18:07:38 #startmeeting savanna 18:07:39 Meeting started Thu Oct 31 18:07:38 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SergeyLukjanov. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:07:40 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:07:43 The meeting name has been set to 'savanna' 18:07:55 #topic Agenda 18:08:03 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/SavannaAgenda#Agenda_for_October.2C_31 18:08:20 #topic Action items from the last meeting 18:09:34 hm 18:10:00 let's discuss here design summit proposals that wasn't accepted 18:10:47 any updates? 18:11:04 I've just sent the letter about retrospective results 18:11:11 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Savanna/Release_0.3_Retrospective 18:11:31 I've started a pad for post 0.3 dashboard enhancements. 18:11:35 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/EDP_dashboard_post_0.3 18:11:53 if someone wants to add more thoughts please edit this page about retro 18:13:21 Trevor's requirements doc is on review 18:13:31 SergeyLukjanov, update from me re drafting actions, still tbd. i should have some initial goals out to collaborators today. 18:13:51 mattf, ok, great 18:14:57 ok, let's move on 18:15:11 #topic Design summit update 18:15:29 #link http://icehousedesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/savanna 18:15:50 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Summit/Icehouse/Etherpads#Savanna 18:16:00 any questions about the design summit? 18:16:44 ok 18:17:06 #topic News / updates 18:17:09 folks, please 18:17:53 update from me - we start working on moving integration tests to CI 18:18:00 I mean jenkins.o.o 18:18:06 savanna got a lot of play during strata & hadoop world this week. i did an unconference session and discussed it quite a bit. there's a good amount of interest. there was also the rax + hwx preso and plans. 18:18:34 i'd like to hear more about rax + hwx 18:18:42 in regards to savanna 18:18:57 mattf, interesting, could you, please, share some minutes and slides from strata for savanna-related stuff? 18:19:13 me too actually. it was in the last slot yesterday. i had to leave 5 min into it. i just got to talk to rnirmal et al before it. 18:19:30 i'm going to find the video and see if there were questions as they went through the presentation. 18:20:16 SergeyLukjanov, i'll pull some notes together after summit and share points of interest 18:20:27 mattf, thank you 18:21:14 #info Reminder: The Nov 7 meeting is canceled. We’ll resume meetings on Nov 14. 18:21:57 anything else? 18:22:15 what are the next steps for the retrospective? 18:23:07 hmm, good question, page is done, need to think how to turn ideas for improvements into the real life :) 18:23:27 definitely 18:23:40 most thoughts were about review process 18:23:40 yep :) 18:23:49 question - the patch that provides oozie support in hdp plugin was just merged. For EDP, how does savanna controller know where oozie is running to execute jobs? 18:24:29 I think that we can discuss retrospective at the next team meeting 18:24:55 aignatov, the way we've run them, folks rank the items, we pick 1 or 2 and create a plan to address for the next release 18:25:47 jspeidel, edp controller knows about running uzi by looking at cluster info 18:26:11 afaik your pathc includes ooze url to cluster info 18:26:49 aignatov, are you looking for specific node process names? 18:26:57 in cluster info? 18:26:58 mattf, good idea 18:27:41 jspiedel, yes, we are looking for http://host:11000/oozie in cluster info 18:27:54 after that edp goes to ooze through rest 18:28:08 ok 18:28:30 I think that there are no updates in "Roadmap cleanup / update" 18:28:44 and we're already in "General discussion" 18:29:43 #topic General discussion 18:30:25 jspeidel, client = o.OozieClient(cluster['info']['JobFlow']['Oozie'] + "/oozie") 18:30:42 mattf, you wanna run the votes to rank the items in retro? 18:30:55 guest is me :) 18:31:08 nprivalova, thx, I meant the same exactly :) 18:31:28 aignatov, i don't think we need votes 18:31:31 aignatov, i'd rather not. i'm short on time atm. 18:31:34 all the items are important 18:32:11 aignatov, you could just try to pull out 3-4 themes, send them out a day or two before the next meeting, then we discuss which we should do at the next meeting 18:32:38 ruhe, agreed 18:32:51 i see 3 themes right off -- reviews, collaboration and process/housekeeping 18:32:55 in fact there are 3-4 major themes at all 18:32:59 mattf, agreed, will do 18:33:24 SergeyLukjanov, please add AI on me 18:34:07 #action aignatov to start retrospective discussion 18:34:13 it also looks like few people responded to the poll 18:34:18 btw, only 5 contributors are answered , I waited for more answers;) 18:34:31 i'd let PTL to decide and convert retrospective results into action items 18:35:06 rune, we need just to start discussions about items in retro 18:35:26 rune -> ruhe, sorry 18:35:28 i wish i had thought of it myself - the comment on 100x line commits is really insightful 18:35:47 there was a thread on os-dev about patch set sizes recently too 18:36:27 proper review of some of the reviews we have in process are a good day+ of work 18:36:32 yeah, big CRs are very painful to review 18:37:07 i'm about to launch the discussion on that one, but i'll hold off til our next meeting 18:37:15 * mattf zips lips 18:37:33 in addition we can discuss it at summit 18:37:44 * mattf nods 18:37:50 agreed 18:38:03 usually it is possible to split big commit into several smaller. May be we need some guidance? 18:38:14 +10 18:38:41 I think that there could not be the common guidance for splitting code 18:38:43 that guidance can come from well defined purpose of change etc 18:38:46 * mattf rezips 18:39:18 hmm 18:39:31 that should be already covered somewhere on openstack wiki 18:40:12 the main problem of big patches I saw sometime on the review, that the certain patch contains not only certain fix but some unrelated code impovements 18:40:17 yeah, there are some recommendations to not create large CRs 18:41:54 there's also an issue w/ the number of iterations on reviews. not that 1 is a desirable number, but >12 raises a flag for me 18:42:04 especially when only 4 people are reviewing 18:42:14 but...we should discuss later 18:42:21 with the official doc, reviewers could request to split big commit into smallers 18:42:24 at most it relates to CR size 18:42:32 yes, will be good do discuss in person 18:43:06 btw, recently in mail I saw the statement 'if you send cr you should review someone's code' 18:43:30 ^^ is something we should facilitate imho 18:43:36 agreed 18:43:43 it's something a strong community supports 18:44:12 btw http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/savanna-reviewers-30.txt looks not very good 18:44:48 for alazarev it looks very good :) 18:44:49 we should kick off this discussion next week 18:45:15 after next week, mattf 18:45:26 and next week (on summit) too 18:45:29 time is compressed for me atm 18:45:32 review is a good way to get inside the project :) 18:45:47 alazarev, +2 18:47:13 are there anything more to discuss? 18:47:52 nothing from me 18:48:13 jspeidel, could you shed some light on hwx + rax? is it savanna spinning up HDP clusters? 18:49:06 ruhe, I really don't have any info at the moment. I will try to have some answers for next week 18:49:24 ok, thanks 18:49:28 yep 18:50:24 looks like that's all for today 18:50:27 thank you all 18:50:39 #info JFYI you can always use openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailing lists and #savanna irc channel to find us and ask your questions 18:50:42 #endmeeting