19:00:27 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack
19:00:29 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun  6 19:00:27 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:32 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack'
19:01:33 <pvaneck> o/
19:01:36 <rockyg> o/
19:01:40 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes,  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-06-06
19:01:58 <mguiney> o/
19:02:24 <catherineD> hi everyone
19:02:37 <catherineD> it should be a shiort meeting today
19:02:45 <catherineD> let's start
19:03:47 <catherineD> #topic Next week IRC meeting
19:03:58 <luzC> o/
19:04:14 <catherineD> Paul wll  run the IRC meeting on June 13 and 20
19:04:51 <catherineD> pvaneck: thanks for hosting the meetings
19:05:09 <pvaneck> yep :)
19:05:43 <catherineD> #topic Displaying RefStack documentation
19:07:06 <catherineD> pvaneck: I guess we just need an other +2 on the last patch  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460746/
19:07:19 <pvaneck> yea, will ask again soon
19:07:51 <catherineD> pvaneck:  thanks
19:08:13 <catherineD> #topic Tools to check whether test links in a spreadsheet are marked as verified in RefStack
19:08:40 <mguiney> just about to push a patch for that now
19:09:08 <catherineD> mguiney: thanks! any thing we need to discuss ?
19:09:43 <mguiney> not a ton, decided to make the update success status logging an automatic thing rather than a flagged thing
19:10:30 <mguiney> because it's generally useful to have a record that you can go to for the last run, rather than needing to run the script again
19:11:11 <mguiney> (once you realize things may have gone wrong, that is)
19:12:37 <catherineD> alright .. please ping if you need to discuss at the #refsack IRC
19:13:06 <mguiney> o7
19:15:45 <catherineD> alright moving on
19:16:23 <catherineD> #topic Pending reviews
19:17:27 <catherineD> #link Add scripts for running refstack-client in docker (  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430701/
19:17:59 <catherineD> so Anne had reviewed it still does not work on her Mac ..
19:18:29 <catherineD> it works for me on my Ubuntu ... I think for mguiney:  too
19:19:09 <catherineD> Chris mentioned last time that he can test on his Mac
19:19:21 <catherineD> I will ask him to review
19:20:20 <catherineD> mguiney: please mention this to Chris if you have a chance to talk to him
19:21:57 <catherineD> #link     Add 'rm -f .testrepository/times.dbm' command in testenv (  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459652/ )
19:22:15 <mguiney> i will, should be talking to him later today
19:22:28 <catherineD> thanks
19:22:40 <hogepodge> o/
19:22:47 <hogepodge> catherineD: I'll get on it
19:23:44 <catherineD> hogepodge: thank you !  I don't have a Mac env for the test ...
19:25:15 <catherineD> for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459652/  I will contact Nitesh to make similar update to the one he did today
19:26:18 <catherineD> #link Added Defcore additional properties waiver  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/370534/
19:28:07 <luzC> needs some rework... on my pending list
19:28:13 <catherineD> luzC: do we still want to continue with  this patch?
19:29:09 <catherineD> luzC: alright ... thanks
19:29:11 <luzC> that was my same question... not sure how often the waiver is being used... the rework might take a while, so if waiver is not in use, I can abandon the patch completely
19:29:24 <catherineD> luzC: ++
19:29:47 <catherineD> hogepodge: your thought?
19:32:28 <catherineD> luzC: How about bring this up for discussion on the Interop WG meeting tomorrow
19:33:13 <luzC> ok, sounds good
19:33:20 <luzC> I'll bring it there
19:33:26 <hogepodge> waiver isn't being used much
19:33:35 <hogepodge> not sure if it's going to be in effect much longer
19:33:47 <hogepodge> only one company has used it
19:33:51 <catherineD> ++
19:34:13 <rockyg> I think it goes out with 2018.01?  or 2017.08?
19:34:30 <rockyg> It was only for a year.
19:35:45 <catherineD> I thnk it will go out in 2017.08 ... if so it does not make sense to push this patch at RefStack...
19:36:21 <catherineD> let's confirm on that in tomorrow's meeting with the interop wg
19:36:31 <catherineD> moving on ...
19:36:39 <catherineD> #Open discussion
19:36:51 <catherineD> any other topic to discuss?
19:39:02 <catherineD> hearing nothing.  I think we can close up for the day
19:39:12 <rockyg> Just wanted to say there are acouple of *long* threads on dev on tempest, tempest plugins and the trademark programs
19:39:52 <rockyg> Of course, no one has thought to bring the interop ML into the discussions on the part that relates to trademark.
19:40:51 <rockyg> And there are assumptions that interopWG is aware of and remembers a couple of TC resolutions about what can be included in the guidelines and TM
19:40:58 <mguiney> on the forums, or?
19:41:16 <rockyg> On the dev ML
19:41:29 <mguiney> ahhhh makes sense
19:41:37 <mguiney> sorry, didnt pick that up on first read
19:42:50 <rockyg> Yeah.  It seems that some think InteropWG can't add any projects that aren't in some dev list that is part of an old resolution.  Others think it has to have some tag.  And the location of the tests also become an issue.
19:43:14 <rockyg> Because of one of the old resolutions saying all defcore tests need to be in tempest.
19:43:44 <catherineD> rockyg: should Interop WG discuss that in tomorrow's meeting to evaluate the impact?
19:43:46 <rockyg> Oh, and interop WG doesn't add or modify many tests.  So, slackers
19:44:31 <rockyg> Yes, we should.  I'm going to post an email to the interop list with links to the threads, but if anyone else gets there first, great!
19:45:02 <catherineD> rockyg: ++
19:45:44 <catherineD> anything else?
19:46:49 <catherineD> ok let's close the meeting
19:46:53 <catherineD> thank you all!
19:47:03 <rockyg> Thanks!
19:47:07 <catherineD> have a good day ! bye!
19:47:13 <catherineD> #endmeeting