17:00:16 #startmeeting training-manuals 17:00:17 Meeting started Mon Jun 30 17:00:16 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sarob. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'training_manuals' 17:00:31 Roll call 17:00:36 hi 17:00:37 hello 17:00:44 Hello 17:00:49 hey 17:01:00 hey 17:01:08 I can only stay for a few, sorry 17:01:27 greet all :) 17:01:35 * dbite lets cover anne's part first then 17:01:43 Annegent_ let's start with docs-specs then 17:01:48 Yup 17:02:01 #topic docs-specs repo 17:02:12 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103115/ 17:02:37 Looks like I need to get the ACLs set, working on that this morning (not sure how yet) 17:02:51 what's with ACLs? new group docs-specs-core? 17:02:59 Ah I'm behind, Andreas is on it 17:03:55 matjazp: yeah, it seems like glance, nova, etc. are setting up separate spec review core teams 17:04:09 Annegent_ what's the process plan for getting specs approved? 17:04:51 Annegent_ and how narrow specs should be? 17:05:13 annegent_ should I start that discussion on the ML? 17:05:26 sarob: re: approval. I'd like two +2s 17:05:32 sarob: or maybe comments on that review? 17:05:54 sarob: but will approve as PTL as oslo and others are doing by sending a note to the mailing list saying "-1 now or forever hold your peace" 17:05:55 Both sounds right to me 17:06:22 Annegent_ not sure I understand? 17:06:23 sarob: re: scope of spec. I'd like to keep the same as we have now. No blueprint needed for general content changes, but need a blueprint for sweeping changes across multiple books or for tooling changes. 17:06:43 sarob: matjazp: yes comments on that review will certainly hold back approval 17:07:08 annegent_: in that case, flat repo structure should do the trick 17:07:27 Dbite agreed there 17:07:37 annegent_: tooling changes == different tools, right? not changes regarding tools. that would get tired fast. 17:08:07 rluethi: right, different tools, or new tools 17:08:30 sarob: understand the review? Thinking of the oslo thread here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037082.html 17:08:37 so BPs are for big changes only? As now, they were used (in Training guides) for more specific, smaller changes 17:08:59 like add a chapter 17:09:02 matjazp: to me, in the docs program, we have used bps for large changes. Smaller changes are bugs and the discussion is in the bug comments. 17:09:23 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/ 17:09:30 annegent_ I get that it's the -1 ptl bit I don't get 17:10:30 sarob: in oslo's case, the ptl sent out a note http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/038423.html that said, "we've talked about this extensively, I'll go ahead and approve unless someone says not to by a particular date" 17:10:53 Annegent_ ah, right. 17:11:27 new chapter in guides=bug or BP? 17:11:28 sarob: we can certainly talk more about scope of blueprints and when they are required and when they are not on the ML 17:11:38 Okay, so team, are we in agreement to start using the docs-specs repo for our specs? 17:11:47 annegent_ roger that 17:11:50 matjazp: new chapter == bug/ new book == BP 17:11:53 +1 for specs 17:11:55 matjazp: same for you, ask that question on the ML. I'm inclined towards fewer BPs but that's me 17:12:11 dbite: that's how I'll lean 17:12:26 towards lean. haha 17:12:49 Id like to debate through specs reviews new material or books like the Dev guide 17:12:54 sarob: fine 17:13:13 Can a get a few more votes? 17:13:27 Docs-specs yes or no 17:13:29 sarob: new material can be a bp, such as the ceilometer admin info 17:13:32 question: how will complete and coverehensive the openstack manual will be? 17:13:57 Annegent_ got it 17:14:09 fthamura: we try to keep the docs scope tight due to limited resources and needing to prioritize. 17:14:19 Dbite matjazp 17:14:26 ? 17:14:30 sarob: I allready voted +1 17:14:36 +1 17:14:47 Okay thx 17:14:49 sarob: whatever facilitates dicussion is good. I am somewhat concerned with the bureaucracy. 17:15:00 * dbite should we think of using #vote? 17:15:05 rluethi: I know, it's a balancing act. 17:15:22 rluethi: talking about todays spec merge! 17:15:30 nice point 17:15:30 sorry, have to go. I'll catch up in the notes. 17:15:31 Dbite next time sure 17:15:47 Annegent_ thx 17:16:05 #topic reviews 17:16:36 Has everyone reviewed at least once last week? 17:16:47 * dbite more than once 17:16:54 me too. 17:16:59 Excelllent 17:17:07 Anyone else? 17:17:08 I am treating the reviews as servers and I am on call :) 17:17:16 Me too 17:17:24 aol. 17:17:47 Okay well that's a good start 17:18:05 I think we have about 12-20 hours before a patch is reviewed at present 17:18:11 sarob: I agree 17:18:12 hmmm... we had +2 for accepted.. should we try to use +1's? And save +2s for "emergency"? 17:18:27 Config gerrit/review to watch openstack/training-guides 17:18:28 matjazp: yes, that is the practise 17:18:49 critical stuff is getting instant +2, +1 (workflow) 17:18:53 easy patches get reviewed a lot faster than 12-20 hours. 17:19:08 Matjazp that's a good practice. I will work on that 17:19:20 other stuff, two reviewers are doing the same thing after +1 from jenkins and +1 from other reviewer 17:19:21 there were quite a few +2.. maybe we should slow down and use +1s 17:19:30 rluethi: I meant initial response time 17:19:50 dbite: it's often a couple of hours tops. 17:20:04 Let's work on getting multiple reviews same day 17:20:05 yep, worst case (weekends) its not more than a few hours 17:20:09 At least 17:20:25 yep, we have good geo-coverage as of now 17:20:29 split patches into pieces that are easy to digest, and it won't be a problem. 17:20:31 till I move to GMT+1 17:20:41 #action team reviews same days 17:20:56 dbite: oh? gmt+1? in my neighbourhood? :) 17:21:04 matjazp: yep :) 17:21:19 #action core reviewers work on +1 reviews, +2 sparingly 17:21:19 GMT+1 covers quite an area. 17:22:04 move on? 17:22:22 Shillasaebi any notes from your team? 17:22:59 #topic stable team update 17:23:21 sarob: this is Megan, we are working on breaking down the training guides 17:23:39 Guest99011: hi megan 17:24:02 Guest99011 gots an etherpad for work so far? 17:24:06 sorry - no notes as of now @sarob 17:24:09 can we do the initial planning here ? https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/training-guides-install-guide 17:24:43 I will add information there - we have been working internally, and need to review the email sent this morning 17:24:54 Okay 17:25:13 I am moving the XML files as per this BP https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103482/ 17:25:27 before I start with install guides work 17:26:27 Dbite hmm, I'm okay with this. We will end up with a common dir too? 17:26:58 sarob: I cannot say as of now, may be in future 17:27:24 Dbite okay. As long as the team can follow the change 17:27:47 I think this change is welcome, it should make our lives very simple for editing XML 17:28:07 Dbite what about the naming change we discussed? 17:28:29 * dbite memory loss 17:28:36 can you tell me a bit more on that? 17:28:41 Dbite normally these two topics would be specs 17:29:04 Dbite mentioned desire to rename files 17:29:21 yes, its under the same spec 17:30:03 Dbite ah. Okay. So next time we do something this big, let's create a spec/bp 17:30:20 Dbite for debate transparency 17:30:20 mostly, we just modify this spec 17:30:24 yes 17:30:34 Okay. Anything else? 17:30:49 bouncerstation is setup 17:30:55 infact I am connected to ZNC as of now 17:31:09 * dguitarbite :| I feel I am ditched ;) 17:31:27 *bouncerstation setup is done 17:31:39 I will put the docs up after the meeting 17:31:44 so others can use it too 17:32:03 dbite: great. thanks. 17:32:11 Dbite cool, so you are unable to use your normal handle through znc live? 17:32:16 * dbite welcome 17:32:20 sarob: I can use them both 17:32:22 as you saw 17:32:30 I can use my normal login via. client 17:32:34 Dbite okay got it 17:32:55 it works fine, my ID's are aliases and auth. to freenode via. SSL and password 17:33:05 Dbite thanks. I will review and add mobile config if any 17:33:12 and I can use bouncerstation login via. the same client to be more verbose 17:33:22 sarob: sure 17:34:15 Dbite if like to target Juno-m2 for stable team to have the assoc and oper guides up to icehouse 17:34:27 Dbite is that possible? 17:34:31 when is Juno-m2? 17:35:08 26jul 17:35:23 it should be possible 17:35:40 #action stable team icehouse target juno-m2 17:36:16 #action core-reviewers use irc bouncer for their irc handle 17:36:48 #action setup bouncerstation steps on wiki 17:36:57 #core reviewers review at least once per day 17:37:16 #topic Dev team 17:37:54 So we have stalled with the specs thing in the middle 17:38:58 sarob: I think officiating it via. manuals was a bit time consuming 17:38:58 I will get the bp discussion restarted on the ML on prereq, labs 17:39:12 I was holding my BPs back (spec repo changing)... but also...now Anne said that new chapters are bugs, right? We kinda used BPs for way smaller tasks for now... should we discuss this (big or "small" BPs)on ML? To be in sync with Docs team... (they use BPs for bigger changes) 17:39:49 Matjazp I think we should do what the team feels right 17:40:11 I kinda like smaller BPs.. you guys? 17:40:27 Matjazp I think annegent_ can live with us being a bit more active with bps 17:40:40 Matjazp I agree 17:41:07 Matjazp bp equal storyboard cards for me 17:41:57 Matjazp and that maps closer to the storyboard project which we prob will be using by fall 17:42:29 matjazp: for your sub-team, its your decision 17:42:42 Dbite I like that 17:42:43 I still feel that specs provide better documentation for blueprints. 17:42:55 sarob: will Storyboard change specs/BP way of working? 17:43:06 Dbite allows for debate and discussion 17:43:06 but it adds lot of bureaucracy 17:43:30 Dbite true so let's move them reviews 17:44:03 yep 17:44:05 Matjazp storyboard will likely replace launchpad bp 17:44:28 Matjazp but still early days so specs for now 17:45:33 #action each subteam will discuss what level of work equals spec/bp 17:45:44 Moving on 17:45:57 #topic infra team update 17:46:15 Irc bouncer was good 17:46:29 Any new tests? 17:46:49 nope. 17:47:07 We need to work on language support 17:47:36 Some time for that 17:47:38 ? 17:47:41 sarob: like what openstack-manuals has? 17:47:43 hi all, i posted also this in ML-doc, regarding infra, can you share what is your spec there, to run test? because we are starting develop on it, is 5 intel NUC can become minimum spec for infra? 17:47:46 Yeah 17:48:21 not yet 17:48:25 sarob: I doesn't look difficult, but the devil's probably hiding in the details. 17:48:29 we need to get the install guides up 17:48:47 sarob: and testing locally is tricky. 17:49:06 #action infra think on language support by Juno-m3 17:49:13 Sound okay? 17:49:21 fthamura: we need to decide the specs, I would suggest not yet 17:49:43 sarob: should be doable. 17:50:33 Fthamura we have the trainer scripts set for 4 node build. What reason would be to change? 17:50:51 rluethi: its you need to take the lead for multi language support, I have no idea in that area 17:51:03 s/its// 17:51:42 sarob: not change, i will follow your spec, as first program.. and need to create infra with several variance spec. interest with Intel NUC, because low energy 17:51:53 dbite: i18n and l10n are not exactly my areas of expertise, either :) 17:52:41 Fthamura I think you are confusing the trainer scripts with production like cluster 17:53:10 Fthamura let's continue on ML 17:53:12 sarob: i will email in ML, so wont distrub this meeting 17:53:38 Infra any thing else? 17:53:39 rluethi: I mean my brains point to /dev/null || /dev/rand in this 17:54:10 #topic testing team update 17:54:20 sarob: we talked about PPTs some time back... do we still have a set of "core" PPTs in our plans? For Associate guide first... 17:55:12 Matjazp we could start with landslide stuff stef pushed 17:55:15 I would like to use rst and landslide as stefano does, the ppts are really attractive, any comments? 17:55:20 sarob: +1 17:55:51 as soon as spec-repo is finished, I will create specs for BPs for Associate guide (missing quiz chapters) 17:56:16 Matjazp Good good 17:56:32 sarob: done, emailed in ML 17:56:32 sarob: where is Stefs stuff? I can take a look... 17:57:12 matjazp: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100999/ 17:57:42 Anything else? 17:58:01 nope 17:58:04 #action matjazp review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100999/ 17:58:28 #action testing team specs for missing assoc quizzes 17:58:45 one question 17:58:47 #topic any other business 17:58:55 Dbite shoot 17:59:14 testing team will put their content in the same folder or should I create one for them? 17:59:17 1 min warning 17:59:23 like associate-guides/testing 17:59:25 or just simple 17:59:34 associate-guide/*.xml(s) 17:59:35 ? 17:59:44 same folder I guess? 17:59:51 Hmm, I would think same folder too 18:00:01 ok 18:00:06 why separate folder? 18:00:26 just asking, since I did not know about it 18:00:32 I guess I will keep it in same folder 18:00:32 That's it pumpkin time. ML or channel for rest 18:00:40 sure I'm done 18:00:43 bye 18:00:44 #endmeeting