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