21:00:52 <notmyname> #startmeeting swift
21:00:53 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun  8 21:00:52 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:54 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:56 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
21:01:00 <notmyname> hello. who's here for the swift team meeting?
21:01:06 <timburke> o/
21:01:07 <kmARC> o/
21:01:09 <jrichli> yo
21:01:09 <mmotiani> hi
21:01:11 <kota_> o/
21:01:11 <hurricanerix> \o/
21:01:12 <dmorita> o/
21:01:12 <sgundur1> hi
21:01:13 <mathiasb> o/
21:01:17 <pdardeau> o/
21:01:27 <cschwede> o/
21:01:34 <joeljwright> evening
21:02:09 * onovy 
21:02:46 <notmyname> welcome, everyone
21:02:53 <cutforth> o/
21:03:00 <notmyname> agenda this week is
21:03:02 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift
21:03:04 <acoles> here
21:03:19 <notmyname> most of these topics should go pretty quickly
21:03:29 <notmyname> #topic 2.8.0 release
21:03:40 <notmyname> release has been tagged and approved (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/326771/)
21:03:51 <notmyname> well, will be tagged whenever the bots get done with that patch
21:04:24 <notmyname> https://github.com/openstack/swift/blob/master/CHANGELOG has all the highlights in it
21:04:38 <notmyname> thanks, everyone, for all the great stuff in this release
21:04:53 <notmyname> any questions about the release?
21:05:16 <notmyname> ok
21:05:28 <notmyname> #topic bugs arising from transpations
21:05:35 <notmyname> #topic bugs arising from translations
21:05:49 <notmyname> patch 323950 is still in progress
21:05:49 <patchbot> notmyname: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/323950/ - swift - Refactor locale tests and fix unicode issue
21:05:54 <notmyname> I think that's the only update there
21:06:10 <notmyname> cschwede: anything else about that one? (or acoles or timburke)
21:06:35 <cschwede> acoles and timburke had a look at it; that was really helpful - thx! apart from that - needs reviews
21:06:41 <notmyname> ok
21:06:45 <acoles> thanks cschwede for working on a fix and test improvement
21:07:12 <acoles> my french vocabulary has increased :)
21:07:15 <notmyname> heh
21:07:18 <notmyname> #topic rolling upgrade testing
21:07:27 <notmyname> cschwede: same status here? waiting on -infra reviews?
21:07:35 <notmyname> anything we can do from our side?
21:07:41 <cschwede> nothing new, i rebased my patch, passes, and yes - just waiting
21:07:56 <notmyname> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/297311/
21:07:56 <patchbot> notmyname: patch 297311 - openstack-infra/devstack-gate - Run swift services on subnode
21:08:01 <notmyname> that's the one, right?
21:08:10 <cschwede> no
21:08:23 <cschwede> patch 304465
21:08:23 <patchbot> cschwede: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304465/ - openstack-infra/devstack-gate - Use subnodes for Swift storage nodes in a multinod...
21:08:28 <notmyname> I always click the wrong one
21:08:51 <cschwede> no worries, my comment on 297311 links to the other :)
21:09:17 <notmyname> ok
21:09:21 <notmyname> #topic hackathon
21:09:23 <cschwede> the important test is gate-tempest-dsvm-multinode-full
21:09:26 <notmyname> here's a fun topic
21:09:31 <notmyname> cschwede: ack
21:09:49 <notmyname> hurricanerix is hard at work setting up logistics for the hackathon next month
21:09:58 <notmyname> details are at
21:10:00 <notmyname> #link https://www.eventbrite.com/e/openstack-swift-july-2016-hackathon-tickets-25913773795
21:10:18 <notmyname> you can register there so we can properly plan for who will be there
21:10:39 <notmyname> hotel info should be added Real Soon Now. waiting on the bigwigs at rackspace to sign some papers, I think
21:10:43 <notmyname> hurricanerix: any updates/
21:10:44 <notmyname> ?
21:11:07 <hurricanerix> also, my email filters have been kinda weird lately, so if you emailed me any questions and i haven't replied, just poke me in irc to make sure i saw it.
21:11:31 <hurricanerix> no updates yet, still trying to get the hotel finalized.  should be soon.
21:12:11 <notmyname> ok. i'll add that info and email everyone (via eventbrite) as soon as the info is published
21:12:23 <notmyname> any questions for myself or hurricanerix about the hackathon?
21:13:01 <mathiasb> are there any other hackathons planned for later this year?
21:13:42 <notmyname> mathiasb: likely not. the openstack foundation is organizing a big "joint hackathon/midcycle" thing between barcelona and the following summit
21:13:54 <notmyname> the Project Team Gathering, IIRC
21:14:02 <notmyname> in february, but details haven't been finalized
21:14:13 <joeljwright> sounds like a Highlander movie
21:14:24 <notmyname> joeljwright: I'll bring my sword
21:15:11 <nadeem> is it for improving cross-collaboration and solving our problems with gevent/uvloop?
21:15:34 <notmyname> nadeem: of course ;-)
21:15:45 <nadeem> ;)
21:15:49 <notmyname> ok, moving on then :-)
21:15:54 <notmyname> #topic crypto update
21:16:07 <notmyname> I've been hearing great things from acoles and jrichli__ this week on this topic!
21:16:33 <notmyname> last critical patches to feature/crypto have landed? and acoles has a review branch all queued up?
21:16:44 <acoles> I just removed the final must-have review form priority review list, meaning we should be ready to propose to a crypto-review branch
21:16:54 <notmyname> fantastic!
21:17:13 <acoles> mahatic timburke and jrichli__ have been finding improvements but I think we are "stable" enough
21:18:04 <notmyname> next step is for acoles and myself to get the review branch proposed to master
21:18:08 <acoles> of course I anticipate plenty of comment and change on crypto-review :)
21:18:27 <notmyname> here's how I think that's going to look
21:18:46 <notmyname> acoles will propose the patch chain to master as a set of patches with one merge commit into master
21:19:07 <notmyname> the individual patches will each be a "step in the journey" to help you understand the whole
21:19:35 <notmyname> you can either review each patch or just the whole thing at once (ie the merge commit diff), but it's the merge commit that will be approved and landed to master
21:20:10 <acoles> notmyname: that sounds different, I thought we'd use another feature branch? not that I have any preference.
21:20:15 <notmyname> I'll likely put a -2 on the merge commit initially to "plug" it until we've got enough reviews on it
21:20:59 <notmyname> acoles: no, I wasn't meaning for it to sound different. I didn't mention "new feature branch" because I wanted to experiment with something first (ie do we actually need it), but the process should be the same regardless
21:21:19 <notmyname> so, yeah, it's very likely all this will be in a feature/crypto-review branch
21:21:47 <clarkb> what is the purpoae of a second feature branch?
21:21:53 <acoles> notmyname: ok. you'll have to teach me the "merge commit" part.
21:22:23 <notmyname> clarkb: it's what we've done in the past for storage policies and erasure codes. it's the simplified versions of the work that's been done
21:22:33 <clarkb> I see
21:22:41 <notmyname> clarkb: didn't we have this same conversation last year about ec and the year before about polices? ;-)
21:22:44 <clarkb> basically the reviewable representation
21:22:48 <clarkb> maybe
21:22:54 <notmyname> right
21:23:09 <notmyname> clarkb: but, we *might* not need to do that. I want to check something first and see what the gerrit experience is
21:23:32 <notmyname> if there isnt' an upstream branch and it's proposed as a merge commit
21:23:41 <clarkb> ok, moatly just curious. either way should work
21:23:42 <acoles> clarkb: yes, a short chain of patches that comprise the final state of the original feature branch, that is easier for reviewers to digest.
21:23:58 <notmyname> acoles: actually, the process should be exactly the same as the merge-to-master stuff. just swapping the source and dest
21:24:20 <acoles> notmyname: ah, i wondered if that might be the case.
21:24:30 * acoles has learnt to remember '-R' :)
21:24:43 <notmyname> clarkb: if we need it, I'll likely be coming to -infra with that request in the next day or two
21:25:03 <notmyname> acoles: are the patches ready to go locally for you?
21:26:08 <acoles> notmyname: I need to add the recent tweaks, basically timburke's recent patch that is in flight to merge. But that shouldn't take long. So tomorrow I will have them ready.
21:26:15 <notmyname> ok
21:26:29 <notmyname> so for everyone..
21:26:43 <notmyname> like with the previous big merges, we'll all need to review this one
21:26:52 <notmyname> if you weren't aroudn for EC or storage policies, that's ok
21:26:56 <notmyname> here's how it works
21:27:33 <notmyname> we have a soft-freeze on master. unless there's something critical and/or everyone (especially acoles) knows about it, don't review land stuff on master until the crypto branch lands
21:27:45 <notmyname> everyone review the crypto branch
21:28:07 <notmyname> leave your reviews as normal, and acoles will be managing the patch chain in gerrit
21:28:48 <notmyname> a feature branch like this should take more than the normal 2 +2s. we want to make sure we've got a lot of eyes on it and a lot of people understand what's going on
21:29:03 <acoles> +1 to that
21:29:17 <cschwede> notmyname: the soft-freeze date is not known yet, right?
21:29:28 <notmyname> cschwede: getting to that :-)
21:29:51 <notmyname> of course, since a lot of people have worked on this feature, we'll get the "I can't approve my own code" viewpoint. but leave your review anyway. nobody did 100% of the crypto work
21:30:27 <notmyname> and if you're not a core reviewer, your reviews still matter a lot. please leave lots of comments
21:30:52 <notmyname> basically, before the crypto branch lands, we want a lot of people to have looked at it, understand it, and be happy with the changes it's making
21:31:16 <notmyname> I'm expecting that the review process will take about 2 weeks. at least that's the initial budget we'll allow
21:31:36 <notmyname> I don't expect that we'll have enough good-enough reviews sooner than that
21:31:49 <notmyname> and I hope we don't have to extend that too much (or at all)
21:31:57 <notmyname> but in two weeks we can re-evaluate
21:32:33 <notmyname> I looked at what's outstanding right now (open patches). the good news is that there doesn't seem to be any big, critical thing, and we just did a release
21:32:48 <notmyname> so it seems that now's a really good time to start the crypto reviews
21:33:07 <notmyname> the timer starts, though, when the patch chain is proposed
21:33:20 <notmyname> does that make sense to everyone? is everyone ok with that?
21:33:38 <notmyname> (your affirmative answer instead of silently agreeing is helpful here)
21:33:54 <acoles> makes sense
21:33:54 <timburke> seems good
21:33:56 <cschwede> sounds good, so we’re probably done before the hackathon which is great!
21:34:01 <kota_> agreed
21:34:02 <joeljwright> seems like a good approach :)
21:34:03 <dmorita> sounds good to me
21:34:18 <jrichli__> y
21:34:30 <pdardeau> how much does a reviewer need to know about (understand) about the specifics of the encryption (crypto details)?
21:34:33 <acoles> can I add a couple of things...
21:34:44 <acoles> pdardeau: that's one of my things :)
21:34:59 <notmyname> acoles: yes, please :-)
21:35:48 <acoles> the first few patches make supporting changes to core swift code without introducing any encryption specific concepts - and there are some pretty significant changes there
21:36:12 <notmyname> (eg adding the multipart mime/footers stuff to replicated policies instead of just EC policies)
21:36:19 <acoles> adding the encryption middleware is pretty well isolated to the final couple of patches
21:36:43 <notmyname> there will be about 7 or 8 total patches, right?
21:36:43 <acoles> notmyname: yes, that's one, and adding metadata support, and changing how we override container update headers
21:36:54 <acoles> notmyname: yes. 7 I think.
21:37:27 <acoles> there's one that just adds generic tests and shuffles test helper code around
21:37:43 <acoles> so plenty of scope to get involved even if you have no care for the encryption pieces
21:38:15 <notmyname> so no excuse to not review the patch chain :-)
21:38:30 <acoles> My second point was please don't push changes over the gerrit review - usually that is fine for a small fix - but here it will make managing the chain of dependencies harder
21:39:01 <acoles> but please do link to diffs that i can apply if you have suggestions for better code
21:39:11 <notmyname> +1
21:39:59 <notmyname> pdardeau: sound good?
21:40:20 <acoles> finally, and touching on pdardeau question again, there is an overview doc patch that could be a good place to start understanding the encryption side.
21:40:23 <pdardeau> yep!
21:40:51 <notmyname> any other questions about the crypto review process?
21:41:23 <mmotiani> sounds good to me as well. thanks acoles :)
21:42:31 <notmyname> yep. huge thanks to acoles, jrichli__, mahatic, and others for getting the crypto branch ready. and acoles will have a lot of work in front of him managing the patch chain
21:42:56 <notmyname> it's a great feature
21:43:21 <notmyname> let's move on to the last topic
21:43:26 <notmyname> #topic golang status update
21:43:45 <notmyname> the TC meeting yesterday brought the golang decision to a vote
21:44:02 <notmyname> the proposal was "golang is allowed as a supported language across openstack projects"
21:44:46 <notmyname> although the TC agreed with our technical reasoning, they rejected the proposal because of the feared impact to the community as a whole and the ability for people to do cross project work
21:44:58 <joeljwright> :(
21:45:30 <notmyname> the next step is for me to work with dims on crafting a proposal for the TC to allow swift to use golang as a special exception
21:45:34 <notmyname> so here's what didn't happen
21:45:43 <notmyname> the TC did not decide to kick swift out of openstack
21:45:59 <notmyname> the TC did not mandate that swift needed to be broken into different repositories
21:46:08 <notmyname> those are good
21:46:35 <notmyname> I'm disappointed in the result, but some of the proposed outcomes would have been much worse
21:46:40 <redbo> Maybe we should flirt with some other foundations and make them jealous.
21:47:35 <notmyname> that being said, while I keep working on the politics-of-openstack-governance side of things, as a project, we're still going forward with what we talked about in austin
21:47:44 <notmyname> we still have the feature/hummingbird branch
21:47:55 <notmyname> the technical reasoning for using golang still stands
21:48:35 <notmyname> the agreement amongst ourselves to go forward with using golang for the object server still stands
21:49:03 <notmyname> the next steps are to further define what the specific limits of the golang code we want to bring into master are
21:49:29 <notmyname> (which I had hoped to make more progress on by this point, but someone I got distracted by some rather epic mailing list threads)
21:49:34 <notmyname> *somehow
21:50:26 <notmyname> so the conclusion from yesterday's TC meeting is that I need to do some different yet-to-be-defined things with the TC, but nothing else has changed
21:50:51 <notmyname> if you're frustrated by the whole situation, I completely understand. I'm right there with you
21:51:06 <notmyname> please feel free to pm me, email me, call me, whatever and vent :-)
21:51:22 <notmyname> please don't ragequit :-)
21:51:31 * notmyname looks at dfg_
21:51:44 <dfg_> huh?
21:51:52 <notmyname> dfg_: don't ragequit ;-)
21:51:53 <redbo> he enjoys rage too much to quit
21:52:20 <dfg_> ya- 4:30 ragequite. 4:45 start drinking , other stuff
21:52:24 <notmyname> so...what questions do you have?
21:53:31 <nadeem> what are the chances that the new proposal will not receive the same treatment?
21:54:14 <notmyname> nadeem: well, I have to believe that it won't, otherwise there's just lots of despair and unhealthy habits ;-)
21:55:03 <notmyname> but seriously, based on what the TC said in yesterday's meeting and on the ML, having a per-project special case seems to be the direction that most TC memebers seemed to dislike the least
21:55:28 <timburke> yeah, the TC seemed to fundamentally agree that golang is the right move for swift. just not the rest of openstack
21:55:37 <joeljwright> is being 'the special project that can use golang' just a precursor to being forced out though?
21:55:41 <nadeem> okay
21:56:07 <nadeem> or to graduate :D
21:56:14 <dfg_> :)
21:56:14 <joeljwright> the 'you guys don't play nice' feeling is already pretty strong
21:56:25 <notmyname> as long as I'm ptl, I'm going to do my best to make sure that swift is focused on solving end-user/deployer problems, and as long as we're doing that, I can deal with the politics. and golang is the right technical choice that benefits users
21:56:47 <notmyname> so that's what I'll keep pushing for
21:56:54 <joeljwright> notmyname: I'm glad you continue to be willing to take all this crap on your shoulders
21:57:03 <acoles> notmyname: IMO you are handling a difficult situation with great patience and wisdom. thanks for your efforts.
21:57:20 <joeljwright> ^^^ what acoles said :)
21:57:22 <nadeem> Is it true that TC didn't know about the golang experiment?
21:57:30 <nadeem> earlier I mean
21:57:46 <notmyname> nadeem: I find that hard to believe
21:58:11 <dfg_> they were all at my "OMG objects" talk i think :p
21:58:26 <nadeem> because it seems like they were surprised by the proposal
21:58:39 <notmyname> but swift is an openstack project, and it's good for us to be part of openstack. we have a larger community of contributors, more exposure to users, and frankly a great marketing platform by being an openstack project. although there are frustrations that come with it, I don't want to seriously entertain the idea of not being part of openstack
21:59:04 <pdardeau> nadeem: i had the same impression, and that's why i asked nearly the exact same question here a little earlier
21:59:10 <notmyname> nadeem: dfg_: in addition to a ML post I send out over a year ago, you've got talks at 3 summits
21:59:25 <nadeem> true
21:59:57 <notmyname> please feel free to reach out to me if you have questions or concerns about anything going on
21:59:58 <acoles> pdardeau: nadeem It's hard to be sure from irc minutes but I only really detected that sense of surprise on the part of one TC member
22:00:15 <notmyname> looks like were at our end meeting time
22:00:27 <notmyname> feel free to continue discussing in -swift, of course
22:00:39 <onovy> not sure if i should ask :), but patch 238799?
22:00:39 <patchbot> onovy: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/238799/ - swift - Change schedule priority of daemon/server in config
22:00:46 <notmyname> thanks for coming, everyone. it's a privilege to work with you on swift
22:01:01 <notmyname> #endmeeting