17:01:35 <krtaylor> #startmeeting third-party
17:01:35 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Sep  1 17:01:35 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is krtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:37 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:01:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'third_party'
17:01:50 <asselin_> o/
17:01:50 <patrickeast> hi
17:01:51 <krtaylor> anyone here for third party CI working group?
17:02:01 <skylerberg> Yeah
17:02:18 <sweston> \o
17:02:37 <rfolco> hi
17:02:55 <krtaylor> hi everyone, looks like we have a good group today
17:02:55 <wznoinsk> sure
17:03:33 <krtaylor> here is the agenda - it is pretty light this week
17:03:38 <krtaylor> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty#9.2F1.2F15_1700_UTC
17:04:07 <asselin_> krtaylor, I think skylerberg was going to present his dashboard solution
17:04:30 <krtaylor> #topic Announcements
17:04:56 <krtaylor> asselin_, ok, good to know, lets put that with the dashboard topic in the agenda
17:05:09 <skylerberg> krtaylor, asselin_: Yes, I will add it.
17:05:30 <krtaylor> skylerberg, sure, np
17:05:47 <krtaylor> ok, so back to announcements
17:06:07 <krtaylor> I have one
17:06:41 <krtaylor> The available time I have to spend on the third party CI working group has been decreasing over the last release
17:07:09 <krtaylor> and so it is time for me to step down from chairing this working group and let new contributors jump in and continue the work this group is leading
17:07:35 <krtaylor> The good news is that I am proposing leaving this group in good hands, asselin_ has agreed to take over, assuming everyone is ok with that
17:07:47 <sweston> +1
17:07:57 <rfolco> +1
17:08:00 <krtaylor> asselin_ has a strong record of contributions and is a natural to carry this effort forward, he can start with the next meeting on September 15th
17:08:38 <krtaylor> asselin_, want to add anything?
17:09:08 <asselin_> krtaylor, thanks, I'll also be changing position internally which should (hopefully) give me more time to help drive the third-party ci initiatives
17:09:40 <krtaylor> excellent
17:09:57 <krtaylor> and I'll still be around
17:10:18 <krtaylor> any other comments or questions on this?
17:10:51 <krtaylor> any other quick announcements? deadlines?
17:11:19 <krtaylor> alright then, next topic
17:11:28 <krtaylor> #topic Common CI
17:11:50 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:downstream-puppet,n,z
17:12:12 <asselin_> first, my common-ci talk for tokyo was not accepted
17:12:33 <krtaylor> <sigh>
17:12:39 <krtaylor> unbelievable
17:12:47 <asselin_> but if I go (still not confirmed either way) we can  have a side session to discuss
17:13:19 <krtaylor> the merge list is impressive, lots done
17:13:23 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:downstream-puppet+status:merged,n,z
17:14:02 <asselin_> yes, there's a lot going on to make the infra puppet modules more reusable.
17:14:40 <krtaylor> asselin_, that would be a good topic for a breakout/birds-of-a-feather session
17:14:41 <asselin_> for third party, there 3 big ones left: nodepool & a sample 3rd party ci, and documentation.
17:14:54 <krtaylor> yes...nodepool
17:15:01 <asselin_> Swanson was just asking about docs ealier today
17:15:28 <krtaylor> yes, the running your own and third_party docs will need refreshing
17:16:12 <asselin_> nodepool should be ready to go. Maybe next week (when I have time) we can merge and I'll upgrade my systems
17:16:54 <asselin_> krtaylor, yes. I also want to add a section for 'operations' and how to deal with all the issues we encounter. I have a lot of notes to contribute
17:17:29 <asselin_> I would like some feedback: how many people are using the puppet-openstackci modules now for third party systems?
17:17:40 <krtaylor> asselin_, agreed, we always talked about how useful a FAQ or FSI would be (frequently seen issues)
17:18:33 <krtaylor> I know mmedvede has use some, to what extent I don't know, rfolco?
17:19:17 <ja2> we are not using your puppet work at this instant, but plan to once (a) it's designated 'ready' (b) our own dragons are slain (c) we acquire the final target system and get out of our sandbox.
17:19:57 <rfolco> krtaylor, we're slowly moving to the new refactored puppet modules in dev env first
17:20:05 <asselin_> ja2 fair enough
17:21:06 <krtaylor> asselin_, anything you'd like to get help with?
17:21:31 <asselin_> reviews :)
17:22:31 <krtaylor> ok, anyhting else?
17:22:38 <asselin_> that's it from me
17:22:48 <krtaylor> #topic Spec to have infra host scoreboard
17:22:57 <krtaylor> this was moving along really well
17:23:13 <krtaylor> until we got neg'ed for a spelling error
17:23:36 <krtaylor> new revision submitted this morning - I would appreciate quick reviews
17:23:49 <krtaylor> the "quick" solution is taking forever
17:23:58 <rfolco> link again please?
17:24:02 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194437/
17:25:09 <krtaylor> jhesketh has been patiently helping with this one, hopefully we can get another core to approve
17:25:42 <krtaylor> any other comments/questions?
17:26:21 <krtaylor> #topic CI Watch
17:26:28 <krtaylor> skylerberg
17:26:46 <skylerberg> I recently announced CI Watch, without realizing there was a lot of overlap with scoreboard.
17:26:50 <krtaylor> excellent alternative, I'd love it if we could all get behind one though
17:26:59 <asselin_> krtaylor, +1
17:27:06 <krtaylor> and radar and...
17:27:12 <skylerberg> I think it would be great to the best parts of each in one place.
17:27:23 <skylerberg> #link http://ci-watch.tintri.com
17:27:31 <asselin_> skylerberg, yes there are parts of each that I like
17:27:34 <krtaylor> also, you are going to have to arm wrestle sdague over the name
17:27:51 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192253/
17:27:57 <skylerberg> Yes, unfortunately there is also a naming conflict with sdague's tool.
17:28:27 <skylerberg> I have a review open for adding this project to openstack's infrastructure
17:28:30 <skylerberg> #link ** CI Watch - CI Monitoring project
17:28:32 <skylerberg> *** Review to add project: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/216840/
17:28:37 <skylerberg> oopw
17:28:39 <skylerberg> oops
17:28:54 <skylerberg> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/216840/
17:29:03 <asselin_> where is sdague's tool?
17:29:17 <skylerberg> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192253/
17:29:22 <skylerberg> This is the spec
17:30:03 <skylerberg> #link https://github.com/sdague/ci-watch
17:30:16 <krtaylor> skylerberg, you'll need a spec
17:30:19 <skylerberg> I don't see a lot of code in the github and I don't know if more exists somewhere else.
17:30:52 <skylerberg> krtaylor: Will I need a spec before creating the project?
17:30:56 <krtaylor> that's what we are proposing with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194437/
17:31:31 <krtaylor> skylerberg, yes, that is what we were told when we discussed it with the infra team
17:31:37 <krtaylor> as per jeblair
17:31:43 <krtaylor> and fungi
17:32:20 <skylerberg> Okay, in that case I will get on open sourcing it on GitHub for the time being.
17:32:27 <krtaylor> so, there are 2 other alternatives in our repository
17:32:46 <krtaylor> skylerberg, feel free to add yours to the mix
17:33:38 <sweston> I would really prefer that this work be integrated into Radar.  So far, I have completed the implementation of all of the components which are typically in an openstack project.
17:33:51 <sweston> This was a lot of work, and a lot of code, which nobody has reviewed (to my knowledge).
17:33:54 <krtaylor> skylerberg, https://github.com/stackforge/third-party-ci-tools/tree/master/monitoring
17:34:03 <krtaylor> sweston, agreed
17:34:07 <sweston> At this point, I am ready to add Gerrit queries to the project, but have been super busy with getting my startup off the ground.
17:34:11 <asselin_> sweston, do you have it setup running somewhere?
17:34:24 <fungi> for some brief history, the ci-watch infra spec is for a dashboard to track job results for the upstream openstack ci and make them more discoverable
17:34:27 <krtaylor> we could have the best monitor anywhere if we could agree on one  :)
17:34:36 <fungi> particularly post-merge and periodic jobs
17:34:51 <krtaylor> fungi, yes periodic
17:34:58 <fungi> as sort of a front-end and analysis engine linking into our job logs
17:35:11 <krtaylor> from the discussion at vancouver
17:35:30 <fungi> periodic and post-merge (the latter mostly for things like code coverage jobs which run in the post pipeline)
17:35:39 <krtaylor> periodic != CI, thats why it is confusing
17:35:40 <asselin_> yes, it seems to connects to graphite so wouldn't include 3rd party ci
17:35:41 <sweston> asselin_: it has been months since anybody has touched it .. I will need to re-deploy the implementation
17:36:16 <krtaylor> don't get me wrong, we need it badly (proposed ci-watch for periodic result)
17:36:32 <fungi> right, i have a feeling nobody would object to renaming the ci-watch spec. as you say it's mainly frontend glue to logs.openstack.org and graphite.openstack.org
17:36:58 <asselin_> sweston, i think that will help create interest
17:37:12 <krtaylor> fungi, but at vancouver, the goal was to make it extensable so that third party systems could post periodic results
17:37:24 <sweston> asselin_: ok, I will try to free up some cycles this week to make it available again
17:37:43 <krtaylor> but that is a point to take up in sdague's spec I guess
17:37:48 <fungi> krtaylor: yes, that was part of the wishlist for it
17:38:19 <krtaylor> fungi, thanks for jumping in here!
17:38:24 <fungi> np
17:38:55 <skylerberg> For the time being, my CI Watch should be useful because it is hosted and has some nifty features.
17:39:13 <krtaylor> skylerberg, do you have an existing github repo?
17:39:33 <skylerberg> Not at the moment, but that will be changed very soon. I was waiting to host on gerrit
17:39:38 <skylerberg> but it sounds like that will not be quick.
17:39:42 <asselin_> skylerberg, thanks I've been using it to find issues with my ci.
17:39:55 <krtaylor> feel free to host it at https://github.com/stackforge/third-party-ci-tools/tree/master/monitoring
17:39:57 <skylerberg> asselin_: Great to hear!
17:40:10 <asselin_> skylerberg, one change I'd add is a Jenkins +1 option (instead of or in addition to -1)
17:40:42 <skylerberg> asselin_: That is a good idea, I am taking notes.
17:41:27 <skylerberg> Since there are several older alternatives, I would not be opposed to seeing all the features people like from CI Watch moved into them.
17:41:50 <asselin_> skylerberg, +1
17:42:27 <asselin_> honestly I think if you can open source your code and sweston can get his running, we can compare the 3
17:42:48 <asselin_> and take the best parts of all and converge to a single solution
17:43:13 <krtaylor> note: there is also a PoC module
17:43:15 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/214823/
17:43:42 <krtaylor> mmedvede did for scoreboard
17:43:56 <asselin_> krtaylor, yes, that's to get scoreboard running....
17:44:32 <krtaylor> the thing is they are all good enough, but we need to decide now on which horse to ride
17:44:33 <skylerberg> asselin_: Agreed. Until we have a chosen solution that is hosted and is roughly comparable to CI Watch in terms of features, then I think some amount of parallel development on each solution will be fine.
17:45:30 <krtaylor> does someone care to make a table comparing features on the three 4 proposed solutions?
17:45:53 <asselin_> my concern is there's a lot of effort to create and maintain the puppet modules and get it in infra
17:45:54 <rfolco> it would be good to have a table of features comparing solutions so we pick the starting one, push code from others to the official one. That's a good way to engage others to help (like me)...
17:46:11 <rfolco> wow krtaylor :)
17:46:31 <asselin_> rfolco, +1
17:46:41 <krtaylor> hehheh, yeah, great idea folco :)
17:46:49 <krtaylor> else, I'd say lets stay with scoreboard and roll those features into a new super "radar"
17:47:12 <sweston> krtaylor: +1 :-)
17:47:13 <rfolco> I have superficial knowledge of the existing tools, I offer myself as a black-box user to assess and create the table
17:47:20 <krtaylor> but the "quick" solution has gotten bogged down by the system...
17:47:40 <krtaylor> go rfolco !
17:48:15 <skylerberg> rfolco: Thanks. I think it would be good to see your table and then get input from the developers of each solution.
17:48:18 <asselin_> rfolco, I can help with that too.
17:48:43 <skylerberg> This will also be a bit of a useability test because we should note the features that exist but are not discovered.
17:49:16 <rfolco> +1 skylerberg thats my point about black-box assessment
17:49:24 <asselin_> sweston, please ping me and rfolco when yours is up
17:49:34 <sweston> asselin_: you bet
17:49:48 <krtaylor> patrickeast, is yours still up?
17:50:03 <patrickeast> krtaylor: good question...
17:50:06 * patrickeast checks
17:50:06 <asselin_> I see it
17:50:07 <krtaylor> hehheh
17:50:16 <rfolco> asselin_, I ping you to decide on the table format
17:50:26 <patrickeast> the problem is i run one inside my firewall that i use normally
17:50:28 <asselin_> rfolco, sure we can take it offline
17:50:35 <patrickeast> so i don't usually notice if the one on aws goes down
17:50:47 <asselin_> #link patrickeast's solution scoreboard http://ec2-54-67-102-119.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com:5000/?project=openstack%2Fcinder&user=&timeframe=24
17:52:13 <asselin_> so when should we meet back to discuss
17:52:24 <asselin_> next meeting is in 2 weeks
17:53:35 <krtaylor> asselin_, feel free to change that, that last vote was that every 2 weeks was enough
17:53:41 <krtaylor> but it may not be
17:53:53 <rfolco> or maybe a temp channel like openstack-ci ?
17:54:03 <krtaylor> that alrady exists
17:54:06 <krtaylor> already too
17:54:11 <rfolco> :-O
17:54:13 <krtaylor> I created it months ago
17:54:34 * asselin_ joins
17:54:40 <krtaylor> in case we needed it for the launchpad/repo discussion
17:55:24 <krtaylor> oops, it is #openstack-third-party-ci
17:55:32 <rfolco> aaah
17:55:47 <krtaylor> so as not to be confused with upstream CI
17:55:54 <krtaylor> asselin_, ^^
17:56:36 <krtaylor> it could be made official if the team desired, just needs to have the openstack bots added
17:56:48 <asselin_> ok let's use that and see if it sticks
17:57:11 <krtaylor> cool
17:57:31 <rfolco> light agenda krtaylor ? :)
17:57:35 <krtaylor> but, keep in mind that we need to be careful to not alienate
17:57:48 <krtaylor> we need to stay lock-step with infra
17:58:06 <krtaylor> so efforts will need to be made to cross inform
17:58:16 <asselin_> krtaylor, good point
17:58:18 <krtaylor> thats the danger with a new channel
17:58:32 <krtaylor> rfolco, I know! that always happens  :)
17:59:12 <krtaylor> ok, well we are close to time, it has been a pleasure working with you all
17:59:18 <krtaylor> I'll still be around
17:59:24 <asselin_> krtaylor, thank you
17:59:32 <sweston> krtaylor: thanks krtaylor!!!
17:59:37 <rfolco> thanks krtaylor
17:59:47 <krtaylor> bye everybody
18:00:13 <krtaylor> #endmeeting