> We don't. It sounds like a nice idea, I can put that in the meeting agenda
08:36:55 <ttx> Looks like you don't really have specs approved yet
08:37:12 <ttx> so I suspect all the ones that are on the map right now are just ones that flew below spec radar
08:37:37 <therve> Yeah most of them are older than the heat-specs repo creation
08:38:03 <ttx> ok. So yes, it would be good to tackle the spec backlog :)
08:38:03 <therve> Which is fine, I don't think there is much controversy about them
08:38:17 <therve> I feel we're a bit afraid of the first spec approval though :)
08:38:27 <ttx> afraid why?
08:39:24 <therve> I don't know, of the new process I guess?
08:39:53 <ttx> therve: fwiw I have a LP script to facilitate blueprint field setting on spec approval
08:40:09 <ttx> at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/
08:40:23 <therve> ttx, I have the feeling people think specs should only be merged when perfect because there are immutable or something
08:40:42 <therve> I'd rather have something more free flowing
08:40:59 <ttx> agreed -- they should be reasonably good, but they can always be changed
08:41:00 <therve> (also I don't really like gerrit as a discussion medium)
08:41:34 <ttx> gerrit is good to hash the details, but not so great to discuss a general idea
08:42:10 <therve> It's really difficult to follow what has been discussed already
08:42:16 <ttx> so if the idea wasn't discussed at design summit, sometimes doing one ML iteration really helps
08:43:04 <ttx> #info No spec approved yet, backlog needs to be addressed
08:43:18 <ttx> therve: also nobody forced anyone (yet) to use specs :)
08:43:28 <ttx> it's an opt-in experiment
08:43:49 <therve> Yeah we did that knowingly, but it doesn't work super well just yet :)
08:44:05 <ttx> OK, that's all I had, anything you wanted to mention ?
08:44:18 <ttx> Any topic to add to cross-project meeting agenda for today ?
08:45:05 <therve> Nothing in particular. Some oslo work going on, but I'll ask the oslo team specificly I think.
08:45:16 <ttx> ok then. ttyl
08:45:21 <therve> Cheers!
11:44:31 <eglynn> ttx: knock, knock ...
11:45:03 <ttx> #topic Ceilometer
11:45:06 <ttx> eglynn: o/
11:45:11 <eglynn> #link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-2
11:45:21 <eglynn> still looking relatively bare
11:45:39 <ttx> #info 4 blueprints, good progress
11:45:43 <eglynn> the overhead of going thru' the specs repo is adding latency to the BP filing
11:46:00 <eglynn> a number of other specs reviews in flight
11:46:02 <eglynn> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ceilometer-specs,n,z
11:46:06 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 15
11:46:18 <eglynn> also I'm psuhing a few folks to propose new specs
11:46:26 <ttx> eglynn: do you think a few if these may still make j2 ?
11:46:45 <eglynn> yes, for a few of them work has already started
11:46:53 <eglynn> (independently of the spec)
11:47:12 <eglynn> devs are more eager to write code than specs, as always
11:47:27 <eglynn> I'll keep on pushing the proces stho'
11:47:36 <ttx> eglynn: you can try my spec2bp script to set the launchpad blueprint fields when approving the spec
11:47:48 <ttx> See https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/
11:47:53 <eglynn> k, will do, thanks!
11:48:00 <ttx> feedback welcome
11:48:13 <eglynn> the mid-cycle next week will also be a good opportunity to bang the drum on the specs process
11:48:39 <ttx> eglynn: do you think you should have a deadline for proposing Juno specs ?
11:48:49 <ttx> (and one for getting them approved ?)
11:49:08 <eglynn> yes, I was thinking of cutting it off completely the week after mid-cycle
11:49:19 <eglynn> mid-cycle is July 2-4
11:49:39 <ttx> OK, that might match the Nova timing
11:49:57 <eglynn> similar cut-off for nova-specs?
11:50:07 <ttx> I think at some point handling specs that have no chance of landing before j3 will be a distraction
11:50:31 <ttx> so letting them pile up and resurface around summit time is probably a good thing
11:50:48 <ttx> (as long as there is an exception process to catch corner cases)
11:50:49 <eglynn> yeap, so not a prob to let them fester on gerrit, possibly auto-expire etc.
11:51:12 <ttx> eglynn: cu-off for nova-specs under discussion on -dev
11:51:26 <eglynn> a-ha cool, will get caught up on that discussion
11:51:39 <ttx> I'll post a topic for discussion at the meeting today, sounds like a great cross-project thing
11:52:00 <eglynn> yeap, sounds good
11:52:28 <ttx> the whole -specs thing may feel a bit cumbersome at your end, but on my end we end up with much more polished roadmaps
11:52:29 <eglynn> BTW for project/status meeting next week July 1st unlikely to be a ceilo representative in attendence
11:52:43 <ttx> eglynn: ok
11:52:52 <eglynn> (as most of us will be travelling to Paris for mid-cycle)
11:53:08 <ttx> #info for project/status meeting next week July 1st unlikely to be a ceilo representative in attendence
11:54:00 <ttx> eglynn: when would be your j2 specs cutoff date ?
11:54:15 <ttx> i.e. the date after which we can assume the j2 picture to be complete
11:54:29 <eglynn> Friday July 11th was what I had in mind
11:54:41 <eglynn> i.e. a full week after mid-cycle ends
11:55:13 <ttx> that leaves a bit less than two weeks to actually implement. It's probably OK. Not later in all cases
11:55:26 <eglynn> yep, agreed
11:55:45 <ttx> #info final j2 plans expected for July 11
11:55:58 <ttx> eglynn: that's all I had. Anything you'd like to add to meeting agenda ?
11:56:27 <eglynn> nope that's all from me
11:56:29 <eglynn> thanks!
11:56:34 <ttx> ok, ttyl then
11:56:41 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ready when you are
11:58:06 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, hey, I'm here
11:58:13 <ttx> #topic Sahara
11:58:18 <SergeyLukjanov> #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-2
11:58:41 <SergeyLukjanov> so, everything is going ok
11:59:01 <ttx> #info 10 blueprints, looks relatively on track
11:59:28 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 3 specs
11:59:38 <ttx> Are those more for J3 or for J2 ?
12:00:00 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, let me check
12:00:23 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, j3 plans aren't clear right now
12:00:24 <ttx> All of te current ones are not specs-born
12:00:43 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: do you plan to use specs for J3 ?
12:00:51 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup, we have some specs on review and planning to back some of the blueprints with specs
12:01:24 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, we're now in pilot for specs, I'm not sure that we'll be fully ready to enforce them in J
12:01:46 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ok
12:02:22 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, the main concern is that j3 could be a bit late to enforce such big process change
12:03:10 <SergeyLukjanov> as we discussed two weeks ago, I'd like to raise the sahara-to-horizon merge q. to the meeting
12:03:14 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: you're still OK with the script requiring blueprints to have a priority set by drivers before it appears on the milestone page ?
12:03:24 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ok adding
12:04:16 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup, I think it's ok (re require bp to have prio before it appears on milestone page)
12:05:02 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, thx
12:05:21 <ttx> #info Sahara in pilot mode for specs, not sure they'll be fully ready to enforce them in J
12:05:29 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ok, that's all I had then
12:05:46 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I think that there is no q. from my side too
12:05:52 <ttx> Those 3 "not started" should get started really soon now :)
12:06:11 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup, I think so
12:06:17 <ttx> one of them at least looks non-trivial
12:06:36 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: talk to you later
12:06:45 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, thx
12:06:51 <ttx> dhellmann: ready when you are
12:07:21 <dhellmann> ttx: hi!
12:07:26 <ttx> #topic Oslo
12:07:34 <ttx> #info https://launchpad.net/oslo/+milestone/juno-2
12:07:43 <ttx> 6 blueprints, on track
12:07:48 <ttx> #info 6 blueprints, on track
12:08:08 <dhellmann> I expect to approve a few (3?) more specs this week
12:08:15 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 19
12:08:18 <dhellmann> work has started on some of them in the background
12:08:24 <ttx> dhellmann: was wondering about oslo-specs approval rules
12:08:29 <dhellmann> and we're going to merge a couple of them, too
12:08:41 <ttx> some of them have 2 +2s + the maintainer +1
12:08:48 <ttx> do you require 3 +2s ?
12:09:02 <dhellmann> yeah, I'm trying to go deliberately slow to give the liaisons time to review as well, since these changes affect all of the projects
12:09:19 <ttx> dhellmann: ah ok
12:09:30 <dhellmann> so the team agreed we would have at least 2 +2, but then I would approve them after a little more time
12:09:43 <ttx> chaining-regexp-filter can make it to J2 if we approve it soon, code is ready
12:09:46 <dhellmann> esp. in cases where we need liaison input, which I've been soliciting in the meeting
12:10:04 <dhellmann> ok, if you're happy with that one I am and it's on the list for approval tomorrow IIRC
12:10:05 <ttx> so you expect a few additions to the J2 picture ?
12:10:17 <ttx> +3/4 ?
12:10:43 <dhellmann> yes, I still expect the logging ones to make it and concurrency and serialization
12:10:56 <ttx> when do you think the J2 plan will be near-complete ? next week?
12:11:13 <dhellmann> I'd like it to be ready then. I'll push for it.
12:11:18 <ttx> #info Oslo J2 plan should be near-final next week
12:11:37 <ttx> #info oslo.messaging has 1 targeted J2 spec
12:12:19 <ttx> dhellmann: we've been talking about a deadline for Juno spec proposal (and one for getting them approved)
12:12:30 <ttx> would you be inetrested in such a deadline for Oslo ?
12:12:44 <dhellmann> I'm not sure I'd take any more proposals at this point, given how long approval is taking.
12:12:48 <ttx> The goal being to avoid getting distracted with specs for stuff that won't make it before j3
12:12:48 <dhellmann> I don't know what deadline you had in mind.
12:13:15 <ttx> dhellmann: mikal posted a timeline for Nova. We'll discuss at meeting today if there is convergence on common dates
12:13:19 <dhellmann> that makes sense
12:13:22 <dhellmann> ok, I'll check the ML for that
12:13:38 <ttx> I don't mind every project using different deadlines, but convergence might help in documentation/clarity
12:14:03 <ttx> dhellmann: don't forget to try my spec2bp script at the next spec approval
12:14:22 <dhellmann> oslo is likely to push through and keep working on graduation work after ff because it won't really affect anyone until the next cycle, but for features we'd stop as usual
12:14:33 <dhellmann> yeah, I'm looking forward to giving that a try tomorrow :-)
12:15:04 <ttx> anything you'd like to add for discussion at meeting today ?
12:15:14 <dhellmann> I don't have anything this week
12:15:23 <ttx> ok then. Talk to you later!
12:15:30 <dhellmann> thanks!
13:01:50 <notmyname> ttx: any chance I can do swit update now?
13:02:13 <ttx> notmyname: sure
13:02:17 <ttx> #topic Swift
13:02:23 <notmyname> great thanks
13:02:35 <notmyname> two things
13:02:38 <ttx> let me switch context from script dev to relmgt
13:02:42 <notmyname> :-)
13:03:05 <ttx> notmyname: ok, go
13:03:31 <notmyname> #info swift 2.0.0.rc1 has been released and is undergoing community QA. everyone please test
13:03:52 <notmyname> #info target swift 2.0.0 release is july 3
13:04:13 <notmyname> seems that the QA for the RC has started yesterday (which is good)
13:04:31 <notmyname> which means that master is unfrozen too
13:04:35 <ttx> notmyname: I suspect you will add blueprints to https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/2.0.0 between now and July 3 ?
13:04:40 <notmyname> yes :-)
13:05:07 <ttx> Did you sort out that tag-on-feature/ec situation ?
13:05:26 <notmyname> yes it's sorted, but I need your permissions to do it. here's what we want to do:
13:06:07 <notmyname> tag commit 6ede2692c7d3bc04d133a50b822c8f9f87d56cc8 as "storage-policy-historical"
13:06:12 <notmyname> (which I cannot do
13:06:14 <notmyname> )
13:06:44 <notmyname> then we'll reuse (ie delete recreate) the branch name "feature/ec" so it's off of current master and ready for actual EC work
13:07:06 <ttx> sounds sane -- shall I push that tag now ?
13:07:11 <notmyname> yes please
13:07:34 <notmyname> and for future reference, is there anyone else who has the permission to push a tag to the swift repo?
13:07:45 <ttx> anyone in release managers group
13:07:53 <ttx> I posted the link to #openstack-infra
13:08:09 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/11,members
13:08:43 <notmyname> thanks
13:09:27 <ttx> ok pushed
13:09:29 <notmyname> ttx: I think that's all I've got for this week. any questions I can answer for you?
13:09:47 <ttx> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/swift/tag/?id=storage-policy-historical
13:10:11 <notmyname> got it
13:10:36 <ttx> notmyname: I was wondering if you could post proposed designated sections for swift over at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/
13:11:19 <notmyname> when are you looking to have that?
13:11:51 <ttx> We need it before the end of the month. If it's today i can include it in the discussion at the TC meeting today
13:12:10 <ttx> as in i can say that you're not in the pending list anymore
13:12:21 <ttx> (at this point only Nova formally posted)
13:12:30 <notmyname> I don't know if I'll have time this morning for it. but you need it in less than a week?
13:13:10 <ttx> yes, next Monday at the latest
13:13:11 <notmyname> how often can designated sections change?
13:13:16 <ttx> every release
13:13:21 <ttx> "release"
13:13:25 <ttx> as in openstack release.
13:13:28 <notmyname> openstack integrated release
13:13:35 <ttx> yep
13:13:43 <ttx> so every "cycle" :)
13:14:00 <ttx> that one is for havana
13:14:38 <notmyname> and this refers to specific code modules?
13:15:24 <ttx> yes, but it can be described in words rather than line numbers, see Nova's entry on that review
13:16:06 <ttx> so something like "everything but" shall be acceptable, imho
13:16:08 <notmyname> well that makes it more tricky. eg stuff that's properly implemented in middleware but middleware is "pluggable"
13:16:13 <notmyname> hmm
13:16:45 <notmyname> or things that some deployers don't run but if you do choose to run it this is what you should use
13:17:12 <notmyname> ok, I'll work on that this week
13:17:28 <ttx> designated sections are basically the minimal set of code you need to run to call your stuff "swift"
13:17:41 <ttx> if you want you could discuss it at the cross-project meeting today, so that other PTLs can share their take on it
13:17:57 <notmyname> right. but it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus question
13:18:46 <ttx> there are guidelines for the selection, if that helps:
13:19:06 <ttx> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20140402-defcore-designated-sections-guidelines.rst
13:19:19 <notmyname> I don't have a well-enough formed set of questions to bring it up and make progress in the meeting. and questions I will have will be very swift-specific I think (ie pertaining to the swift codebase)
13:20:11 <ttx> ok
13:20:42 <ttx> anything else you'd like to discuss at meeting ?
13:21:08 <notmyname> no. nothing comes to mind
13:21:23 <ttx> ok, talk to you later then
13:22:01 <notmyname> thanks
13:22:10 <jgriffith> ttx: I'm just itching to immediately respond when you ask if I'm around today :)
13:22:25 <jgriffith> ttx: it'll be the first time in weeks I answer within an hour :)
13:22:33 <ttx> jgriffith: we can do it now if you want
13:22:42 <jgriffith> haa.... early
13:22:46 <jgriffith> how about that!
13:22:47 <jgriffith> sure
13:22:59 <ttx> #topic Cinder
13:23:17 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-2
13:23:24 <jgriffith> not much change since last week there
13:23:38 <jgriffith> but a boat load of specs added that are being picked apart
13:23:47 <ttx> #info 16 blueprints, lots of unknown/notstarted
13:24:17 <ttx> jgriffith: could you clarify the state of the "unknown"s at your next meeting?
13:24:21 <ttx> I assume they are not started
13:24:34 <jgriffith> ttx: they are indeed not-started
13:24:48 <ttx> ok
13:24:49 <jgriffith> ttx: but I will make a note to work on getting those updated before next meeting
13:25:09 <ttx> Looks like most of them are backed with an approved spec
13:25:20 <jgriffith> :)
13:25:34 <jgriffith> Yep, I'm liking the specs, it offloads some work for me :)
13:25:49 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 23
13:26:18 <ttx> Do you expect a lot of those 23 to still make the j2 picture ?
13:26:29 <jgriffith> I'm guessing about 1/2
13:26:54 <ttx> What would be your cutoff date for J2 specs ? one or two weeks from now ?
13:27:22 <jgriffith> I think 1 week is best
13:27:31 <jgriffith> with the possibility for exceptions in the second week
13:27:37 <ttx> At the meeting today we'll discuss a general Juno spec proposal deadline
13:27:50 <ttx> (with accompanying spec approval deadline)
13:28:01 <jgriffith> ttx: k, I'll go with whatever as long as its not up to a week before or something :)
13:28:05 <ttx> to come before the feature proposal freeze (which is code related)
13:28:23 <ttx> we'll confront ideas around it today
13:28:31 <jgriffith> sounds good
13:28:34 <ttx> but I think it's a good idea
13:28:50 <ttx> otherwise we'll keep getting swampedby specs review that have no chance of making it by j3
13:28:57 <jgriffith> I'd agree
13:29:11 <ttx> jgriffith: last topic I wanted to raise was designated sections
13:29:33 <ttx> Your input is wanted on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/
13:29:45 <ttx> (you can propose a new patchset to include Cinder data in there)
13:30:04 <ttx> that way we'll collect all PTLs input and then send it back to defcore dudes
13:30:08 <jgriffith> ok... deadline?
13:30:15 <ttx> deadline is before the end of the month
13:30:21 * jgriffith asks so he can push to the last minute
13:30:26 <ttx> if you do it before TC meeting today you earn extra points
13:30:32 <jgriffith> as he despises all of this
13:30:56 <jgriffith> ttx: alright, I'll try for extra points but it's not likely, PTL webinar and other meetings all morning
13:31:26 <ttx> jgriffith: yes, the question of whether it's actually our role to designate replaceable sections has been raised
13:31:41 <jgriffith> ttx: I know... I'm not stirring the pot
13:31:51 <jgriffith> ttx: just grunting a bit
13:32:33 <ttx> jgriffith: at your next spec approval you can give my spec2bp script a try
13:32:44 <jgriffith> ttx: oh?
13:32:46 <ttx> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/)
13:32:52 <jgriffith> ttx: I have one I just approved, I'll check it out
13:33:19 <jgriffith> ttx: That's awesome!
13:33:39 <jgriffith> ttx: you working on making PTL's obsolete or what? :)
13:33:54 <ttx> script assumes that the blueprint is filed under the same name
13:34:13 <ttx> jgriffith: I'm working to alleviate the pain around tooling
13:34:35 <jgriffith> naming is going to screw people up, but i"ll get the word out on that
13:34:38 <ttx> but yeah, we could even trigger that one on merge
13:34:49 <ttx> if the rst contains fields like priority and target milestone
13:34:52 <jgriffith> ttx: that's what I was thinking would be cool
13:35:44 <ttx> jgriffith: there was the question of whther the filename or the review link was the best way to designate a spec
13:36:12 <ttx> depends where you are in your workflow when you ened to use it
13:36:17 <ttx> need*
13:36:29 <jgriffith> ttx: personally I thought the filename was most useful (after it merged)
13:36:40 <ttx> anyway, give it a try and comment on the review
13:36:48 <jgriffith> will do
13:36:51 <ttx> anything you'd like to discuss at meeting today ?
13:36:52 <jgriffith> thanks
13:37:10 <jgriffith> nope... just the spec deadlines etc that you already have scheduled
13:37:16 <ttx> ok then
13:37:30 <ttx> talk to you later!
13:37:35 <jgriffith> cya
14:16:58 <dolphm> ttx: new time?
14:17:05 <ttx> dolphm: o/
14:17:11 <ttx> #topic Keystone
14:17:34 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-2
14:17:42 <ttx> #info 2 blueprints, good progress
14:17:58 <ttx> dolphm: who is working on api-validation ?
14:18:10 <dolphm> ttx: just assigned it
14:18:21 <dolphm> ttx: and added a 3rd approved spec/bp
14:18:53 <ttx> dolphm: you should set priority quick
14:18:56 <ttx> before autokick sees it
14:19:04 <dolphm> ttx: done
14:19:39 <ttx> dolphm: how much more do you expect to find their way in j2 ?
14:20:05 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 15
14:20:09 <dolphm> ttx: let me get a rough count...
14:20:44 <ttx> do you have a rough j2 specs cutoff date ?
14:21:02 <dolphm> ttx: maybe 6 to 8 of those have enough traction to be considered for j2
14:21:20 <ttx> oh, that's a lot
14:22:05 <ttx> well, when you have one ready, you can try spec2bp.py from  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/
14:22:17 <ttx> to set blueprints fields automatically
14:22:58 <dolphm> hmm, alright
14:23:04 <ttx> dolphm: we'll discuss a Juno spec proposal/acceptance deadline at the meeting today, to see if there is convergence around the idea
14:23:18 <dolphm> ttx: is that the wrong review link?
14:23:25 <ttx> err
14:23:30 <ttx> yes it's wrong
14:23:48 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/
14:23:51 <ttx> that's spec2bp
14:24:00 <ttx> the other is the required input about designated sections
14:24:06 <ttx> for the defcore stuff
14:24:34 <ttx> you need to provide that before end of month, or today if you can :)
14:24:45 <ttx> just propose a new patchset over the current one
14:26:12 <dolphm> ttx: i did that awhile back?
14:26:25 <dolphm> ttx: in an etherpad
14:26:34 <ttx> dolphm: you might have filled some etherpad yes
14:26:55 <ttx> you could juste paste what you had there in the review
14:27:00 * ttx might have link handy
14:28:10 <ttx> hmm no I haven't
14:28:39 <dolphm> ttx: well i'll try to find it, or just work from scratch. it wasn't too complicated, IIRC
14:28:55 <ttx> the goal is to collect all input at TC level and submit it in one go
14:29:03 <ttx> so that they can't ignore a part of it
14:29:04 <dolphm> sounds good
14:29:16 <ttx> dolphm: anything you'd like to discuss at the meeting today ?
14:29:21 <dolphm> no sir
14:29:29 <ttx> ok then , see you there
14:29:40 <ttx> david-lyle: around?
14:30:18 <david-lyle> ttx: o/
14:30:25 <ttx> #topic Horizon
14:30:46 <ttx> david-lyle: good to have you back!
14:30:47 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-2
14:31:09 <david-lyle> my that's grown
14:31:25 <ttx> #info 57 blueprints (!?) - generally on track
14:31:39 <david-lyle> have to get out the pruning shears
14:31:56 <ttx> You have 10 undefined that you should triage
14:32:01 <david-lyle> yes
14:32:04 <ttx> and 4 unassigned
14:32:29 <david-lyle> I think those have owners they just aren't set in the bp
14:32:34 <david-lyle> I'll work to get them updated
14:33:04 <ttx> OK, status otherwise looks good
14:33:24 <ttx> Note that we'll discuss the merge of the shara dashboard again at the meeting today
14:33:46 <david-lyle> sure, it's high on my priority list, but it will take time
14:34:02 <david-lyle> things are progressing, if slowly
14:34:06 <ttx> You also need to propose a new patchset over https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/ with horizon designated sections
14:34:12 <david-lyle> when did the j-2 deadline come into play
14:34:26 <ttx> guidelines for selection at http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20140402-defcore-designated-sections-guidelines.rst
14:34:32 <david-lyle> for integrated projects, our heat support didn't make until g-3 if IIRC
14:34:43 <ttx> david-lyle: j2 deadline?
14:34:55 <david-lyle> for getting the sahara gui bits in
14:35:18 <ttx> hmm, we can discuss that at the meeting... I don't think that came from me
14:35:44 <ttx> j3 is a bit risky as history proved
14:35:50 <david-lyle> ok, maybe that was a sahara ultimatum
14:36:04 <david-lyle> true, but so is rushing in 8k lines of code
14:36:22 <ttx> right, early in j3 sounds fine to me
14:36:44 <ttx> anyway, that's a discussion for the meeting
14:36:49 <david-lyle> sure
14:36:51 <ttx> picked up my comments on the designated sections ?
14:37:19 <david-lyle> yes, will revisit
14:37:26 <ttx> the deadline for providing that information (which was alraedy provided under some etherpad form) is end of month
14:37:29 <SergeyLukjanov> it was not really ultimatum, but if we'll not be able to land sahara part to horizon in j2 than it means that we need to backport patches back to the sahara-dashboard and be ready to release it again for Juno
14:37:57 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: right. Let's not discuss taht now
14:38:06 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup, sorry
14:38:09 <ttx> arguing at the meeting is more fun.
14:38:52 <david-lyle> I just heard a deadline when I got back from vacation was trying to piece together the facts
14:40:45 <ttx> david-lyle: ok, that's all I had
14:41:00 <ttx> david-lyle: anything specific you'd like to discuss at cross-project meeting today ?
14:41:26 <david-lyle> no, I think we're set
14:41:36 <ttx> david-lyle: ok then, talk to you later
14:41:42 <ttx> mestery: ready when you are
14:41:48 <mestery> ttx: o/
14:41:49 <ttx> #topic Neutron
14:42:01 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-2
14:42:30 <ttx> #info 31 blueprints, slightly behind i would say
14:42:41 * mestery nods in agreement with that sentiment
14:42:56 <ttx> things pile up in review, not a lot converted to "done"
14:42:57 <mestery> I need to do some pruning this week on that list
14:43:22 <mestery> I'm going to shift the core team to review mode to get a bunch of these through in the next few weeks.
14:44:01 <ttx> #info spec backlog: 96
14:44:15 <mestery> It's a huge backlog.
14:44:18 <ttx> mestery: I suspect a few of those might still make the J2 tableau
14:44:36 <mestery> ttx: It's possible a few may creep in yes, but overall, we may start -2 some and pushing them to "K" release.
14:44:49 <ttx> mestery: we discussed a general Juno spec proposal deadline with mikal
14:44:59 <ttx> (with matching specapproval deadline
14:45:00 <ttx> )
14:45:10 <mestery> I'd be in favor of that, actually, will we discuss at the release meeting today?
14:45:19 <ttx> yes we will
14:45:25 <mestery> excellent!
14:45:33 <ttx> because at some point between j2 and j3 spec approval will become a distraction from juno
14:45:50 <ttx> since it's unlikely that spec approved then would make it there
14:46:05 <ttx> there would be exception procedures around all that process
14:46:07 <mestery> Completely agree, I think this is a good move for all projects.
14:46:12 <mestery> OF course :)
14:46:20 <ttx> so we'll discuss that today and see if there is convergence on dates
14:46:25 <mestery> Excellent
14:47:08 <ttx> mestery: until when do you think it's reasonable to continue adding stuff to j2 ? (i.e. do you have a j2 spec cutoff date in mind ?)
14:47:40 <mestery> Realistically, I think next week should almost be the cutoff, with possible exceptions for some things.
14:47:49 <mestery> J2 is already stacked pretty full at this point
14:48:15 <ttx> #info Neutron might have a J2 spec cutoff next week
14:48:41 <mestery> If not next week, for sure the following week. I think this removes specs as a distraction for J2 for a bit.
14:48:51 <ttx> mestery: I sent you a link about my spec2bp script already, did I ?
14:49:09 <mestery> Not directly, but I've reviewed it from the backscroll in this channel.
14:49:14 <mestery> I'm excited to try it out, looks super nice!
14:49:32 <ttx> it's a bit raw but i would like feedback on it before i continue working on it
14:49:48 <ttx> we could actually have it autorun as a spec merge job
14:49:59 <mestery> Now that would be excellent. :)
14:50:01 <ttx> if all info is provided in the spec itself
14:50:42 <ttx> mestery: last topic is the designated sections stuff
14:51:11 <ttx> mestery: we need a new patchset with neutron info posted at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/
14:51:29 <ttx> You should get in touch with markmcclain as I suspect he already provided some of that info in the past
14:51:29 <mestery> ttx: Will do, I'll see what I can put together on that for today.
14:51:41 <ttx> guidelines for selection at http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20140402-defcore-designated-sections-guidelines.rst
14:51:53 <ttx> ok thx.
14:51:57 <mestery> ttx: Will do!
14:52:17 <ttx> mestery: anything you'd like to add to meeting agenda for today ?
14:52:34 <mestery> Nope, nothing on my end this week!
14:52:57 <ttx> ok then
14:53:22 <ttx> talk to you later
14:53:29 <mestery> thanks ttx, later!
16:13:55 <ttx> SlickNik: o/
16:14:02 <ttx> SlickNik: ready now?
16:14:25 <SlickNik> yup
16:14:28 <SlickNik> o/
16:14:39 <ttx> #topic Trove
16:15:11 <ttx> #info 24 blueprints, progress slightly behind
16:15:28 <ttx> You have 4 "undefined" priority blueprints you shoud triage
16:15:44 <ttx> (i.e. set a priority, or remove target milestone if you don't like it)
16:15:49 <SlickNik> Yes, I plan on doing a triage today before the release meeting.
16:16:03 <SlickNik> Have some time set apart on my schedule for it. :)
16:16:34 <ttx> Looks like you have all remaining items targetd to j2 and nothing to j3
16:16:40 <SlickNik> There's also a few bps that I know won't get done in juno-2, that I need to move to juno 3
16:16:55 <ttx> right, it's a fine approach, defer early
16:17:12 <ttx> as soon as you're resaonbly convinced it won't make it in j2
16:17:13 <SlickNik> Will whip it into shape today.
16:17:32 <ttx> do you expect a lot more things to sneak into the juno cycle, or most of the plan is there already ?
16:18:00 <SlickNik> I think pretty much _all_ of it is already there.
16:18:24 <ttx> #info Trove Juno plan is mostly complete, expect early deferrals from juno-2 to juno-3
16:18:47 <ttx> How is neutron-support going ?
16:19:22 <ttx> I see 39 patchsets already
16:20:02 <SlickNik> It's almost done.
16:20:05 <SlickNik> There's one int-test that's still failing (timing condition), and annashen wasn't able to figure it out.
16:20:21 <SlickNik> So I've put some time on my calendar to look into it.
16:20:26 <ttx> SlickNik: ok, that's all I had
16:20:37 <ttx> SlickNik: anything you wanted to add to meeting agenda for today ?
16:20:45 <SlickNik> We also have a horizon change in flight to enable dashboard support for neutron.
16:20:53 <ttx> #info neutron-support almost done
16:21:00 <SlickNik> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101055/
16:21:37 <ttx> SlickNik: so, no additional topics ?
16:21:41 <SlickNik> That's pretty much all I had. Just trying to keep on top of things. :)
16:21:44 <ttx> ack
16:21:49 <ttx> markwash: around ?
16:21:54 <SlickNik> Thanks ttx!
16:22:02 <ttx> SlickNik: thank you!
16:22:11 <SlickNik> See you in a bit.
16:22:34 <markwash> ttx: hi!
16:22:37 <ttx> #topic Glance
16:22:43 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/juno-2
16:22:58 <ttx> #info 3 blueprints, status on track
16:23:23 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 0
16:23:36 <ttx> Does that mean that your juno-2 plan is complete ?
16:23:47 <markwash> I think so
16:23:52 <ttx> kewl
16:24:10 <ttx> Do you expect new things to be filed i nthe future and make it to juno-3 ?
16:24:20 <markwash> where is the spec backlog figure coming from?
16:24:21 <markwash> I do
16:24:29 <markwash> I think we still need some bps for the graffiti integration stuff
16:24:32 <ttx> arh
16:24:50 <markwash> I have high hopes though because it was a highly functional poc at the summit
16:25:02 <ttx> #info Spec backlog: 7
16:25:17 <ttx> sorry, was on page 34 of neutron-specs and the s/neutron/glance/ failed
16:25:29 <markwash> no worries
16:25:32 <markwash> I was on ITA-URU
16:25:43 <ttx> So those 7 are more juno-3 material ?
16:25:51 <markwash> I think so
16:26:01 <markwash> we'll be judicious if there is something that is ready for juno-2
16:26:07 <ttx> sure
16:26:31 <ttx> markwash: we'll discuss a spec proposal/approval deadline at the meeting today
16:26:35 <ttx> for juno
16:26:49 <markwash> okay sounds good
16:27:01 <ttx> markwash: also you can give spec2bp.py a try when you approve a spec
16:27:14 <markwash> sure
16:27:16 <ttx> (see @ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101566/)
16:27:35 <markwash> so, get it from release-tools
16:27:57 <ttx> it's just a review at this point, but yes
16:28:32 <ttx> And finally, defcore needs your finalized input for designated sections -- you can propose it directly as a new patchset to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100675/
16:28:44 <markwash> oh
16:28:46 <markwash> okay
16:28:49 <ttx> I think you already proposed something on some etherpad some time ago
16:29:12 <markwash> yeah
16:29:34 <ttx> if you can dig that up and post it there that would be perfect
16:29:40 <markwash> I'll give it a look, do we have guidelines there now?
16:29:40 <ttx> deadline is end of month
16:29:47 <ttx> yes, guidelines:
16:29:59 <ttx> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20140402-defcore-designated-sections-guidelines.rst
16:30:05 <markwash> okay great
16:30:25 <markwash> shouldn't be too hard but I'll give it a think
16:31:34 <ttx> if you do it before meetign today you can brag about it
16:31:45 <markwash> haha
16:31:49 <ttx> markwash: that's all I had
16:32:08 <ttx> anything you want to add to meeting agenda ?
16:32:13 <markwash> I've no topics for today but I'll keep an eye on the discussion about spec deadlines
16:32:25 <ttx> ok then, see you there!
16:32:50 <ttx> that concludes our 1:1 syncs for today. Thanks for tuning in.
16:32:53 <ttx> #endmeeting