21:01:07 #startmeeting quantum 21:01:08 Meeting started Mon Nov 19 21:01:07 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:01:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:01:10 The meeting name has been set to 'quantum' 21:01:11 hi! 21:01:19 #info agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings 21:01:26 hello all! 21:01:44 #info grizzly-1 branch date is end-of-work tomorrow 21:02:11 so the only changes we'll make to G-1 past that point are "critical" bugs 21:02:29 do we have a list of them? 21:02:47 of course, this early in the cycle, there's no need to "cram" extra features into G-1, as the difference between being in G-1 and G-2 are not major 21:03:08 so don't feel we need to get something merged if we don't feel like there was enough time to review… good reviews take priority 21:03:42 magana: there are known outstanding at this point, but if they popped up in testing, then we would only merge a serious fix into the G-1 milestone proposed branch 21:03:57 #info current status of grizzly https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/grizzly-1 21:04:32 so from a feature perspective, we should be focused on only those 4 features in terms of reviews. 21:04:36 let's go through them 21:04:43 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-security-groups-iptables 21:04:51 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16210/ 21:05:00 danwent: i have started to review that 21:05:09 I got review comment from garyk, akihiro, aaron 21:05:12 me too 21:05:18 I'll fix the comment in 5 hours 21:05:22 ok, looks like we're covered in terms of reviewers 21:05:53 nati_uen_: take your time. i'll be in the office in another 8 or 9. 21:06:05 garyk: Thanks 21:06:05 Ok, I will need to know for sure about this by the main openstack meeting tomorrow 21:06:43 so let's have people do one more round of reviews after nachi's next patchset, and then we'll need to figure out if we're just talking about consemtic changes needed, or anything structural 21:07:09 nati_ueno: can you ping me tomorrow morning (pacific time) about status and we'll decide to keep in G-1 or move to G-2? 21:07:22 danwent: I got it. I'll mail you about the situation of nest round. 21:07:31 ok, next up: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/rpc-for-l3-agent 21:07:37 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15619/ 21:07:44 salvatore: I will have a look at the problem you mentioned. I hope it is true. 21:07:57 I hope it is not true actually 21:08:00 have the big picture design questions been figured out here? 21:08:42 I'd like to hear from markmcclain too. I'd say that there are aspect which can be improved, but overall the patch is by itself a good improvement 21:08:53 markmcclain ? 21:08:54 so I think we can do other improvements incrementally 21:09:09 salv-orlando: I've gotten through part of it, just not all of it 21:09:10 again, I don't want to "ram" this in just b/c of G-1… if we feel like it needs more discussion, that is OK. 21:09:43 Ok, markmcclain , do you anticipate finishing review by later today? 21:09:47 yes 21:09:56 i guess it already is later today in your neck of the woods :P 21:10:16 ok. I'l check the review later. 21:10:34 markmcclain: it is blocking other fetures, multi host , scheduler and multi instance. 21:10:49 right 21:10:51 gongysh: yes, but we need to make sure we're merging good designs as well 21:10:53 its a balance :) 21:10:58 that are important to large scale deployment. 21:11:07 gongysh: indeed 21:11:23 so take the time to review it. 21:11:29 that's why your patch is being granted extra care :) 21:11:33 make it progress. 21:11:40 gongysh: please be polite :) 21:12:06 dan: hi i am polite to all of u guys. :) 21:12:22 Ok, so I am going to plan on this going in tomorrow. If there are any serious red flags, please raise it on the main ML, as this has been in review for a while 21:12:56 ok, next up, markmcclain https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/metadata-overlapping-networks 21:13:15 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16282/ 21:13:20 this relies on a nova patch as well 21:13:54 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16281/ 21:14:03 danwent: markmcclain i ran into some issues here (with all 3 patches) 21:14:21 markmcclain: I like this feature. 21:14:23 seems like there's no real action on the nova review from nova cores, so i'm guessing this as an entire feature-set will not arrive in G-1 21:14:41 yes, i can't wait to have this :) 21:14:59 yeah.. I'll to pester a few devs 21:15:15 markmcclain: is the nova side backward compatible? 21:15:17 *nova devs, but I think it will help to make sure we're +1 on it first 21:15:19 markmcclain: ok, let me know if I can help with that... 21:15:31 yes.. the nova changes are 100% backwards compatible 21:15:53 markmcclain: great. i think that if you state this in the commit message then it will certain help move it forward 21:16:07 ok.. I'll update the commit message 21:16:19 garyk: I can't find your probs that you reported 21:16:20 markmcclain: thanks 21:16:24 can you resend them? 21:16:38 markmcclain: sure. 21:16:48 thanks 21:16:54 markmcclain: I need a simple chart to show your idea of the BP. 21:17:02 markmcclain: as I mentioned in my review, I'd like to see at least a design sketch on LP on this, particular describing the two different flows (as I understand it). 21:17:32 yeah.. working on those to make the review easier to understand 21:17:35 doesn't need to be a book, just the "big picture" to help reviewers have context, and to help people writing the docs understand what's going on. 21:17:57 great minds think alike... 21:18:03 Ok, so i'm going to continue to work on this, but my guess is that this is less likely to be completely merged (quantum + nova) in G-1 21:18:32 markmcclain: let's sync up before the main openstack meeting tomorrow 21:18:41 and see how things have progressed 21:18:47 ok.. I'll ping you PST morning 21:18:52 thx 21:19:20 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-service-framework 21:19:31 it's in a good shape 21:19:34 all comments've been resolved so far. I'm waiting for approval. 21:19:49 I am giving it a last round of tests, then will +2 if nothing comes up (but nothing should) 21:19:49 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15733/ 21:20:26 ok, will keep it targeted. if something pops up, please notify me, otherwise i'll assume it merges tomorrow. 21:20:36 I'm close to a +2 on it too 21:20:37 i see gongysh and garyk as other recent core revewers 21:20:53 salv-orlando: let me review it as well no later that that 3:00pm PST 21:20:56 ok, markmcclain , i'll count on you as second core dev 21:21:03 danwent: i had some minor nits. thay have been addressed 21:21:28 holy jesus there's been a lot of comments/updates on gerrit for that review :P 21:21:43 ok, so those are the outstanding features 21:21:44 yep 21:21:49 danwent: my comments have be dealt with. 21:22:02 i'd prefer to recieve "nits" in a pack rather than 1 per update 21:22:06 I will check if I can give +2 first. 21:22:19 gongysh: ok, can you put a minus on it, so others know not to merge? 21:22:31 seems like I'm not required anymore. 21:22:31 fine. Yes sir. 21:22:34 let's try to get that wrapped up today 21:22:44 enikanorov_: i imagine its late-night for you? 21:22:54 yes, as usual 21:22:54 So I'll put this way: I'll -2 if something is really wrong :) 21:23:10 so let's try to get all outstanding issue on this patch in so enikanorov_ sees them in his AM. 21:23:32 that would be great 21:23:41 danwent: agreed. 21:24:04 but similar to the l3-rpc branch, there are a lot of dependencies here, so the sooner the better 21:24:15 ok, now onto bugs 21:24:47 we want to particular focus on bugs that are relevant for folsom, as we're planning on pushing distros to make sure they take all our stable changes at the end of G-1 21:24:54 https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bugs?field.tag=folsom-backport-potential 21:25:09 garyk has been the champion of stable/folsom for quantum and is leading that charge 21:25:42 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15758/ 21:25:52 this one is mine, i just need to respond to salv's feedback, and we should be good 21:25:56 danwent: i think that we are looking good at the moment (the critical on you resolved has already been added to stable) 21:26:13 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16044/ 21:26:16 danwent: i'll review that one tomorrow 21:26:28 ok, great, garyk will be second for this one 21:26:59 rkukura: seems like the -1 from Alex is more of a nit? 21:27:00 danwent: I'll post an updated patch today that should be ready. 21:27:17 ok, i will re-review that one 21:27:32 danwent: rkukura this one will be a challenge to backport as the ovs code was refactored a bit... 21:27:38 Are log messages supposed to be internationalized? 21:27:46 rkukura, After you updated the patch, I will help to review again :) 21:28:08 rkukura: i think so. not 100% sure 21:28:10 rkukura: yes, moving forward we are going to enforce that we at least can internationalize (i.e., we use the underscore) in quantum 21:28:21 OK 21:29:04 garyk: hrmmm… so we need a special backport patch? 21:29:27 danwent: yup. i'll do it. i'll just need an extra few eyes... 21:29:39 garyk: great 21:29:42 It should be straightforward 21:30:03 are there other folsom relevant fixes we're looking to backport? 21:30:38 garyk: only one for G-1 i had a question about was this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1080286 21:30:39 danwent: just the two that you mentioned. there is one still pending a fix (external networks and provider) 21:30:40 Launchpad bug 1080286 in quantum "L3 agent logging does not work" [Medium,In progress] 21:31:06 garyk: yes, but provider networks one may be tricky from a backward compat perspective… probably not something we want to rush in. 21:31:13 danwent: this problem is only if the G version. it was with the usage of the common logging. 21:31:15 I'll look at the provide networks tomorrow 21:31:23 garyk: ah, great 21:31:33 danwent: gongysh has resolved this with the l3-agent patch (2 birds with one stone) 21:31:33 rkukura: cool 21:32:03 ok, so last bug review I wanted to mention was this one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16151/ 21:32:25 this doesn't actually fix the bug 21:32:36 in my testing, this slightly reduces the memory usage 21:32:45 danwent: markmcclain correct - it does not solve the issue of the memory 21:32:50 or at least seems to, given my testing of one run without it, and onewith it 21:32:56 1.4 GB -> 0.9 GB 21:33:09 still 750 MB too much :) 21:33:14 so the question is: is this a useful half step? 21:33:18 clearly we need to do better 21:33:29 danwent: yes. 21:33:49 markmcclain: is this inline with what you think the more complete fix is? 21:34:00 no 21:34:27 markmcclain: ok, so then can you review and -2 if you don't think it should be merged? 21:34:47 ok.. I think the real fix is going to be more involved 21:34:54 and I'd rather it land early G2 21:35:37 ok, is there anyone for whom the current leak is a blocker, and would be helped by memory at least going down to under 1 GB? 21:35:52 otherwise, delaying it a bit probably has little cost 21:36:16 it is bad but I don't feel the need for rushing anything in G-1. 21:36:24 I think we can keep it there and hope the developer investigates more. 21:36:30 ok, markmcclain, please -2 the review explaining why 21:36:35 will do 21:36:36 I mean the patch. 21:36:58 no need to -2. 21:37:03 I think 21:37:04 markmcclain: perhaps if you provide a few pointers, the developer of the existing patch might improve on it. 21:37:12 that was my plan 21:37:28 gongysh: well, if we don't think something should be merged, it should either be abandoned or -2'd otherwise others might merge it. 21:37:34 Ok, anything else on G-1? 21:37:55 #topic open discussion 21:38:15 one thing I wanted to mention is that release day (thursday) is a US holiday 21:38:45 danwent: i gues you guys will need to cancel the holiday. 21:38:45 so those of you not in the US, please keep an eye on the ML aliases in case anything urgent pops up. 21:38:53 garyk: haha… tell that to my wife :P 21:39:17 salv-orlando will be the official point person for any last minute issues with G-1 21:39:26 I am totally sure that I garyk and gongysk will be more than happy thant calling you direct on the phone :) 21:39:35 as he is completely "un-american" 21:39:50 ok, any other open discussion? 21:40:00 salv-orlando: please send me his cell no. i'll start practicing 21:40:08 danwent: by writing that on IRC, you've just unleashed the CIA and the FBI on me 21:40:12 oh and the NSA too 21:40:20 :) 21:40:36 ok, thanks folks. keep up the great work on reviews to wrap up G-1! 21:40:39 #endmeeting