14:01:22 <mwhahaha> #startmeeting tripleo
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> #topic agenda
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> * Review past action items
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> * One off agenda items
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> * Squad status
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> * Bugs & Blueprints
14:01:22 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul  3 14:01:22 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mwhahaha. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:22 <mwhahaha> * Projects releases or stable backports
14:01:23 <mwhahaha> * Specs
14:01:23 <mwhahaha> * open discussion
14:01:23 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:24 <mwhahaha> Anyone can use the #link, #action and #info commands, not just the moderator«É
14:01:24 <mwhahaha> Hi everyone! who is around today?
14:01:26 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tripleo'
14:01:35 <bandini> o/
14:01:37 <EmilienM> o/
14:01:38 <jfrancoa> o/
14:01:38 <Satarel> thanks :) i'll get on testing
14:01:39 <bogdando> o/
14:01:55 <shardy> o/
14:01:59 <marios> o/
14:02:07 <beagles> o/
14:02:10 <ksambor> o/
14:02:15 <weshay|ruck> o/
14:02:19 <slagle> hi
14:02:30 <panda> o'>
14:02:58 <dprince> hi
14:03:22 <mwhahaha> alright lets start, i don't think there's much on the agenda today
14:03:22 <florianf> o/
14:03:25 <mwhahaha> #topic review past action items
14:03:25 <mwhahaha> None!
14:03:32 <mwhahaha> #topic one off agenda items
14:03:32 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
14:03:48 <mwhahaha> any pressing issues?
14:05:01 <mwhahaha> sounds like nope
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> #topic Squad status
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> ci
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-ci-squad-meeting
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> upgrade
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-upgrade-squad-status
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> containers
14:05:36 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-containers-squad-status
14:05:37 <mwhahaha> config-download
14:05:37 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-config-download-squad-status
14:05:38 <mwhahaha> integration
14:05:38 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-integration-squad-status
14:05:39 <mwhahaha> ui/cli
14:05:39 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-ui-cli-squad-status
14:05:40 <mwhahaha> validations
14:05:40 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-validations-squad-status
14:05:41 <mwhahaha> networking
14:05:41 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-networking-squad-status
14:05:42 <mwhahaha> workflows
14:05:42 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-workflows-squad-status
14:05:43 <mwhahaha> security
14:05:43 <mwhahaha> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-security-squad
14:06:44 <EmilienM> mwhahaha: I'll send a weekly owl this week (was out 2 weeks)
14:07:31 <mwhahaha> k
14:07:44 <mwhahaha> looks like we've got some outdated status etherpads, please take some time to add something
14:08:05 <mwhahaha> Moving on to bugs
14:08:10 <mwhahaha> #topic bugs & blueprints
14:08:10 <mwhahaha> #link https://launchpad.net/tripleo/+milestone/rocky-3
14:08:10 <mwhahaha> For Rocky we currently have 54 (+0) blueprints and about 722 (+0) open Launchpad bugs.  722 rocky-3, 1 stein-1.  100 (-2) open Storyboard bugs.
14:08:10 <mwhahaha> #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project_group/76
14:08:17 <openstackgerrit> Sagi Shnaidman proposed openstack-infra/tripleo-ci master: WIP: run CI playbooks separately  https://review.openstack.org/579880
14:08:20 <mwhahaha> So reminder, that m3 is at teh end of the month
14:08:40 <mwhahaha> get your blueprint status updated as we'll be kicking out any things still in progress in a few weeks
14:09:56 <openstackgerrit> Sagi Shnaidman proposed openstack-infra/tripleo-ci master: WIP: run CI playbooks separately  https://review.openstack.org/579880
14:10:18 <mwhahaha> #topic projects releases or stable backports
14:10:53 <EmilienM> have we done stable releases over the last 2 weeks?
14:10:57 <mwhahaha> no
14:11:06 <EmilienM> I'll do it this week then
14:11:09 <mwhahaha> k
14:11:59 <mwhahaha> #topic specs
14:11:59 <mwhahaha> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs+status:open
14:12:00 <openstackgerrit> Jose Luis Franco proposed openstack/python-tripleoclient master: Add --roles to update run CLI command.  https://review.openstack.org/579831
14:12:08 <mwhahaha> take some time to review the specs
14:12:33 <mwhahaha> also please hold off on merging specs until we have enough reviews
14:13:12 <mwhahaha> if your spec still has some items that need to be updated, please mark it as -1 workflow so we don't merge incomplete specs
14:13:37 <slagle> shall we revert https://review.openstack.org/#/c/572761/ ?
14:13:41 <slagle> seems it was not ready to be merged
14:13:45 <mwhahaha> i think so
14:13:59 <openstackgerrit> James Slagle proposed openstack/tripleo-specs master: Revert "[WIP] Spec for improved privilege escalation in py-scripts"  https://review.openstack.org/579881
14:14:06 <slagle> ok
14:14:20 <mwhahaha> #topic open discussion
14:14:22 <mwhahaha> anything else?
14:15:12 <slagle> fyi, we have this patch series: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:snapshop-config-download+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
14:15:18 <slagle> to manage the config-download dir as a git repo
14:15:24 <slagle> which we feel will be very useful
14:15:46 <slagle> instead of creating multiple new directories each time, we re-use the same directory and do a new commit
14:16:02 <shardy> nice
14:16:19 <mwhahaha> interesting
14:16:27 <mwhahaha> don't forget to update the requirements & distgit
14:16:51 <slagle> for python-git? yea i'll double check that
14:16:55 <mwhahaha> yea
14:16:58 <mwhahaha> it's not listed
14:17:02 <mwhahaha> and probably why the tests fail
14:17:02 <slagle> something else was already pulling it in, but we should be explicit
14:17:10 <Tengu> :] guess that's why it's failing in tox checks
14:17:17 <jrist> mwhahaha: udpated our status
14:17:17 <slagle> could be :)
14:17:27 <mwhahaha> *magic*
14:17:31 <mwhahaha> anyway
14:17:33 <mwhahaha> anything else?
14:18:18 <dprince> I've got something
14:18:40 <dprince> as we convert some of the puppet/services to ansible.... do we want to rename (and link) those for clarity?
14:19:03 <dprince> like we aren't using puppet anymore... so leaving them in the puppet/services directory could be confusing
14:19:18 <mwhahaha> it might be beneficial
14:19:35 <bandini> +1
14:19:36 <mwhahaha> is there anyway to do some sort of include logic to handle the backwards compatibility
14:19:55 <dprince> mwhahaha: we can just update the default resource-registry
14:19:57 <mwhahaha> we suffer from the same problem with environment files
14:20:15 <mwhahaha> well the issue is for folks who were leveraging it in their own custom THT
14:20:16 <dprince> mwhahaha: I mean we just did the same thing with many of the services for puppet -> containers
14:20:38 <dprince> mwhahaha: in this case it would just be a rename of everything. All the registry entries
14:20:59 <mwhahaha> updating the pathing in the templates is the problem
14:21:16 <mwhahaha> just wondering if there's some solution that doesn't require the end user update their paths
14:21:19 <dprince> so this is an example
14:21:21 <dprince> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/commit/puppet/services/docker.yaml?id=00f5019ef28771e0b3544d0aa3110d5603d7c159
14:21:42 <dprince> what if instead of inline updating puppet/services/docker.yaml we created an ansible/services/docker.yaml
14:21:45 <EmilienM> dprince: I agree this is confusing
14:21:51 <dprince> and then had our default resource registry use that instead
14:22:04 <dprince> deprecate the old puppet interface in the meantime
14:22:09 <mwhahaha> how about we don't use the implementation in the name
14:22:21 <mwhahaha> so that when foobar comes along and we migrate we don't have to rename ansible/foobar
14:22:39 <shardy> I agree aligning this will be good, but we may want to check the impact on the heat DB, as IIRC the PATCH update will store every renamed file as a new entry in the files map, without purging any of the old ones
14:22:50 <shardy> that's more of a heat known issue, but something to be aware of
14:22:57 <mwhahaha> that seems to be the recurring problem
14:23:12 <dprince> mwhahaha: well, I think a multi-vendor might want flexibility. We used to have multiple vendors who preferred different config options
14:23:37 <mwhahaha> vendors are free to add their own names
14:23:42 <mwhahaha> but as a default we just ship 'services'
14:23:55 <mwhahaha> not 'puppet/services' and 'ansible/services' and 'docker/services'
14:24:01 <shardy> +1 on a single tht/services implementation
14:24:21 <slagle> yea i like that idea
14:24:25 <dprince> mwhahaha: I think we might be painting ourselves into a corner a bit
14:24:31 <EmilienM> mwhahaha: you missed extraconfig/services/
14:24:31 <slagle> maybe symlink to the one we actually using?
14:24:43 <dprince> shardy: if we had just services when we did containers it would have been more disruptive I think
14:24:44 <shardy> symlinks don't work in swift containers FYU
14:24:47 <shardy> FYI
14:25:03 <dprince> shardy: like we needed docker/services to have a window of dev time to do that
14:25:15 <shardy> I tried that for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/574753/ and had to copy the files
14:25:45 <shardy> dprince: yeah - but like I argued at the PTG it'd be nice to standardize on one implementation vs the duplicate options
14:25:56 <shardy> dprince: I know we didn't reach agreement on that point though ;)
14:26:01 <tdasilva> shardy: just got notified here on the swift keyword so i'm speakng out of context, but swift does now have a 'symlink' API if you need that...just FYI...
14:26:09 <mwhahaha> there's nothing that says you can't have a services/experimental/
14:26:13 <mwhahaha> where dev occurs
14:26:20 <mwhahaha> and the service graduates to services/
14:26:26 <shardy> tdasilva: the issue is a bulk upload of a tarball containing a symlink ignores the symlink
14:26:34 <mwhahaha> but i think there needs to be some structure and a rule set to apply
14:26:37 <shardy> which AFAIK is still the case today, but happy to be corrected if not
14:26:41 <shardy> it didn't work when I tried it
14:27:01 <dprince> I think the single services is a bad idea. Like we are moving towards ansible... lets just call it that
14:27:01 <mwhahaha> we're just adding stuff with implementation names so like do we need to add kubernetes/services
14:27:03 <mwhahaha> which i don't want
14:27:14 <mwhahaha> i don't want the name of the tool in the file
14:27:25 <mwhahaha> it's already gotten us in trouble
14:27:29 <mwhahaha> s/docker/containers
14:27:32 <dprince> like when we move towards kubernetes I would want a separate 'services' implementation I think and having a way to implement that is good
14:27:35 <mwhahaha> we need an abstract
14:27:48 <dprince> mwhahaha: having to solve migration issues will always exists
14:27:49 <mwhahaha> to specify what it is, be it configmanagement/services and container/services
14:28:00 <mwhahaha> right how about we not add to the migration issues
14:28:10 <dprince> mwhahaha: by not having a way to have multiple 'services' implementation I think it might actually cause more upgrade problems
14:28:42 <dprince> mwhahaha: in short, yes we hit some issues. But I think we have a better handle on how to work around those things now
14:28:45 <mwhahaha> so it sounds like this needs to be brought up at the next PTG and we need to have a solution
14:28:51 <mwhahaha> i do not want to add ansible/services in
14:29:20 <mwhahaha> given that we're ~3weeks out for rocky m3, we're not going to solve it this cycle
14:29:21 <shardy> FWIW my main concern is the layering, I mean it's good to be DRY but the current approach incurrs a pretty high runtime overhead with all the nested stacks
14:29:22 <dprince> mwhahaha: well, what we are doing now is very confusing. We specifically didn't put the containers stuff in puppet/services for the same reasone
14:29:36 <dprince> shardy: I think we can solve the layering issues
14:29:44 <dprince> shardy: fwiw, this doesn't increase the layering
14:29:53 <dprince> shardy: puppet would replace Ansible
14:30:26 <shardy> dprince: ack, understood, was just explaining the motivation behind wanting something closer to a single implementation
14:30:37 <shardy> watching *ResourceChain create during a deploy is fairly painful
14:30:39 <dprince> shardy: and perhaps we could even implement some of it via Jinja so you get ansible/services and docker/services pulling in the same files and minimizing the heat resources that way
14:30:55 <shardy> dprince: yeah j2 includes is certainly one option
14:31:17 <dprince> shardy: ++ on minimizing the resource chains in heat
14:31:23 <mwhahaha> so let's take this to the ML and get something outlined for the PTG
14:31:26 <shardy> I was kind of hoping the heat templates would become a small shim to interface to the ansible roles
14:31:45 <shardy> e.g have most of the business logic in roles decoupled from the heat templates
14:31:46 <mwhahaha> i agree we need some organization, i just don't want to add yet another thing that we won't have completely migrated
14:31:55 <dprince> mwhahaha: we can talk about it more. But again I think a single 'services' directory is a hard rule to follow. Honestly that sort of decision might force us to fork t-h-t in the future to move forwards
14:31:58 <shardy> but I know we're not really there quite yet
14:32:38 <dprince> All I'm advocating for in the meantime is clarity
14:32:42 <mwhahaha> dprince: so i don't think a single service directory is worse than {puppet,ansible,docker}/services, it could even be flipped so services/{pupept,ansible,docker}
14:32:51 <mwhahaha> the problem is i want to come up with something that we can fully migrate to
14:32:57 <mwhahaha> not just leave all the files everywhere
14:33:11 <mwhahaha> so i'd rather that we talk about it, plan a migration and 100% execute
14:33:23 <dprince> mwhahaha: we are talking about it :)
14:33:32 <mwhahaha> beyond the 3 of us :D
14:34:06 <mwhahaha> we've seen ideas stall half way because not full buy in
14:34:13 <mwhahaha> so it's something we need to get everyone on board with
14:34:36 <dprince> mwhahaha: that is why I brought it up
14:34:44 <dprince> mwhahaha: I'd be happy to lead this discussion at the PTG
14:34:50 <shardy> yeah it's definitely good to discuss it
14:34:53 <dprince> mwhahaha: just on my mind
14:36:18 <mwhahaha> #action dprince to start discussion on service renaming (puppet -> ansible)
14:36:33 <mwhahaha> anything else?
14:36:45 <EmilienM> maybe we could put that in a specs (or ML is enough...)
14:37:11 <EmilienM> (I already see a long thread, so specs in gerrit might help)
14:38:06 <bogdando> we need to find the ways to escape the CI walltime when switching jobs to containerized UC and OC
14:38:25 <bogdando> just wanted to outline that becomes a real problem
14:38:51 <dprince> bogdando: so like CI optimization for containers?
14:39:04 <bogdando> not that I wanted to go deep in details right here, just to point that out
14:39:09 <bogdando> yeah
14:39:26 <EmilienM> it has been weeks, indeed. See https://review.openstack.org/575330
14:39:30 <dprince> bogdando: sounds good to me
14:39:46 <bogdando> I wonder what could be the best way to do
14:39:53 <bogdando> brainstorming or meeting or whatever
14:40:20 <bogdando> ideally, with openstack infra folks participating :)
14:41:14 <openstackgerrit> Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart master: Add creator role to tempest configuration in Pike  https://review.openstack.org/579888
14:41:46 <bogdando> to discuss options for including kolla builds into nodepool VM images, for example
14:41:53 <bogdando> that's it basically from my side
14:42:16 <mwhahaha> yea we need to figure out how to push for upstream container stuff, we're hurting from the transit i think
14:42:24 <mwhahaha> anything else?
14:44:08 <mwhahaha> sounds like no
14:44:10 <mwhahaha> thanks everyone
14:44:13 <mwhahaha> #endmeeting