19:00:25 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack
19:00:27 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 14 19:00:25 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:28 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:30 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack'
19:00:43 <sslypushenko> o/
19:00:59 <pvaneck> o/
19:01:21 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes, please feel free to add items https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-16-06-14
19:01:33 <andrey-mp> hi
19:01:36 <andrey-mp> o/
19:02:34 <catherineD> andrey-mp: hi
19:03:02 <catherineD> agenda https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-16-06-14
19:03:20 <catherineD> #topic Feature branch feature/vendor
19:03:25 <luzC> o/
19:03:41 <catherineD> luzC: hello welcome
19:03:58 <catherineD> so last week we agreed that we will create a feature branch
19:04:22 <catherineD> and we did .. pvaneck: and andrey-mp:  start to submit patches to the branch
19:04:30 <catherineD> thx
19:04:57 <catherineD> This branch is for non-production commits only
19:05:32 <catherineD> #link first commit to this branch  --> Add vendor UI ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/328780/ )
19:05:50 <andrey-mp> btw, I didn't read your last meeting log - do you have some document with branches agreement?
19:05:53 <catherineD> Please review ...
19:06:04 <andrey-mp> I'm reviewing it
19:06:08 <catherineD> andrey-mp: yes we did ..
19:07:01 <catherineD> * AGREED: Use feature branch for development of new features and     master branch for deployment (business as usual) ... (this     supersedes the earlier agreement)  (catherineD|2, 19:56:28)
19:07:30 <andrey-mp> :)
19:08:02 <catherineD> any other thought about this topic ?
19:08:13 <andrey-mp> I mean agreement how and when it will be merged
19:08:44 <catherineD> andrey-mp: you mean merger from feature branch to master?
19:08:52 <andrey-mp> yeah
19:08:58 <catherineD> we did not discuss when ...
19:09:24 <andrey-mp> its strange...
19:09:32 <catherineD> for the how ... I understand that there is exisiting method and procedure to merge feature branch to master
19:09:45 <catherineD> pvaneck: you take a look right?
19:10:02 <andrey-mp> you've made some desicion but don't how to apply it )
19:10:53 <pvaneck> we will merge the feature vendor into master once we feel it is ready for production. WE already have the gerrit permissions to do it
19:10:59 <pvaneck> i think it is fine
19:11:06 <andrey-mp> ok
19:11:15 <andrey-mp> its good )
19:11:48 <catherineD> andrey-mp: according to Doug this is the best way ...
19:12:09 <Rockyg> o/
19:12:27 <luzC> I just take a look
19:12:41 <catherineD> Rockyg: agenda https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-16-06-14
19:12:50 <luzC> branch is only at refstack but not in refstackclient
19:13:07 <sslypushenko> andrey-mp:  not may be the best, but it will definitely work)
19:13:19 <andrey-mp> it's common git method but not common to base OpenStack projects
19:13:27 <catherineD> luzC: correct ... branch is only needed for refstack not refstack-client
19:13:29 <andrey-mp> I'm ok with it )
19:13:57 <luzC> ok, sounds good
19:14:09 <catherineD> moving on ...
19:14:21 <andrey-mp> sslypushenko: I mentioned this way two meetings ago but you preferred OpenStack way )
19:14:51 <catherineD> #topic   Comments from Xuchao
19:15:15 <catherineD> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23refstack/%23refstack.2016-06-14.log.html
19:16:05 <catherineD> I am kind of concern about the comments --> " You don't pay much attention to the problem ? "
19:17:21 <pvaneck> well the timezone differences make it tough to reply to irc messages in a timely matter
19:17:34 <catherineD> We pretty much answer every IRC question and comments to the bugs  ....  is there any thing else we  should  do here?
19:17:44 <catherineD> pvaneck: that is true
19:18:20 <catherineD> Rockyg: any thoughts on how to handle the situation?
19:18:47 <andrey-mp> but is this question related to RefStack?
19:19:03 <catherineD> andrey-mp: IMO it is not
19:19:14 <Rockyg> I'm looking at the bug report now.  I think this may be filed by a Huawei tester trying to pass the tests......give me a sec
19:19:14 <andrey-mp> sure
19:19:15 <catherineD> that is why I marked all bugs invalid
19:19:43 <andrey-mp> so why should care about questions that is not related to us? )
19:19:53 <andrey-mp> also - there is a mailing list
19:19:55 <catherineD> Rockyg: ChinaCloud according to the email address ..
19:20:16 <andrey-mp> anyone can ask any question through the mailing list - I read it every day
19:20:47 <Rockyg> Hmmm.  Still might be us ;-)
19:21:18 <andrey-mp> we can add some note to refstack channel - "if no one answers you then try to ask via openstack-dev mailing list"
19:21:24 <Rockyg> But, good reply.  Although I think maybe also a link to the description og "flagged test" would help.
19:21:31 <Rockyg> in the bug.
19:21:52 <catherineD> andrey-mp: after all it is  RefStack tests that give them the results .... like in any development env ... QA and tests are the last places to catch failures...
19:22:37 <catherineD> Rockyg: I think I did give a link in one of the bug .... the issues are most bugs are for the same issues
19:23:52 <catherineD> Rockyg: the comments in this one https://bugs.launchpad.net/refstack/+bug/1592239  gives the link about DefCore flagged tests
19:23:52 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1592239 in refstack "The test run didn't actually run any tests" [Undecided,Invalid] - Assigned to xuchao (xuchao)
19:24:05 <Rockyg> just mark them dupicates, then.  and point the to the tempest original bug
19:24:26 <catherineD> This is the first time that the little "flag" in-front of the test name does not mean much to a user
19:24:45 <catherineD> Rockyg: would you be able to find out?
19:24:50 <pvaneck> Maybe the refstack site needs an FAQ or more information outlining the separation between defcore, refstack, and tempest
19:25:24 <catherineD> pvaneck: This is the reason I bring the topic here ..... Is there something that we can do?
19:25:57 <Rockyg> Yeah.  agree with pvaneck
19:26:01 <catherineD> however, this is the first time we encountered such questions for being on line for about one year now
19:26:18 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  we need some feedback from DefCore
19:26:22 <Rockyg> Maybe we can link flag to the bug, or the reason the flag is there?
19:27:02 <catherineD> sslypushenko: good idea .. I will add this as a topic to the DefCore working group ...
19:27:23 <sslypushenko> flagged tests - it is DefCore idea.... so from refstack point of view we need just provide some explanation
19:27:24 <Rockyg> More folks are trying to follow the steps, and china people are afraid to engage Chris.  Even our people at Huawei.  They need to be introduced to him before they will ask him questions
19:27:49 <sslypushenko> it is definitely looks like not a RefStack bug
19:28:24 <sslypushenko> Rockyg:  heh)
19:28:26 <Rockyg> For every flag defcore applies, we should have link to the reason or the review, or the bug or whatever.  Could save us and chris a lot of effort
19:29:07 <catherineD> Rockyg: I think that would complicate the UI but I will ask for pvaneck: andrey-mp:  opinions
19:29:22 <Rockyg> Thanks.
19:29:54 <pvaneck> right now, flag reasons are given as title text when you hover over the flag icon. But i can see how that may not be clear
19:30:07 <Rockyg> we also might consider a training class at Barcelona for newbies trying to certify
19:30:11 <catherineD> so the person does not seem to understand the concept ofDefCore using flag,  aliases
19:30:31 <Rockyg> Yup.
19:30:37 <andrey-mp> Rockyg: +1
19:30:42 <Rockyg> a lot of folks don't read the docs;)
19:30:48 <andrey-mp> +100
19:31:09 <catherineD> Rockyg: we did at Austin but the turn out seems to be low ... but I beleave a training course would help ... definitely thinking about it
19:31:10 <luzC> +1
19:31:23 <catherineD> Rockyg: +++ about not reading doc
19:31:29 <catherineD> :-)
19:32:02 <Rockyg> Might consider some youtube videos.  then you only have to do it once.  We should talk with hogepodge and foundation about what would be useful
19:32:33 <sslypushenko> Rockyg:  nobody read the docs)
19:32:50 <Rockyg> You know, it could also be a good business for a devops/tester type to consult on certs....
19:33:03 <catherineD> so seems like action plan would be 1) consider adding FAQ on RefStack 2) Discuss this with DefCore 3) RefStack training class at summit
19:33:20 <andrey-mp> agreed
19:33:38 <catherineD> Rockyg: I did refer people to the video of Austin summmit ..
19:33:50 <Rockyg> ++
19:34:11 <catherineD> but this time in Barcelona may be we will have a hands on class and not a speaker session?
19:34:29 <catherineD> but hands on class won't have video
19:35:34 <catherineD> #agreed 1) consider adding FAQ on RefStack 2) Discuss this with DefCore 3) RefStack training class/speaker session at Barcelona summit
19:35:45 <Rockyg> Could record it.  And most of the hands on happens before the summit, so could get more time.
19:36:13 <Rockyg> and agree with all of what you just wrote...
19:36:27 <catherineD> great .. good discussion ... any thing else?
19:36:51 <catherineD> hear nothing ,,, moving on
19:36:58 <catherineD> #topic Blueprint
19:37:14 <andrey-mp> about asking in empty RefStack channel?
19:37:40 <andrey-mp> will we try to let them know about openstack-dev mailing list?
19:37:49 <Rockyg> Maybe we should have a title that says email to ....?
19:38:03 <andrey-mp> or is there any other mailing list that I can monitor?
19:38:17 <catherineD> andrey-mp: good idea ... no we use openstack-dev
19:38:41 <Rockyg> We don't use the dev mailing list.  Maybe we should use the community ml instead?
19:38:47 <catherineD> BTW could everyone also monitor refstack IRC and give answer ...
19:39:01 <Rockyg> I think it's user-committee
19:39:09 <catherineD> andrey-mp: sslypushenko: your time zone may match China's better
19:39:24 <Rockyg> Or we could say to use openstack  It's the general one...
19:40:00 <andrey-mp> I can check IRC channel once at hour - but it's very rare to answering...
19:40:14 <Rockyg> Should ask hogepodge which one he thinks would be more likely for a certifier to be subscribed to
19:40:17 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  I'll try to help
19:40:20 <catherineD> andrey-mp: yea I know
19:40:36 <catherineD> sslypushenko: andrey-mp: thx
19:40:42 * hogepodge reads backlog
19:40:42 <Rockyg> there are bots that will send you an email if someone types in a channel...
19:40:59 <andrey-mp> People can ask in mailing list about time of discussion - and we will meet )
19:41:03 <sslypushenko> andrey-mp:  try irccloud.com... it is really helpful tool
19:41:20 <andrey-mp> sslypushenko: thanks, will try
19:41:31 <catherineD> sslypushenko: me too will try
19:41:55 <catherineD> moving on ?
19:42:00 <andrey-mp> yes
19:42:04 <hogepodge> Rockyg: I hope people aren't afraid to approach me with questions. Please please let them know that I strive to be an equal representative for developers, users, and vendors. I truly want to help
19:42:19 <catherineD> #link     Implement ostestr on refstack client    (  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/refstack/+spec/implement-ostestr-refstackclient   )  Thanks luzC:
19:42:26 <Rockyg> I know that.  It's a culture thing.
19:43:03 <catherineD> luzC: we will wait for your patch ... thanks for joining us ..
19:44:01 <luzC> yes, I'm submitting it later today :)
19:45:26 <catherineD> hogepodge: any other thoughts on how to help this user Xuchao ?
19:45:33 <catherineD> luzC: thx
19:46:02 <catherineD> #topic Open reviews
19:46:53 <catherineD> andrey-mp: thx for -->  Add 'cancel' registration feature ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329329/ )
19:47:19 <catherineD> question: Should we update the spec?  So far, we use the spec as document for API..
19:48:50 <hogepodge> catherineD: sorry, lots of side things going on. I'm trying to help him, and sent a private e-mail. My best suggestion is to resend a new patch
19:49:06 <pvaneck> I don't think it would hurt. Probably should if you want to keep an accurate record of the API for when/if API docs are created
19:49:10 <catherineD> hogepodge: Thanks
19:49:10 <hogepodge> since he abandoned the changes I made that would have fixed his problem.
19:49:45 <hogepodge> (which isn't a problem anyway, since the tests are flagged... I was trying to guide him through the technical aspects of the patch as a new contributor)
19:49:55 <catherineD> pvaneck: great .. I think we should ... I will submit a spec update
19:49:57 <andrey-mp> spec are good to discuss something before implement... but they are not intended to add something. Nova team uses additional spec but it is very ugly...
19:50:31 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  andrey-mp  +1 for spec update
19:50:56 <Rockyg> +1 for spec update.
19:51:03 <catherineD> andrey-mp: sslypushenko: Let discuss more next week .. I do want to keep accurate info of our API
19:51:12 <sslypushenko> we can consider specs like a documentation...
19:51:37 <catherineD> sslypushenko: yea ...
19:51:50 <andrey-mp> if we treat spec as documentation - it's ok for me to update them
19:51:50 <Rockyg> sslypushenko, ++  Less confusing to update than add a new spec for each change
19:52:52 <catherineD> andrey-mp: that is how we use the API spec so far ... but we may want to start thinking about document the API outside of spec ... will discuss next week
19:53:22 <catherineD> meanwhile please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/328780/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329329/
19:53:31 <Rockyg> catherineD, Docs group is working on getting a process for documenting api
19:53:46 <Rockyg> s in place.  It's close but not wuite there yet
19:54:01 <andrey-mp> 328780 - merged
19:54:27 <catherineD> we want to have the UI complete before the DefCore midcycle so that we can show DefCore ( especially hogepodge: ) the UI before putting it on line
19:54:48 <pvaneck> andrey-mp, thanks!
19:54:54 <catherineD> andrey-mp: super speed :-)
19:55:30 <andrey-mp> I've started before meeting )
19:55:33 <catherineD> #topic Open discussion
19:55:54 <andrey-mp> what is the next UI change will be?
19:55:58 <hogepodge> I was wondering if refstack would be a good place to add a javascript-based configuration generator for interop testing
19:56:32 <catherineD> andrey-mp: we can add product or add more fature to vendor
19:56:33 <hogepodge> so a user could go to a page, enter information about their cloud, and get a basic tempest.conf and accounts.yaml file that they can start from based on our experiences and talks
19:56:45 <catherineD> which one do we prefer ? pvaneck: andrey-mp:
19:57:07 <andrey-mp> hogepodge: good feature for product(cloud) page
19:58:40 <hogepodge> mmm, no. Just something to get the basics for non-admin single account testing
19:58:48 <hogepodge> help with defcore tempest config
19:59:43 <Rockyg> hogepodge, do you use the clouds.yaml file at all?
19:59:57 <catherineD> hogepodge: I will add the tempest conf topic for next week ... since we are about out of time
20:00:22 <Rockyg> Some devvs/infra think that would be a good file to have sent for cloud config info...
20:00:26 <catherineD> need to end the meeting .. more discussion next week
20:00:32 <catherineD> thx everyone ..
20:00:37 <catherineD> #endmeeting