17:00:15 <tjones> #startmeeting vmwarepi
17:00:16 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr  9 17:00:15 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tjones. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:17 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'vmwarepi'
17:00:42 <tjones> hi folks - im running the meeting for hartsocks for the next 2 weeks
17:00:46 <tjones> anyone here?
17:00:49 <mdbooth> tjones: Does the typo in the meeting name matter?
17:00:55 <tjones> ugh
17:01:00 <tjones> oops
17:01:10 <tjones> what's it supposed to be?
17:01:14 <browne> hi
17:01:26 * mdbooth doesn't know if it matters
17:01:35 <garyk> hi
17:01:40 <browne> vmwarepi -> vmwareapi
17:01:48 <tjones> heh
17:01:53 <tjones> don't think it matters
17:02:06 <tjones> lets get started.
17:02:12 <tjones> #topic blueprints
17:02:26 <tjones> anyone have a BP to discuss?
17:02:39 <tjones> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack?searchtext=vmware
17:02:45 <garyk> tjones: i think that we have a few that are in review in the specs
17:02:52 <tjones> yes we do
17:02:55 <tjones> hold on
17:03:34 <tjones> not sure how to filter on vmware here
17:03:50 <tjones> we've got quite a few here
17:04:10 <ekarlso> present :D
17:04:11 <tjones> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-specs,n,z
17:04:57 <tjones> obvioulsy getting #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84307/ approved is critical cause we have a number of activities gated on it
17:05:26 <tjones> any others that need specific attention?
17:05:43 <garyk> i really hope that that gets approved soon.
17:05:58 <tjones> im not sure what the hold up is
17:06:55 <garyk> i think that we need to try and get cores to look at it. maybe russellb, dansmith and johnthetubaguy can take a look. the sooner it is approved the sooner we can start to get this in action
17:07:08 <browne> tjones: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-specs+message:VMware,n,z
17:07:09 * mdbooth is still trying to open it
17:07:15 <garyk> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84307/
17:07:32 <tjones> browne: thanks
17:07:33 <garyk> and http://docs-draft.openstack.org/07/84307/6/check/gate-nova-specs-docs/3cd7dff/doc/build/html/specs/juno/vmware-spawn-refactor.html
17:07:51 <johnthetubaguy> hey, can I help? blueprint issues?
17:07:58 <garyk> +2's :)
17:08:12 <garyk> johnthetubaguy: there is a post for the spawn refactor
17:08:16 <garyk> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84307/
17:08:42 <tjones> hi johnthetubaguy.  we are just discussing getting approval on some critical BP.  ^^
17:09:03 <johnthetubaguy> right, totally swamped by the reviews at the moment, generally taking 15mins to an hour each, but we are getting some through now
17:09:48 <tjones> johnthetubaguy: im hoping that one is pretty close.  hartsocks has been working with dansmith on it quite a bit
17:10:29 <johnthetubaguy> tjones: yeah, I certainly did a few early revisions, its looking close
17:10:36 <tjones> :-D
17:11:01 <tjones> any other BP we need to discsuss?  this is what we have outstanding #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-specs+message:VMware,n,z
17:11:23 <garyk> tjones: i think that one and the oslo port are the two pressing ones
17:11:34 <tjones> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/85469/
17:12:06 <tjones> that one could really use some reviews
17:12:47 <tjones> i agree - getting those 2 moving would really help with future work
17:13:10 <tjones> waiting for people typing….  before moving on
17:14:40 <tjones> #topic bugs
17:14:49 <tjones> anyone have a pressing bug for discussion?
17:15:12 <tjones> we need to do a little triage i see
17:15:18 <tjones> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=vmware
17:15:28 <garyk> yeah, there are far too many open at the moment
17:15:46 <tjones> yeah and also undecided prio and unconfirmed etc
17:16:02 <garyk> i am looking into https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296948 but i need minesweeper for that one.
17:16:03 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1296948 in nova "VMware: Instance fails to spawn due to "Concurrent modification by another operation"" [Undecided,New]
17:16:23 <garyk> sadly it is not up and running properly yet (i hope soon)
17:16:31 <tjones> speaking of - it's still down
17:16:40 <tjones> painful!!
17:16:48 <garyk> do you know anyone who works on openstack that can look into it :)
17:16:52 <browne> what's the issue?
17:17:01 <tjones> lol - i know a few
17:17:10 <garyk> the upgrade from grizzly to havana broke a few things
17:17:15 <tjones> browne: still issues after the upgrade
17:17:23 <tjones> not to self - never upgrade before rc
17:17:41 <garyk> yeah, we really need to learn that lesson for the next one :)
17:17:44 <tjones> so we may have a quick meeting today.  no more bugs??
17:18:22 <tjones> *fingers tapping*
17:18:45 <garyk> there are the reviews at https://review.openstack.org/#/q/message:vmware+OR+message:vcenter+OR+message:vsphere+OR+message:esx+OR+message:vcdriver+OR+message:datastore,n,z for fixes.
17:18:58 <mdbooth> Can I guauge the level of interest in moving to pyvmomi when we get to aob?
17:19:09 <tjones> mdbooth: sure
17:19:16 <tjones> lets finish up bugs 1st
17:19:38 <garyk> ones importnat for rc are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75788/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/80284/
17:19:46 <garyk> they are pending minesweeper
17:20:09 <tjones> yeah they are running manually right??
17:20:39 <garyk> tjones: not sure. i'll ping sreeram and ryan
17:20:41 <tjones> at least they were yesterday
17:20:47 <tjones> yeah better ping
17:20:54 <tjones> ok if no more bugs we can move on??
17:21:14 <tjones> #topic open-discussion
17:21:17 <tjones> mdbooth:  go!
17:21:23 <tjones> heh
17:21:26 <mdbooth> pyvmomi: is anybody interested?
17:21:30 <tjones> yes!
17:21:34 <mdbooth> I know hartsocks is very keen on it
17:21:44 <mdbooth> Has anybody given it any specific thought, yet?
17:21:54 <mdbooth> specific == code/bp
17:22:24 <tjones> mdbooth: other than #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/69964/
17:22:52 <tjones> it's just been talk so far
17:23:02 <tjones> but there is interest by a number of folks
17:23:02 <mdbooth> Ok
17:23:04 <ssurana> Well I am interested in taking up the pyvmomi
17:23:22 <vuil> @mdbooth oslo.vmware was kinda of a stepping stone towards a common library.
17:23:28 <tjones> i think its very much worth exploring
17:23:48 <mdbooth> vuil: Yeah, but it's still pretty much the old code
17:23:58 <vuil> assuming we fix up the interfaces, the next thing we can do is to swap a lot of the guts underneath with pyvmomi.
17:24:00 <tjones> mdbooth: you mean oslo.vmware right?
17:24:15 <mdbooth> I was thinking it might be possible to add pyvmomi to olso.vmware and make it possible to use both in parallel
17:24:21 <mdbooth> Which would avoid a flag day
17:24:28 <mdbooth> tjones: Yes
17:24:49 <mdbooth> i.e. New or refactored code would use pyvmomi
17:24:56 <mdbooth> Old code could continue for a bit
17:25:02 <tjones> mdbooth: flag day = fire drill ?
17:25:14 <mdbooth> flag day = all projects have to change at once
17:25:24 <vuil> as a means for transition, sure, but no reason why the old code cannot be converted over as well.
17:25:40 <garyk> mdbooth: ideally the api's should remain the same, the implementation with the backend driver will be updated
17:25:47 <mdbooth> vuil: It can, but we're no longer the only user
17:25:50 <tjones> vuil: i think he's just talking incremental changes which would be good
17:25:54 <mdbooth> garyk: The api is broken ;)
17:26:18 <garyk> but the same broken api's should continue to function in the same way
17:26:26 <mdbooth> garyk: Agreed, yes
17:26:31 <garyk> (providing enterprise grade solutions to customers :))
17:26:36 <mdbooth> until we replace all the code which uses it
17:27:02 <garyk> correct
17:27:27 <vuil> we need to avoid situations where different sets of functionality lies in suds/pymomi land.
17:27:42 <vuil> crossing between those two may be more trouble than it is worth.
17:28:20 <mdbooth> If they both use the same session, the only problem I see is caching
17:29:11 <ssurana> we could come up with a parallel implementation for oslo.vmware that provides the same functionality with the same interface
17:29:14 <vuil> well you may end up having to translate objects in one world to the other.
17:29:22 <ssurana> but done in pyvmomi
17:30:11 <mdbooth> Ok, I'm good. There's significant interest and no code. I'm happy to look at this in more detail and flesh out the bp with a proposal.
17:30:52 <tjones> mdbooth: great!
17:30:59 <tjones> anything else for open discussion?
17:33:40 <tjones> sounds like the answer is no……  short meeting today then
17:34:29 <tjones> #endmeeting