17:03:10 #startmeeting Refstack 17:03:11 Meeting started Thu Apr 3 17:03:10 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is davidlenwell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:03:13 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:03:15 The meeting name has been set to 'refstack' 17:03:25 roll call? 17:05:47 o/ 17:06:08 hi all 17:06:11 HI boris-42 17:06:18 Morning, all. 17:06:22 Hello all 17:06:28 So we have some late arrivals this morning .. this is the first week at this time.. 17:07:03 we'll get started and hopedully they show up 17:07:08 +1 17:07:13 #topic Introductions and team identification 17:08:18 wanted to introduce everyone to boris-42.. he's ptl of rally.. we're going to be keeping them in our loop for the time being .. the hope is that our projects can find a way to colaborate on some of our shared requirments 17:08:43 davidlenwell sure 17:09:06 usually I'd have several more people to introduce to you right now .. but alas I think we'll loop back around to that when they show up . 17:09:06 * zehicle_at_dell welcome boris-42 17:09:26 zehicle_at_dell hi there 17:09:44 So I'll just move right into the next topic 17:09:47 #topic Rally > Refstack Collaboration 17:10:20 for those of your who haven't .. take some time later and review the readme on the rally repo . its well done! .. https://github.com/stackforge/rally 17:10:45 you will notice right away their process has a "validation" step that uses tempest tests.. which should seem very familure 17:10:45 davidlenwell wiki one is better=) 17:10:54 good to know 17:11:08 davidlenwell yep we are trying to bind all existing tools 17:11:22 davidlenwell to make live of devops/devs/qa simpler 17:11:36 next wednesday boris-42 and I have a google hangout call for some show and tell of each of our projects.. after which we'll have some discussions on how we might work together 17:12:46 cool! 17:12:58 will you send out a general invite? 17:13:19 zehicle_at_dell pls share email 17:13:23 zehicle_at_dell so I'll send 17:13:39 zehicle_at_dell davidlenwell yep I think that it's good for first step 17:13:52 boris-42: maybe we can chat the day before and work out a loose agenda 17:13:53 zehicle_at_dell davidlenwell to understand what we are doing and how to colobarate 17:14:21 zehicle_at_dell: do you have rockyg's phone number .. maybe we can text her .. I wanted her to pay attention to the next part of this meeting 17:14:55 davidlenwell, working on it 17:15:09 zehicle_at_dell davidlenwell so guys 17:15:15 btw here is a high level roadmap 17:15:16 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cAgyueiQ__tZ_MG5oOxe4q49tyPQcm-Y1469lmeERq8/edit?usp=sharing 17:15:18 for Juno 17:15:28 I am writing with community now 17:15:32 so only topics are ready 17:15:59 it is interesting that you shared that now .. my next meeting topic is "Specs" 17:16:12 #Specs 17:16:22 #topic Specs 17:16:43 In an effort to reign things in. I am implementing something that a lot of the community(nova and others) are doing and use more defined specs when designing features and assigning work. They are doing it with a separate repos like nova-specs (https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs). We're going to keep things in a single repo for now. I don’t want to create extra places for things. 17:17:01 +1 17:17:09 The idea is to allow you and others to submit features as detailed specs that go through normal code review process so that all future work is thought out on a higher level and can be approved by proper channels before being implemented. 17:17:24 I’ve committed a readme, template and the first proposed spec here; 17:17:36 folder with template and read me.. https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/tree/master/specs 17:17:45 #link https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/tree/master/specs 17:18:05 first spec for the gearman workflow.. #link https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/blob/master/specs/proposed/refstack-org-gearman-tester.rst 17:18:24 I also thought it would be useful for members of the defcore committee to get credit in stackalytics for designing features and defining use cases. 17:19:12 +1 17:20:06 any questions? I'm sure later when ibm people and rockyg show up they will have a million questions .. I'll be available in #refstack all day and am happy to talk about it. 17:20:14 davidlenwell zehicle_at_dell guys I am bit busy in moment (so see you later) 17:20:26 boris-42: thanks for stopping by .. will catch you later 17:20:49 davidlenwell anyway I'll read meeting logs 17:20:50 boris-42, looking forward to future collaboration! 17:21:23 davidlenwell, I think you're on the right track. we need more of a quorum for finalize process 17:21:34 exactly 17:21:40 I think we should move foward since this conforms to community best practice 17:21:55 #agreed moving forward with specs 17:22:18 #topic Refstack design session in Atlanta. 17:22:53 interesting topic 17:23:02 if rocky were here .. she's share this #link http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/197 17:23:58 catherine at ibm has emailed around some additions for it .. we'll need rockyg to update that with the details asap.. I'll email around today with some more notes on the subbject .. 17:24:08 since nobody is here to talk about it .. we'll move on.. 17:24:19 #topic Pending Code Reviews: 17:24:41 zehicle_at_dell: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84337 I'm reviewing this now 17:24:47 * zehicle_at_dell added comment to Rocky's post 17:25:12 thank you rob 17:25:13 cool - I'm about to work on changes to execute_test that allow it to pick up the environement variables 17:25:52 okay .. zehicle_at_dell lets make sure your code gets reviewed by waiman and ted to make sure we arne't breaking anything 17:26:01 +1 17:26:21 I'm planning for it to be it's own patch, not added to the existing TCUP one 17:26:28 waiman: wanna take a minute and read the scroll back.. we'll loop around to open discussion in a few 17:26:41 zehicle_at_dell: good thinking .. 17:26:48 so far, davidlenwell: code is in a different folder, so won't break any existing code. 17:27:11 waiman: maybe you missed the part where he said he was going to edit execute_test.py 17:27:14 i mean zehicle_at_dell: tcup code is in a separate folder. 17:27:23 oh.. i don't see that. 17:27:37 its going to be in a different review 17:27:54 ok. will watch out for that... 17:28:18 after this topic I'll go back to specs.. 17:28:30 waiman: are other members of ibm joining us? 17:28:54 i don't see them online... Catherine has a doctor appointment 17:29:04 ah .. okay .. we'll just catch her up later on 17:29:11 So lets talk about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84320/ 17:29:30 waiman and ted took the time yesterday to make us some flow charts detailing how things work here.. 17:29:43 I haven't had a chance to read them yet but I'll take a look 17:30:03 rockyg: read the scroll back .. and we'll loop around to specs and open discussion shorttly 17:30:19 #link https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/efd2ff41-8269-45e1-8950-30ce09bd2061 17:30:31 Don't have the scroll back because was disconnected fro net. 17:30:39 #link https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/ed40cb3e-18a6-4121-a990-6d87a7310378 17:30:50 rockyg: sorry .. (not everyone has persistant irc.. I must remember this) 17:30:50 i don't have the scroll back neither. 17:30:56 okay.. 17:31:07 lets finish this topic and I'll just loop around 17:31:29 cool 17:31:41 waiman: I'm going to reivew your drawings and will leave some feed back in your code review .. 17:31:49 good. 17:32:06 has anyone had a chance to run it? 17:32:19 rockyg waiman.. I'll let you read the meeting log to catch the introduction and rally part of the discussion .. 17:32:22 I tied but ran into python dependencies 17:32:32 we'll now go back to Specs.. 17:32:40 #topic Specs .. again 17:32:52 In an effort to reign things in. I am implementing something that a lot of the community(nova and others) are doing and use more defined specs when designing features and assigning work. They are doing it with a separate repos like nova-specs (https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs). We're going to keep things in a single repo for now. I don’t want to create extra places for things. 17:32:57 The idea is to allow you and others to submit features as detailed specs that go through normal code review process so that all future work is thought out on a higher level and can be approved by proper channels before being implemented. 17:33:04 I’ve committed a readme, template and the first proposed spec here; 17:33:04 folder with template and read me.. https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/tree/master/specs 17:33:04 first spec for the gearman workflow.. https://github.com/stackforge/refstack/blob/master/specs/proposed/refstack-org-gearman-tester.rst 17:34:00 rockyg: this should lead to good raw material for documentation 17:34:26 #topic specs q and a 17:34:41 davidlenwell, do you expect to have more directories after proposed? like "accepted" and "completed" ? 17:34:49 yes . 17:35:01 when something is final and we've agreed on it .. it will move to accepted 17:35:03 so, we should have the specs approved, before coding (or at least checking in, right?) 17:35:07 when its dinished comleted 17:35:23 waiman: idealy we'd have specs approved before writing any code .. 17:35:39 +1 17:35:42 it will save us a lot of wasted efforts and re-writes if the group decideds to go another way 17:35:43 +1 17:36:05 I'm assuming we'd use this time to approve/discuss specs? 17:36:20 yes 17:36:29 it will be a regular meeting topic 17:36:32 And, we can enforce updating the specs before moving to completed. 17:36:34 +1 17:36:45 as well as using the code review process to refine the specs 17:37:01 waiman: I also can't see the comments you tried to make on my proposed spec .. 17:37:17 so we can discuss that offline if you like 17:37:33 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84957/ 17:37:49 i added 4 inline comment in patch set 2 17:37:56 oh I see it .. thanks 17:38:22 good call on the using the test status message 17:38:28 I'll add that to the spec 17:38:54 are there any other questions about specs ? 17:39:15 are you going to use the execute_test.py on the gearman worker? 17:39:21 yes 17:39:23 are you going to have a list of items that need specs? 17:39:37 zehicle_at_dell: right now that is all of our open blue prints 17:39:53 and I will likely create blueprints and empty specs and assign them to people to flush out 17:39:58 so, I'm infering, we need one for TCUP 17:40:05 zehicle_at_dell: absolutely 17:40:06 +1 17:40:12 +10 17:40:32 anyone wanna take the first pass at the tcup spec ? 17:40:41 the template is pretty easy to follow 17:40:43 I'm willing to do it 17:40:49 okay.. excelent 17:40:50 Thanks! 17:41:01 we should possibily agree that there are mutiple TCUPs right now 17:41:09 #agreed zehicle_at_dell will take the first pass at the tcup spec 17:41:09 and break it into the different cases 17:41:18 Agreed. 17:41:27 rob .. I believe my drawing gave us a good seperation between the use cases 17:41:35 yes 17:41:36 feel free to use it in your spec 17:41:39 thanks 17:41:54 try to cover one use case per spec 17:41:56 where is the drawing? 17:42:18 #link https://www.dropbox.com/s/sfx7e8ehlogdpk1/refstack%20high%20level%20flow%20chart.png 17:42:38 waiman: its the one we were reviewing at the f2f 17:42:44 is there a prefered way to create these drawings? and, where do you want to keep their source/image output 17:42:54 we're using lucid chart 17:43:00 good...we were looking for that everywhere in the wiki... :) 17:43:06 the free account is sufficient 17:43:15 and for my spec I uploaded the image to the wiki 17:43:23 and linked it in the rst 17:43:32 Request: Can we put all the docs in one (or two) location? DropBox is also a non-starter in corporate network here and I'm not sure how they'd take to having the client on this machine. 17:43:35 you can view the source of my rst to see that in action 17:43:48 rockyg: we'll use the openstack wiki 17:43:56 thats just were I had mine for now 17:44:01 I'll link to the stuff in the wiki. I'll get that done today. 17:44:08 great 17:44:15 okay .. next topic .. 17:44:26 #topic Refstack design session in Atlanta. 17:44:29 again 17:44:40 Yes! 17:44:46 rockyg: you didn't see it .. but I linked your session thing 17:44:51 rob left a comment on it .. 17:45:05 if we can make that a priority to get populated with real info asap.. like today maybe 17:45:13 I would be a very happy camper 17:45:37 Can do. Any comments on catherineD's verbage? 17:45:50 I will reply to that email with my comments 17:45:53 later today 17:46:02 Great. I'll get that out today, too. 17:46:08 awesome! 17:46:30 #agreed rockyg will update the session details here .http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/197 17:46:34 It'll be nice not to be struggling with Sphinx for a bit ;-) 17:46:55 rockyg: I think this spec thing is a good thing for you to focus your energy on 17:47:04 Agreed. 17:47:33 #agreed david will email the group later with comments on catherines verbage for the design session 17:47:47 #topic Open Discussion 17:47:49 The cool thing is that we can use the spec docs as wiki sections. 17:48:05 absolutely 17:48:10 its the same format 17:49:08 Just an FYI. I've been struggling with docs mostly because I've been on the corporate net, so no access to Architecture drawing, and realizing that the details of a lot of this from a user perspective are still extremely fluid. 17:49:41 a question: is the project name "Refstack" or "RefStack" ? 17:49:47 Refstack 17:49:59 good to know! I've been using S 17:50:16 So, off network today until I've collected all the stuff needed into the wiki. davidlenwell: Me, too. 17:50:59 http://refstack.org/ clearly isn't capitolized ;) 17:51:06 just look at the logo 17:51:28 thats another topic of discussion .. I'm goign to take a design pass before the summit.. 17:51:41 Yeah, but look at the page title. 17:51:51 ha ha .. I see .. 17:51:58 we are anything but consistant here with refstack 17:52:05 see I just did it again 17:52:08 no caps 17:52:11 and in #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/RefStack 17:52:31 I've been doing it RefStack - so that's me 17:52:31 That's my bad. I'll fix it today. 17:52:42 you may mess up the deep linking 17:52:50 ok. so "Refstack" is official. 17:52:51 I think the wiki is case sensitive 17:52:58 it is 17:53:01 you can leave it .. 17:53:11 I don't actually care if its capitolized at this point 17:53:12 #agree Refstack is official 17:53:30 I'd rather focus on the work at hand 17:53:32 can we agree to not try and fix retroactively? 17:53:33 Wiki is. I might have to leave the link and link another page with the correct capitalization 17:53:51 opportunistic fixes please 17:54:00 zehicle_at_dell: Yup. 17:54:03 so back to our layout and ui for a moment 17:54:03 +1 17:54:16 davidlenwell, one of my kids is playing with it 17:54:44 I can send you a draft tonight 17:54:44 we need a better way to display clouds and tests... 17:54:47 So I'll publish a spec with the ux requirment including some wireframes of layout changes and a flow chart showing how things will link together 17:55:08 +1 (he's playing w/ CSS not flow) 17:55:20 waiman: we had talked in person that time about integrating the cloud / test lists in a colapsable menu 17:55:30 right. 17:55:36 Great. Can we ping the UX team to take a look (Jaromir and someone else?) 17:55:36 I think thats a good call .. 17:55:48 I was talking w/ Boris R (board member) about the Driver Test work. 17:55:53 and now we will have tests doesn't belong to any cloud, uploaded from TCUP. 17:55:57 that should be a topic for next week 17:56:33 Oh, also. Outside of functionality, does Refstack want to also run what security tests we have for the core? 17:56:39 waiman: do you mean test results that are anonymous ? 17:56:49 davidlenwell: yes 17:57:06 waiman: for now we are not making those results public 17:57:12 ok 17:57:13 they are for data collection for defcore only 17:57:27 we'll likely need to build some reporting tools into the sites admin 17:57:37 +1 17:57:40 I'll put that on the agenda for next week 17:57:53 okay .. so I think we've covered all of it .. 17:58:07 Security testing -- next week? 17:58:12 rockyg waiman please read the meeting log when we're done .. catch anything we missed 17:58:14 yes rockyg 17:58:22 will do. 17:58:31 me too miss the new irc time 17:58:41 its okay .. 17:59:00 do we need to have a call to go over the lfow charts 17:59:11 I am going to commute into the office now.. then we have a scrum meeting and lunch.. but I'll be in irc all day and would love to talk about specs and flow charts .. 17:59:25 +1 17:59:32 OpenStack board meeting today 17:59:35 catherineD: get caught up on what a spec is .. and we'll discuss your flow charts this afternoon 17:59:43 I'll be online but trying to focus there 17:59:45 ok 17:59:48 #endmeeting