17:05:30 <asselin_> #startmeeting third-party
17:05:31 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec  8 17:05:30 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is asselin_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:05:33 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:05:36 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'third_party'
17:06:01 <asselin_> who's here for thirdparty ci working group meeting?
17:06:06 <ja3> moi
17:06:24 <asselin_> bonjour ja3
17:06:43 <ja3> konichiwa (my best phoenetic attempt
17:07:33 <asselin_> #link  agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty#12.2F8.2F15_1700_UTC
17:07:44 <asselin_> #topic announcements
17:08:01 <asselin_> anyone have any announcements to make?
17:08:14 <ja3> none here
17:08:44 <ja3> best I could do would be teaser for a new-ish CI
17:08:52 <asselin_> #topic CI Watch
17:09:27 <asselin_> mmedvede, want to give an update?
17:10:03 <mmedvede> I did send out an email requesting to add cores to puppet-ciwatch
17:10:40 <mmedvede> because it is official infra repo, probably would need to go through official nomination if any of us wants to get added
17:11:08 <mmedvede> for now, infra/infra-core groups can approve changes there
17:11:43 <asselin_> do you have a link to the e-mail request?
17:11:51 * mmedvede looking
17:12:34 <asselin_> I see pleia2 responded. We'll need fungi to chime in
17:12:54 <fungi> mmedvede: asselin_: right, this is an infra puppet module, correct?
17:13:00 <asselin_> yes
17:13:05 <fungi> we have a dedicated infra-puppet-core team for those
17:13:13 <fungi> they should already have access set up
17:13:26 <mmedvede> fungi: I am fine with this, as long as infra team has time to review at this initial phase
17:14:07 <fungi> mmedvede: we should see about expanding that group with people who want to review that module and others as well
17:14:35 <fungi> the challenge is making sure we maintain some sort of consistency across infra-governed puppet modules
17:14:39 <asselin_> yeah, currently it's really just infra-core and crinkle
17:15:12 <mmedvede> right now I am the only one who is working on that module. +1 for enforcing consistency
17:15:16 <fungi> and yolanda and nibalizer
17:15:23 <asselin_> they're core now right?
17:15:28 <fungi> have been for months
17:15:53 <fungi> but we can certainly discuss expanding that group further to handle the review load
17:16:10 <mmedvede> fungi: while you are here, myself and asselin_ are cores in ciwatch project. There is a lot of refactoring needs to happen there, as it did not start out as infra project
17:16:33 <mmedvede> so we were, maybe wrongfully, approving our patches there
17:17:08 <fungi> nah, that's fine
17:17:14 <nibalizer> also crinkle has puppet-core
17:17:22 <fungi> projects like that in their infancy tend to have small dedicated review groups
17:17:38 <nibalizer> asselin_: mmedvede feel free to ping me for reviews if I am not getting to them in my normal pattern
17:18:10 <mmedvede> nibalizer: thanks! would do. Not many reviews there at the moment
17:18:34 <asselin_> nibalizer, 1st patch :) https://review.openstack.org/#/q/puppet-ciwatch,n,z
17:18:48 <mmedvede> asselin_: thanks
17:18:53 <fungi> mmedvede: so given that you, asselin_ and skylerberg are the only dedicated core reviewers on ciwatch (infra-core are included more for oversight/emergencies) and the primary authors, it's expected you'll be approving each others patches
17:19:15 <asselin_> fungi, +1
17:19:33 <mmedvede> fungi: cool!
17:19:43 <mmedvede> we have a blessing :)
17:21:07 <asselin_> mmedvede, so other than reviews, how's everything else going?
17:21:13 <mmedvede> #link email request to add puppet-ciwatch cores
17:21:56 <mmedvede> asselin_: my time was short last week (problems in our CI). Otherwise, we need to start adding testing
17:22:03 <mmedvede> I think I mentioned that last week
17:22:32 <mmedvede> but most bad bugs were fixed, and ciwatch is running stable in our test deployments
17:23:11 <mmedvede> without having tests, it is very hard to proceed
17:23:32 <asselin_> +1
17:23:51 <asselin_> apoorvad, you around?
17:23:54 <mmedvede> what blocks us requesting infra to deploy ciwatch is ability to reload config
17:24:10 <asselin_> what about restart?
17:24:14 <mmedvede> but config itself needs a lot of refactoring
17:24:43 <mmedvede> asselin_: you are thinking outside the box! :)
17:25:09 <mmedvede> could use restart
17:25:15 <apoorvad> asselin_: yup
17:25:43 <asselin_> not as nice as reload, but can work if there's no state that needs to be saved
17:26:27 <mmedvede> +1
17:27:15 <apoorvad> mmedvede, asselin_ : ciwatch is running stable in my env as well.
17:27:29 <asselin_> apoorvad, are you using mmedvede puppet scripts?
17:27:35 <mmedvede> #link http://ci-watch.tintri.com/project?project=nova
17:27:38 <apoorvad> asselin_: yes sir!
17:28:14 <asselin_> cool!
17:28:42 <asselin_> apoorvad, could you mention that in the review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/238606/6
17:29:03 <apoorvad> asselin_: sure
17:30:04 <asselin_> #action ci-watch next steps is to add some unit tests
17:30:05 <mmedvede> asselin_: also, should mention this "small" patch that brought up some issues with current config implementation: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252050/
17:30:26 <mmedvede> +1
17:30:47 <apoorvad> +1
17:31:22 <mmedvede> we can approve 252050, and start working on unit tests. Once some of basics are in place, can do refactoring a bit easier
17:31:35 <apoorvad> asselin_: Should we merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252050/ and then work on config refactoring?
17:32:08 <apoorvad> mmedvede : +1
17:32:20 <asselin_> yeah, noticing I have the -1 now
17:32:53 <apoorvad> mmedvede: I would work with you on unit test additions
17:34:09 <asselin_> ok +2. We'll certianly have more follow-ups.
17:34:11 <mmedvede> apoorvad: thanks. I was looking into reusing oslotest, that was used in cookiecutter template
17:34:34 <mmedvede> asettle: apoorvad: any objection to oslotest? I thought it could be too specific to OpenStack
17:35:23 <apoorvad> mmedvede: Frankly, I have not worked with it.
17:35:38 <asselin_> what is used for the other infra tools?
17:36:46 <mmedvede> asselin_: python testtools for zuul
17:37:06 <asselin_> I'm seeing the same for nodepool
17:37:11 <mmedvede> I think oslotest wraps a lot of other tools, and adds ability to test cross-project etc
17:37:55 <apoorvad> asselin_, mmedvede: Since skylerberg is not active these days, can I replace him as ciwatch core reviewer?
17:39:01 <asselin_> +1 from me
17:40:04 <mmedvede> no objections. Only three of us are more or less active there at the moment. And I trust we can keep it moving in the right direction
17:41:48 <asselin_> mmedvede, do you recommend oslotest for testtools?
17:41:53 <apoorvad> asselin_, mmedvede: thanks
17:42:02 <asselin_> s/for/over
17:42:05 <mmedvede> asselin_: what would be a correct way to replace a core? official e-mail?
17:42:25 <mmedvede> asselin_: I have not used either much
17:42:50 <mmedvede> asselin_: so if infra is using testtools for two of their big projects, it would be a good start
17:43:03 <asselin_> mmedvede, not sure. let's ask in infra
17:43:05 <mmedvede> keeping it consistent would be good
17:43:46 <asselin_> mmedvede, yes, I like consistency, but also familiarity. Seems consistency is winning here
17:44:20 <mmedvede> familiarity and consistency come together, I thought. Less different things to trip over
17:45:26 <mmedvede> asselin_: it would be clearer as we add actual testing. I'll take a deeper look in what oslotest adds
17:46:02 <asselin_> mmedvede, ok
17:46:31 <asselin_> #action mmedvede to compare oslotest and testtools
17:47:59 <asselin_> mmedvede, apoorvad are we going to include the 'features' in the agenda in launchpad?
17:48:36 <asselin_> agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty#12.2F8.2F15_1700_UTC
17:48:58 <asselin_> would those be launchpad blueprints?
17:49:54 <mmedvede> The bigger items could be blueprints, e.g. separate backend from frontend is big
17:50:22 <apoorvad> mmedvede: +
17:50:24 <apoorvad> +2
17:50:28 <apoorvad> +1 :)
17:52:05 <mmedvede> asselin_: do you think they all should be blueprints?
17:52:44 <asselin_> well, they shouldn't be line items in an agenda, so if not a blueprint, then a bug 'feature'.
17:53:10 <asselin_> But I'm thinking of just created blueprints for all of them, title only.
17:53:16 <asselin_> just creating*
17:53:18 <mmedvede> we can always use 'partial-bug' in commits
17:53:32 <mmedvede> so we keep track of bigger features
17:54:02 <mmedvede> asselin_: ok, lets do blueprints
17:54:34 <asselin_> #action asselin to created initial blueprints for desired features.
17:54:50 <asselin_> anything else? we've got 6 minutes
17:55:03 <asselin_> #topic Common-CI Solution
17:55:18 <asselin_> realy quick, lots of the previous issues/patches are now merged.
17:55:28 <asselin_> there's one more know issue fixed here
17:55:38 <asselin_> #link Open Issue: Cannot run jobs on jenkins master: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252768/
17:56:46 <asselin_> #Topic Open Discussion
17:56:57 <asselin_> anything else to discuss?
17:57:56 <asselin_> ok then, thanks everyone!
17:58:00 <asselin_> #endmeeting