19:00:09 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack
19:00:10 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb 28 19:00:09 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:11 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:13 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack'
19:04:38 <pvaneck> o/
19:04:46 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes,  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-02-28
19:04:50 <luzC> o/
19:05:42 <catherineD> hello luzC: pvaneck:
19:06:09 <catherineD> I just ping mguiney:
19:06:19 <catherineD> let's start
19:06:50 <catherineD> #topic     Pike PTG action items
19:06:57 <catherineD> #link     Pike PTG action items (  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-pike-ptg )
19:07:46 <catherineD> For the Pike cycle ... our top 5 list are listed in the etherpad
19:09:14 <catherineD> pvaneck: catherineD:  do I miss any other items?
19:09:27 <pvaneck> that about covers it
19:10:08 <catherineD> for today's meeting let's just concentrate on documentation ...
19:10:31 <catherineD> mguiney: hello  here is the agenda https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-02-28
19:10:58 <catherineD> #topic Displaying RefStack documentation
19:11:01 <mguiney> hello!
19:12:11 <catherineD> this is one of the 5 items that we want to complete this cycle .. since mguiney: has started a spec we will discuss it today ...
19:13:04 <catherineD> but from priority point of view I think "Update existing certified data with the verified flag" should have higher priority ....
19:13:18 <catherineD> back to documentation ..
19:13:52 <catherineD> #link     spec  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437175/  and   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438122/
19:14:27 <catherineD> mguiney: should these be merged into one spec?
19:15:04 <mguiney> yes, i have been meaning to do so, and the second of the two has actually been added to the first as a patch 2
19:15:38 <mguiney> I just initially made a workflow error which resulted in the second spec
19:16:17 <catherineD> yea we have all been there ... done worry about it ...
19:16:58 <catherineD> see your patch 2 ... in that case let's abandon https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438122/ ?
19:17:17 <luzC> ++ I haven't review the spec... but just as a heads up, sphinx is build into refstack
19:17:46 <catherineD> luzC: yup that is what we need to discuss today
19:18:04 <catherineD> let's go through what we have today ..
19:18:23 <catherineD> so most of the RefStack document are in RST format ..
19:18:26 <mguiney> that sounds good, yes
19:18:53 <luzC> if you run "tox -e docs" a man and html versions are created from the .rst formats...
19:19:11 <catherineD> and  as luzC: indicates sphinx is build into RefStack so we do have a way to convert to html
19:19:53 <luzC> command will create folder "build/sphinx/html"
19:21:02 <catherineD> luzC: as pvaneck: pointed out these are  full-fledged html with several js and css dependencies  .
19:21:14 <pvaneck> i was thinking of having the rsts converted into something more basic that can be brought in as angular templates in the UI
19:21:37 <catherineD> and if we want to host that at the RefStack website .. the look and feel maybe different too
19:22:34 <pvaneck> so will need to investigate if docutils (which sphinx uses to convert) can do a more basic html conversion
19:23:16 <catherineD> pvaneck: ++
19:24:32 <catherineD> I think luzC: had organized the rst doc structure well that if we can do a more basic html conversion to match RefStack site's look&feel then it would be good
19:24:59 <luzC> pvaneck ok, I guess it should be possible by changing sphinx config file... as you said, need further investigation
19:25:19 <pvaneck> luzC, right, i will look into it
19:25:22 <catherineD> the only concern I have is if we do so ... these will be RefStack specific and we will need to support the code .. and we deviate from the normal way OpenStack projects do docs
19:25:51 <catherineD> if it is just config then it may not be that bad
19:27:16 <luzC> catherineD yes, I think the first path is to investigate about the configuration within sphinx, as second option have static html files... just for maintainability would be better to have the same source files
19:27:52 <catherineD> #agreed pvaneck: will investigate whether docutils can be used for more basic html to match RefStack site's look&feel
19:28:20 <catherineD> luzC: +
19:29:04 <catherineD> let's revisit this after pvaneck: 's investigation ...
19:29:57 <catherineD> mguiney: just a note --> currently, it is possible to access RefStack docs from the RefStack website https://refstack.openstack.org/#/about
19:30:06 <luzC> one tool I used in the past for file conversion is "pandoc" but don't remember the output or license constraints
19:30:48 <catherineD> however, these are in RST format ...  what we want is html for a better look and feel
19:31:36 <catherineD> luzC: do you know whether the doc team is usng sphinx?
19:31:43 <hogepodge> o/ sorry I'm so late, conflicting meeting
19:32:17 <mguiney> catherineD: the goal was to get across the idea that it reroutes you to the rst docs, rather than having the docs available natively. I can update the wording to better reflect this, if needed
19:32:50 <mguiney> "natively" meaning what you mentioned, in html
19:33:03 <catherineD> mguiney: yea
19:33:51 <luzC> catherineD I'm not sure but I can investigate how documentation is doing it
19:33:52 <catherineD> mguiney: thx
19:34:03 <catherineD> luzC: that would be great thx
19:34:36 <catherineD> I would really want us to avoid one-of implementation if possible ..
19:34:57 <mguiney> i will get right on that
19:35:16 <catherineD> but sometime it may not make sense ...
19:35:24 <catherineD> mguiney: thx again!
19:36:04 <catherineD> so I guess we will revisit this topic next week so that mguiney: can update the spec based on the findings
19:36:37 <catherineD> any other thoughts on this topic?
19:37:58 <catherineD> hearing none .. let's moving on to the next topic ..
19:38:19 <catherineD> #topic Open discussion
19:39:08 <catherineD> #topic Update existing certified data with the verified flag
19:39:37 <pvaneck> yea, posted some notes on what API calls will be needed for that
19:39:38 <catherineD> hogepodge: mguiney: I think this should have higher priority
19:39:59 <catherineD> pvaneck: great thank you
19:40:23 <catherineD> since we are still waiting for the investigation results for the doc spec ...
19:41:07 <catherineD> hogepodge: mguiney: are you OK to start this work?
19:41:51 <mguiney> I have been looking into it, and was actually going to ask about the API calls today
19:41:58 <mguiney> so that is awesome timing
19:42:05 <catherineD> mguiney: perfect ..
19:42:19 <catherineD> pvaneck: can read our minds :-)
19:42:53 <hogepodge> we're meeting later today and can talk about it then too.
19:43:16 <catherineD> since this may be an one time effort ... does the team think we need spec or just go right into implementation ?
19:43:51 <pvaneck> dont think a spec is needed
19:44:09 <catherineD> pvaneck: ++
19:45:29 <catherineD> I think those tools may be useful later too so may be they can reside in the refstack/tools directory ..
19:46:27 <hogepodge> for a one-off, a spec may be overkill. we should do careful code review without a spec, since this will touch the database
19:46:47 <catherineD> hogepodge: ++
19:47:35 <catherineD> hogepodge: when we do the test run .. we may want to do it on a small number of record to begin with ... we also want to take a backup before that
19:47:44 <hogepodge> catherineD: ++
19:48:09 * mguiney nods
19:48:14 <catherineD> mguiney: do you have a test RefStack Server to test with ? we can work with you to build one
19:48:37 <catherineD> in your env ... of course we will test in ours too
19:48:41 <mguiney> my thought wasto perhaps run it on a dummy database until we can be sure it is safe to run
19:49:12 <mguiney> and yes, i do have a refstack server instance set up for this
19:49:44 <catherineD> mguiney: yup  .. for us to test ... we will need the format of your original data that hogepodge: gave you .. we will create our test file to run the test
19:49:57 <catherineD> mguiney: that is great ..
19:50:42 <mguiney> that would make sense
19:51:35 <mguiney> the db running on my refstack server is not currently populated with test data, but when that is populated, that will be more possible
19:51:57 <mguiney> although i may very well be misunderstanding what you need
19:53:44 <catherineD> yea we need both the anonymois data record in the database.  We also need a set of links that represent the verified data ...
19:54:34 <mguiney> makes sense. i will supply those as soon as possible
19:55:26 <catherineD> we just need the format .. like if it is a spreadsheet with colume names etc
19:57:21 <mguiney> I believe that that is the format, but I will be meeting with hogepodge later, so i will confirm details then
19:57:22 <catherineD> any other comments
19:57:38 <catherineD> mguiney: yup thx
19:58:34 <catherineD> I think we can close up for the day ..
19:59:06 <catherineD> thanks everyone
19:59:12 <luzC> bye
19:59:13 <catherineD> bye!
19:59:25 <catherineD> #endmeeting