18:00:31 #startmeeting trove 18:00:32 Meeting started Wed Sep 30 18:00:31 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is cp16net. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:00:35 The meeting name has been set to 'trove' 18:00:40 ./ 18:00:47 howdy everyone 18:00:55 howdy cp16net ... 18:00:59 just you and me for now 18:01:03 hey — 'sup people! 18:01:04 quick, let's make some decisions 18:01:31 i'll give a little time for people to trickle in 18:02:07 we should start charging for tardiness 18:02:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TroveMeeting 18:03:11 o/ 18:03:27 o/ 18:03:27 o/ 18:03:28 o/ 18:03:38 o/ 18:03:42 \o/ 18:03:44 o/ 18:04:07 #topic Trove pulse update 18:04:16 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/trove-pulse-update 18:05:08 reviews are pretty steady for the last 3 weeks between 70-80 18:05:26 o/ 18:05:28 o/ 18:06:27 any other comments around this? 18:06:54 I'm still working on the graph - should have something by the end of the meeting ;) 18:07:13 peterstac: awesome that leads to the next topic i have 18:07:17 #Action items 18:07:23 #topic Action items 18:07:37 - cp16net look into troveclient tempest gate failures 18:07:54 i got the gate working again for troveclient 18:08:01 ah, cool 18:08:29 it wasnt hard but it was similar to the saharaclient issues 18:08:41 so it was pretty easy to resolve 18:08:49 - peterstac put together a graph for week over week 18:09:19 sounds like peterstac may have something to show off by the end of the meeting:-D 18:09:44 moving along... 18:09:53 #topic Bugs that could be back ported for Liberty 18:10:22 so i've identified a few bugs that could be backported to liberty 18:10:50 - [trove] Fix promote for Redis datastore 18:11:01 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226075/ 18:11:17 so this is a fix redis 18:11:36 Yeah, I dropped the ball on that one - I should have mentioned it last week when SlickNik asked about potential candidates ... 18:11:46 is there any concerns around proposing this one to liberty? 18:12:22 It involves promote leaving the slaves in a detached state, because the redis python client doesn't interpret None as none 18:12:36 (you need to set it to '') 18:12:56 looks like no concerns 18:12:59 I think it should go in liberty :D 18:13:16 ok with overwhelming majority we'll get that one in 18:13:28 - [trove] Fix publish_exists_event authentication exception 18:13:38 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228696/ 18:13:55 i thought about this one as well after dougshelley66 was working on it 18:14:12 i'm fine with that - no one has posted a review on it 18:14:15 (i'm still working on testing it) 18:14:25 in the end, it turned out to be a pretty simple fix 18:14:36 looks good to me 18:14:40 in novaclient - project_id is for the tenant_name 18:14:46 so we shouldn't use that 18:14:55 yeah this will allow deployers to get the events we send out 18:15:07 so i think this should be a high priority 18:15:11 looks good to me too 18:15:19 yeah I think it's fine as well 18:15:23 next one... 18:15:26 - [troveclient] Accepting network and availability zone for instances in cluster 18:15:33 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184349/ 18:15:47 this isnt a trove fix but to the troveclient 18:17:05 cp16net: The client release schedule is not tied to the openstack release schedule. 18:17:07 i believe that we can make a new version of the client to get this out that shouldnt nessearily require a backport to the stable/liberty branch 18:17:27 SlickNik: right i thought that was the case 18:17:28 So perhaps we just cut a new client release after that bug is fixed. 18:18:20 alright so are there any other bugs found that should be added to this list? 18:18:25 yup — I don't think we'll need a backport for this. 18:18:55 SlickNik +1 18:19:01 dougshelley66: i noticed there were a few other ones that you mentioned that maybe related to the notifications. 18:19:02 cp16net: we usually do an updated release of translations as well if we are going to cut a new RC> 18:19:18 So we might want to do that. 18:19:37 Other than think — that set of bugs looks reasonable. 18:19:39 SlickNik: ok 18:20:20 cp16net yes there are two other but i don't think we should push back to liberty. One has a workaround 18:20:37 dougshelley66: ok great 18:21:19 if there are any other bugs found that affect liberty let me know 18:21:29 alright next.... 18:21:42 #topic Mitaka Summit Design Sessions 18:21:49 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-trove-summit 18:22:18 we have some topic proposed here 18:22:20 awesome! 18:23:15 i'm not sure if there is a deadline to have these published at least for the fishbowl sessions 18:23:15 :D 18:23:22 i need to find that out 18:23:37 so on Mitaka summit - who is going? 18:23:51 o/ 18:23:54 o/ 18:24:03 ./ 18:24:14 ah good we need someone to buy beer 18:24:20 o/ 18:24:21 o/ 18:24:23 o/ 18:24:33 o/ 18:25:13 o/ 18:25:21 edmondk: and SlickNik will be there 18:25:35 o/ 18:25:37 will be there 18:25:52 vipul said he'd be there. he offered to buy beers. 18:26:01 it's about time.... 18:26:01 cp16net: There is a deadline, but we have another 1-2 weeks I think. 18:26:09 #action cp16net find out if there is a deadline for fishbowl sessions 18:26:10 I'll totally be there. 18:26:13 :) 18:27:14 alright excited to see all your faces again 18:27:32 moving along... 18:27:38 #topic Assert follows standard deprication 18:27:54 s/deprication/deprecation/ 18:28:04 * amrith doesn't understand what that means. 18:28:23 so there is a new tag that we can decide to follow or not 18:28:44 this will verify that config parameters are depricated in a standard fashion 18:28:53 http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/assert_follows-standard-deprecation.html 18:28:57 #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/assert_follows-standard-deprecation.html 18:28:58 forgive my speeling 18:29:10 amrith: thanks for the link 18:29:11 for-given 18:29:14 so are we following these requirements now? 18:29:35 i think we've done a great job so far following this 18:29:51 mainly beacuse we only add and dont change the meaning of the configs 18:30:06 have we ever actually deprecated anything? 18:30:33 amrith: maybe one config a long time ago in a galaxy far far away 18:30:39 :-P 18:30:43 what about having an automated test to for fwd compat of config files? 18:31:08 cp16net, I have seen us move things in a config file from [DEFAULT] to a better place but we've never actually (that I know of) deprecated the old one. 18:31:10 applying this tag would gate on this from happening 18:31:15 amrith: We've removed some internal APIs that were deprecated more than a couple of releases, I think. 18:31:37 SlickNik, thanks, wasn't aware of that. 18:31:45 thats a good point moving the configs around may be a violation of this 18:31:49 if we're compliant with this, is there a downside in asserting the tag? 18:31:53 cp16net: I think we have some work to be done here if we want to apply this tag 18:32:01 specifically reading - 18:32:05 'It uses an automated test to verify that configuration files are forward-compatible from release to release and that this policy is not accidentally broken (for example, a gating grenade test)." 18:32:18 I don't think we have anything like this yet. 18:32:35 yeah i agree its something to think about 18:33:15 this is meant help with deployers during an upgrade 18:33:37 We've been following this tag in spirit, but we would need to author upgrade test jobs to actually verify this. 18:34:11 How new is this tag? 18:34:22 i saw it this past week 18:34:36 Note: No projects are using assert:follows-standard-deprecation, yet. 18:34:58 something we could talk/think about for the future 18:35:22 ok thats all i had on that topic 18:35:33 more for info 18:35:49 what are the next steps on this? 18:36:11 we need to look more into this 18:36:26 I'm proposing a session at mid-cycle as we speak 18:36:27 and determine what the steps are 18:36:30 my speeling isn't all that good 18:36:31 is there a place with a listing of the new tags? 18:36:59 vkmc: i just saw this on the mailing list 18:37:12 cp16net, fair enough 18:37:31 #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/ 18:37:31 vkmc: http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/index.html 18:37:34 that looks like more 18:38:15 i have not personally looked into them yet just sharing 18:38:32 alright moving on.... 18:38:39 we should at least assert http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/release_has-stable-branches.html 18:38:41 amrith, thx! 18:38:43 has-stable-branches ;) 18:38:54 oh, sorry, we do 18:39:00 not an alphabetical list ;( 18:39:17 hah yeap 18:39:23 #topic Open Discussion 18:39:32 anyone have anything else to add? 18:39:35 cp16net, I'd like to know whether it is ok to put in a shameless plug for my candidacy for election to the TC [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229073/] here? Yes/No? 18:39:49 to late. 18:39:50 :-P 18:40:03 is that a yes? 18:40:08 sure 18:40:11 OK thanks, here's a shameless plug for my candidacy for election to the TC [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229073/]. Election is Oct 2 to Oct 9th. 18:40:18 ;) 18:40:22 ++ 18:40:41 ^ thats a broken link 18:40:45 I think the TC could do with some more representation from the non-core projects 18:40:49 remove the ] at the end 18:40:51 or nm I dont have permissino to view this page 18:40:57 works for me 18:41:00 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229073/ 18:41:14 "As OpenStack evolves, so too should the Technical Committee. I believe 18:41:15 that the Technical Committee has a very high representation from the 18:41:15 core (nova, cinder, swift, glance, neutron, ...) projects, and there 18:41:15 needs to be more representation of the other projects in OpenStack 18:41:15 that are not part of this core (trove, sahara, ...). I believe that 18:41:16 the future success of OpenStack depends heavily on the successful 18:41:17 integration of these non-core projects, and the ease with which people 18:41:19 can deploy the core and non-core components of OpenStack." 18:41:34 18:42:04 awesome amrith 18:42:13 Thanks cp16net 18:42:36 anyone have anything else? 18:42:48 peterstac: have something to show off? :-? 18:43:29 I have some graphs - where should I put them? 18:43:45 whats easiest for you for now 18:44:20 * amrith takes a deep breath and doesn't swing at the softball from peterstac 18:44:48 * cp16net imagines peterstac is running around like a crazy person right now :-P 18:45:09 cp16net, he is actually sitting... 18:45:44 lol but in my head hes running around his chair in circles getting dizzy 18:45:59 :) 18:46:27 i guess if there is nothing else we can call this meeting 18:46:34 Was just wondering if it would be possible to get few more eyes on the last three remaining int-test patch sets? 18:46:34 It would be great if ppl could actually start using them. :-) 18:46:58 peterstac: can show us in the the trove channel. 18:47:12 can we share images in IRC? 18:47:18 Well, I have some .jpg files - if there's nowhere to put them ... 18:47:42 you can link them 18:47:52 you can upload them to imgur? 18:47:56 * amrith takes deep breath and counts to 10 18:47:56 some clients show them and others can click them 18:47:58 to my hard drive ? ;) 18:48:12 amrith: not easily 18:48:31 many clients support sending images to specific people via DCC 18:48:45 I guess you could imgur it and post a link. 18:49:03 #link http://imgur.com/a/YS2m7 18:49:04 ok, peterstac what about just putting them on the agenda page for this meeting? 18:49:09 or that ;) 18:49:12 cool 18:49:14 thanks peterstac 18:49:21 amrith, I tried that, couldn't figure it out quickly 18:49:28 nice graphics 18:49:38 thanks everyone 18:49:48 #endmeeting