| *** xgerman has quit IRC | 00:08 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 00:18 | |
| *** woodster_ has quit IRC | 00:25 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 01:09 | |
| *** ptoohill-oo has quit IRC | 01:20 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 01:26 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 01:31 | |
| *** jroyall is now known as joeroyall | 01:31 | |
| *** joeroyall has quit IRC | 01:55 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 02:07 | |
| *** jroyall is now known as joeroyall | 02:07 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 02:09 | |
| *** joeroyall has quit IRC | 02:13 | |
| *** sbalukoff has quit IRC | 02:42 | |
| *** jroyall has quit IRC | 03:15 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 03:40 | |
| *** jroyall has quit IRC | 03:46 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 03:46 | |
| *** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-lbaas | 04:04 | |
| *** sbalukoff has quit IRC | 04:28 | |
| *** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-lbaas | 05:01 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-lbaas | 05:11 | |
| *** sbalukoff has quit IRC | 05:48 | |
| *** rm_you has quit IRC | 05:49 | |
| *** rm_you has joined #openstack-lbaas | 06:31 | |
| *** rm_you| has joined #openstack-lbaas | 06:33 | |
| *** jroyall has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** rm_you has quit IRC | 06:37 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 07:46 | |
| *** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-lbaas | 07:54 | |
| *** jschwarz has joined #openstack-lbaas | 07:54 | |
| *** jroyall has quit IRC | 07:59 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 08:01 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 13:21 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-lbaas | 13:40 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-lbaas | 13:41 | |
| *** woodster_ has joined #openstack-lbaas | 14:26 | |
| *** ptoohill has joined #openstack-lbaas | 14:36 | |
| *** xgerman has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:00 | |
| *** jorgem has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:00 | |
| *** jorgem has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:03 | |
| *** xgerman has quit IRC | 15:08 | |
| *** xgerman has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:10 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 15:31 | |
| *** mlavalle has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:41 | |
| *** mlavalle has quit IRC | 15:42 | |
| *** mlavalle has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:42 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:44 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 15:59 | |
| *** sbfox1 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 15:59 | |
| *** sbfox1 has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:02 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 16:10 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:11 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| *** jschwarz has quit IRC | 16:14 | |
| TrevorV | dougwig, can I bother you with another tox issue I'm having? | 16:19 |
|---|---|---|
| dougwig | Shoot. I'm driving, so the reply might be delayed. | 16:23 |
| TrevorV | Okay sure thing. | 16:27 |
| TrevorV | octavia.tests.unit.db.test_repositoryNon-zero exit code (2) from test listing. | 16:28 |
| TrevorV | error: testr failed (3) | 16:28 |
| TrevorV | ERROR: InvocationError: '../octavia/.tox/py26/bin/python setup.py testr --slowest --testr-args=' | 16:28 |
| TrevorV | That's the error I'm getting dougwig, and I have no idea what it means. | 16:28 |
| TrevorV | I forgot the --- import errors --- line | 16:28 |
| TrevorV | Either way, my IDE doesn't show any import errors, so any insight here? | 16:28 |
| *** crc32 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:32 | |
| *** sbalukoff has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 16:34 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:34 | |
| *** johnsom_ has quit IRC | 16:43 | |
| *** jroyall has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:45 | |
| dougwig | run it with the py26 env; that one shows errors for some reason. | 16:45 |
| dougwig | and it looks like an import error. | 16:45 |
| TrevorV | Yeah, dougwig, I'm still tinkering | 16:46 |
| TrevorV | Let me know when you're at a desk and I can tell you if I solved it or not :) | 16:46 |
| dougwig | i just got to my desk. :) | 16:46 |
| TrevorV | perfect | 16:46 |
| TrevorV | Is "InvocationError" just some generic error they throw when something fails? | 16:47 |
| TrevorV | I'm confused... Meaning it doesn't look like it errored to invoke, since its run some tests and THEN fails. | 16:48 |
| TrevorV | I feel like the program doesn't throw the right error | 16:48 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-lbaas | 16:51 | |
| dougwig | half the time i use strace to see the real error. | 16:53 |
| dougwig | i do not like how opaque testr is. | 16:53 |
| TrevorV | Yeah, got it dougwig | 16:53 |
| rm_work | yeah testr output is shitty | 16:54 |
| TrevorV | I didn't explicitly say this, but I figured out the import error I had, now I just have to fix my tests | 16:54 |
| *** jroyall has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** ptoohill has quit IRC | 17:37 | |
| *** ptoohill has joined #openstack-lbaas | 17:37 | |
| *** crc32 has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| *** ajmiller has joined #openstack-lbaas | 18:25 | |
| *** crc32 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 18:27 | |
| *** crc32 has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| *** mlavalle has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| *** mlavalle has joined #openstack-lbaas | 18:34 | |
| *** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-lbaas | 18:40 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 19:09 | |
| *** jorgem has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:15 | |
| *** rm_you|wtf has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:16 | |
| *** rm_you| has quit IRC | 19:20 | |
| *** johnsom has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:24 | |
| *** ptoohill has quit IRC | 19:28 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:30 | |
| TrevorV | The meeting is going to be held in here again right? No webex? | 19:35 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, ^^? | 19:35 |
| xgerman | Not today - but we can vote today to return to webex | 19:35 |
| TrevorV | xgerman, thanks, that's what I was getting at | 19:36 |
| TrevorV | I left my mac at home, and webex no happy on linux | 19:36 |
| xgerman | Google "hackintosh" "vmware", just saying | 19:36 |
| *** jamiem has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:37 | |
| TrevorV | Keep your frivolous opinions to yourself, xgerman | 19:37 |
| johnsom | Ugh-oh, I think I see the voting starting early... | 19:37 |
| xgerman | :-) | 19:37 |
| *** VijayB has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:46 | |
| sbalukoff | Haha | 19:47 |
| *** sballe has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:52 | |
| rm_work | lol | 19:53 |
| *** vivek-ebay has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:55 | |
| *** crc32 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:57 | |
| *** rohara has joined #openstack-lbaas | 19:58 | |
| *** dlundquist has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:00 | |
| xgerman | o/ | 20:00 |
| sbalukoff | Whoo-hoo! | 20:00 |
| sbalukoff | Meeting time! | 20:00 |
| sbalukoff | #startmeeting Octavia | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Sep 10 20:00:13 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sbalukoff. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 20:00 |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'octavia' | 20:00 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:00 | |
| sbalukoff | Ok, folks! This is our agenda for today: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Weekly_Meeting_Agenda#Agenda | 20:00 |
| *** jarendt has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:00 | |
| sballe | o/ | 20:01 |
| *** jarendt has quit IRC | 20:01 | |
| rm_work | o/ | 20:01 |
| sballe | I was on the wrong IRC ;-) | 20:01 |
| TrevorV | o/ | 20:01 |
| blogan | hi | 20:01 |
| crc32 | hello | 20:01 |
| sbalukoff | #topic Discuss: Use storyboard instead of launchpad for blueprints? | 20:01 |
| johnsom | o/ | 20:01 |
| rohara | hi | 20:01 |
| rm_work | (we should really have a "roll call" topic for a minute or so) | 20:01 |
| *** davidlenwell has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:01 | |
| tmc3inphilly | good day | 20:01 |
| masteinhauser | o/ | 20:01 |
| sbalukoff | Haha! | 20:01 |
| dlundquist | o/ | 20:01 |
| davidlenwell | o/ | 20:01 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, so! | 20:01 |
| *** juliancash has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:01 | |
| blogan | dlundquist: you're back from iceland? | 20:01 |
| dlundquist | blogan: yep | 20:01 |
| dougwig | o/ | 20:02 |
| sbalukoff | I would like to propose using StoryBoard for project management and blueprints instead of launchpad. | 20:02 |
| *** jwarendt has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:02 | |
| jamiem | hi all | 20:02 |
| blogan | welcome back! | 20:02 |
| sballe | dlundquist, Where you on the plane the pilot took and flew around the volcano? | 20:02 |
| rm_work | "iceland? isn't that in finland?" --random person on Yahoo Answers | 20:02 |
| dougwig | sbalukoff: have you asked anyone in infra whether it's ready for that? | 20:02 |
| xgerman | storyboard: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StoryBoard/Roadmap | 20:02 |
| xgerman | the lack of cross-outs make me +1 dougwig | 20:02 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: I have not, but I do know that other "official" OpenStack projects already are. | 20:02 |
| davidlenwell | I've been using storyboard to manage refstack development for months now .. its been a lot better than trying to use launchpad | 20:03 |
| dougwig | sbalukoff: which ones? have you talked to those folks? | 20:03 |
| blogan | sbalukoff: according to that roadmap it looks like infra isn't ready for other projects, but I could be wrong | 20:03 |
| johnsom | I feel that we already have a start in launchpad and storyboard does not seem ready. It looks like there are at least a few releases before they plan for projects to use it | 20:03 |
| *** barclaac has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:03 | |
| jwarendt | Hi everyone - new member of HP LBaaS team. | 20:03 |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| barclaac | Hi all | 20:03 |
| blogan | jwarendt: welcome! | 20:03 |
| dougwig | jwarendt: hiya, welcome | 20:03 |
| sballe | I agree storyboard is not ready as far as I know | 20:03 |
| ajmiller | Hi, another new HP LBaaS Person here -- Al Miller. | 20:03 |
| davidlenwell | I dissagree .. I feel its ready for use.. | 20:03 |
| dougwig | ajmiller: hiya, welcome | 20:04 |
| vivek-ebay | welcome | 20:04 |
| sbalukoff | I would say that launchpad is not ready as a tool for project management, but then I am opinionated. | 20:04 |
| *** KunalGandhiEbay has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:04 | |
| blogan | arent we all | 20:04 |
| davidlenwell | sbalukoff: +2 | 20:04 |
| sballe | before we switch I want to get a confirmaiton from Monty who is actually in charge of making StoryBoard happen | 20:04 |
| sbalukoff | I'm especially opinionated. | 20:04 |
| johnsom | Launchpad is not great, but it has the basic features. | 20:04 |
| xgerman | sballe +1 | 20:04 |
| johnsom | Storyboard is missing links to specs and subscriptions | 20:04 |
| blogan | ill definitely want to move to storyboard, not sure now is the right time | 20:05 |
| dougwig | i'm of the opinion that whoever has to wrangle it for making milestones can make the call, but you'd better be ready to fall back, and not ride it into the ground of your opinionation. | 20:05 |
| sbalukoff | launchpad is very clunky to use. It doesn't provide a good, standard way to split up blueprints into tasks and assign those tasks to different people. | 20:05 |
| xgerman | sbalukoff we hear you | 20:05 |
| sbalukoff | It doesn't provide any native mechanism to discuss a given blueprint. You have to turn to external systems for that which is a huge disruption in workflow. | 20:05 |
| xgerman | but I am not in the camp anyhting is better than launchpad :-) | 20:06 |
| rm_work | I've been using launchpad for a bit with Barbican, and the auto-linkages and such seem to work fine, it might not be perfect but it definitely works -- i would vote to wait at least for a few remaining features in storyboard to show up and for confirmation that it's "ready for general use" from the maintainers | 20:06 |
| blogan | etherpad! | 20:06 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, I am IM with mordred | 20:06 |
| johnsom | Milestone support in StoryBoard is still two releases out.... | 20:06 |
| dougwig | we're really talking launchpad+gerrit specs vs storyboard, right? | 20:06 |
| sballe | and the answer is "no. it's not ready for that yet" | 20:06 |
| sbalukoff | We're still going to use gerrit. | 20:06 |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:06 | |
| mordred | sup? | 20:06 |
| dougwig | because launchpad is nothing more than a link organizer, really. | 20:06 |
| sballe | my question was: @mordred Is storyboard ready? in our Octavia meeting today some people are talking about using Storyboard instead of launchpad. Does that even make sense | 20:06 |
| sbalukoff | It would be StoryBoard + gerrit. | 20:06 |
| mordred | storyboard is not ready yet | 20:06 |
| mordred | we're getting close to moving infra on to it | 20:06 |
| sballe | mordred, Thanks Monty | 20:06 |
| mordred | sorry - wish it was | 20:07 |
| mordred | it's getting close! | 20:07 |
| dougwig | mordred: thank you | 20:07 |
| davidlenwell | mordred: refstack has been using it successfully for a while | 20:07 |
| dougwig | sbalukoff: i can't support switching, given that. :) | 20:07 |
| barclaac | Launchpad it is then. | 20:07 |
| xgerman | dougwig +1 | 20:07 |
| mordred | one sec | 20:07 |
| rm_work | dougwig +1 | 20:07 |
| sballe | dougwig, +1 | 20:07 |
| sballe | mordred, +1 | 20:08 |
| sbalukoff | mordred: Is there something else you wanted to add? | 20:08 |
| johnsom | dougwig +1 | 20:08 |
| mordred | yeah - hang on just a sec ... | 20:08 |
| sbalukoff | Ok. | 20:08 |
| tmc3inphilly | is moving ot launchpad amid a very busy dev cycle worth the potential impact to velocity or can we get by with what we have for the near-term? | 20:08 |
| mordred | ok. yeah. what I said | 20:08 |
| blogan | tcm3inphilly: it really wouldn't be impactful of velocity, the move at least | 20:09 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, I would like fo rus in the future not to make choice based on opinion but on facts.changing to StoryBoard could have been horrible for us at this point | 20:09 |
| blogan | if it isn't ready and it meltsdown then that woudl be an issue | 20:09 |
| sbalukoff | mordred: It would be less pain to switch now, while we really don't have much in launchpad. We're still bootstrapping this project. Does that change your opinion at all? | 20:09 |
| *** ptoohill has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:10 | |
| *** juliancash_ has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:10 | |
| *** ptoohill has quit IRC | 20:10 | |
| *** ptoohill has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:11 | |
| sbalukoff | sballe: Ironically, we're making this decision based on the opinion of mordred. (Who is probably the most informed of us, but still, I hesitate to call it "fact.") | 20:11 |
| sballe | mordred is in charge of the project so he is in the know He runs hte project | 20:11 |
| blogan | well I think that roadmap wiki also backs it up | 20:11 |
| rm_work | well, if someone came in and asked us to use LBaaS in production at our 0.5 milestone, what would we say? would it be opinion? :P | 20:12 |
| *** juliancash has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| sballe | sbalukoff, He has all the "facts" around storyboard | 20:12 |
| sbalukoff | sballe: Which is why we trust his opinion. | 20:12 |
| blogan | so its a very educated opinion | 20:12 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Exactly. | 20:12 |
| davidlenwell | So I actually have some facts here | 20:12 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, Yes but again his opinion is backed up byfacts... | 20:12 |
| sbalukoff | Anyway, so: | 20:12 |
| dlundquist | I think we are getting off topic here | 20:13 |
| *** krotscheck has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:13 | |
| sballe | I agree | 20:13 |
| dougwig | dlundquist: +1 | 20:13 |
| rohara | dlundquist: agree | 20:13 |
| xgerman | dlunquist +1 | 20:13 |
| krotscheck | eh? wha? | 20:13 |
| sbalukoff | #agreed we stick with launchpad for project managment for now. | 20:13 |
| TrevorV | +1 sbalukoff | 20:13 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, Great! +1 | 20:13 |
| davidlenwell | fact 1 .. switching from lp to storyboard cause a marked increase in vilocity and orginization | 20:13 |
| sballe | mordred, Thaks for jumping in with so short notice :-) | 20:13 |
| sbalukoff | #topic Vote on whether haproxy.cfg should be rendered in the amphora or the amphora driver | 20:13 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, can you remind me the three options; Yes, No, abstain? | 20:14 |
| dougwig | i think we just cut off davidlenwell. perhaps move that discussion to the ML? | 20:14 |
| sbalukoff | Is anyone not up to speed with the discussion which happened on the mailing list regarding this topic last last week? | 20:14 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, +1 on speed up | 20:14 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, I'm not caught up in emails... I've been working on a blueprint really intimately :D | 20:14 |
| blogan | does everyone know what an amphora is? | 20:15 |
| xgerman | or short amp | 20:15 |
| rm_work | I hope so :P | 20:15 |
| dougwig | option 4: don't care as long as there is an interface in-between either way. | 20:15 |
| barclaac | If not, then not eligible to vote :-P | 20:15 |
| sballe | xgerman, -1 on amp | 20:15 |
| dougwig | and by interface, i mean driver. | 20:15 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: So, I see two topics we should probably vote on. | 20:15 |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the central features of your argument is that you don't want an amphora driver layer, is that correct? | 20:16 |
| sbalukoff | If so, then we should vote on that first. | 20:16 |
| dougwig | votes are not consensus, and whether we structure it with an interface should not be a vote. where we render it, i really don't care. | 20:16 |
| sbalukoff | Where we render haproxy.cfg is actually a secondary problem. | 20:16 |
| davidlenwell | dougwig I was cut off.. but that is okay.. having actually ptl'd a project that successfully uses storyboard and never touched launchpad I do have a lot of information on the subject and am always happy to talk about it.. but if nobody wants to listen I won't waste my breath going on abou tit | 20:16 |
| crc32 | what where the vote topics? | 20:16 |
| sbalukoff | crc32: I'm introducing those now. | 20:17 |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: Do you want to say anything before we vote on that? | 20:17 |
| xgerman | sure | 20:17 |
| sbalukoff | Please be brief. | 20:17 |
| sbalukoff | :) | 20:17 |
| xgerman | I think that REST is a much better interface than some drive rin the comtroller. That doesn't preclude having drivers on the amphora | 20:18 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:18 | |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: That was discussed, in both models, the API on the amphora will be RESTful. | 20:18 |
| blogan | i think the only thing that makes rendering on the controller, is that minor updates do not result it having to update thousands of amphora | 20:19 |
| dougwig | that only works if every amphora implements the same rest interface. that is horribly limiting. | 20:19 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: That's the second voting topic. | 20:19 |
| blogan | well then im confused | 20:19 |
| blogan | we're voting on whether we want a driver layer in the controller first? | 20:20 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, what is the first vote then exactly? | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | So here's what I see us voting on in a moment: First vote will be: Should we use a driver layer when interfacing with the amphora? Yes No Abstain | 20:20 |
| blogan | and then where the rendering is done second? | 20:20 |
| xgerman | works for me | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | Second vote will be: Should we render the haproxy config on the controller / driver or on the amphora? Yes No aAbstain | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | Ok! | 20:20 |
| blogan | okay | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | #startvote Should we use a driver layer when interfacing with the amphora? Yes No Abstain | 20:20 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: Should we use a driver layer when interfacing with the amphora? Valid vote options are Yes, No, Abstain. | 20:20 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:20 |
| crc32 | #abstain | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| blogan | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| dougwig | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| rm_work | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, forgive me, but wouldn't the voting be moot if we don't vote to have a driver? | 20:20 |
| barclaac | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| TrevorV | #vote Yes | 20:20 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: No, it's unrelated. | 20:20 |
| sballe | #vote Yes | 20:21 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:21 |
| xgerman | #vote No | 20:21 |
| rohara | #vote Yes | 20:21 |
| davidlenwell | #vote Yes | 20:21 |
| dlundquist | #vote No -- This will require defining an additional interface this early in development | 20:21 |
| tmc3inphilly | #vote Yes | 20:21 |
| jamiem | #vote No | 20:21 |
| openstack | dlundquist: No -- This will require defining an additional interface this early in development is not a valid option. Valid options are Yes, No, Abstain. | 20:21 |
| sbalukoff | 60 seconds until voting is closed. | 20:21 |
| rm_work | lol dlundquist | 20:21 |
| dlundquist | #vote No | 20:21 |
| xgerman | dlundquist +1 | 20:21 |
| dougwig | i'm glad i didn't editorialize mine. | 20:21 |
| johnsom | #vote abstain | 20:21 |
| ajmiller | #vote No | 20:21 |
| sballe | dougwig, lol | 20:22 |
| sbalukoff | #endvote | 20:22 |
| openstack | Voted on "Should we use a driver layer when interfacing with the amphora?" Results are | 20:22 |
| openstack | Yes (10): rm_work, sballe, tmc3inphilly, sbalukoff, TrevorV, barclaac, dougwig, rohara, davidlenwell, blogan | 20:22 |
| openstack | Abstain (2): crc32, johnsom | 20:22 |
| openstack | No (4): xgerman, dlundquist, ajmiller, jamiem | 20:22 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, So we're using a driver layer. | 20:22 |
| sbalukoff | Next vote... | 20:22 |
| sbalukoff | #startvote Shoud we render the haproxy.cfg in the driver layer or the amphora? Driver Amphora Abstain | 20:23 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: Shoud we render the haproxy.cfg in the driver layer or the amphora? Valid vote options are Driver, Amphora, Abstain. | 20:23 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:23 |
| blogan | #vote yes | 20:23 |
| openstack | blogan: yes is not a valid option. Valid options are Driver, Amphora, Abstain. | 20:23 |
| dougwig | #vote Abstain | 20:23 |
| sbalukoff | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| rm_work | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| dlundquist | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| barclaac | #vote Amphora | 20:23 |
| sballe | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| blogan | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| TrevorV | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| xgerman | #vote Amphora | 20:23 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:23 |
| tmc3inphilly | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| rohara | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| ajmiller | #vote Amphora | 20:23 |
| davidlenwell | #vote Driver | 20:23 |
| crc32 | #vote driver | 20:24 |
| sbalukoff | 60 seconds until voting is closed | 20:24 |
| *** krotscheck has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| VijayB | #vote Amphora | 20:24 |
| johnsom | #vote abstain | 20:24 |
| sbalukoff | #endvote | 20:25 |
| openstack | Voted on "Shoud we render the haproxy.cfg in the driver layer or the amphora?" Results are | 20:25 |
| openstack | Amphora (4): xgerman, barclaac, ajmiller, VijayB | 20:25 |
| openstack | Abstain (2): dougwig, johnsom | 20:25 |
| openstack | Driver (10): rm_work, tmc3inphilly, sbalukoff, TrevorV, sballe, dlundquist, crc32, rohara, davidlenwell, blogan | 20:25 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, we're rendering the haproxy.cfg in the driver | 20:25 |
| VijayB | my vote's assuming that hopefully, coming in late, I understand Amphora right | 20:25 |
| juliancash_ | #vote Abstain | 20:26 |
| dougwig | amphora == vm/container/backend/appliance. | 20:26 |
| sbalukoff | VijayB: you can see the discussion on this on the mailing list. | 20:26 |
| sbalukoff | Crap, did we just have a netsplit? | 20:26 |
| blogan | the amphora is a vase | 20:26 |
| sbalukoff | :) | 20:26 |
| crc32 | yea a netsplit right in a vote too. | 20:26 |
| blogan | i think the vote captured everyone's vote | 20:26 |
| sbalukoff | I think it did, too. | 20:26 |
| sbalukoff | From what I can tell. | 20:26 |
| dlundquist | net split? | 20:26 |
| *** dlundquist has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** dlundquist1 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:26 | |
| sbalukoff | :P | 20:26 |
| VijayB | dougwig, blogan: thanks - so, is it the controller or the backend VM that will run haproxy? | 20:26 |
| dougwig | VijayB: backend VM | 20:27 |
| VijayB | sbalukoff: Yes, I'll take a look at the MLs... | 20:27 |
| sbalukoff | #topic Vote on whether we should keep meetings in IRC or move back to webex | 20:27 |
| rm_work | ... | 20:27 |
| blogan | VijayB: i was being sarcastic, a sore loser, the amphora is the VM that is hosting the haproxy instance | 20:27 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:27 |
| blogan | instances | 20:27 |
| dlundquist1 | #vote IRC | 20:27 |
| davidlenwell | #vote IRC | 20:27 |
| sbalukoff | crc32: Hold on | 20:27 |
| blogan | vote hasn't started it | 20:27 |
| VijayB | dougwig: ok, how many entities will actually update a single amphora? | 20:27 |
| dougwig | lol | 20:27 |
| sbalukoff | I actually need to start the vote. | 20:27 |
| rm_work | #vote IRC | 20:27 |
| sballe | ;-) | 20:27 |
| barclaac | #vote abstain | 20:28 |
| *** dlundquist1 is now known as dlundquist | 20:28 | |
| blogan | sbalukoff: hold up lets make sure VijayB understand what the amphora is | 20:28 |
| dougwig | VijayB: likely multiple api controllers, similar to neutron-server | 20:28 |
| sbalukoff | The topid hasn't been changed yet, so I think the bot got split | 20:28 |
| xgerman | #vote webex | 20:28 |
| sballe | #vote webex | 20:28 |
| vivek-ebay | hold on | 20:28 |
| davidlenwell | you can't use webex and expect other developers in openstack to participate | 20:28 |
| davidlenwell | period.. | 20:28 |
| TrevorV | You guys realize he has to start the vote still right? H aha | 20:28 |
| barclaac | sbalukoff - start the vote already :-) | 20:28 |
| davidlenwell | if you want larger community support you have to have irc meetings. | 20:28 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: Ok, I'll try, but I think the bot got netsplit | 20:29 |
| xgerman | I though he was counting with his fingers | 20:29 |
| crc32 | let the votehappen. IRC is gonna win anyways. | 20:29 |
| blogan | up up down down left right left right a b select start | 20:29 |
| TrevorV | davidlenwell, hence one of the reasons to vote for keeping it IRC or not. | 20:29 |
| sbalukoff | #startvote Where should we hold our weekly meetings? IRC Webex Abstain | 20:29 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: Where should we hold our weekly meetings? Valid vote options are IRC, Webex, Abstain. | 20:29 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:29 |
| TrevorV | :) | 20:29 |
| dougwig | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| dlundquist | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| rm_work | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| VijayB | dougwig, blogan: Ok.. so we can have multiple controllers firing off simultaneous requests for haproxy.cfg rewrites - these would need to be serialized at some place... one place to do that is the MQ, the other, in the VM running the haproxy.. | 20:29 |
| barclaac | #vote abstain | 20:29 |
| sbalukoff | #vote Abstain | 20:29 |
| blogan | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| TrevorV | #vote Abstain | 20:29 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:29 |
| rohara | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| tmc3inphilly | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| xgerman | #vote Webex | 20:29 |
| davidlenwell | I do not understand why this is even a question | 20:29 |
| dlundquist | I will point out that holding this vote on IRC does result in a certain bias | 20:29 |
| jamiem | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| rohara | davidlenwell: +1 | 20:29 |
| rm_work | davidlenwell: me either but we vote because we vote | 20:29 |
| ajmiller | #vote abstain | 20:29 |
| johnsom | #vote IRC | 20:29 |
| jamiem | dlundquist: +1 :) | 20:29 |
| jwarendt | #vote abstain | 20:30 |
| sbalukoff | dlundquist: We've held the vote in webex, on gerrit and now on IRC. | 20:30 |
| dougwig | dlundquist: similar to how it went when we held it in webex? :) | 20:30 |
| sbalukoff | So, we have all flavors of bias represented. | 20:30 |
| VijayB | I'm confused about what all the voting is for :'( | 20:30 |
| rm_work | VijayB: where our meetings are | 20:30 |
| sbalukoff | 60 seconds until voting closes | 20:30 |
| VijayB | rm_work: ok :) | 20:30 |
| dlundquist | yeah, atleast I dont' need a VM to join these meetings | 20:30 |
| rm_work | if we continue to hold the meetings on IRC, or if we go back to holding meetings on Webex | 20:30 |
| VijayB | #vote IRC | 20:30 |
| sballe | #vote wenex | 20:30 |
| openstack | sballe: wenex is not a valid option. Valid options are IRC, Webex, Abstain. | 20:30 |
| davidlenwell | dlundquist: +2 | 20:30 |
| sballe | #vote wenex#vote webex | 20:30 |
| openstack | sballe: wenex#vote webex is not a valid option. Valid options are IRC, Webex, Abstain. | 20:30 |
| TrevorV | davidlenwell, all I can say is both have pros and cons, and in this case we're voting to see where it ends up. Whether or not you understand its necessity is irrelevant at this point | 20:30 |
| sballe | #vote webex | 20:30 |
| rm_work | :P | 20:31 |
| sballe | TrevorV, +1 | 20:31 |
| tmc3inphilly | ICQ? | 20:31 |
| rm_work | woo | 20:31 |
| davidlenwell | icq meetings for the win | 20:31 |
| crc32 | telegraph | 20:31 |
| sbalukoff | #endvote | 20:31 |
| openstack | Voted on "Where should we hold our weekly meetings?" Results are | 20:31 |
| davidlenwell | pony express | 20:31 |
| openstack | Abstain (6): jwarendt, sbalukoff, TrevorV, barclaac, ajmiller, crc32 | 20:31 |
| openstack | IRC (9): jamiem, rm_work, tmc3inphilly, johnsom, dougwig, VijayB, dlundquist, rohara, blogan | 20:31 |
| sbalukoff | HAHA | 20:31 |
| openstack | Webex (2): xgerman, sballe | 20:31 |
| TrevorV | #vote morse-code | 20:31 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, so, It looks like IRC wins. | 20:31 |
| blogan | webex is dead!!!!!!!! hip hip hooray! | 20:31 |
| davidlenwell | yay | 20:32 |
| blogan | sorry | 20:32 |
| sbalukoff | So, we'll be keeping our meetings in IRCS for the time being. | 20:32 |
| xgerman | well, I need to work on my writing skills then :-( | 20:32 |
| dougwig | we should likely move these meetings to a slot on the actually meeting channels at some point. | 20:32 |
| rm_work | we can still use webex/gchat for day to day discussions on the fly... | 20:32 |
| sbalukoff | #topic Discuss use of Pecan, WSME, and jsonschema for the API | 20:32 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, I have one question first | 20:32 |
| TrevorV | Before we switch to this | 20:32 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: Ok. | 20:32 |
| dougwig | sbalulkoff, type "#undo" | 20:32 |
| sbalukoff | #undo | 20:32 |
| xgerman | rm_work this is like you still finished the race | 20:32 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x326b050> | 20:32 |
| sballe | blogan, When we do IRC meetings we neve discus thing in a lot of details and laways end up differing to the ML where nothing happens. the few time we have met in webex/google hangout we have been better at making decidsion | 20:32 |
| rm_work | xgerman: lol | 20:33 |
| dlundquist | sbalukoff: could you clarify which API we are talking about | 20:33 |
| TrevorV | The meeting minutes are different than the recordings of the conversations in the meeting, right? | 20:33 |
| rm_work | xgerman: I got that a lot as a kid <_< | 20:33 |
| TrevorV | Are both captured by the bot? | 20:33 |
| rm_work | during, you know, actual races | 20:33 |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| blogan | sballe: i nkow and when something needs to be discussed that in depth we should do a webex | 20:33 |
| sbalukoff | dlundquist: Can we wait until open discussion to talk about that? | 20:33 |
| dougwig | TrevorV: yes | 20:33 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: | 20:33 |
| sbalukoff | Yes. | 20:33 |
| sbalukoff | Haha | 20:33 |
| rm_work | #trevorv Yes | 20:34 |
| sbalukoff | Yes, so, the meetbot makes "minutes" which are just a summary of the stuff we explicitly tell it to log with #commands | 20:34 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, dougwig, awesome, okay. I was just going to ask if it would be necessary for me to write up the meeting notes or not still. | 20:34 |
| TrevorV | Looks like I don't have to do that :D | 20:34 |
| blogan | you sound like you enjoyed doing that | 20:34 |
| rm_work | he did | 20:34 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: You don't have to do that, but if you want to, that's certainly welcome. | 20:34 |
| dougwig | TrevorV: check out the links after stephen does the end meeting, or browse eavesdrop.openstack.org | 20:34 |
| rm_work | I think we should still make him do it | 20:34 |
| TrevorV | Honestly, it helped me learn quite a bit more than I would normally | 20:34 |
| dlundquist | sbalukoff: I just wanted clarification on what which API was meant by "the API", operator facing, internal (controller - amphora) or both | 20:34 |
| crc32 | rm_work: I agree | 20:34 |
| xgerman | trevorV you should have voted webx -- wonder what blogan is paying you guys :-) | 20:34 |
| blogan | dlundquist: operator | 20:34 |
| blogan | for now at least | 20:35 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: Your meeting minutes are higher quality than the ones auto-generated by the meetbot. | 20:35 |
| blogan | lol | 20:35 |
| dlundquist | blogan: thanks | 20:35 |
| sbalukoff | Mostly because I suck at remembering to tell it what to log. | 20:35 |
| TrevorV | #action TrevorV to suck it up and make meeting minutes anyway | 20:35 |
| sbalukoff | Haha! | 20:35 |
| barclaac | sbalukoff can we discuss the single driver per controller we discussed last week? | 20:35 |
| dougwig | the quality of the irc minutes is in large part controlled by the use of the meta tagging by the chair. :) | 20:35 |
| rm_work | #startvote Should TrevorV still have to make IRC minutes? Yes Abstain | 20:35 |
| openstack | Only the meeting chair may start a vote. | 20:35 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: Let's do that after the next topic. | 20:35 |
| barclaac | k thx | 20:35 |
| blogan | ok we're getting off topic now | 20:36 |
| sballe | #vote yes | 20:36 |
| sbalukoff | #topic Discuss use of Pecan, WSME, and jsonschema for the API | 20:36 |
| blogan | okay | 20:36 |
| rm_work | :P | 20:36 |
| sbalukoff | #chair blogan | 20:36 |
| openstack | Current chairs: blogan sbalukoff | 20:36 |
| sbalukoff | Go for it, eh! | 20:36 |
| blogan | so I don't think we need to use jsonschema yet because from what I can tell so far WSME's built in validation will give us what we need | 20:36 |
| blogan | also I am going with Pecan adn WSME since it appears that is what the newer projects are going with | 20:37 |
| blogan | does anyone have any issues with that? | 20:37 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: None from me! | 20:37 |
| dougwig | i'm good with that. pecan was announced as the new standard at the last summit | 20:37 |
| sballe | blogan, What are the other OpenStack project using? I have hear a lot abut PECAN | 20:37 |
| davidlenwell | blogan: I don't think that wsme pecan is a bad idea.. but I also dissagree that we should choose a technology just because "its what the other projects are doing" | 20:37 |
| davidlenwell | so the merrits of each should be discussed | 20:38 |
| sbalukoff | davidlenwell: +1 | 20:38 |
| blogan | sballe: the newer ones are using Pecan, and I believe a lot are using WSME | 20:38 |
| xgerman | +1 | 20:38 |
| vivek-ebay | PECAN +1 | 20:38 |
| sballe | blogan, thx | 20:38 |
| blogan | the older projects are supposed to switch to pecan | 20:38 |
| TrevorV | davidlenwell, that argument is somewhat invalidated by your IRC opinion earlier ;) | 20:38 |
| sballe | PECAN+1 since that is where the OpenStack tooling is going | 20:38 |
| xgerman | he can change his mind :-) | 20:38 |
| blogan | davidlenwell: you're correct and thats why I am bringing it up here, it is what I have chosen, but I would like people to voice their concerns about it | 20:39 |
| dougwig | davidlenwell: eh, it's a rest framework, not exactly the height of innovation. debating them tends to come to personal biases, when it's mostly six and one-half dozen. now if we can talk about using ruby... | 20:39 |
| davidlenwell | lol | 20:39 |
| * blogan kicks dougwig | 20:39 | |
| sballe | :-) | 20:39 |
| * davidlenwell facepalms | 20:39 | |
| *** dlundquist has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| * TrevorV kicks dougwig after blogan | 20:40 | |
| blogan | so does anyone have any concerns about it? | 20:40 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Do you want to vote on this, or are you comfortable just going with Pecan? | 20:40 |
| dougwig | trolling aside (though i do love ruby), i think there is value in standardizing on the commodity libraries. | 20:40 |
| blogan | HP people I know you use pecan and possibly wsme in libra, any issues you've had that might make this a bad choice for us? | 20:40 |
| xgerman | dougwig +1 | 20:40 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: I'm not really hearing any objections. | 20:40 |
| xgerman | well, SSL was sketchy | 20:40 |
| *** rm_work has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| sballe | dougwig, +1 | 20:41 |
| *** rm_work has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:41 | |
| *** rm_work has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** rm_work has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:41 | |
| blogan | xgerman: because of pecan or wsme? | 20:41 |
| davidlenwell | I don't object | 20:41 |
| *** dlundquist has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:41 | |
| xgerman | more because it needs to run in some app server | 20:41 |
| davidlenwell | I've done apis for projects with flask, pecan .. it is largly 6 one way half a dozon the other | 20:42 |
| xgerman | also the wsme syntax needs getting used to. Flask, etc. are more clear | 20:42 |
| TrevorV | I'm confused, is anyone against Pecan/WSME? | 20:42 |
| ctracey | +1 davidlenwell | 20:42 |
| davidlenwell | no | 20:42 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: I don't think so. | 20:42 |
| blogan | xgerman: agreed and I prefer flask's but pecan isn't so bad now, its just different than flask | 20:42 |
| TrevorV | Then what is the discussion covering right now? | 20:42 |
| davidlenwell | I wrote the original python libra api with it for a reason | 20:42 |
| johnsom | I have no issue with pecan | 20:43 |
| xgerman | we are talking wsme | 20:43 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:43 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Anything else you want to discuss here, or would it be OK to move on to the next topic? | 20:43 |
| xgerman | but I bow to what OpenStack decided | 20:43 |
| TrevorV | xgerman, WSME as in pro/con WSME? or alternatives to it? | 20:43 |
| blogan | sbalukoff: I have another, but I'll add it to the end if we have time | 20:43 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Ok. | 20:43 |
| blogan | sounds like no vote is needed though | 20:44 |
| sbalukoff | #topic dlundquist's question about APIs | 20:44 |
| blogan | already answered | 20:44 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, | 20:44 |
| dlundquist | I already did -- just wanted clearification on which API previous was discussing | 20:44 |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 20:44 | |
| sbalukoff | #topic barclaac discussion of multiple controllers idea | 20:44 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: Go for it! | 20:44 |
| blogan | single driver on controller! | 20:44 |
| dlundquist | blogan: +1 as a starting point | 20:45 |
| xgerman | +1 | 20:45 |
| sballe | blogan, +1 | 20:45 |
| barclaac | Right. So given we were originally talking about controllers having multiple drivers | 20:45 |
| dlundquist | once we have that working we can move on | 20:45 |
| sbalukoff | Agreed, as a starting point. | 20:45 |
| johnsom | blogan +1 | 20:45 |
| barclaac | it seems to be a simplification to restrict to a single driver. | 20:45 |
| blogan | dlundquist: i was more clarifying, but yes single driver only at first, until octavia is more mature | 20:45 |
| crc32 | #vote abstain | 20:45 |
| barclaac | If you want another driver type at the same time then start a new controller | 20:45 |
| rohara | blogan: +1 | 20:45 |
| xgerman | baclaac +1 | 20:45 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: How does the user / operator API know which controller to talk to? | 20:46 |
| VijayB | -1 for having to start a new controller for a new driver type | 20:46 |
| dougwig | mildly dislike, but accept the initial simplification. | 20:46 |
| barclaac | we'll have multiple controllers in the system anyway so this makes it much simpler but doesn't prevent multiple driver types | 20:46 |
| sballe | +1 | 20:46 |
| VijayB | that could get restrictive | 20:46 |
| rm_work | VijayB +1, not sure why that's a good ideas | 20:46 |
| rm_work | *idea | 20:46 |
| VijayB | neutron already supports multiple driver types doesn't it? So why do we need to limit ourselves? | 20:46 |
| barclaac | We've got to look in the DB anyway to figure out which controller because not every controller knows every LB | 20:47 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: So are you proposing to use a dispatcher-like service (ie. as in the v1.0 preliminary design document) for determining which controller to talk to? | 20:47 |
| xgerman | well, if you have a controller running driver A and B -- you have to restart the controller just to update driver A even if B stays the same | 20:47 |
| barclaac | Right | 20:47 |
| sbalukoff | Ok. | 20:47 |
| rm_work | Controller is for the Amphora type (VM / Container / etc), Driver is for the Software inside the Amphora (HAProxy, nginx, etc), right? | 20:47 |
| VijayB | each type can have its own implementation of the plugin_driver that will let it choose the appropriate driver | 20:47 |
| dougwig | xgerman: driver changes are rare, so that's not a big deal. | 20:47 |
| xgerman | I disagree | 20:48 |
| dougwig | rm_work: no | 20:48 |
| rm_work | dougwig: ok, maybe I need another explanation for this then | 20:48 |
| rohara | we're talking about 0.5, though, right? seems like everyone agrees that this would be a simplifcation that can be address lates | 20:48 |
| sbalukoff | rm_work: No | 20:48 |
| barclaac | It's the 90% solution. | 20:48 |
| rm_work | sbalukoff: yes, dougwig just said that. WTB clarification :P | 20:48 |
| dougwig | controller (api) has driver (talks to amphora). amphora might have a driver layer, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. | 20:48 |
| barclaac | If the 10% is an issue we can go to multiple drivers later | 20:48 |
| rm_work | hmm k | 20:49 |
| sbalukoff | rohara: +1 | 20:49 |
| xgerman | I guess we should vote agian. people didn't know what they were voting for/against :-) | 20:49 |
| blogan | i think the best solution is to go with a single driver right now, and explore whether the controller can handle multiple drivers easily when octavia is more mature | 20:49 |
| TrevorV | +1 barclaac | 20:49 |
| sbalukoff | rm_work: Sorry, catching up on reading. | 20:49 |
| rohara | blogan: +1 | 20:49 |
| rm_work | dougwig: but the driver doesn't know whether the Amphora is a comtainer or VM right? | 20:49 |
| dougwig | barclaac: i think it's the 30% solution, but i'm mildly ok with it initially because that's more than the 0% we have now. | 20:49 |
| TrevorV | +1 blogan | 20:49 |
| rm_work | dougwig: the controller is in charge of that? | 20:49 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: +1 | 20:49 |
| VijayB | can someone confirm/edit this workflow: neutron-controller->neutron octavia driver -> octavia controller -> driver on amphora ? | 20:49 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: +1 | 20:49 |
| dougwig | the driver is the only part of the controller that knows the details of the amphora. | 20:49 |
| dougwig | rm_work: | 20:49 |
| rm_work | dougwig: so the *driver* is actually in charge of spinning up the Amphora? | 20:50 |
| sbalukoff | VijayB: That's correct, from a high level. | 20:50 |
| barclaac | VijayB you missed the dispatcher | 20:50 |
| rm_work | dougwig: and ALSO in charge of configuring the software inside it? | 20:50 |
| dougwig | rm_work: no. | 20:50 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: Dispatcher doesn't come into play until v1.0 | 20:50 |
| VijayB | barclaac: which dispatcher is this? Within neutron? | 20:50 |
| rm_work | dougwig: what layer spins up the Amphora (VM / Container / etc)? | 20:50 |
| sbalukoff | VijayB: It's in the 1.0 design. | 20:50 |
| dougwig | rm_work: that's the controller. | 20:50 |
| rm_work | ... | 20:50 |
| barclaac | VijayB an additional component in sbalukoff's arch. Listen to him, not me (one time offer only ;-) | 20:50 |
| rm_work | and what layer communicates with the software inside it (HAProxy, nginx, etc)? | 20:51 |
| sbalukoff | VijayB: So, it doesn't really affect the v0.5 workflow per se, though it is probably where we will end up in later versions. | 20:51 |
| rm_work | dougwig: ^^ | 20:51 |
| VijayB | sbalukoff: ok | 20:51 |
| dougwig | rm_work: that's up to the driver/amp combo. | 20:51 |
| rm_work | dougwig: so then that's exactly what I said in the beginning :P maybe I just didn't word it well | 20:51 |
| sbalukoff | rm_work: There will be a RESTful agent on the amphora | 20:51 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, +1 | 20:51 |
| rm_work | right | 20:51 |
| VijayB | sbalukoff: so now the voting will be for how many octavia driver instances do we support in the neutron controller to talk to the octavia controller? | 20:51 |
| barclaac | All I'm trying to do with the single driver approach is to simplify to make the 0.5 actually happen with a speed that doesn't get me fired. | 20:51 |
| rm_work | so the Controller spins up the Amphora (as a VM / Container / etc), the Driver renders the config for the Software inside the Amphora (HAProxy, nginx, etc) and passes it to the Amphora | 20:52 |
| xgerman | ok, I think we agreed on that | 20:52 |
| blogan | barclaac: i think we're all in agreement to not worry about multiple drivers until after 0.5 | 20:52 |
| sbalukoff | VijayB: I'm hoping we don't have to vote on that just yet. I don't think the project is mature enough to need to decide that yet. | 20:52 |
| sbalukoff | barclaac: +1 | 20:52 |
| dougwig | rm_work: yes. | 20:52 |
| rm_work | ok | 20:52 |
| blogan | and if after 0.5 we decide multiple drivers is not worth the hassle, we won't do it | 20:52 |
| rm_work | that's exactly what I was trying to say originally | 20:52 |
| rm_work | I guess my wording was just slightly off | 20:52 |
| xgerman | yeah, but you voted for irc :-) | 20:53 |
| rm_work | I just made it a little bit more clear :P | 20:53 |
| barclaac | blogan +1 | 20:53 |
| johnsom | rm_work, yes, that is my understanding | 20:53 |
| xgerman | blogan +1 | 20:53 |
| sbalukoff | Please tell me if this is incorrect: | 20:53 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, Can we agree to postpone this decision until after 0.5? and do 1 driver for 0.5? | 20:53 |
| rm_work | sballe: I'd vote for that :) | 20:53 |
| xgerman | sballe +1 | 20:53 |
| sbalukoff | #agreed We will develop a single driver per controller for the v0.5 release, re-evaluate afterward. | 20:53 |
| xgerman | yeah!! | 20:53 |
| sballe | !!! | 20:53 |
| openstack | sballe: Error: "!!" is not a valid command. | 20:53 |
| barclaac | So let's vote on the 0.5 decision and that we'll revisit for 1.0 | 20:53 |
| dougwig | i think we have full consensus. | 20:54 |
| rm_work | but... voting | 20:54 |
| blogan | yes we do | 20:54 |
| sballe | dougwig, I agree | 20:54 |
| rm_work | we just got the voting stuff working :P | 20:54 |
| sballe | ;-) | 20:54 |
| sbalukoff | Ok! | 20:54 |
| xgerman | yeah, it's exciting | 20:54 |
| * rm_work wants to #vote | 20:54 | |
| dougwig | when you've got a hammer... | 20:54 |
| sbalukoff | Only 5 minutes left... so... | 20:54 |
| barclaac | dougwig +1 | 20:54 |
| sbalukoff | #topic blogan's next question | 20:54 |
| sbalukoff | Feel free to change that topic. ;) | 20:55 |
| blogan | #topic support json only, and json format | 20:55 |
| rm_work | #vote Yes | 20:55 |
| blogan | topic not working | 20:55 |
| sbalukoff | I think it is. | 20:55 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, I have a question around hte Paris design summit sessions.Has anybody heard anythign about any deadlines/ | 20:55 |
| sbalukoff | Maybe? | 20:55 |
| sbalukoff | I dunno. | 20:55 |
| blogan | i eblieve we had an unofficial consensus before, but do we want to support xml? | 20:55 |
| xgerman | no xml | 20:56 |
| sballe | xgerman, +1 | 20:56 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: So, I think that it should be valid for someone to develop some interfaces that are not RESTful if they can justify it. | 20:56 |
| blogan | ok better question, does anyone feel strongly about supporting xml? | 20:56 |
| johnsom | xgerman +1 | 20:56 |
| ajmiller | xgerman +1 | 20:56 |
| sbalukoff | Like the HMAC-signed UDP health checks and whatnot. | 20:56 |
| xgerman | for the operator API? | 20:56 |
| barclaac | blogan: I feel strongly about not supporting xml :-) | 20:56 |
| sbalukoff | But otherwise, we should default to RESTful unless deviation from that is justified. | 20:56 |
| sbalukoff | And yes, XML is the devil. | 20:56 |
| blogan | barclaac: i think most of us do | 20:56 |
| xgerman | sbalukoff that would be up to the driver how to talk to the amphora | 20:56 |
| sballe | sbalukoff, +1 | 20:56 |
| blogan | ok just making sure nobody really wants it | 20:57 |
| blogan | also | 20:57 |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: True. | 20:57 |
| blogan | about json | 20:57 |
| barclaac | ASN.1 ? | 20:57 |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: but for the drivers we write, let's follow that standard. :) | 20:57 |
| xgerman | \me likes them to be asynchronous and update the db straight | 20:57 |
| sbalukoff | #agreed XML is the devil and should die in a fire. | 20:57 |
| blogan | what format do most people prefer: {"load_balancer": {"name": "some load balancer"}} or {"name": "some load balancer"} | 20:57 |
| dougwig | xml is a child of the 00's. | 20:57 |
| rm_work | blogan: root tags? | 20:58 |
| blogan | yes | 20:58 |
| blogan | i dont now if that is the official name, but thats what i call them | 20:58 |
| rm_work | Barbican does not use root tags | 20:58 |
| rm_work | (for POSTs) | 20:58 |
| dougwig | i prefer no root tags, and then adding them to batch api calls as needed (i.e., if you add a call that fetches the entire LB tree, they go in there.) | 20:58 |
| rm_work | it DOES return with root tags | 20:58 |
| dougwig | yuck. it should post what it returns. | 20:58 |
| blogan | rm_work: i don't like that inconsistency | 20:59 |
| rm_work | it makes sense when you're using it | 20:59 |
| blogan | I'm fine with either, but it should be consistent | 20:59 |
| sbalukoff | Isn't root-tagging in some ways less DRY? | 20:59 |
| blogan | sbalukoff: yes, bc the resource is in the url | 20:59 |
| sbalukoff | I mean, don't you know it's a "loadbalancer" from the URL? | 20:59 |
| dougwig | it's redundant, for sure. | 20:59 |
| sbalukoff | Right. | 20:59 |
| xgerman | we have one minute - ML? | 21:00 |
| sbalukoff | So, no root tags. :) | 21:00 |
| sbalukoff | xgerman: Yeah, ML. | 21:00 |
| rohara | I like root tags, but I do not feel strongly | 21:00 |
| rm_work | oh, hmm maybe it doesn't... wonder why i was getting root tags on GET before in python | 21:00 |
| blogan | i still like them because pulling from the url isn't as easy as just parsing json | 21:00 |
| rm_work | well, ignore me then -- Barbican uses no root tags | 21:00 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, we've got to end the meeting. | 21:00 |
| sbalukoff | #endmeeting | 21:00 |
| blogan | rm_work: ignored you long ago | 21:00 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Sep 10 21:00:40 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/octavia/2014/octavia.2014-09-10-20.00.html | 21:00 |
| dougwig | blogan: do you forget where you are regularly? | 21:00 |
| dougwig | :) | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/octavia/2014/octavia.2014-09-10-20.00.txt | 21:00 |
| rm_work | blogan: :P | 21:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/octavia/2014/octavia.2014-09-10-20.00.log.html | 21:00 |
| blogan | dougwig: where am I regularly? | 21:00 |
| rm_work | we don't *have* to end the meeting, technically, because this is our channel :P no other meetings here | 21:00 |
| blogan | the bathroom? | 21:01 |
| rm_work | but whatever | 21:01 |
| sbalukoff | rm_work: I'm trying to respect the time of people who need to go do other stuff now. | 21:01 |
| dougwig | back to launchpad vs storyboard... too bad we can't use trello in the interim. | 21:01 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: Agreed. | 21:01 |
| rm_work | BTW: my Neutron-LBaaS action item from last week is not done because the keystone folks keep messing up my plans | 21:01 |
| rm_work | what with their "information about how the system works" >_> | 21:01 |
| dougwig | kneecap 'em. | 21:01 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: Too bad we can't use a text file we e-mail to each other. Seriously, could they have made a worse interface than launchpad? | 21:01 |
| sballe | dougwig, What's trello? | 21:01 |
| rm_work | I will need to bring up the interaction model in the meeting I think | 21:02 |
| rohara | breaking news ... | 21:02 |
| xgerman | trello is some distributed todo.project management app | 21:02 |
| dougwig | sballe: a free but commercial storyboarding/agile planner. | 21:02 |
| blogan | sbalukoff: yes, rm_work's computer science professor "Dr. Web" | 21:02 |
| rm_work | lol | 21:02 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: HAHA! | 21:02 |
| sballe | oh cool! BTW I am all for moving away from launchpad | 21:02 |
| sballe | when the time is ready | 21:02 |
| rm_work | same | 21:03 |
| blogan | sballe: +1 | 21:03 |
| blogan | i don't like launchpad either | 21:03 |
| sballe | neither do I. | 21:03 |
| blogan | and storyboard looks like its shaping up nice | 21:03 |
| blogan | ly | 21:03 |
| sbalukoff | Well, in the mean time, I'm going to try to sort-of use launchpad as I would StoryBoard. :P | 21:03 |
| sballe | :-) | 21:03 |
| dougwig | i'd be interested in a smaller group getting the details of mordred's "not ready", and combining that with davidlenwell's successful use of storyboard, and then letting the main user of the tool pick his poison. | 21:03 |
| sbalukoff | StoryBoard honestly feels like it's got enough features to be really useful to us right now. :P | 21:03 |
| sbalukoff | But, eh... I'll go with the majority on this. | 21:04 |
| dougwig | sbalukoff: only if the majority is gonna do the planning. | 21:04 |
| blogan | sbalukoff: you might be right, but I fear that since its not finished it doesn't mean it will get finished, it could get abandoned | 21:04 |
| sbalukoff | dougwig: Good point. | 21:04 |
| sballe | dougwig, I agree. If we had more information before the vote I might have changed my cote | 21:04 |
| sballe | s/cote/vote | 21:04 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Well, then we'd have to transition to something else. | 21:04 |
| sballe | we need use cases and compare them against launpach and storyboard | 21:04 |
| blogan | back to launchpad probably | 21:05 |
| sbalukoff | In the mean time, there are "official" OpenStack projects already using it. :P | 21:05 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: Sure. | 21:05 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| johnsom | sbalukoff I don't see any "official" projects on storyboard yet. The infra stuff hasn't fully moved yet. | 21:05 |
| blogan | bb in a few | 21:06 |
| davidlenwell | sorry I got pulled afk for a minute.. | 21:07 |
| davidlenwell | I will email the list with some of my thoughts and ask monty to weigh in | 21:08 |
| sballe | davidlenwell, +1 | 21:08 |
| sbalukoff | TrevorV: When you write up today's meeting minutes, would you mind putting them in the wiki? (If you severely dislike wiki markup, I'm happy to do it. But... if you don't, might as well skip a step, eh.) | 21:08 |
| sbalukoff | davidlenwell: Thanks! | 21:08 |
| sbalukoff | davidlenwell: Are you going to send it to the list under the [Octavia] topic or [StoryBoard] (or both?) | 21:09 |
| davidlenwell | octavia | 21:09 |
| sbalukoff | Cool, thanks! | 21:09 |
| davidlenwell | probably over the weekend | 21:09 |
| davidlenwell | when I am recovered from travel | 21:10 |
| sbalukoff | Sounds good. | 21:10 |
| TrevorV | sbalukoff, I can definitely just put them in the wiki first and just email the mailing list with a wiki link, how does that sound? | 21:12 |
| sbalukoff | TevorV: Perfect! Thanks! | 21:12 |
| *** VijayB has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| blogan | i can't believe TrevorV wants to do that | 21:16 |
| dougwig | glutton for minutes. | 21:17 |
| dougwig | oh, and now that the voting is done: | 21:18 |
| * dougwig does an IRC dance. | 21:18 | |
| blogan | sbalukoff: I really believe storyboard or launchpad does not matter right now, they will both suffice in the beginning | 21:18 |
| * rm_work dances the IRC dance with dougwig | 21:18 | |
| blogan | but since you will be using it most...I can see why you'd want to use storyboard and get the transition out of the way | 21:19 |
| blogan | hmm so maybe i would vote for storyboard... | 21:19 |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| *** VijayB has joined #openstack-lbaas | 21:20 | |
| sballe | blogan, ;-) | 21:21 |
| sbalukoff | blogan: How about this: I will do both for a couple weeks (up to a month). | 21:23 |
| blogan | works for me | 21:24 |
| rm_work | WFM, YMMV | 21:25 |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 21:25 | |
| davidlenwell | refstack used both for like a week before we decided that we didn't need lp anymore | 21:25 |
| davidlenwell | the flow in refstack is a lot better | 21:26 |
| johnsom | I think there are a number of people that have to use this for planning, not just sbalukoff. | 21:26 |
| blogan | johnsom: good point | 21:26 |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-lbaas | 21:26 | |
| johnsom | Didn't we make a decision during the meeting? Do we need to vote on this again? | 21:26 |
| davidlenwell | I even created a flow chart showing the work flow which I will include in my email this weekend | 21:26 |
| blogan | johnsom: lol no its just inner thoughts coming out | 21:26 |
| blogan | doesn't hurt to get more information though | 21:26 |
| johnsom | Ok, cool | 21:26 |
| sbalukoff | johnsom: We did decide during the meeting, but also during the meeting it was mentioned that I cut off davidlenwell's discussion points-- and he's volunteered to take it up on the mailing list (which I think is a good thing) | 21:27 |
| johnsom | I agree on the more info. My biggest issue with storyboard is the lack of tie in with the specs and the missing subscriptions/tracking | 21:27 |
| sbalukoff | I don't think we want to ever make a policy that we won't revisit past decisions (especially in light of new ideas / evidence), but obviously having had a vote on something does give it a lot more weight, eh. | 21:28 |
| davidlenwell | the good news is that if we make noise about wanting these things they'll get done faster | 21:28 |
| rm_work | although the direct linkage from gerrit to LP is broken right now for non-openstack projects (stackforge) | 21:28 |
| sbalukoff | davidlenwell: +1 | 21:28 |
| johnsom | Agreed, just 30 minutes after the decision seems a bit concerning... Grin | 21:28 |
| sbalukoff | johnsom: That's my fault. | 21:29 |
| *** dlundquist has left #openstack-lbaas | 21:29 | |
| sballe | davidlenwell, sbalukoff Most of HP Storyboard developers are in Seattle ;-) you can go an nok at their door to speed things tp ;-) | 21:29 |
| sballe | s/tp/up | 21:30 |
| sbalukoff | I didn't introduce this topic well-- I should have sent something to the mailing list and gotten discussion going before the meeting, and/or I should have just floated the idea here during this meeting so we could gather more data for a vote next week or something. | 21:30 |
| blogan | i don't think its a big deal to discuss it after the vote, the vote was made and it was a large majority. Discussing details directly after seems natural to me anyway | 21:30 |
| sbalukoff | Yep, we didn't really discuss details much before people started vetoing the idea. | 21:30 |
| sballe | I probably started that but I knew from Monty that he didn't think it was ready and since is the PTL for that I have to trust his opinion. We could have decided not to vote today and gather more date before the vote | 21:32 |
| sballe | s/date/dadta | 21:32 |
| blogan | i don't think we even voted, i think we just got a good feeling from the majority opposiing it | 21:33 |
| rm_work | yeah usually the PTL/devs for a project are its biggest proponents, so when one of them says "don't use this yet", usually to me that is a good sign that it isn't ready :P | 21:33 |
| sballe | rm_work, My thoughts as well | 21:33 |
| blogan | ptls and devs can also be their projects biggest critic as well | 21:33 |
| sballe | yeah!! maybe | 21:34 |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 21:36 | |
| *** sballe_ has joined #openstack-lbaas | 21:45 | |
| dougwig | i am guilty of bringing it up after the meeting, after we voted, because i have kind of a big problem with the community telling stephen what he has to use to do his job, when he's already stood up and told us that it's not working for him. i can't say that i do more than click LP once or twice a month; my workflow as a dev lives in gerrit or IRC, so me | 21:48 |
| dougwig | advocating for sticking with it (which I do for now) is an opinion that I don't consider particularly relevant. | 21:48 |
| *** vivek-ebay has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** vivek-ebay has joined #openstack-lbaas | 21:49 | |
| *** sballe has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** vivek-ebay has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| *** TrevorV_ has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:08 | |
| *** TrevorV_ has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| *** ptoohill has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** vivek-ebay has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:13 | |
| xgerman | rmwork is blogan celebrating his victory with irc at a local bar? | 22:19 |
| xgerman | I trust you to have your cell to tell me :-) | 22:19 |
| *** vivek-ebay has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| *** johnsom has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| xgerman | I guess they are all on WebEX :-) | 22:26 |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:27 | |
| *** vivek-ebay has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:27 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** sbfox has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:29 | |
| *** VijayB has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** VijayB has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:30 | |
| *** VijayB has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| *** VijayB has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:34 | |
| rm_work | xgerman: hah we were having a celebratory game of foosball :) | 22:38 |
| xgerman | neat -- | 22:38 |
| blogan | celebratory on my side | 22:40 |
| blogan | bc I won, if you didnt know | 22:40 |
| xgerman | lol | 22:40 |
| sbalukoff | Heh! | 22:43 |
| rm_work | so again, should I add an item to the LBaaS wiki for an agenda item tomorrow, or should I just bring it up? since the wiki doesn't seem to have been used for agenda planning for a month or so | 22:44 |
| rm_work | right now I am assuming "just bring it up during the meeting" | 22:45 |
| dougwig | add to the wiki. | 22:45 |
| dougwig | when i show up 30 seconds before and get told to chair, i do use the wiki agenda. | 22:45 |
| rm_work | ok | 22:47 |
| *** nealph has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| dougwig | what do we have tomorrow, besides the obligatory incubator update? adv. services cancelled their meeting this week. | 22:47 |
| rm_work | my keystone/barbican update | 22:48 |
| dougwig | are you editing now? else i'll add tomorrow | 22:49 |
| rm_work | yes | 22:49 |
| rm_work | just edited | 22:49 |
| dougwig | ok, i fleshed it out a little bit. | 22:53 |
| *** sbfox1 has joined #openstack-lbaas | 22:59 | |
| *** sbfox has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** barclaac has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| rm_work | I was going to put my update last | 23:05 |
| rm_work | but that's fine :P | 23:05 |
| *** jorgem has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| dougwig | front and center. | 23:31 |
| *** sbfox1 has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!