08:01:24 <ttx> #startmeeting ptl_sync
08:01:25 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 19 08:01:24 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:01:26 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:01:28 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync'
08:01:33 <ttx> #topic Nova
08:01:38 <mikal> Hi
08:01:42 <ttx> hi!
08:01:59 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/juno-3
08:02:18 <mikal> So, I emailed openstack-dev and mentioned in our meeting last week that we should be reviewing the high prio ones
08:02:25 <mikal> There's been some review, but none have landed
08:02:38 <mikal> The object ones look good to me
08:02:40 <mikal> As does the ironic one
08:02:42 <ttx> #info 3 implemented, 36 in review, 23 in progress, 10 not started/unknown
08:02:53 <mikal> The scheduler one is going slow, as is vmware
08:03:01 <ttx> Last week you had 2 Implemented, 33 under review, 27 in progress and 11 Not started/Unknown
08:03:03 <mikal> Scheduler is slow because of review attention (or the lack of it)
08:03:14 <mikal> VMWare is because minesweeper is broken
08:03:33 * mikal is confused that not-started has grown
08:03:55 <ttx> it went down by 1
08:04:03 <mikal> Oh, I see
08:04:06 <mikal> Other order
08:04:26 <ttx> yep
08:04:29 <mikal> So, I am worried that we're not landing enough BPs
08:04:38 <mikal> But I am unsure what else to do apart from personally reviewing all the code
08:05:37 <ttx> maybe single out a few blueprints that are 99% there, in addition to High/Essential stuff?
08:06:00 <ttx> do you feel like the call to focus on High prio worked?
08:06:06 <mikal> To be honest no
08:06:12 <mikal> Some got reviews
08:06:19 <mikal> But it feels like thigns which were being reviewed already
08:06:32 <mikal> I haven't generated any data on it though, its more an instinct
08:07:25 <ttx> this week the focus is obviously on FPF which shall hit on Thursday
08:07:34 <mikal> That's possibly true
08:07:42 <mikal> People frantically finishing their own things instead of reviewing
08:07:47 <ttx> theer are 33 blueprints that will disappear from the list at this point
08:08:07 <mikal> Or will be finished in time...
08:08:13 <mikal> Not all 33 will go away nessesarily
08:08:13 <ttx> Maybe review prioritization will work better once we are past that
08:08:19 <mikal> One can hope
08:08:34 <mikal> I don't know if this is a new problem or not
08:08:42 <mikal> But it feels like we're not focussing well
08:08:56 <ttx> Do you think that blueprint proposers are well aware of the FPF deadline ?
08:09:14 <mikal> Hmmm
08:09:19 <mikal> I am sure they could do with another reminder
08:09:23 <ttx> (if they are not they will pile up exception requests)
08:09:49 <mikal> I will send out a reminder after this 1:1
08:10:18 <ttx> you can also clarify when "Thursday" will be
08:10:35 <mikal> Yep, presumably midnight Thursday UTC
08:11:45 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: ttx: morning
08:12:05 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: I often choose midnight pacific
08:12:11 <ttx> Also maybe contact (or have someone contact) the medium-prio blueprint holders that still don't have code proposed (there are 5 of them) to make sure they are aware of the deadline
08:12:31 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: the trick is you want extra time on Friday to handle the inevitable exception requests
08:12:31 <mikal> I can email them as well
08:12:43 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: yes, good point
08:13:00 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: are we deleting the specs too?
08:13:04 <mikal> I'm also travelling Friday my time through the weekend
08:13:05 <ttx> mikal: you seem in good shape FPF-wise if you look at the prioritized list -- most of the things that would fall off the map are Low
08:13:10 <mikal> But I will tyr to keep on top of email as much as possible
08:13:26 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: we talked about kilo specs in the release meeting last week
08:13:37 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: the concensus seemed to be we should open kilo now, but I haven't done it
08:13:51 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: I guess we move the unimplemented specs from juno into an "unimplemented" folder when we do that?
08:14:36 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: I think we can propose a move, then drivers asses if we want that or not?
08:15:02 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: as in implied approval for kilo for juno specs?
08:15:19 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: no, as, a help to get approval for juno
08:15:33 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: clarifying the "unknown" statuses would also be a good idea before FPF -- some may just be proposed already
08:15:54 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: oh I see, as in have drivers vote on how we archive?
08:15:58 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: yeah, I need to sift through those, quite a few often have all their code up, but don't update too
08:16:02 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: I kind of feel like we don't need to bikeshed everything
08:16:14 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: archival could be just a ptl mandate or something
08:16:22 * mikal is very tired of the flame wars at the moment
08:16:26 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: we agreed not to auto-approve, but I don't want to just delete the spec, thats all
08:16:34 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: yeah, I get that
08:16:38 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: so, no auto approval
08:16:43 <ttx> mikal: my last question would be about the midcycle meetup. What do you think made it so much more productive compared to design summit
08:16:50 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: cool, so anything that meets that idea works for me
08:16:51 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: and juno approved specs which miss get moved to a "unimplemented" subdir in juno
08:17:04 <ttx> is the the limited audience? the "stuck in one room" setup ?
08:17:07 <mikal> ttx: ahh, interesting question
08:17:18 <mikal> I'm not sure I'd say "more" productive
08:17:23 <mikal> Certainly more "focussed"
08:17:29 <mikal> We had elastic timeslots for topics
08:17:36 <mikal> And could change the agenda based on what came up
08:17:45 <mikal> People were focussed by there being no competing events
08:18:04 <mikal> I don't think it replaces a summit
08:18:12 <mikal> I do think they're important efficiency tools though
08:18:28 <ttx> I'd like to fix the design summit so that it's more useful
08:18:33 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: thats a little like what we did with more unconference style slots in hong kong, that worked well
08:18:44 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: I think we need to get better at picking sessions
08:18:50 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: I felt the HK unconference slots were mostly just people who didn't get an accepted session though
08:18:57 <mikal> Agreed
08:19:03 <mikal> I think we also need to not run 8 hour days for nova
08:19:08 <ttx> I think the main reason it was so badly needed this time around is that the design summit didn't work as well, so somethign was needed by mid-cycle (rather than 6 months after
08:19:10 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: yeah, but it meant we could reject more slots
08:19:17 <mikal> I'd rather five half days than three full days for example
08:19:36 <mikal> ttx: I feel like Atlanta was as productive as other summits I've been to
08:19:42 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: we didn't spend enough time following through on the important stuff post summit, at least that was my feeling
08:19:52 <ttx> I'm considering having some "open time" where we would not schedule specific "sessions"
08:19:56 <mikal> Its more than six months is a long time without being able to sit down and solve the hard problems we get bogged down on in email
08:19:59 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: and maybe needed a bit more time on overarching topics, that no one proposed as a slot
08:20:18 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: mikal: and yeah, more face time is good, if we can get it
08:20:36 <mikal> Yeah, the approach was different
08:20:40 <mikal> We started with a list of important things
08:20:47 <mikal> And then found people to speak to them
08:20:49 <ttx> mikal: Like I said in my post, we can have more face time to work on specific issues, but ideally we would go over the cultural alignment at the summit, so that no extra travel is "required"
08:20:56 <mikal> Instead of letting things people submitted define the agenda
08:21:01 <mikal> So maybe we should do that for Paris
08:21:11 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: yeah, we tried to do more of that in HKG summit picking, but yeah need to do more of that for paris
08:21:32 <mikal> ttx: yeah, I get that
08:21:41 <mikal> I think perhaps its just where nova is at
08:21:53 <mikal> It feels like we have more contentious things happening now than we did a year or two ago
08:22:03 <mikal> And face time is awesome for nailing down consensus
08:22:10 <mikal> I'd be happy to replace the face time with something else
08:22:17 <mikal> But nothing else has been proposed that I think would work
08:22:25 <mikal> We don't even get most people to our IRC meetings
08:22:32 <ttx> mikal: do you feel the audience can be an issue ? Having only key contributors in the room let you expose problems ?
08:22:34 <mikal> The mid-cycle was definitely better attended than our weekly IRC meetings
08:22:43 <mikal> ttx: we didn't filter attendees though
08:22:56 <mikal> ttx: we definitely had single issue people (merge my scheduler) in the room
08:22:57 <ttx> mikal: right, it's filter by nothing else around
08:23:10 <ttx> hmm
08:23:22 <mikal> Well, I guess you could say its filter by travel budget
08:23:33 <mikal> But we could address that by asking the foundation for travel funding
08:23:40 <ttx> In the summits we just filter by "so many other interesting things around"
08:23:49 <mikal> True
08:23:54 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: some people just couldn't make that date though
08:23:57 <mikal> True
08:24:03 <ttx> It's not just budget
08:24:09 <mikal> I don't think its great that we make people travel
08:24:10 <ttx> it's also will to travel
08:24:14 <mikal> We just haven't found anything better yet
08:24:27 <mikal> ttx: have you seen the mid-cycle summary posts I'm doing by the way?
08:24:28 <ttx> ok, well, discussion to be continued
08:24:30 <mikal> We covered a _lot_
08:24:49 <ttx> mikal: they are on my reading list. Just came back from a break yesterday
08:24:57 <mikal> ttx: heh, its a lot of text
08:24:58 <johnthetubaguy> honestly, more use of video chat for drivers would help
08:24:59 <ttx> I expect to read them tomorrow.
08:25:01 <mikal> ttx: and I'm not done yet
08:25:17 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: yeah, I think trying to get drivers into a hangout is a good idea
08:25:23 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: scheduling is hard though
08:25:24 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: yeah, I just got back to work 20 mins ago
08:25:49 <ttx> ok well. I'll let you go back to work then :)
08:25:49 <johnthetubaguy> mikal: yeah, I think we need to alternate bad times or something
08:25:53 <ttx> Discussion to be continued
08:26:00 <mikal> johnthetubaguy: yep, like the IRC meetings
08:26:05 <ttx> mikal, johnthetubaguy: anything to discuss at meeting today?
08:26:09 <mikal> Nup
08:26:12 <mikal> Not that I can think of
08:26:21 <johnthetubaguy> nothing from me
08:26:26 <ttx> mikal, johnthetubaguy: OK, thanks! Talk to you later
08:26:31 <mikal> Thanks!
12:04:30 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: around?
12:06:50 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup
12:06:51 <SergeyLukjanov> morning
12:06:58 <ttx> #topic Sahara
12:07:22 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-3
12:07:47 <ttx> #info 6 implemented, 3 in review, 3 in progress, 2 not started
12:08:09 <ttx> (compared to 2 implemented, 4 udner review, 8 in progress, 1 not started last week)
12:08:20 <ttx> So that's a pretty good landing rate
12:08:40 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/swift-url-proto-cleanup-deprecations in unassigned
12:08:54 <ttx> (and not started)
12:09:05 <SergeyLukjanov> yup, a bunch of long going things ended
12:09:26 <SergeyLukjanov> it's very simple thing, mostlycleanup
12:09:39 <SergeyLukjanov> it'll be discussed on the meeting this week
12:10:31 <ttx> Last week you said you might make use of FPF to kick out stuff that's not proposed -- given your progress so far I don't think that's really necessary
12:10:40 <ttx> (FPF is in two days)
12:10:48 <SergeyLukjanov> agreed
12:11:25 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/edp-swift-trust-authentication is progressing well?
12:11:36 <SergeyLukjanov> I think yes, it's going well
12:12:22 <ttx> OK, you seem to have a good handle on things. Please assign someone to swift-url-proto-cleanup-deprecations soon, so that we know who to blame
12:12:33 <ttx> Anythign you want to discuss at meeting?
12:13:38 <SergeyLukjanov> I think nope
12:13:58 <SergeyLukjanov> I'll assign someone on it this week
12:14:23 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ok great. talk to you later, then
12:14:30 <SergeyLukjanov> thx
12:20:51 <ttx> gordc: hi! let me know when you're ready
12:22:21 <gordc> ttx: hey, just pulling up eglynn's email. i'm available now.
12:22:50 <ttx> #topic Ceilometer
12:23:02 <ttx> gordc: Thanks for coming so early
12:23:20 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-3
12:23:35 <gordc> np. metro was running on time. :)
12:23:41 <ttx> #info 3 implemented, 5 under review, 3 in progress
12:23:53 <gordc> so we hashed out all our bps for juno3... they've all been started or have code up for review
12:23:54 <ttx> Last week it was 2 implemented, 4 under review, 6 in progress
12:24:03 <gordc> one low priority item (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/ipmi-support) yet to have code posted by eoghan followed up over the weekend and the item is apparently complete internally and they will post code soon (i will check with llu again since it's an intel bp)
12:24:16 <ttx> So that's good progress
12:24:51 <gordc> yep. we had a few code items (specifically xenapi bp) added recently.
12:25:00 <gordc> last meeting, we decided pushed gnoochi/ceilometer dispatcher work to post-juno as we didn't have resources and gnocchi work remains decoupled from ceilometer work.
12:25:01 <ttx> #info Juno-3 progress looks good
12:25:19 <gordc> one issue that came up was grenade work. Chris Dent is working on that item and is talking with QA folks on how to properly implement upgrade testing. current work is being debated.
12:25:31 <gordc> let me dig up list item on grenade work
12:25:42 <ttx> You also have all of the high-prio and most of the mediupm-prio stuff already up for review
12:25:49 <ttx> which is good
12:26:09 <gordc> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102354 grenade work that is currently being discussed
12:26:16 <ttx> Now it's more a question of turning those "under review" into "implemented" things :)
12:26:50 <gordc> yeah. i'll need to bug some of the cores to get reviewing now that eglynn is offline for a week. but we have sileht back this week so that's good.
12:27:26 <ttx> if you get most of the "high" prio stuff implemented and out of the way, it will simplify the last weeks
12:28:15 <gordc> agreed. we have code pretty much finalised for 2 of 3 three remaining high priority items
12:28:23 <ttx> If I remember correctly you don't plan to use a FeatureProposalFreeze this week to drop all blueprints that won't have code proposed by Thursday
12:28:34 <gordc> central agent partitioning bp is actively being worked on and i don't have any concerns there.
12:29:34 <gordc> hmm. i don't recall regarding featureproposalfreeze. i guess we have code for all bps currently and i don't intend on adding any during the time eglynn is away
12:29:48 <ttx> right
12:30:11 <gordc> aside from very very small items i don't see any new features being added.
12:30:33 <gordc> but we'll just say no new items are expected.
12:30:33 <ttx> OK, well that's all I had -- did you have anything you wanted to discuss at the cross-project meeting later today?
12:31:17 <gordc> no, i think i should be ok for cross-project meeting. eglynn mentioned a few items we had to track.
12:31:41 <gordc> i assume people know eglynn is on holiday so hopefully there isn't much new items against ceilometer
12:32:40 <ttx> gordc: ok then. talk to you later, and thanks again for filling in
12:32:58 <gordc> np. thanks for pushing time back a bit :)
14:02:25 <ttx> jgriffith: around?
14:18:46 <ttx> dolphm: around?
14:19:51 <dolphm> ttx: o/
14:21:00 <ttx> #topic Keystone
14:21:13 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-3
14:21:33 <ttx> #info 5 under review, 1 in progress, 3 blocked and 1 not started
14:21:53 <ttx> last week it was 4 Under review, 2 in progress, 6 Blocked/Not started
14:22:05 <ttx> so i guess that counts as progress
14:22:40 <ttx> Are you still uncertain on the Blocked ones?
14:22:45 <ttx> FPF is Thursday :)
14:22:55 <dolphm> one that's blocked is actually blocked...
14:23:03 <dolphm> well, two, but i'm working on one
14:23:10 <dolphm> keystone to keystone needs an openstack/requirements review
14:23:22 <dolphm> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113294/
14:23:29 <ttx> I may be able to help there
14:24:23 <dolphm> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/endpoint-policy should have been recently unblocked - fixed
14:24:53 <dolphm> and i swear there's an implementation already in review, but i can't find it, so i'm leaving it as Not Started until our meeting today. if it's not in review today, i'm planning for it to be dropped
14:25:33 <dolphm> Deprecated Functionality is "Not Started" but only because i don't know that we actually have anything we want to deprecate this release - going to have a last minute discussion today in our meeting about that
14:25:44 <dolphm> otherwise, i guess i'll repurpose that for kilo
14:26:51 <ttx> ok +2ed
14:27:28 <dolphm> and then, i just bumped non-persistent tokens from Slow to Good Progress, it cutting it really close though
14:27:30 <dolphm> ttx: thanks!
14:27:48 <ttx> #info keystone-to-keystone-federation blocked by requirements' https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113294/
14:28:33 <ttx> audit-support-for-federation is blocked waiting on keystone-to-keystone-federation itself?
14:29:23 <ttx> As far as FPF is concerned, Deprecated functionality can get an exception
14:30:16 <ttx> Do you still plan to enforce FPF on Thursday? That would probably threaten non-persistent-tokens and endpoint-policy
14:31:33 <dolphm> audit support is actually pending support in pycadf, and yeah, the implementation is partly dependent on k2k
14:32:18 <ttx> dolphm: i would say you're in good shape, you just need to get features landed earlier, to avoid the last-week rush
14:32:19 <dolphm> still planning to enforce FPF, yes
14:32:35 <dolphm> we're far enough behind on bp reviews that FPF will be critical for us
14:33:07 <ttx> OK, maybe raise the need for requirements review at the meeting today?
14:33:14 <ttx> Anything else you want to discuss there ?
14:35:18 <dolphm> i don't believe so
14:35:35 <dolphm> and yeah - we need to get that requirements patch in so we can start landing k2k patches
14:36:21 <ttx> dolphm: ok great. Don't forget to mention it at the meeting, that should unblock it
14:36:26 <ttx> david-lyle: around?
14:36:31 <ttx> dolphm: thx!
14:36:34 <david-lyle> ttx: o/
14:36:37 <ttx> #topic Horizon
14:36:48 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-3
14:37:25 <ttx> #info 8 implemented, 33 under review, 20 in progress, 2 unknown
14:37:39 <ttx> (last week was: 7 implemented, 28 under review, 24 in progress, 4 unknown)
14:37:55 <ttx> So that's progressing
14:38:53 <ttx> david-lyle: you mentioned having a FPF last week, but I still see blueprints with code not being proposed yet, so we may not agree on what FPF means
14:40:06 <david-lyle> that could be
14:40:45 <ttx> david-lyle: the "no new blueprints" deadline is called SpecProposalDeadline
14:40:56 <ttx> FPF is: "all code must be up for review"
14:41:15 <ttx> so basically at FPF you should only have "under review" or "implemented" blueprints
14:41:41 <ttx> Most projects observe it on August 21, two days from now
14:42:41 <david-lyle> ok, hmm
14:43:11 <ttx> It usually makes sense to remove stuff from the bottom of the pile, reduce noise and increase focus
14:44:12 <ttx> But then it's difficult to push on unsuspecting contributors two days before it hits :)
14:44:30 <david-lyle> ttx: makes sense, my terminology was off, and in the past in Horizon we've taken bps up til the end
14:44:38 <ttx> right
14:44:38 <david-lyle> I'm trying to reign that in
14:45:10 <david-lyle> I had been announcing the freeze in meetings 3 weeks prior
14:45:16 <david-lyle> horizon meetings
14:45:40 <david-lyle> I understand not everyone attends or reads the logs, of course
14:45:44 <ttx> Of the "high" blueprints, only https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/launch-instance-ux-enhancement is not under review yet
14:46:07 <david-lyle> ttx: I'll have a status update on that in an hour or so
14:46:15 <ttx> last week you said you considered moving it out.
14:46:21 <ttx> ok, let's see how that goes
14:46:38 <david-lyle> it may miss, code was up, but usability feedback required large changes
14:46:43 <ttx> Anythign for the meeting later today?
14:47:01 <david-lyle> the owner is assessing if they can make the changes
14:47:06 <david-lyle> no items for later
14:47:42 <ttx> ok. Please update status on launch-instance-ux-enhancement when you know if you keep it
14:47:46 <ttx> david-lyle: thx!
14:47:51 <david-lyle> thank you
14:47:57 <ttx> mestery: around?
14:47:59 <mestery> \o/
14:48:04 <ttx> #topic Neutron
14:48:22 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-3
14:48:48 * mestery was on vacation Friday/Monday over the past week.
14:49:07 <mestery> Recovering from a 4-day weekend while preparing to fly to Chicago for Linuxcon today
14:49:16 <ttx> #info 3 Implemented, 43 under review, 12 in progress, 26 Unknown/Blocked
14:49:33 <mestery> I expect to drop the 26 unknown/blocked by 8-21 this week.
14:49:33 <ttx> Last week was: 3 implemented, 39 under review, 11 in progress, 32 unknown/blocked
14:49:46 <mestery> Some people voluntarily removed their BPs, which helped. :)
14:49:59 <ttx> right, that makes 43 blueprints in jeopardy due to FPF observance
14:50:22 <ttx> err
14:50:27 <ttx> that use to make
14:50:27 <mestery> Those 43 have code proposed
14:50:35 <mestery> I think 38 are in jeopardy right?
14:50:37 <ttx> 38 in jeopardy now
14:50:39 <mestery> cool
14:50:40 <ttx> yes
14:50:40 <mestery> :)
14:51:12 <mestery> I am most happy that the L3 HA reviews are now getting some airtime, that's a critical piece for us in Juno.
14:51:25 <ttx> This is moving a bit too slow though, even if we cut down the BPs on Thursday.. we need more landing
14:51:26 <mestery> I expect those to start landing this week, carl_baldwin is working with the the L3 HA team to make that happen.
14:51:30 <mestery> Agreed.
14:51:50 <ttx> especialy as i wouldn't hold too much hope on the gate status for FF week
14:51:59 <mestery> Yes, agreed.
14:52:03 <ttx> land while you can!
14:52:06 <mestery> ++
14:52:44 <ttx> Shall we mark https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ovs-dvr "implemenetd" now?
14:53:01 <mestery> I think we can, yes, I'll verify with armax and carl_baldwin today, but I think we can do that.
14:53:05 <ttx> And track last remaining bugs in juno-3 bugs targeting?
14:53:14 <mestery> Yes
14:53:19 <ttx> That would make that list look a lot better :)
14:53:23 <mestery> :)
14:53:52 <ttx> The other two "high" that are in jeopardy right now would be:
14:53:59 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ml2-hierarchical-port-binding
14:54:05 <ttx> and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-refactor-haproxy-namespace-driver-to-new-driver-interface
14:54:12 <mestery> Yes
14:54:17 <ttx> How is progress looking on those 2?
14:54:34 <mestery> First one is iffy
14:54:38 <ttx> may stil make it ? Would get an exception (sshh, don't tell) ?
14:54:38 <mestery> Second is also iffy
14:54:53 <mestery> I think the first one may get an exception
14:55:04 <mestery> I'll work with rkukura on that
14:55:23 <ttx> ok
14:55:40 <ttx> Can't wait we get rid of all those unknowns on Thursday
14:55:58 <mestery> I am very excited to do that yes :)
14:56:49 <ttx> OK, I don't think I have much more to add
14:56:58 <ttx> How is the incubator proposal going those days?
14:57:00 <mestery> Me either, next week will look much cleaner.
14:57:06 <mestery> I think we're going to do the incubator
14:57:13 <mestery> GBP folks are pretty much on board now
14:57:39 <ttx> Would you observe feature freeze in it in the same way you do for the neutron repo ?
14:57:49 <mestery> We're still working on that
14:57:50 <ttx> I think it makes sense for them to not have one that early*
14:57:56 <mestery> Agreed on that
14:58:17 <ttx> the aggressive deadlines on the integrated release are to make sure no project screws up the others
14:58:22 <mestery> :)
14:58:27 <ttx> there are some benefits in being out of it
14:58:35 <ttx> they should have them
14:58:43 <mestery> Yes, I agree
14:58:54 <ttx> Anything you'd like to discuss at the meeting ?
14:59:26 <mestery> Nope, I will only be there 30 minutes due to travel
14:59:53 <ttx> Nothing was posted on the agenda yet, so it might be a short one
15:00:10 <ttx> OK, talk to you later, enjoy LinuxCon
15:00:18 <mestery> thanks!
15:29:44 <notmyname> ttx: I'm here. I need just a few minutes please. just got to the office
15:29:58 <ttx> ack, no pb
15:35:31 <notmyname> ttx: ready
15:35:57 <ttx> notmyname: o/
15:36:01 <ttx> #topic Swift
15:36:09 <ttx> So, did you clarify your plans wrt. the last intermediary swift release?
15:36:39 <notmyname> ttx: 2 more, actually, as we had discussed a while back. or maybe that's what you mean. one before juno and then one at juno
15:37:07 <ttx> one intermediary and one final, yes
15:37:49 <notmyname> first can I confirm with you that juno is oct 16
15:38:09 <ttx> yes it is
15:38:17 <notmyname> ok, thanks
15:38:42 <notmyname> 2.1.0 rc next week (aug 25). final on sept 1
15:39:17 <notmyname> and 2.next RC on oct 6 with the final at or near oct 16 for juno
15:39:42 <notmyname> how does that work with you?
15:41:19 <ttx> notmyname: that would work
15:41:25 <notmyname> ttx: ok, great
15:41:34 <notmyname> as normal, I'll send you the SHA
15:41:49 <notmyname> ie I;ll send you one this weekend and you can cut the rc at your leisure on monday
15:42:02 <ttx> ack, hopefully we'll not have to backport this time around )
15:42:04 <ttx> :)
15:42:17 <notmyname> always :-)
15:42:24 <ttx> Any specific feature there ? Or mostly a bugfix release?
15:42:38 <ttx> #info 2.1.0 rc next week (aug 25). final on sept 1
15:42:56 <ttx> #info next RC on oct 6 with the final at or near oct 16 for juno
15:43:23 <notmyname> ttx: some smaller changes, but enough to have 2.1.0 (rather than 2.0.1): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115167/2/CHANGELOG
15:43:35 <ttx> Want me to create the 2.1.0 milestone?
15:43:37 <notmyname> but mostly polish rather than HUGE NEW FEATURE
15:43:40 <notmyname> yes, please
15:43:48 <ttx> ok, will do
15:44:03 <ttx> Any topic for the meeting today?
15:44:14 <notmyname> no, I don't think so
15:44:41 <notmyname> we are working on the gap analysis questions. I hope to review those at the wednesday swift team meeting
15:44:45 <ttx> ok then, will ping you when I have the milestone up
15:44:57 <notmyname> ie reviewing various oslo libraries
15:45:22 <ttx> notmyname: thx, and ttyl
15:47:11 <ttx> zaneb: around?
15:48:27 <zaneb> ttx: yes, but I'm at the Heat mid-cycle meetup today
15:48:40 <ttx> zaneb: oh, ok. Maybe we should skip then
15:48:47 <ttx> and talk another day
15:48:54 <zaneb> yeah, that would be good if we could
15:48:59 <ttx> (I suspect your status is in flux anyway)
15:49:07 <ttx> zaneb: enjoy your meetup.
15:49:18 <zaneb> sorry, forgot to warn you in advance
15:49:26 <zaneb> thanks, ttyl
15:49:27 <ttx> no problem
15:51:22 <jgriffith> ttx: ruh roh
15:51:30 <ttx> jgriffith: o/
15:51:36 <ttx> I have a free slot now :)
15:51:46 <jgriffith> how fortuitous for me
15:51:56 <ttx> notmyname: https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/2.1.0 up for your targeting pleasure
15:52:03 <ttx> #topic Cinder
15:52:16 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-3
15:52:44 <jgriffith> Only one I'm unclear on is Vincent's
15:52:45 <ttx> #info 2 implemented, 8 in review, 4 in progress, 1 unknown
15:53:17 <jgriffith> it's in progress
15:53:21 <ttx> jgriffith: IIRC you plan to observe FPF on Thursday?
15:53:22 <jgriffith> I'll update it manually
15:53:29 <jgriffith> ttx: that's correct
15:53:52 <jgriffith> ttx: mostly wanted to use it as a driver submission cut off
15:53:53 <ttx> So that makes 5 in jeopardy, including https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/secure-nfs
15:54:21 <jgriffith> right
15:54:30 <jgriffith> I'll get the word out to make sure everyone's clear
15:55:08 <jgriffith> I'd like to see NFS fixed up but honestly I'm not sure it's going to happen anyway (even if they had another week)
15:55:11 <ttx> that one blueprint I just linked is the one trying to plug that security issue in NFS support, right
15:55:19 <jgriffith> ttx: correct
15:55:26 <ttx> right, would be nice to have
15:55:41 <jgriffith> ttx: I'll talk to Glenn and would certainly do an exception for it
15:55:52 <ttx> You also want it to actually be safe, which takes extra time to review
15:56:18 <jgriffith> ttx: yeah, so that's the ONLY one I see that I would let go longer
15:56:26 <ttx> So you don't seem in a bad situation, but you definitely should merge as much as you can this week, to avoid the rush
15:56:28 <jgriffith> ttx: I'll just call it a bug :)
15:56:31 <jgriffith> since it is
15:56:55 <ttx> yeah, it's a bug but it probably requires featury things like new config options
15:57:08 <ttx> which make it impact documentation
15:57:13 <jgriffith> yeah, that's why we moved it.
15:57:31 <ttx> so I'd prefer it to follow the exception procedure, if only so that people are aware it's coming
15:57:34 <jgriffith> I'll get with Glenn and see where he's at with it
15:57:45 <ttx> OK, anything else?
15:57:53 <ttx> Any topic for the meeting today?
15:57:56 <jgriffith> ttx: I agree, I'll get it formalized and out on the ML if it happens
15:58:00 <jgriffith> or when it happens
15:58:04 <jgriffith> I do not
15:58:12 * ttx might just add the meetup vs. design summit discussion there
15:58:28 <ttx> but that sounds like a recipe for getting to bed late
15:58:38 <jgriffith> ttx: I have a lot of thoughts on that, but I hate to open that can of worms without having better ideas in mind :)
15:58:52 <jgriffith> ttx: yes, it would be a very long night for you I suspect
15:59:12 <jgriffith> ttx: I'm thinking of proposing a different format for Cinder this time around
15:59:23 <jgriffith> but thought I should go via ML when I have something in mind
15:59:28 <ttx> jgriffith: ah. Let's discuss it at the meeting :)
15:59:34 <jgriffith> ttx: works for me
15:59:47 <jgriffith> I'll spit ball my ideas/thoughts
15:59:51 <jgriffith> see what we can come up with
16:00:21 <ttx> yeah, mostly brainstorming
16:00:25 <ttx> jgriffith: thx!
16:01:08 <jgriffith> ttx: thank you... see ya later
16:02:28 <ttx> SlickNik: ready when you are
16:02:38 <ttx> No Glance person there yet
16:08:12 <ttx> arnaud: o/
16:08:21 <ttx> representing Glance again?
16:11:11 <SlickNik> ttx: I'm at the Trove Day, and the Trove mid-cycle meetup this week — so won't be able to talk much.
16:11:17 <SlickNik> ttx: trying to get closure on the multiple open reviews we have in progress: https://launchpad.net/trove/+milestone/juno-3
16:11:27 <ttx> SlickNik: I'm fine with skipping, you seem in pretty good shape
16:11:34 <ttx> SlickNik: Enjoy your meetup
16:12:43 * ttx waits a bit more to see if arnaud is representing Glance this week, otherwise I'll close the 1:1 syncs for today
16:15:06 <ttx> OK, let's call it a day.
16:15:16 <ttx> #endmeeting