18:00:32 <amrith> #startmeeting trove 18:00:33 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun 22 18:00:32 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is amrith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:34 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:00:36 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'trove' 18:00:40 <mvandijk_> ./ 18:00:41 <pmalik> 😋/ 18:00:51 <amrith> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TroveMeeting 18:00:54 <amrith> for the agenda ... 18:01:08 <amrith> ... i feel like a pretzel ... 18:01:22 <vgnbkr> o/ 18:01:24 <amrith> anyone know where I could get a pretzel? 18:01:33 <amrith> mvandijk_? 18:01:36 <cp16net_> hai 18:01:37 <mvandijk_> you will have to speak up 18:01:43 <mvandijk_> there is a fire drill 18:01:44 <vgnbkr> We have a fire alarm in Mississauga, so we might have to leave. 18:01:45 <johnma> o/ 18:01:46 <mvandijk_> i cant hear you over the alarm 18:01:55 <amrith> MVANDIJK_ WHERE CAN I GET A PRETZEL? 18:02:06 <amrith> let's give others a minute to come in 18:02:19 <amrith> SlickNik will not be able to join today, sends his apologies 18:02:26 <amrith> hi cp16net_ vgnbkr pmalik johnma 18:02:45 <johnma> hello Amrith 18:03:12 <peterstac> o/ 18:03:29 <amrith> ok, 2m past the hour 18:03:32 <amrith> let's get started 18:03:34 <amrith> hi peterstac 18:03:44 <amrith> #topic Action items from last week's meeting 18:03:54 <peterstac> hi amrith, everyone :) 18:04:04 <amrith> I did not see any specifically called out in last weeks meeting other than that people should propose mid-cycle talks 18:04:11 <amrith> I didn't see anyone having done that though ... 18:04:24 <amrith> Did I miss anything? 18:04:39 <amrith> ... and thanks to johnma for running the meeting last week ... 18:05:05 <amrith> #topic Trove pulse update 18:05:15 <amrith> #link http://bit.ly/1VQyg00 18:05:22 <amrith> #link https://gist.github.com/amrith/d7525462d2d13f207fe8839f06666e04 18:05:29 <amrith> so we had an up-tick in reviews 18:05:31 <amrith> which was great 18:05:50 <amrith> there is however still quite a long backlog of things we have to review 18:06:15 <amrith> the number of open reviews remained largely flat over the week 18:06:26 <amrith> and the queue grew a bit 18:06:41 <amrith> earlier today there was some talk on #openstack-trove about reviewing changes 18:06:56 <amrith> haypo brought it up in the context of the py34 changes 18:07:13 <amrith> as part of that, I proposed a change for review 18:07:15 <amrith> #link https://review.openstack.org/332933 18:07:23 <amrith> I'd like to take some time to review that here 18:07:33 <amrith> and if appropriate see if we can't reach a consensus on it 18:08:13 <amrith> stevemar, commented on the review (I'd sent him the link and asked him what keystone did) and I'd asked some others about a couple of other projects 18:08:27 <amrith> many projects have some variant of the trove 2 company rule 18:08:39 <amrith> so let me shut up now and see what others have to say about this ... 18:08:49 * stevemar sneaks in and sits in the back 18:09:15 <amrith> stevemar, hello. thanks for your review comments. I made one change you recommended (and not the other). 18:09:23 <stevemar> ++ 18:09:29 <vgnbkr> THe document refers to a single core notifying other reviewers before workflowing it - does that imply that there would need to be one or more +1s from non-core before a single core workflow? 18:09:59 <amrith> vgnbkr, I don't believe so 18:10:17 <amrith> but again, the idea is that we do have active reviewers 18:10:32 <amrith> (which we do) 18:10:45 <vgnbkr> So then if there are no other reviews, there would be no notification period? 18:10:48 <amrith> for some value of active 18:11:12 <amrith> what I was thinking was something like this ... 18:11:28 <vgnbkr> Or do you mean reviews in general, not reviewers of that specific change? 18:11:33 <amrith> for example, at a trove meeting such as today, i could list a set of changes that I plan to approve on, say friday morning 18:11:39 <vgnbkr> s/reviews/reviewers/ 18:11:40 <amrith> that gives everyone a fair warning of my intended action 18:11:44 <amrith> it sets a time definite 18:11:48 <amrith> (friday morning) 18:12:14 <amrith> and barring anyone stepping in and either -1'ing, -2'ing, or making a good case for why more review is required, I would go ahead and make the +A 18:12:16 <amrith> on Friday morning 18:12:46 <amrith> does that answer your question? 18:12:52 <peterstac> so each core would be expected to submit this 'report' each meeting? 18:13:00 <vgnbkr> Sure. 18:13:14 <pmalik> So I guess it would make sense to have a page on the agenda where all cores could put the reviews for approval. Rather than having each core step up independently? 18:13:22 <amrith> no, that was just one way of providing a heads-up 18:14:10 <amrith> we don't (I don't think) need to make a huge process around it but that's just my thinking 18:14:17 <johnma> so how the Trove dashboard we have right now help with this. Isnt this what the current dashboard does? 18:14:18 <amrith> johnma, cp16net, peterstac ? 18:14:37 <johnma> there is a section that says "Needs Final Approval" 18:14:44 <cp16net> i think you answered one of my quetsiosn around this 18:14:55 <johnma> that pretty much is doing what you just described , right 18:15:30 <cp16net> i'd like to see that it has at least a +1 from other contributors before moving forward with the +A 18:15:52 <cp16net> so that at least 2 people looked at it 18:16:37 <johnma> I kind of agree with cp16net. i would feel more comfortable with atleast 1 +1 and then a core could review and approve it within the timeline process you specified 18:16:50 <cp16net> yeah thats my thought 18:17:02 <cp16net> usually its 2 cores 18:17:20 <johnma> I think the bottomline is 2 cores from the same company policy shouldn't become a bottleneck for all the outstanding reviews 18:17:22 <cp16net> but removing one of the core votes should still require at least 2 votes 18:18:24 <cp16net> others agree with that? 18:19:43 <amrith> so, does this sentence meet with everyones approval 18:19:44 <amrith> "We will however still require that at least one other person review 18:19:45 <amrith> (and +1 or +2) the change before it can be +A'ed. 18:19:45 <amrith> " 18:19:51 <peterstac> are you suggesting that the two votes (1 core, 1 non-core) have to be from different companies? 18:20:02 <amrith> no I am not proposing that 18:20:07 <peterstac> cp16net ^^ 18:20:40 <amrith> I don't believe that he is either 18:21:09 <cp16net> peterstac: i think anyone in the community should be able to be the +1 votes 18:21:16 <peterstac> sounds good 18:21:27 <amrith> please see patch set 3 18:21:27 <amrith> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332933/ 18:22:06 <amrith> are we all ok with this change as proposed and are we ready to take a vote? 18:22:28 <cp16net> i think that sounds fair where some change might be negliected 18:22:49 <pmalik> Or, so to clarify. With this single +2 and at least one +1 policy. Do we still have a required waiting period? 18:23:09 <pmalik> Or is a patch good to go once it gets these two approvals. 18:23:20 <pmalik> cp16net, amrith ^^^ 18:23:49 <amrith> I would still think it is a good thing if we had it. 18:23:54 <amrith> that would be my recommendation 18:24:06 <amrith> johnma, peterstac, cp16net ? 18:24:54 <cp16net> yeah i think if no response from the other cores means they veto their vote given a week 18:25:02 <johnma> I like a waiting period in place, as long as its not too long a wait 18:26:05 <amrith> I think we can all tune this on the fly without having to stipulate the waiting period in hours and minutes in the document :) 18:26:13 <cp16net> sure 18:26:26 <cp16net> i think that sounds good to me 18:26:31 <peterstac> Sounds good. If anyone *really* wants to review a change they can always put a note in gerrit asking for some time 18:26:43 <cp16net> exactly 18:26:59 <cp16net> or file a bug to fix something in it 18:27:07 <amrith> ok ... let's cast our votes by +1 or +2 on the change 18:27:08 <cp16net> if it merged 18:27:59 <amrith> I will wait to hear from SlickNik but if I don't hear anything negative from him on this by the end of the day, I'll +2/+A this change :) 18:28:01 <cp16net> forgot troveclient 18:28:08 <amrith> good point, let me add that 18:28:08 <cp16net> maybe it should be trove-* 18:28:10 <cp16net> :-P 18:28:59 <amrith> ok, I just made that change cp16net 18:29:17 <amrith> if I don't hear back to the contrary from anyone by end of the day, I will approve this change. 18:29:20 <peterstac> trove* 18:29:28 <pmalik> +1 18:29:53 <amrith> ok, let's move on if there are no further comments 18:30:47 <amrith> ok, moving along 18:30:58 <amrith> thanks stevemar 18:31:00 <amrith> #topic Call for topics for mid-cycle 18:31:06 <peterstac> One more point, amrith 18:31:09 <stevemar> amrith: happy to help 18:31:30 <amrith> stevemar, we're going to discuss hello-deli now if you want to stick around :) 18:31:34 <amrith> go ahead peterstac 18:31:48 <peterstac> I assume that the old rules still apply - if we have 2 +2's from different companies we don't have to go through the 'wait' process, right? :) 18:31:56 <peterstac> (for approval) 18:32:04 <amrith> that would be my understanding 18:32:12 <peterstac> ok, great 18:32:24 <amrith> do others understand the same thing :) 18:32:35 <amrith> #topic Call for topics for mid-cycle 18:32:40 <amrith> let's see ... 18:32:51 <amrith> there's an etherpad for this now 18:32:52 <amrith> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-trove-midcycle 18:33:09 <amrith> If you will be attending, there's an eventbrite for it 18:33:10 <johnma> and for the time being is the wait time - a week ? 18:33:11 <amrith> #link http://www.eventbrite.com/e/openstack-trove-ocata-midcycle-tickets-26197358003 18:33:37 <amrith> johnma, I hadn't stipulated a wait time ... I'm thinking it should be reasonable and a couple of days was what I had in mine 18:33:40 <amrith> s/mine/mind/ 18:34:03 <johnma> sounds good amrith 18:34:39 <amrith> so please register 18:34:42 <amrith> and propose topics 18:34:57 <amrith> my thanks to johnma for arranging a place for us to meet; at IBM in midtown 18:35:02 <amrith> address and stuff to follow later 18:35:20 <amrith> I believe there will be remote connectivity 18:35:32 <amrith> and we should be able to get people to participate remotely 18:35:41 <amrith> johnma, would you like to add anything... 18:36:17 <johnma> nothing more than you already did. I will send the details on remote connectively in the coming weeks 18:36:58 <amrith> thanks johnma 18:37:10 <amrith> anything else that people want to add ... 18:37:16 <amrith> fyi, it is a 2 day mid-cycle 18:37:20 <amrith> thursday and friday 18:37:29 <amrith> I know this may mean you have a late night flight out of NYC 18:37:36 <amrith> but given that it is 2 days 18:37:45 <amrith> we can't have a 'light' afternoon on the last day 18:37:55 <amrith> we may go all the way up to 5pm 18:38:04 <amrith> so please plan your travel accordingly 18:38:34 <amrith> I did check that there are 8pm and 9pm departures out of JFK for both Austin and Toronto :) 18:39:04 <amrith> ... anything else re: midcycle ... 18:39:32 <amrith> I don't have anything else specific on the agenda so let's move straight to open discussion 18:39:36 <amrith> #topic open discussion 18:39:41 <amrith> anyone have anything here? 18:40:44 <peterstac> can we add a list of reviews that have +2's? 18:40:47 <peterstac> :) 18:40:52 <amrith> sure 18:40:53 <pmalik> +1 18:40:54 <amrith> go ahead 18:41:06 <peterstac> There are already quite a few that have been sitting around for several weeks 18:41:21 <amrith> my starting point would be https://review.openstack.org/#/q/NOT+label:Workflow%253E%253D1+NOT+label:Workflow%253C%253D-1+label:Verified%253E%253D1%252Cjenkins+NOT+owner:self+label:Code-Review%253E%253D2+NOT+label:Code-Review-1+is:mergeable+status:open++%28project:openstack/trove+OR+project:openstack/trove-integration+OR+project:openstack/trove-specs+OR+project:openstack/python-troveclient+OR+project:openstack/trov 18:41:21 <amrith> e-dashboard%29 18:41:27 <amrith> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/NOT+label:Workflow%253E%253D1+NOT+label:Workflow%253C%253D-1+label:Verified%253E%253D1%252Cjenkins+NOT+owner:self+label:Code-Review%253E%253D2+NOT+label:Code-Review-1+is:mergeable+status:open++%28project:openstack/trove+OR+project:openstack/trove-integration+OR+project:openstack/trove-specs+OR+project:openstack/python-troveclient+OR+project:openstack/trove-dashboard%29 18:41:38 <amrith> from the dashboard 18:41:39 <peterstac> This is what I look at: 18:41:41 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/dashboard/?title=Trove+Reviews&Needs+Final+%252B2=%28project:openstack/trove+OR+project:openstack/python-troveclient+OR+project:openstack/trove-integration%29+AND+status:open+NOT+label:Code-Review%253C%253D-2+NOT+label:Workflow%253C%253D-1+label:Verified%253E%253D1%252Cjenkins+label:Code-Review%253E%253D2+limit:50&No+Negative+Feedback=%28project:openstack/trove+OR+project: 18:41:41 <peterstac> openstack/python-troveclient+OR+project:openstack/trove-integration%29+AND+status:open+NOT+label:Code-Review%253C%253D-1+NOT+label:Workflow%253C%253D-1+label:Verified%253E%253D1%252Cjenkins+limit:50&Ancient+Changes+That+Need+Reviews=%28project:openstack/trove+OR+project:openstack/python-troveclient+OR+project:openstack/trove-integration%29+AND+status:open+NOT+label:Workflow%253C%253D-1+NOT+label:Code-Review%2 18:41:42 <peterstac> 53C%253D2+label:Verified%253E%253D1%252Cjenkins+age:2d 18:41:42 <amrith> as johnma said 18:42:03 <peterstac> hmm, they don't paste very well 18:42:20 <peterstac> It's SlickNik's dashboard from a while back ... 18:42:21 <vgnbkr> This already has 2 +2s: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/326676/ 18:43:10 <amrith> I'm inclined to approve the change vgnbkr just mentioned if no one objects; it is only a change in redstack 18:43:18 <amrith> johnma, cp16net ? 18:43:42 <peterstac> How about I post the links in the agenda? 18:43:49 <peterstac> there's quite a few :) 18:43:53 <cp16net> +1 18:44:03 <johnma> yes amrith, I am good with morgan's change 18:44:21 <amrith> thx folks, cp16net or johnma you can +A that 18:44:31 <amrith> i see 3 +2's for a total of +6 18:44:33 <cp16net> done 18:44:46 <amrith> any others like that which are quick? 18:44:55 <vgnbkr> cp16net, Thanks. 18:45:04 <cp16net> vgnbkr: np 18:45:08 <amrith> are you posting the link now peterstac? 18:45:20 <pmalik> This one for instance: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330230/ :) 18:45:32 <peterstac> I'm adding the review to a section in the current agenda - should be there shortly 18:45:55 <amrith> yes, that one that pmalik points to is quite safe 18:46:03 <amrith> I've tried it out and it didn't bite 18:46:12 <amrith> it just mocks me everytime I look at it though 18:46:24 <amrith> ok peterstac post the list 18:46:47 <amrith> anyone have anything else to discuss 18:46:58 <amrith> or can we all go and spend the remaining 14m of meeting time doing reviews? 18:47:02 <amrith> OH: BEFORE I FORGET 18:47:08 <amrith> what do we want to do about reviews for specs? 18:47:25 <amrith> do we want to use the same policy for specs; I think so but want to make sure we all agree. 18:48:01 <pmalik> This one seems pretty useful and simple as well: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/326131/ :P 18:48:17 <johnma> +1 I thought that was also part of the list of projects mentioned in the review policy change 18:49:54 <peterstac> I've added all the reviews that have at least one +2 to the current agenda 18:50:21 <peterstac> (maybe in the future we can copy the description too, for clarity - didn't have the time just now :) ) 18:50:23 <amrith> thanks johnma it was. but I want to make sure that I called it out specifically since there are a bunch of specs sitting there (like hbase) :> 18:50:39 <amrith> <evil-grin>could someone review the hbase spec</evil-grin> 18:51:19 <johnma> promise to catch up with all the reviews :) 18:53:13 <cp16net> make 18:53:35 <amrith> ok, sounds like we've got nothing more ... motion to adjourn? 18:55:39 <amrith> this is the first time that a motion to adjourn hasn't been accepted :) 18:57:00 <amrith> johnma, cp16net peterstac can we set the end of the week as the deadline for the reviews that were added to the agenda? 18:57:21 <peterstac> That's what I put in the agenda item :) 18:57:36 <amrith> i know, but I'd like to confirm that others agree withit 18:57:57 <peterstac> ah, ok (I'm adding descriptions as well, almost done) 18:59:23 <johnma> there are about 12-13 reviews. lets start with end of week. I havent gone through the list but if we need more time to review, we couldn mention that in the review 19:00:08 <amrith> Yup, that's fine 19:00:23 <amrith> I think we've outlasted our welcome on this meeting channel 19:00:32 <amrith> thanks to all who attended and participated 19:00:34 <amrith> #endmeeting