| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:28 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:31 | |
| *** openstack` has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** openstack has quit IRC | 02:01 | |
| *** vish1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:02 | |
| *** openstack` is now known as openstack | 02:02 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 02:02 | |
| *** glenc_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:02 | |
| *** markwash_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:04 | |
| *** westmaas_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:04 | |
| *** jbarratt has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:04 | |
| *** _cerberu` has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:06 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** vishy has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** westmaas has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** markwash has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** _cerberus_ has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** jbarratt_ has quit IRC | 02:08 | |
| *** _cerberu` is now known as _cerberus_ | 02:09 | |
| *** Binbin has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:40 | |
| *** Binbin has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:50 | |
| *** Binbin has quit IRC | 09:14 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 10:20 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:21 | |
| *** yamahata_dt has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:46 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:05 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:55 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 13:01 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:41 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 13:45 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:45 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 13:46 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:04 | |
| *** med_out is now known as med | 14:09 | |
| *** med is now known as medberry | 14:09 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:52 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:53 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:58 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:33 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:45 | |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:02 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:15 | |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 16:32 | |
| *** Tv has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:03 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:12 | |
| *** mrmartin has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:33 | |
| termie | ... and meeting? | 19:00 |
|---|---|---|
| heckj | Ola | 19:01 |
| _0x44 | Testing and CI? I'm for it. | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | hey all | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 21 19:02:12 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | #topic Meeting Overview | 19:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Meeting Overview" | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/CITeamMeeting | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | bah | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/CITeamMeeting | 19:02 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | morning jaypipes | 19:02 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: afternoon :) | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: just pasted in http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/CITeamMeeting which has today's agenda | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | and I figure we can vamp for a moment or two and see who shows up | 19:03 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: I'm casually listening in... | 19:03 |
| * mtaylor doesn't believe that jaypipes does _anything_ casually | 19:04 | |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: heh, sure I do :) | 19:04 |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:05 | |
| mtaylor | hey dprince | 19:05 |
| jaypipes | dprince: afternoon | 19:05 |
| dprince | hi | 19:05 |
| msinhore | hello all | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | hi msinhore | 19:06 |
| msinhore | I'm from Brazil from globo.com | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | oh sweet! welcome! | 19:06 |
| msinhore | we will help with the development | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | or should I say bom bia | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | or should I say bom dia | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | (I can't type) | 19:06 |
| msinhore | and this is my first meeting with you all | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | happy to have you. | 19:07 |
| msinhore | nice, but now is afternoomn :) | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | :) | 19:07 |
| msinhore | bom dia is good morning | 19:07 |
| msinhore | only to ajust it :) | 19:07 |
| msinhore | now is boa tarde | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | gah. I really need to get my Portuguese up to speed... | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | so - with that - let's get this puppy going | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting" | 19:08 | |
| mtaylor | dprince: any luck with/time to work on a smokestack job for the openstack jenkins? | 19:08 |
| dprince | mtaylor: haven't got to it yet. | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | cool. | 19:09 |
| dprince | mtaylor: on that front I'd like to sync up w/ you offline about the Jenkins box. Who has access. etc. | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | cool. happy to chat about that | 19:09 |
| msinhore | do you have some stuff now about the dashboard? | 19:09 |
| dprince | mtaylor: Actually copying it over is probably easy enough for me but I'd like to have at least a couple people in the know on how it is configured. | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | dprince: ++ | 19:10 |
| dprince | mytaylor: can you skype or chat tomorrow in the AM? | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | dprince: I have a dentist appointment at 10am Pacific, other than that, I'm free | 19:10 |
| dprince | mtaylor: ^^ | 19:10 |
| dprince | didn't mean to imply I owned you (mytaylor). | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | hehe | 19:10 |
| dprince | must of been thinking of me guitar. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | you wanna do 9am PDT? | 19:11 |
| dprince | mtaylor: sure. | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | cool. done | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | I'm gonna put you down again for the same thing | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | #action dprince smokestack jenkins job | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | just so as that we can keep track of it | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | next thing from last time was me getting the pxe booting of the bare hardware integrated with jenkins | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | which is also not finished - have been fighting a little bit with some odd ILO systems on the boxes- but we're nearly done with having all of the pxe stuff happy - at which point the jenkins job is a cinch | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | SO | 19:13 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I missed the last meeting - what are we driving from PXYE with jenkins? | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | I should have that done by friday at the latest (going to the datacenter on friday) | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | heckj: ah - so... | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | we have a set of 10 real machines that we are going to use to test full installs of openstack | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | the generalized idea is "reinstall machines - install openstack - run tests" | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | and of course, to have that triggered from/integrated with jenkins | 19:15 |
| heckj | mtaylor: ah, excellent, thank you | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | but - as I did _not_ finish my task from last week - I will re-action myself as well | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor jenkins job for the PXE boot goodness | 19:16 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| mtaylor | and the last thing from last week was that I was going to verify what termie said regarding roundabout triggering jenkins jobs, and yes, he was in fact right | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | so that's good to know | 19:17 |
| _0x44 | What did termie say about roundabout triggering jenkins jobs? | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | that it did | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | which is lovely, and definitely an improvement over how tarmac does it | 19:18 |
| _0x44 | Why was that in question? I thought we discused that at the summit? | 19:18 |
| * _0x44 was unaware of these meetings. | 19:18 | |
| mtaylor | purely brainfart | 19:18 |
| _0x44 | Ah ok, was confused :) | 19:19 |
| _0x44 | I'll pipe down now | 19:19 |
| termie | _0x44: you should stay, you can have my spot | 19:20 |
| _0x44 | termie: I'm sticking around | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | so - moving merrily along... | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | #topic Addition of rpm/yum building to Jenkins | 19:20 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Addition of rpm/yum building to Jenkins" | 19:20 | |
| mtaylor | we're currently building debs with every push and with releases ... as much as I'd love it if all the world was on debian/ubuntu, that's obviously not the case | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | so to be good citizens, we should probalby be making rpms as well, yeah? | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | as I understand it, there's somebody with spec files out there somewhere | 19:21 |
| *** adrian17 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:22 | |
| heckj | mtaylor: grid dynamics folks have it | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | and also the guys from Novell/MSFT Interop Lab (I need a shorter name for that) | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | heckj: yes! that's them | 19:22 |
| dprince | https://github.com/griddynamics/openstack-rhel | 19:22 |
| heckj | mtaylor: They're periodically populating a YUM repo at http://yum.griddynamics.net/ | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | the NMIL guys were suggesting using the OpenSuSE Build Service in a similar manner to how we use PPAs for debs | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | #link https://github.com/griddynamics/openstack-rhel | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | #link http://yum.griddynamics.net/ | 19:23 |
| heckj | looks like they have a jenkins build doing that already | 19:23 |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 19:23 | |
| *** adrian17 has quit IRC | 19:23 | |
| mtaylor | great. well - I'd like to get that integrated in to our process so that we can produce some that come from a reasonably expected place | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | and perhaps make a yum.openstack.org | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | unless there are huge amounts of dissent or angst | 19:24 |
| heckj | I think it would be an excellent central resource | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | sweet | 19:24 |
| heckj | maybe fork their repo into openstack/openstack-rhel for the pieces and go from there? | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | certainly not a bad idea | 19:25 |
| nati | central resource++ | 19:25 |
| msinhore | nice port the openstack to rpm package. | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor fork griddynamics/openstack-rhel into openstack/openstack-rhel | 19:25 |
| msinhore | it will works only with opensuse or with rhel and centos? | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | hrm. that should imply actually doing something with it | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | oh well | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | well... that brings us back to OBS - does anyone have any feelings about the OpenSuSE Build Service? | 19:26 |
| heckj | msinhore: from the notes from GridDynamics, I think it's focused on RHEL first, probably CentOS - no idea about OpenSuSE | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | I believe we have a person at Novell who is happy to get us set up with a job building rpms for all their distros there | 19:26 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:26 | |
| mtaylor | or - let me re-phrase - is there anyone who would be opposed to having the novell guy get that set up and having our jenkins trigger that as well? | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | sweet. everyone is so agreeable! | 19:28 |
| heckj | i guess... | 19:29 |
| heckj | :-) | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | #action talk with Novel/MSFT Interop guys about an OBS build profile run from our jenkins | 19:29 |
| nati | I agreed :) | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | hrm. I can't type - that should be an action for me ... | 19:29 |
| *** pvo has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| mtaylor | #topic rPath integration | 19:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "rPath integration" | 19:29 | |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| mtaylor | The fine folks at rPath are building OpenStack images and are internally testing them by driving a cobbler set up to install those images on to bare metal from jenkins | 19:30 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:31 | |
| mtaylor | so we had a chat about putting an rPath builder on our cobbler box and adding a jenkins job to deploy/test against those as well - which would get us some decent coverage for RH stuff in addition to our ubuntu-based stuff | 19:31 |
| heckj | nice - are they aiming to provide openstack virtual appliance images with rPath then? | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | yes | 19:31 |
| nati | cool | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | not really a crapton of action here- just really wanted to get it in people's head that this is available and on the list of stuff we're hoping to test | 19:32 |
| heckj | It would be really nice to have a nova-all-in-one and swift-all-in-one preconfigured image for people to play with | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:32 |
| heckj | who from rPath is doing the work? (i.e. our contact)? | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | Mihai | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | and I've got a todo list item for this week to chat with him again about coordinating how he can do that work | 19:33 |
| msinhore | #topic | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor coordinate with Mihai from rPath to get him what he needs for getting the rPath builder up and going | 19:34 |
| *** temple17 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:34 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:34 | |
| mtaylor | one more thing ... then we'll be at open discussion (we're making much better time than last week!) | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | #topic Integration of HyperV Lab machines | 19:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Integration of HyperV Lab machines" | 19:35 | |
| *** msinhore has left #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| mtaylor | in addition to us doing Ubuntu installs and rPath doing rPath installs (and somewhere in there making sure that we test both xen and kvm) | 19:35 |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 19:36 | |
| mtaylor | we've got an offer from the Novel/MSFT guys of a lab of HyperV machines | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | so basically the idea is to have them give access to a single machine that can be the jenkins slave - and then on that machine they can put the stuff in place to deploy openstack builds on to their machines and test them | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | as I know zilch about deploying/using anything surrounding hyperv, that's going to be squarely on them - but I'm pretty stoked that we can potentially get some builders up and running and making sure stuff works there | 19:38 |
| heckj | mtaylor: +1 - the more active testing the better | 19:38 |
| johnpur | those guys are really good sysadmins, i know they can do this | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor coordinate HyperV lab builders with Peter Pouliot from Novell/MSFT Interop Lab | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | yup. | 19:38 |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:39 | |
| mtaylor | I'm sort of hoping they do their deploys with baracus - if for no other reason than that I think it would fun to see that up and running | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | but totally their call | 19:39 |
| johnpur | are any of those guys in this meeting? | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | doesn't seem like it | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | primeministerp is Peter | 19:40 |
| johnpur | if not, we should ping priministerp and let him know about it | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | yeah - we chatted about last week's meeting but he couldn't make it | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | and with that... | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | #topic Open Discussion | 19:40 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion" | 19:40 | |
| mtaylor | anybody got anything they want to bring up - and/or punch me in the face about :) | 19:41 |
| _0x44 | mtaylor: You and termie mentioned at one point in time needing modifications to roundabout, any updates on that? | 19:41 |
| _0x44 | Maybe s/and termie//... | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: well, the one we would/might need would be pending discussions with the github folks regarding pull request state | 19:42 |
| johnpur | mtaylor: any discussion or volunteers to help test the other hypervisors? particularly the vmware and lxc variants... | 19:42 |
| johnpur | it would be cool to have full coverage :) | 19:43 |
| heckj | I might have some needs to spin up LXC nodes with nova components in them - not entirely clear yet | 19:43 |
| _0x44 | mtaylor: That would be firing merges on state transition instead of text lgtm? | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: although I still want the logic/mechanism that you did for roundabout as a jenkins plugin rather than an external program - but that's sort of a slightly different discussion | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: yes | 19:43 |
| heckj | How do we want to set up for expansion: jenkins slaves running at different locations? | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: I can't imagine that will be a hard change to make on your side :) | 19:44 |
| johnpur | for esx and vsphere maybe we can talk to citrix/ewanmellor... | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: I havne't heard anything specific from anyone | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | heckj: not sure I fully follow the question? | 19:44 |
| _0x44 | mtaylor: Having more states would actually speed up roundabout considerably (since it currently has to grab all the messages for each pull-request to determine if they're approved)... | 19:45 |
| *** temple17 has quit IRC | 19:45 | |
| johnpur | mtaylor: maybe an action item? | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: yes... I think it'll be win all the way around | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: to reach out to ewanmellor at the least for esx/vsphere? | 19:45 |
| heckj | mtaylor: as we add components, distros, other hypervisors with different ways of doing things, are we planning on expanding to have a master jenkins instance and slaves running those various builds/tests? | 19:46 |
| *** temple17 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:46 | |
| mtaylor | heckj: ah. YES | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | definitely adding more slaves | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | and then where appropriate/where we can adding dynamic cloud-server slaves for parallelism | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | obviously - for things like "test deploying this across a bunch of bare metal" we will be limited by actual existence of bare metal | 19:47 |
| *** _0x44_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:47 | |
| *** sebastianstadil has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:47 | |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** _0x44_ is now known as _0x44 | 19:47 | |
| johnpur | mtaylor: yes. and to solicit help from the community on getting lxc hooked into the CI mesh. might need to add this to the rackspace pile, if no-one else steps up? | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | but, as a for instance, soren just set up some chroots to start running unittests in - eventually those can be replaced with cloud servers and we can have more than one go at a time | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: ++ | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor ping ewanmellor about testing esx and vsphere | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor ping community at large about lxc testing | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | msinhore: is there anything specific globo.com wants or is looking at in terms of CI and testing? | 19:49 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:49 | |
| mtaylor | msinhore: or, (more importantly to me personally) any specific thing you care about enough that you want to put people working on :) | 19:49 |
| johnpur | mtaylor: btw, the reddwarf project at Rackspace is using openvz containers... might be worth a reach out to them regarding openvz/lxc testing. | 19:51 |
| mtaylor | ooh. and they're rax too | 19:52 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor ping reddwarf team about openvx/lxc testing | 19:52 |
| mtaylor | anything else from folks? | 19:54 |
| heckj | all good here | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | great. thanks everybody! | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:55 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 21 19:55:19 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:55 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-19.02.html | 19:55 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-19.02.txt | 19:55 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-19.02.log.html | 19:55 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:55 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 19:58 | |
| ttx | o/ | 19:58 |
| notmyname | hi | 19:58 |
| *** jesse_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| notmyname | time for fun ;-) | 19:59 |
| jbryce | yep | 19:59 |
| johnpur | o/ | 19:59 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| ttx | we have agenda items for a lifetime of meetings in the backlog | 20:00 |
| *** jesse__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 21 20:00:13 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:00 |
| johnpur | ttx: job security? | 20:00 |
| jbryce | i see notmyname, ttx, johnpur ... who else is here? | 20:00 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - Agenda | 20:00 |
| ttx | johnpur: who needs job security ? This is cloud, you know :) | 20:00 |
| soren | o/ | 20:00 |
| vish1 | o/ | 20:00 |
| *** cowmix has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:01 | |
| zns | ziad | 20:01 |
| *** vish1 is now known as vishy | 20:01 | |
| heckj | o/ | 20:01 |
| devcamcar | hey all | 20:01 |
| ttx | sebastianstadil: around ? | 20:01 |
| johnpur | how about Ziad or any of the Keystone guys? | 20:02 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: yep | 20:02 |
| soren | johnpur: 20:01 < zns> ziad | 20:02 |
| jbryce | johnpur: zns = ziad | 20:02 |
| zns | Yes! | 20:02 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:02 |
| ttx | missing ewan, jesse, josh, dendrobates | 20:03 |
| jesse__ | here | 20:03 |
| notmyname | just to throw this out there....answering item 5 on the agenda may in fact answer some of the earlier items on the agenda | 20:03 |
| ttx | eday: ? | 20:03 |
| jbryce | ok cool...that gives us enough. let's get started | 20:03 |
| soren | notmyname: How do you figure that? | 20:03 |
| jbryce | notmyname: not sure i follow? | 20:03 |
| *** jesse_ has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| jbryce | there were no previous action items from last time except for sebastianstadil and devcamcar to catch up and see if there were opportunities to collaborate | 20:04 |
| devcamcar | so to that end, my team spent several days evaluating scalr with the goal of being able to use it as a backend within dashboard | 20:04 |
| devcamcar | we spent a great deal of time comparing both scalr and canonical's ensemble project | 20:05 |
| jbryce | notmyname: i know you'd like to knock #5 out more urgently, but i think we owe it to devcamcar to review dashboard. i think #5 could easily take up the entire meeting... what if we do dashboard and then #5 before keystone? | 20:05 |
| devcamcar | in the end, we decided not to move forward with scalr as a backend for a number of technical reasons | 20:05 |
| sebastianstadil | most of them valid, I might add | 20:05 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: could you elaborate a bit on that? | 20:05 |
| notmyname | jbryce: I think there are issues about accepting projects that answering questions of project autonomy help solve (the autonomy issue is more pressing to me than code hosting) | 20:06 |
| johnpur | jbryce: i think keystone may be a slam dunk... i would like to get to it this week if possible... so we can get the openstack packaging and other resources working on it | 20:06 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: mostly architectural, scalr is designed to be a standalone system and it would require a large effort to refactor it to separate its various components | 20:06 |
| devcamcar | at the end of the day, it's just not designed to work the way dashboard would need it to | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | sebastianstadil: you concur with that? | 20:07 |
| devcamcar | i have a document with a lot of detail that i sent to sebastian | 20:07 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: Sort of | 20:07 |
| johnpur | wow /me is disappointed | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: is that document available online? or will it be? | 20:07 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: Scalr is designed to make the management of web applications on IaaS easy | 20:08 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: i can make it available now | 20:08 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: As such, there are a lot of pieces that need to be tightly integrated. For example mysql failure -> dns update | 20:08 |
| johnpur | are we back to evaluating scalr on its own merits as a project? | 20:09 |
| sebastianstadil | johnpur: I would assume so | 20:09 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: I believe so. | 20:09 |
| ttx | johnpur: wit hpotential overlap in, say, launching instances | 20:09 |
| jesse__ | ttx: many things have overlap with that :) | 20:09 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: Launching instances is the least of our concerns | 20:09 |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| jaypipes | jesse__: like what? | 20:10 |
| devcamcar | i will share the doc momentarily | 20:10 |
| ttx | jesse__, sebastianstadil: right, but two separate web UIs to do "stuff". | 20:10 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: console | 20:10 |
| jesse__ | ttx: different use cases - dashboard is low level | 20:10 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: correct | 20:10 |
| sebastianstadil | jesse__: correct | 20:10 |
| jbryce | the request last week from several was to go ahead and have devin present before voting on either. i think we should proceed with that. | 20:10 |
| jaypipes | sebastianstadil: ok. | 20:10 |
| johnpur | ttx: the dashboard is example UI... most deployments will update/replace it to present their view of UX | 20:11 |
| sebastianstadil | jbryce: agreed | 20:11 |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:11 | |
| jbryce | #topic Dashboard incubation review | 20:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Dashboard incubation review" | 20:11 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication/OpenStackDashboard - Dashboard's application | 20:11 |
| johnpur | whereas the scalr UI would be used out of the box, i assume | 20:12 |
| ttx | johnpur: dashboard is a django lib with a ref implementation. I expetc most deployments to replace the UI, but still use the django lib | 20:12 |
| devcamcar | ttx: correct | 20:12 |
| ttx | johnpur: and I admit I kinda like that split. | 20:12 |
| ttx | "do one thing and do it well" | 20:12 |
| johnpur | ttx: right. that is why having the linkage at the lib level with the autoscaling and service restart, etc. functions of scalr is interesting. | 20:13 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: "one thing" can actually be many things, but yes, you are right | 20:13 |
| ttx | johnpur: would have been interesing, yes. | 20:13 |
| jesse__ | the design of the dashboard will allow extensions (panels) to be added ... so someone could add a panel for cloudpipe or scalr technically | 20:13 |
| johnpur | ttx: this assumes some level of guest integration | 20:13 |
| sebastianstadil | jesse__: I don't follow | 20:14 |
| jaypipes | my vote on dashboard is the same as last week, for reasons I stated last week. I love it, but I don't believe it should be a core project, because it does not provide it's own service API. It uses the APIs of other core projects. | 20:14 |
| devcamcar | hate to be a stickler | 20:14 |
| devcamcar | but can we choose a topic? | 20:14 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: Very good point | 20:14 |
| jbryce | does anyone have specific questions for devcamcar around dashboard? | 20:14 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: something to build more on top of | 20:14 |
| jesse__ | jaypipes: it doesn't have HTTP apis, but it does have django apis | 20:15 |
| jesse__ | jaypipes: and can be built on top of | 20:15 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: this is NOT to say I don't care for the dashboard. Quite the opposite. I simply feel that "OpenStack core project" isn't the right place for it. And, yes, I know I'm in the minority :) | 20:15 |
| johnpur | the question is: shouls OpenStack have an example UI and supporting library that shows how to build UX on top of the core components? | 20:15 |
| johnpur | i think yes | 20:16 |
| ttx | I see value in having dashboard tightly copled to the rest of core projects, so that it exhibits the latest features | 20:16 |
| ttx | coupled* | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: I guess I feel that it should *not*. That service APIs should be in the core of OpenStack, and OpenStack applications build on those core projects by using the service APIs to construct applications (GUI or non-GUI) | 20:16 |
| jbryce | johnpur, ttx: ++ | 20:16 |
| ttx | htat should be facilitated by having it as a core project, I think | 20:16 |
| sebastianstadil | johnpur: My concern is that OpenStack is late to the game, AWS has a huge head start in mindshare, marketshare, and development velocity | 20:16 |
| vishy | I don't think openstack is complete without an example web dashboard | 20:17 |
| devcamcar | the dashboard is referenced in a number of places, and has been the unofficial face of openstack for some time | 20:17 |
| sebastianstadil | johnpur: I personally would like to avoid a repeat of the Microsoft hegemony of the 90s, and would like to see FLOSS succeed as an alternative. If possible even a superior choice. | 20:17 |
| soren | I understand jaypipes' concern, but we lack a way to let the world know "this is the canonical web ui for openstack", don't we? | 20:17 |
| soren | ...other than making it core. | 20:17 |
| jbryce | i think that having a dashboard is critical to make all the projects accessible and more usable to the majority of people who would be deploying it | 20:17 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: don't disagree, but OS is already hard enough to approach | 20:17 |
| sebastianstadil | johnpur: Scalr is a rather mature software project, tested over by thousands of users, hundreds of thousands of instances, tens of millions of instance hours, and over a billion events | 20:17 |
| jaypipes | soren: yes, that is true enough. | 20:17 |
| devcamcar | and by closely coupling the development of dashboard to core projects, we can have something that is guaranteed to work, follow core project milestones, etc. | 20:17 |
| ttx | devcamcar: yep. | 20:18 |
| soren | jaypipes: That's really what I want to address. For dashboard. The discussion around scalr was completely different. | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I don't disagree that dashboard is critical. I guess I'm stuck on the term "core" for it. | 20:18 |
| sebastianstadil | jbryce: entirely agree. Ease of use will help OpenStack adoption faster | 20:18 |
| vishy | jaypipes: how do you feel about 'incubated'? :) | 20:18 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: i can make the argument that the dashboard itself isn't a "core" compoment, but django-openstack is | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | sebastianstadil: and I don't disagree with any of that. | 20:18 |
| devcamcar | which is what the dashboard is built on | 20:19 |
| ttx | jaypipes: think "products that need to evolve in parallel" more than "APi providers" | 20:19 |
| johnpur | soren: i quibble a bit with the term "canonical" web UI... the expectation is that deployments will differentiate at this leel. they do, however, need to be shown how to integrate with the core systems. | 20:19 |
| sebastianstadil | jaypipes: my bad | 20:19 |
| jaypipes | vishy: well, since the only end game of incubation is currently "OpenStack core project", I'm a bit turned off by it. | 20:19 |
| devcamcar | and it exposes apis for people or organizations to build their own sites using openstack-dashboard as a reference/example implementation | 20:19 |
| jaypipes | perhaps I'm just advocating for a separation of core services from core applications? not sure... | 20:19 |
| soren | johnpur: Poor choice of words. "reference" would probably be more accurate. | 20:20 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: disagree! all incubated projects do not have an end goal of being core. | 20:20 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: i'd also argue that having a UI that represents all of openstack's features and is closely aligned is of great benefit | 20:20 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: the other end game is not being promoted to core and discontinuing incubation | 20:20 |
| jaypipes | I guess I have to get past my mind's connotation that core == building block. | 20:20 |
| jbryce | incubation is not a guarantee to core | 20:20 |
| sebastianstadil | When you want to run a web app, you don't want to deal with the "muck" of apis, you want to get your site running | 20:20 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: django-openstack is a building block for openstack UI | 20:20 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying :) | 20:20 |
| jbryce | from the sound of it, if we were to vote on should we have ANY type of ui as a core project, it seems like the majority falls on the affirmative side. but i think the real question is should we pick one/the other/neither now or incubate multiple competing projects and pick at a core promotion time? | 20:20 |
| sebastianstadil | That's what will get Rackspace an advantage over AWS | 20:20 |
| johnpur | incubation opens up the resources of openstack in terms of CI, packaging, integration. | 20:20 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Good core candidates for me are things that integrate well with other core projects (no overlap), that are central to OpenStack ("product view") and need to evolve in parallel (same release cycle). | 20:20 |
| sebastianstadil | and same for any openstack offering | 20:21 |
| soren | jbryce: No, but surely it's the goal? It may fail to make it through incubation, but I never thought of incubation as a permanent place for anything. | 20:21 |
| notmyname | jbryce: please don't assume the outcome of a vote before it happens | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: I'm partly being devil's advocate, partly being a semantic purist (you KNOW I have a tendency to do that!)... | 20:21 |
| jbryce | notmyname: not even a hypothetical vote that wasn't going to happen. = ) | 20:21 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: hah, i know | 20:22 |
| temple17 | quit | 20:22 |
| *** temple17 has quit IRC | 20:22 | |
| jaypipes | heh | 20:22 |
| jesse__ | is jaypipes question the only question? or are their other questions to address? | 20:22 |
| devcamcar | are there any questions about vision or roadmap? | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | devcamcar, sebastianstadil: I have an easier time seeing dashboard as a building block than scalr, to be fair. | 20:22 |
| jbryce | soren: i'm in agreement with you | 20:23 |
| soren | The way I'm thinking of it right now is that something like that dashboard is something I think at least some people expect to be part of the "package" when they install Nova, and the fact that it's maintained separately is really just a quirk of some sort. | 20:23 |
| ttx | devcamcar: no, I thin kthey are pretty clear. | 20:23 |
| devcamcar | soren: agreed, in fact dashboard is installed with a number of tools, including nova.sh, stackops, etc already | 20:24 |
| devcamcar | it is probably already confusing things | 20:24 |
| johnpur | devcamcar: if the vision is that django-openstack is directed on a path to be core, and the UI is presented as an example for deployments to modify/replace, i agree. | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | soren: when they install Nova, or when they install OpenStack (the set of core projects)? | 20:24 |
| soren | jaypipes: Nova. | 20:24 |
| ttx | devcamcar: I think it boils down to "should an openstack client be part of openstack core" | 20:24 |
| nati | OpenStack core and UI should be installed easy. | 20:24 |
| jbryce | soren: agreed. this is what i hear when i talk to people who are actually trying to use openstack for real things in various companies | 20:24 |
| soren | jaypipes: Does it do stuff with !nova? I've not used it for a long time, tbh. | 20:24 |
| devcamcar | johnpur: exactly, the biggest question here may simply be a question of what the project name should be | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | soren: which leads to the inevitable question: what the heck is openstack if it isn't a cohesive set of projects that can be installed together to form an IaaS solution? | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | soren: yes, glance (at least. not sure about swift) | 20:25 |
| jesse__ | soren: it already talks with glance directly, keystone and swift is in progress | 20:25 |
| soren | jaypipes: I just don't think anyone would be surprised if they found the dashboard shipped in the nova tarball. It just so happens that it's shipped separately. | 20:25 |
| jesse__ | jaypipes: since the auth process returns a service catalog, we can show the modules in dashboard that work with the services the token has access to | 20:25 |
| johnpur | given devcamcar's definition, i am +1. | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | jesse__: right, and that's brilliant. | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | what is "stackops"? | 20:26 |
| soren | jaypipes: You lost me there, I'm afarid. | 20:26 |
| soren | afraid, even. | 20:26 |
| ttx | jaypipes: A distribution. | 20:26 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: stackops is a distro | 20:26 |
| devcamcar | jaypipes: a bit off topic, but it's an openstack distribution | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | oh. | 20:26 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: stay on point, please! | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | sorry... | 20:26 |
| johnpur | :) | 20:26 |
| ttx | I feel like I'm ready to vote on Dashboard. | 20:27 |
| jaypipes | soren: I'll elaborate shortly, when we get into discussion of #5. | 20:27 |
| johnpur | vote? | 20:27 |
| jbryce | so does anyone have any other specific dashboard questions for devin? | 20:27 |
| soren | jaypipes: cool beans | 20:27 |
| * soren is ready to vote | 20:27 | |
| jesse__ | soren: ++ | 20:27 |
| jbryce | let's vote on scalr first | 20:27 |
| soren | Whuh? | 20:27 |
| sebastianstadil | devcamcar: Lets say you have 100 instances running, how do you plan on making that manageable? | 20:28 |
| ttx | jbryce: or the two at the same time ? | 20:28 |
| johnpur | to be clear, the vote is to take dashbaord into incubated stage | 20:28 |
| jbryce | ttx, soren: i just want to do both votes to have a clear record | 20:28 |
| soren | I'm ready to vote on dashboard. I even think it's an easy vote. I'm not sure about scalr at all yet. | 20:28 |
| johnpur | jbryce: let's do dash the scalr | 20:28 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:28 |
| johnpur | s/teh/then | 20:28 |
| ttx | jbryce: my vore on scalr depends on the outcome of the vote on Dashboard :) | 20:28 |
| devcamcar | sebastianstadil: we're looking at ensemble | 20:28 |
| jbryce | #topic Vote: Should Dashboard be added as an officially incubated project | 20:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Vote: Should Dashboard be added as an officially incubated project" | 20:29 | |
| soren | +1 | 20:29 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:29 |
| notmyname | -1 | 20:29 |
| jaypipes | -1 | 20:29 |
| vishy | +1 | 20:29 |
| jesse__ | +1 | 20:29 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:29 |
| jbryce | ttx: ? | 20:29 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:30 |
| ttx | srry | 20:30 |
| jbryce | any other lurking ppb members? | 20:30 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: no need. quorum reached. | 20:31 |
| soren | notmyname: Seeing as you didn't really participate in the discussion, would you care to elaborate on why you -1'ed? I understand why jaypipes did, I just want to make sure I understand what other motivations there might be. | 20:31 |
| jbryce | #agreed Dashboard will enter the OpenStack incubation program: 6 +1, 2 -1 | 20:31 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: 6 to 2. | 20:31 |
| vishy | joshua had +1 via email if it matters | 20:31 |
| jbryce | #info Joshua McKenty voted +1 on email list | 20:31 |
| soren | There's 12 of us, right? If the remaining 4 -1'ed, it would habve been a tie, so yes, it matters. | 20:32 |
| soren | If can still count, that is. | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | soren: sorry, yes, you are correct. my bad. | 20:32 |
| jbryce | we've got 7 - 2 with josh's absentee ballot | 20:32 |
| soren | jaypipes: np :) | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | who is missing? this is kinda important to be here for... other than ewan, who? | 20:33 |
| johnpur | jbryce: scalr discussion? | 20:33 |
| soren | Eric and Rick. | 20:33 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: dendrobates, eday, josh, ewan | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | ok. | 20:34 |
| jbryce | all right....scalr | 20:34 |
| jaypipes | -1 | 20:34 |
| jbryce | #topic VOTE: Should Scalr be added as an officially incubated OpenStack project | 20:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "VOTE: Should Scalr be added as an officially incubated OpenStack project" | 20:34 | |
| notmyname | -1 | 20:34 |
| soren | Did we at some point agre that if we rejected a project, we had to give a clear rationale as to why so that they could work on fixing whatever we thought was broken? Or did I just make that up? | 20:34 |
| jbryce | soren: i think that was for moving into core | 20:35 |
| soren | jbryce: Ah. Yes, that makes sense. | 20:35 |
| * soren is still deliberating | 20:35 | |
| johnpur | +1, with the same vision/definition as the dashboard. separte the UI, make it example, and consider the guest agent (and API) as incubated. | 20:35 |
| ttx | -1 until it's complementary to dashboard in some way | 20:36 |
| soren | ttx: Not sure what that means? | 20:36 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: What do you mean | 20:36 |
| jesse__ | sebastianstadil: does it already use openstack APIs? | 20:36 |
| soren | ttx: Do you mean "until it doesn't do any of the stuff that dashboard does"? | 20:36 |
| sebastianstadil | jesse__: yes | 20:37 |
| soren | ttx: To avoid overlap? | 20:37 |
| ttx | soren: I don't like the idea of having two web UIs as a core project | 20:37 |
| johnpur | ttx: we are not voting on core | 20:37 |
| sebastianstadil | ttx: I think that's missing the point. Trying to come up with an analogy | 20:37 |
| ttx | johnpur: I still see incubation as "we would like it to become core if it can integrate with the release process" | 20:37 |
| *** midodan has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| vishy | -0 I would vote +1 for guest agent apis but as an entire project i don't think it meshes properly with the other components | 20:38 |
| jbryce | josh mckenty voted -1 by email previously | 20:38 |
| sebastianstadil | From my experience, a web UI is only half of the problem | 20:38 |
| johnpur | ttx: i am still hopeful that by the time we consider a UI/UX for core status that we have worked out how to integrate all of the underlying functionality. including autoscaling... | 20:38 |
| ttx | i.e. for incubation I judge if it is complementary to the rest of core+incubated | 20:39 |
| soren | I'm +0. My primary reservation is the language. Had it all been Python, I'd have been all over it. | 20:39 |
| ttx | johnpur: i.e. I'd probably not consider an alternative to swift for incubation. At least not as long as swift is a core project... | 20:39 |
| soren | ttx: What about lunr? They both store things? | 20:40 |
| jesse__ | sebastianstadil: i'm confused how this is openstack if it is really a layer above that can talk with many clouds .. | 20:40 |
| soren | I know and understand that they're different. | 20:40 |
| creiht | ttx: I would disagree, if something better than swift comes along, it should certainly be incubated | 20:40 |
| soren | So are scalr and the dashboard. | 20:40 |
| johnpur | ttx: hmmm, bold statement... we may see advanced object storage at some time that could replace the current swift implementation. | 20:41 |
| ttx | creiht: hmm. | 20:41 |
| jaypipes | creiht: ++ | 20:41 |
| soren | jesse__: Several of the existing core components are able to speak to other clouds. | 20:41 |
| soren | jesse__: Glance, for instance, can be backed by S3. | 20:41 |
| creiht | and that should be true for all of core | 20:41 |
| ttx | creiht: you're right, might make it easier to pick the "best" projects | 20:41 |
| soren | jesse__: ...so there's certainly prior art to that sort of thing. | 20:41 |
| sebastianstadil | jesse__: Customers want that, so we added it | 20:41 |
| soren | Begin extensible is a *good* thing. | 20:42 |
| soren | :) | 20:42 |
| soren | s/Begin/Being/ | 20:42 |
| ttx | ok, reverting my vote to -0, same as vishy | 20:42 |
| jesse__ | I'm with vish then ... -0 | 20:42 |
| jaypipes | this is why I've been saying that PPB should focus its blessing approval on APIs before implementations... ;) | 20:42 |
| sebastianstadil | soren: It's not like it can't be done... | 20:42 |
| johnpur | ha ha, jbryce what does the vote stand at? | 20:42 |
| soren | sebastianstadil: What? Rewrite in Python? | 20:42 |
| ttx | sorry if I'm adjusting my incubation-acceptance metrics live :) | 20:43 |
| creiht | lol, what are even valid voting options? | 20:43 |
| sebastianstadil | soren: That, and many of the other concerns | 20:43 |
| creiht | my vote doesn't count, so I vote +LOL | 20:43 |
| jbryce | johnpur: haha...i was just trying to calculate | 20:43 |
| *** jesse__ has quit IRC | 20:43 | |
| *** jesse_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:43 | |
| jbryce | -1: 3 | 20:43 |
| jbryce | +1: 1 | 20:43 |
| jbryce | +0: 1 | 20:43 |
| jbryce | -0: 3 | 20:44 |
| johnpur | the cheese stands alone i guess! | 20:44 |
| notmyname | what are the valid voting options? (what does +-0 even mean) | 20:44 |
| jbryce | so 3 against, 1 for, 4 abstentions with varying degrees of positivity | 20:44 |
| notmyname | abstain. ok | 20:44 |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| sebastianstadil | Question: since Scalr has been voted not to be incubated, how can we still help OpenStack succeed? | 20:45 |
| jbryce | and john's +1 was conditional | 20:45 |
| soren | notmyname: You did not answer my question earlier. Was that intentional? | 20:46 |
| ttx | sebastianstadil: you can prove how useful and complementary you are by being an associated project... and force us to reconsider our opinion. | 20:46 |
| jbryce | sebastianstadil: I think there was some feedback here where it seems like some members would reconsider a vote under certain conditions | 20:46 |
| notmyname | soren: yes | 20:46 |
| soren | notmyname: ok | 20:46 |
| johnpur | sebastianstadil: i encourage you to take the feedback and look at how Scalr could be "updated" or slightly changed to fit into the OpenStack charter/vision. I believe that UX will be critical to acceptance going forward. | 20:46 |
| jbryce | sebastianstadil: and getting users/community members clamoring for it would influence the thinking | 20:47 |
| soren | sebastianstadil: One thing that would definitely be helpful is providing feedback on API's. | 20:47 |
| ttx | sebastianstadil: and decouple scale logic from presentation so that it's easier to integrate ? | 20:47 |
| johnpur | jbryce: ++ | 20:47 |
| johnpur | jbryce: Keystone? | 20:47 |
| jbryce | #agree Scalr is not approved for incubation. 3 against, 1 for, 4 abstentions | 20:48 |
| ttx | I don't think we have enough time to attack #5 today, so yes, keystone++ | 20:48 |
| soren | sebastianstadil: Scalr is an important use case. If there's anything in the existing openstack components that makes your life needlessly difficult, we should address that, since you're likely not alone. | 20:48 |
| jbryce | #topic Keyston incubation discussion | 20:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keyston incubation discussion" | 20:48 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication/Keystone - Keystone incubation application | 20:48 |
| sebastianstadil | soren: of course | 20:49 |
| johnpur | zns: any words? | 20:49 |
| zns | Any questions? | 20:49 |
| jaypipes | zns: how close are you to finalizing the KeyStone API? | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | zns: I saw today that groups are being removed and made into an extension? | 20:50 |
| zns | jaypipes: pretty close. They have not changed much since June 10th. We'll aim to lock down last minutea when jesse and team are down here next week, | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | zns: ok. | 20:51 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| jesse_ | zns: before incubation I think we should clean up the implementation - separating rax extensions, user/tenant extensions, and the core api | 20:51 |
| zns | jaypipes: correct. Groups are out of scope for v1. We wanted to keep to minimal scope as we initially stated; which was to focus on existing functionality in nova and Swift. Groups are therefore out and should be proposed as extensions. | 20:51 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: knowing the code, I would agree with that assessment. | 20:51 |
| vishy | jesse_, jaypipes: does that need to be done 'before' incubation? | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: though those things are not necessarily something that can't be done during incubation | 20:52 |
| vishy | if so then I vote we push the vote for 1-2 weeks | 20:52 |
| johnpur | jaypipes, jesse_: this delays the CI and packaging integration of keystone, are you ok with that? | 20:52 |
| zns | jesse: the docs and API clearly state what is not core. We can update the implementation. | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: yes. it's already slipped to D3 for Glance anyway. | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | but as vishy implies, these things can be done in incubation status. | 20:53 |
| * jaypipes is ready to vote now on keystone | 20:53 | |
| jbryce | any additional questions? | 20:53 |
| jesse_ | zns: I'm just concerned if a bunch of folks start helping before the clean (I did rough removal of groups and it removed 3k lines) it might get confusing | 20:53 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: don't be concerned about people helping. ;) | 20:54 |
| zns | jesse_: you're almost as familiar with the code as I am. I defer... | 20:54 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: early and often. embrace with hug. :) | 20:54 |
| zns | jesse: (as in defer to you, not differ).. just being clear. | 20:54 |
| jesse_ | jaypipes: I'm concerned that people still assume that the backend and api are what keystone is | 20:55 |
| johnpur | i will vote with jesse_ on this | 20:55 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: I'm not quite sure I follow you... | 20:55 |
| *** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jbryce | jesse_: what is your position? that we should delay a vote? | 20:55 |
| jesse_ | jbryce: I personally think the API is important to get finalized - and now that dashbaord is incubating, there are things that we should address in the API | 20:56 |
| jbryce | i think i'm with jaypipes. i don't expect a rush of people to come try contributing to the code just because it gets a new label. | 20:56 |
| jesse_ | my concern is that people focusing on the implementation instead of the API and interfaces between keystone and projects | 20:57 |
| zns | jesse_: the API for other projects are being finalized still. I don't think that's a criteria for incubation... | 20:57 |
| jaypipes | jesse_: personally, I've *only* been focused on the API (and thus the slew of reported bugs about it ;) | 20:58 |
| zns | jesse_: that's no different than any other core project forming an API or changing an implementation. | 20:58 |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| jbryce | time check: we have 2 minutes | 20:58 |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| jaypipes | jesse_: incubation will give more eyeballs on both the API and the implementation. I think that is a good thing. | 20:58 |
| jesse_ | let's vote then? | 20:58 |
| jbryce | vote or delay? | 20:58 |
| jbryce | vote it is | 20:59 |
| zns | jaypipes: +1 | 20:59 |
| jaypipes | keystone fits what I consider to be a core service better than anything else so far. | 20:59 |
| *** spectorclan_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jaypipes | +1 from me. | 20:59 |
| vishy | +1 | 20:59 |
| jbryce | #topic VOTE: Should Keystone be added as an officially incubated OpenStack project | 20:59 |
| notmyname | +1 | 20:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "VOTE: Should Keystone be added as an officially incubated OpenStack project" | 20:59 | |
| ttx | +1: since we already have resources working on integrating it in core projects, sounds like incubation is the right place for it | 20:59 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:59 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| johnpur | jesse? | 20:59 |
| jesse_ | -1 just because I feel we need to do more before we join incubation ... but I'm going to be helping with it either way | 20:59 |
| johnpur | -1 | 21:00 |
| vishy | notmyname: your strategy of saying as little as possible so we could make it to number 5 almost worked... :) | 21:00 |
| jaypipes | soren: ? | 21:00 |
| *** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| soren | +1 | 21:00 |
| jbryce | ok | 21:00 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jbryce | #agreed Keystone is approved for incubation: 6 +1's, 2 -1's | 21:00 |
| jbryce | ok...that's time | 21:00 |
| ttx | jbryce: endmeeting :) | 21:00 |
| jbryce | thanks guys | 21:00 |
| creiht | vishy: the opposite could be said as well ;) | 21:01 |
| *** med_out is now known as med | 21:01 | |
| jbryce | notmyname: you're the top agenda item for next week | 21:01 |
| *** med is now known as medberry | 21:01 | |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 21:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 21 21:01:07 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-20.00.html | 21:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-20.00.txt | 21:01 |
| zns | jesse_: thanks for helping (and continuing to). WIll be happy to address concerns and work on the API with you. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-20.00.log.html | 21:01 |
| zns | Thanks All! | 21:01 |
| ttx | Ok, time for the OpenStack general team meeting ! | 21:01 |
| jesse_ | zns: I know we will :) it isn't something bad against anyone | 21:01 |
| vishy | afk 3 min changing locations | 21:01 |
| zns | jesse_: :-) | 21:01 |
| notmyname | jbryce: I'd prefer for the discussion to be more around project autonomy rather than particulars of code hosting. | 21:01 |
| *** renuka has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| jbryce | notmyname: i'll update the agenda with that | 21:02 |
| notmyname | jbryce: thanks | 21:02 |
| *** masumotok has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| *** mgius has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | jbryce: you can push my item on code hosting below notmyname's one | 21:02 |
| jbryce | ttx: roger | 21:02 |
| ttx | since one will influence the other | 21:02 |
| ttx | OK, let's get started, vishy will join us | 21:03 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 21 21:03:16 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:03 |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly meeting... | 21:03 |
| ttx | Agenda for today: | 21:03 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:04 | |
| ttx | * vishy to get integrate-nova-authn status from anotherjesse | 21:04 |
| ttx | That was DONE, as we'll see | 21:04 |
| ttx | * glance-core to review in priority https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/glance/bug713154/+merge/59110 | 21:04 |
| westmaas_ | woo! | 21:04 |
| ttx | jaypipes: this still needs some love, right ? | 21:04 |
| jaypipes | ttx: I'll talk about that in glance status part. | 21:04 |
| ttx | ok | 21:04 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:05 | |
| ttx | 1.4.1 was released yesterday. | 21:05 |
| vishy | bak | 21:05 |
| ttx | notmyname: plans for 1.4.2 ? | 21:05 |
| notmyname | ttx: continuing what was originally scheduled for 1.4.1. Also it depends on the outcome of next week's ppb meeting discussion | 21:05 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: why? | 21:06 |
| notmyname | nothing to report now other than what's on LP | 21:06 |
| *** jmckenty_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| notmyname | I have reached out to some deployers to get feedback for swift and make sure needs are met | 21:06 |
| ttx | notmyname: Other announcements or comments ? | 21:06 |
| notmyname | jaypipes: code hosting | 21:06 |
| notmyname | ttx: no, I don't think so | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: that affects what is in 1.4.2? | 21:07 |
| notmyname | jaypipes: it affects from where 1.4.2 will be released | 21:07 |
| * jaypipes lost on that one... | 21:08 | |
| mtaylor | why? | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | makes no sense to me. | 21:08 |
| mtaylor | tarballs will still go on launchpad no matter where VCS is stored - so I'm lost as well | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | alright, move on then... we can discuss offline on ppb list. | 21:09 |
| ttx | other questions ? | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:10 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: Hi! | 21:10 |
| ttx | diablo-2 is targeted for June 30 release, with a release branch cut at the end of Monday, June 27 | 21:10 |
| ttx | So my understanding is that a few things will be deferred ? | 21:10 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| ttx | Looking at https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-2, anything that should already be deferred to d3 ? | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | ok, so we're moving along nicely with bcwaldon's API improvements (thanks much brian!). keystone integration came to a halt as I didn't have a standard way of starting up Keystone servers during functional testing, so I switched focus to the common daemon project for the time being. | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | I will be deferring keystone integration to D3 due to some stuff that has come up on our team (thx johnpur! :P) | 21:11 |
| *** User549 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: and SSL, I suppose ? | 21:11 |
| * mtaylor clones jaypipes | 21:11 | |
| jaypipes | and hopefully getting the common daemon stuff done this week before heading out to SFO to meet with NTT about the FreeCloud project | 21:12 |
| * ttx forks jaypipes | 21:12 | |
| *** User549 has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| *** jamesurquhart has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:12 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes. I will clean the BPs up today. | 21:12 |
| ttx | ok. | 21:12 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:12 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: I'll talk to you about a new way to handle "Low" stuff. | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | ttx: had a great webinar today on Glance with james weir from UShareSoft. good feedback from users. | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | ttx: coolio. | 21:12 |
| ttx | jaypipes: basically keep it untargeted and just target it retrospectively if it happens to be done. | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | ttx: other than that, want to discuss that bug 713154. | 21:13 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 713154 in glance "S3 Backend doesn't support POST either." [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/713154 | 21:13 |
| ttx | Who could help with that ? | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | so, a bug in webob <=1.0.7 broke chunked transfer encoding. this bug was highlighted by the changes to the S3 driver in that bug's merge proposal. | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | since the bug came up, the guys over at webob have now released a fixed 1.0.8 and that has hit all the ubuntu targets. | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | so... | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | with 1.0.8 required, that S3 bug fix and patch should be able to go through now. | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | I'll be testing with smokestack tomorrow and hopefully we'll get it into fix committed into D2. | 21:15 |
| jaypipes | that's all from glance. | 21:15 |
| ttx | Any question ? | 21:15 |
| ttx | jaypipes: you also have lots of D2-targeted bugs, might be god to make a pass on them to check which really are milestone-critical. | 21:16 |
| ttx | good* | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | ttx: will do. | 21:16 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:16 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:16 | |
| ttx | diablo-2 is also targeted for June 30 release, with a release branch cut at the end of Monday, June 27 | 21:16 |
| ttx | That leaves less than a week to merge things, and we still have quite a few incomplete targeted features | 21:16 |
| ttx | so we should have a look at what's not likely to make it and defer :) | 21:17 |
| vishy | Thanks to everyone who has been coding/merging/reviewing while i was on vacation | 21:17 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| vishy | a lot got merged recently | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: don't do that again. It hurts. | 21:17 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-2 | 21:17 |
| soren | #ACTION vishy to not go on holiday | 21:17 |
| soren | Darn it. | 21:17 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/integrate-nova-authn (anotherjesse) | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: So that was marked implemented, but there is no code link, could you explain what was done and what's left to do ? | 21:17 |
| jesse_ | vishy: do you want to remove no db? | 21:17 |
| ttx | jesse_: I'll come to it | 21:18 |
| jesse_ | ttx: for authn-authz we have admin-ness & project/user delegated to keystone | 21:18 |
| vishy | the middleware is in the keystone project | 21:18 |
| jesse_ | and a paste config to show it in use | 21:18 |
| *** ameade has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| ttx | vishy: oh, ok. | 21:19 |
| zns | https://github.com/rackspace/keystone/blob/master/keystone/auth_protocols/nova_auth_token.py | 21:19 |
| ttx | jesse_: would be good to drop some email/blogpost/wikipage on how to test that ? | 21:19 |
| jesse_ | ttx: will do - we've been working through some issues with how many-to-many work | 21:19 |
| ttx | vishy: the remaining work is covered by the "finalize Auth" blueprint ? | 21:20 |
| jesse_ | within the backend | 21:20 |
| jesse_ | we've not really focused on authz yet - since the openstack api never had rbac | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy: or do we need more ? | 21:20 |
| vishy | ttx: we could probably use a couple of middling blueprints | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy: yes, that's what i was thinking. I guess work on this is continuous. | 21:21 |
| jesse_ | also with respect to the integration - right now openstack tokens don't send a ID and Name separately | 21:21 |
| jesse_ | we're still talking through that | 21:21 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/no-db-messaging (vishy) | 21:21 |
| vishy | ec2_compatibility, rename project -> tenant, migrations, authz, remove auth manager are the steps | 21:21 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:21 | |
| ttx | vishy: you can track the steps in the blueprint whiteboard.. or using separate blueprints. Whatever makes you more comfortable. | 21:22 |
| vishy | so that won't make it d2, I'm debating between pushing it and just cancelling it. I've had lots of discussions with people, and still not convinced that it is the right change | 21:22 |
| * ttx marsks it "blocked" | 21:23 | |
| vishy | i guess lets move it to d3 for now, and I'll make an email to the list with different options and feedback | 21:23 |
| ttx | ok, done | 21:23 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-multi-nic (tr3buchet) | 21:23 |
| ttx | Last time I heard this was deep in testing, but now the merge proposal needs to hit if it is to make it into d2 | 21:25 |
| westmaas_ | mp is in | 21:25 |
| ttx | indeed. | 21:25 |
| vishy | we need to get this in | 21:25 |
| _cerberus_ | He just pushed it back to needs review this morning, but he's out for the day | 21:25 |
| * ttx checks if all is in it. | 21:25 | |
| vishy | lots of people are testing and giving feedback | 21:25 |
| _cerberus_ | vishy: he's looking for feedback from you, specifically, if you have time to spare | 21:26 |
| ttx | looks complete. Good. | 21:26 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/boot-from-volume (isaku) | 21:26 |
| primeministerp1 | vishy: Question re: network blueprints.. the db fields… Shouldn't we include a guest interface type.. i.e. paravirt vs. emulated, it matters as some hypervisors provide different functionality for each, and the current blueprints (as of last week) didn't reflect this as an option | 21:26 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| ttx | Looking at the latest merge prop this looks a bit incomplete... | 21:26 |
| vishy | yes i will be looking at it and hopefully helping out with test fixing | 21:26 |
| primeministerp1 | sorry guys.. before we move on | 21:26 |
| primeministerp1 | question for vishy above.. | 21:27 |
| vishy | primeminsterp1: lets talk about that after the meeting | 21:27 |
| primeministerp1 | kk | 21:27 |
| primeministerp1 | thx | 21:27 |
| vishy | boot from volume is coming in stages | 21:27 |
| vishy | i think first stage is in and second is proposed | 21:27 |
| vishy | probably we will need a third stage before it is "complete" | 21:28 |
| ttx | the second is proposed but it says that it's for comments only, as it is incomplete | 21:28 |
| ttx | so it looks like D3 is a better target | 21:28 |
| vishy | agreed | 21:28 |
| ttx | good targeting helps to focus review resources on D2 targets. | 21:28 |
| vishy | although the current version works for a limited use case afaik | 21:28 |
| ttx | #action ttx to talk to isaku about D3 retargeting of boot-from-volumes | 21:29 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/unittest-examples (westmaas) | 21:29 |
| westmaas_ | vishy: you want us to just publish that on the list? | 21:29 |
| vishy | yes please | 21:29 |
| westmaas_ | alrighty, will do it this week | 21:30 |
| vishy | i think we should either link to it in the docs or put the whole thing there | 21:30 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/openstack-api-floating-ips (reldan) | 21:30 |
| westmaas_ | which docs? | 21:30 |
| annegentle | vishy: I think testing info can go on the wiki - it's project info | 21:30 |
| vishy | nova dev docs | 21:31 |
| annegentle | or it could go on nova.openstack.org | 21:31 |
| annegentle | westmaas_: I can work with you to get it in the nova dev docs = nova.openstack.org | 21:31 |
| vishy | it is build from then nova source tree, so we can just propose it in | 21:31 |
| westmaas_ | I'd love to get feedback too. this isn't nova specific either | 21:31 |
| ttx | nobody from griddynamics around -- vishy do you have an updated status for the floating-ips stuff ? | 21:32 |
| westmaas_ | annegentle: I'll work with you later | 21:32 |
| vishy | there was a merge proposal, no? | 21:32 |
| annegentle | westmaas_: sounds good | 21:32 |
| ttx | no, just a branch link. | 21:32 |
| ttx | https://code.launchpad.net/~openstack-gd/nova/floating-os-api | 21:33 |
| vishy | ah you're right | 21:33 |
| vishy | no i don't have status on that one | 21:33 |
| msinhore | guys, only to introduce me to the team: My name is Marco, I'm working as a leader of a private cloud project in Globo.com / Brazil. We've a system running on top of XCP with some layers (backend, queue, monitoring services, network services, load balancers services and a nice frontend integration all of these stuffs in a web 2.0 web interface) and we will planning to migrate all to use openstack and we will open the source of workflow f | 21:33 |
| ttx | ok, will try to get updated status on that | 21:33 |
| ttx | #action ttx to query status on floating-ips | 21:33 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/testing-jenkins-integration (mtaylor) | 21:34 |
| msinhore | I'm talking for a some days with Stephen Spector and I need map the guys working with priv cloud components to interact with them to align our next step with them. | 21:34 |
| vishy | mtaylor: promised to divide that up into a couple other blueprints | 21:34 |
| ttx | mtaylor: do it dude :) | 21:35 |
| mtaylor | vishy, ttx: yeah. I got sucked in to a few other things. I will still divide that up in ot other blueprints | 21:35 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/provider-firewall (xtoddx) | 21:35 |
| * mtaylor flagellates self | 21:35 | |
| msinhore | please, if someone want to know more about the project contact me: marco.sinhoreli@corp.globo.com and I will be glad to explain about our plan and components into the system. | 21:35 |
| vishy | todd is working on that | 21:35 |
| ttx | looks like the scope of that one grew from d1 to d2, is it reasonable to get that all in d2 ? | 21:35 |
| vishy | ttx: i think so | 21:36 |
| vishy | it just was missing a couple of tests i think | 21:36 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/schedule-instances-on-heterogeneous-architectures (lorin) | 21:36 |
| ttx | (or anyone at USC-ISI) | 21:36 |
| vishy | seems highly doubtful that will make this milestone | 21:37 |
| ttx | unsure if the merge prop they have in work in progress actually covers everything they had in mind. | 21:38 |
| ttx | vishy: ok, will hunt them down for more status. | 21:38 |
| ttx | #action ttx to get updated status on heterogeneous-arch bp | 21:38 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/system-usage-records (mdragon) | 21:38 |
| ttx | (last one) | 21:38 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| ttx | started, no code link, so I don't really know. | 21:39 |
| *** ameade has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| ttx | pvo: do you ? | 21:39 |
| dragondm | yah ther is code for that | 21:39 |
| dragondm | It just needs to be re-mergeds | 21:39 |
| pvo | sorry, paging back in. | 21:39 |
| dragondm | and merge-prop'ed | 21:40 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:40 | |
| pvo | should be ok for d2, right dragon? | 21:40 |
| dragondm | yup | 21:40 |
| ttx | dragondm: cool! Thanks. | 21:40 |
| ttx | On another subject, are there any blocking bugs that we should make milestone-critical ? | 21:40 |
| ttx | If you see any, just ping me or vishy | 21:41 |
| ttx | vishy: anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:41 |
| vishy | i think i noticed a few over the past week. I'll see if any haven't been addressed yet | 21:41 |
| ttx | vishy: we just need to make sure that whatever we target to the milestone, has an assignee on it | 21:42 |
| vishy | ttx: no | 21:42 |
| ttx | no point in adding bugs there if nobody commits to trying to fix them. | 21:42 |
| ttx | Questions for the Nova PTL ? | 21:42 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:42 | |
| ttx | #topic Announce Name of E | 21:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Announce Name of E" | 21:43 | |
| ttx | So the winner is... | 21:43 |
| ttx | "Essex". | 21:43 |
| ttx | https://launchpad.net/~openstack/+poll/e-release-naming | 21:43 |
| ttx | Essex: 32 votes, beats Exeter (26 votes). (I lost) | 21:43 |
| vishy | are the guys working on esx here? | 21:44 |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:44 | |
| jamesurquhart | OK to announce on Twitter? | 21:45 |
| ttx | jamesurquhart: I just did :P | 21:45 |
| jamesurquhart | Me too. RT race is on! ;) | 21:45 |
| vishy | damn | 21:45 |
| ttx | jamesurquhart: pretty sure you'll win. | 21:45 |
| vishy | my epsom lost | 21:45 |
| ttx | jamesurquhart: as you've like 20 times more followers than I do. | 21:46 |
| Vek | heh. | 21:46 |
| ttx | vishy: I voted "Exeter". wtf voted Essex ? | 21:47 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| *** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| vishy | it was bound to win as it has 'sex' in it | 21:47 |
| salv-orlando | me :-) | 21:47 |
| soren | I would have voted "Effing" if given the chance. | 21:47 |
| vishy | the voters are a bunch of geeks after all :) | 21:47 |
| soren | That was my favourite | 21:47 |
| vishy | soren: +1 | 21:47 |
| ttx | soren: if you could only prove that Effing was somewhere near Boston, with any definition of near. | 21:47 |
| ttx | like a fake wikipedia page. | 21:48 |
| termie | pretty effing close to boston | 21:48 |
| ttx | termie: maybe "F" should be called "effing". | 21:48 |
| primeministerp1 | I like essex | 21:48 |
| primeministerp1 | and voted that way… ;) | 21:48 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:49 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:49 | |
| primeministerp1 | so i'd like to give an update about the status of openstack on suse | 21:49 |
| termie | how many chips are there in a large bag of doritos? | 21:49 |
| soren | primeministerp1: Go for it. | 21:49 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: go! | 21:49 |
| primeministerp1 | we've begun to organize our packaging efforts | 21:49 |
| Vek | that's pretty open, termie :P | 21:49 |
| primeministerp1 | we now have people contributing time to getting our packages in the OBS up to speed | 21:50 |
| dragondm | termie: 142. next question. | 21:50 |
| *** jmckenty_ is now known as jmckenty | 21:50 | |
| vishy | termie n * pi where n is the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop | 21:50 |
| primeministerp1 | also shortly there should be an appliance in the suse studio market place | 21:50 |
| primeministerp1 | to rapidly setup a controller and compute nodes | 21:51 |
| jamesurquhart | Heh. I screwed up, ttx, and didn't use a hash tag. #rookiemistake | 21:51 |
| *** eperdomo-cisco has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| spectorclan_ | I need some help with why we chose Python as the development language for a Python community promotion we are doing. | 21:52 |
| soren | primeministerp1: Is it going to end up in SuSE itself? | 21:52 |
| primeministerp1 | for anyone wishing to try the suse bits, they can be located here: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Virtualization:/Cloud:/OpenStack/ | 21:52 |
| primeministerp1 | no not yet | 21:52 |
| soren | primeministerp1: Or are you providing packages outside of SuSE, but for SuSE? | 21:52 |
| primeministerp1 | we have just started packaging | 21:52 |
| primeministerp1 | it | 21:52 |
| spectorclan_ | Please send me thoughts on Python so I can put together info for the promotin, thanks, | 21:52 |
| primeministerp1 | in the obs | 21:52 |
| vishy | primeministerp1: afk for about half an hour. talk network stuff then? | 21:53 |
| primeministerp1 | soren: exactly | 21:53 |
| soren | primeministerp1: Ok. | 21:53 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: could you contribute install instructions somewhere on the wiki, that we could integrate whenever I end up refactoring the nova install pages ? | 21:53 |
| termie | spectorclan_: because it was the best | 21:53 |
| primeministerp1 | soren: also there's an opensuse mailing list for discussion around our efforts if anyone is interested | 21:53 |
| primeministerp1 | also there's an opensuse mailing list for discussion around our efforts if anyone is interested | 21:53 |
| spectorclan_ | termie: Need something a bit more detailed. Like "It's not FORTRAN or COBOL" | 21:53 |
| primeministerp1 | that was for everyone | 21:53 |
| termie | spectorclan_: i made this whole presentation about that... | 21:54 |
| Vek | "It's not ruby"? | 21:54 |
| * Vek ducks | 21:54 | |
| primeministerp1 | opensuse-cloud@opensuse.org is the mailing list address | 21:54 |
| spectorclan_ | termie: great, can you send it my way or give me a link! Very helpful | 21:54 |
| creiht | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYcW1nEsGk | 21:54 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| primeministerp1 | ttx: we are in the works for doing that | 21:55 |
| termie | spectorclan_: http://blip.tv/pycon-us-videos-2009-2010-2011/pycon-2011-an-open-success-for-the-cloud-openstack-4899478 | 21:55 |
| primeministerp1 | ttx: Installation documentation | 21:55 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: ok | 21:55 |
| soren | primeministerp1: Sounds good! | 21:55 |
| creiht | termie: - all the ums :) | 21:55 |
| termie | UM | 21:55 |
| ttx | um um. | 21:55 |
| termie | it mellows out about halfway through :p | 21:55 |
| creiht | hehe | 21:55 |
| Vek | classes on public speaking should have an entire semester dedicated to "de-umming" speech... | 21:56 |
| ttx | ok, anything else before we close ? | 21:56 |
| spectorclan_ | exit | 21:57 |
| *** spectorclan_ has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| ttx | plenary by Hettinger at EuroPython was on "why makes Python awesome". Pretty much all of his points applied to OpenStack in some way. | 21:57 |
| * pvo & | 21:58 | |
| ttx | what* | 21:58 |
| termie | Vek: indeed, though in my defense that was largely due to not having slept at all | 21:58 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:58 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:58 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 21 21:58:14 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:58 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-21.03.html | 21:58 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-21.03.txt | 21:58 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-21.03.log.html | 21:58 |
| *** Jamey has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| ttx | thanks everyone. Let's get those features into D2. | 21:58 |
| Vek | sort of reminds me of the time I had to present my project proposal for my astronomy class. | 21:58 |
| danwent | hello netstackers.... glad that the jokes about essex ended in time for us to start on time :) | 22:00 |
| salv-orlando | hi Dan | 22:01 |
| somik | hello all! | 22:01 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| midodan | howdy | 22:01 |
| jamesurquhart | Hey, Dan | 22:02 |
| ttx | danwent: it's a science. No place for luck. | 22:02 |
| danwent | ttx: :) | 22:02 |
| danwent | ok, is dendrobates around? | 22:02 |
| danwent | we've got a lot to cover: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings#preview | 22:03 |
| salv-orlando | afk apparently | 22:03 |
| *** MarkAtwood has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jun 21 22:03:14 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:03 |
| *** cynb has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| danwent | #topic netstack status | 22:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "netstack status" | 22:03 | |
| danwent | was hoping to get an update from dendrobates about incubation status | 22:03 |
| *** jesse_ has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| danwent | perhaps he will pop up later and let us know. | 22:04 |
| danwent | any other general nestack topics? | 22:04 |
| danwent | #topic quantum update | 22:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum update" | 22:04 | |
| danwent | lot's of stuff here | 22:04 |
| jamesurquhart | danwent: he's not on IM. Does anyone know if he's back from vacation yet? | 22:04 |
| danwent | switching from the 'network-service' to 'quantum' project caused some hiccups in merging santhosh's stuff. | 22:05 |
| danwent | james: he is pretty good about emailing when he can't make it... but i'm not sure | 22:05 |
| danwent | since we had already reveiwed santhosh's test + pep-8 fixes, we pushed that to network-service, then merged it into quantum | 22:05 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| danwent | since no one has yet to review the api-extensions stuff, we are going to have him re-request a new merge to the lp:quantum branch | 22:06 |
| danwent | any concerns there? | 22:06 |
| danwent | (we'll be talking about extensions more later) | 22:06 |
| danwent | (or rather, next) | 22:06 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: if you already merged the pep8 fixes into lp:quantum, what I have just approved? | 22:06 |
| danwent | I think somik merged after your approval | 22:07 |
| danwent | somik? | 22:07 |
| *** renuka has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| somik | merdanwent: yup | 22:07 |
| ying | agree for api-extension to start a new request | 22:07 |
| ying | thus, we can add comments there | 22:07 |
| salv-orlando | ok, I see | 22:07 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: you ok with that? | 22:07 |
| danwent | the merge | 22:07 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| salv-orlando | danwent: sure, I just thought I approved some other branch by mistake :-) | 22:08 |
| danwent | I think it happened just in the last 30 minutes or so. | 22:08 |
| danwent | ah, no, same one :) | 22:08 |
| danwent | but good to check | 22:08 |
| danwent | ying: yes, agreed. we definitely want someone from Cisco reviewing that branch. | 22:08 |
| danwent | shifting to the topic of API extensions in general, it seems like things are still a bit up in the air from the thread that was on the mailing list. | 22:08 |
| danwent | https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg02834.html | 22:09 |
| danwent | For me, it would be really helpful to have someone work with Jorge and figure out how the code we borrowed from nova maps to the proposal. | 22:09 |
| danwent | any takers? | 22:10 |
| danwent | mmm... this doesn't bode well for the next topic either. | 22:10 |
| salv-orlando | Santosh would be the ideal taker... is he around? | 22:10 |
| danwent | he's in india, i think. Is troy here? | 22:11 |
| danwent | Ok, we'll take this one offline. | 22:11 |
| Jamey | I think troy and erik are both out today | 22:11 |
| danwent | jamey: ah, thanks. | 22:12 |
| salv-orlando | oh there's the ONF thing today... | 22:12 |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:12 | |
| danwent | next topic: salvatore wanted to bring up whether we need to support a model where multiple tenants can own a single network. | 22:12 |
| danwent | I think this also ties into the keystone notion of delegation | 22:12 |
| danwent | where one tenant may be able to grant others the ability to attach to a network they own. | 22:13 |
| Jamey | own or attach to it? | 22:13 |
| carlp | Can you define what owning a network means? | 22:13 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:13 | |
| danwent | Being able to change the API object (the name) create and modify ports, including adding/removing attachements. | 22:13 |
| danwent | would be one definition. | 22:13 |
| danwent | officially we don't have a definition yet though. | 22:14 |
| jamesurquhart | Can I get a use case? | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv-orlando? | 22:14 |
| salv-orlando | sure. | 22:14 |
| carlp | It seems to me that each network should have one owner, and the permissions for attaching to ports should be separated out and delegated | 22:14 |
| carlp | For example "I own network BOB, but you can have access to port 12-24 on it" | 22:15 |
| salv-orlando | Imagine we have two OUs in a company. Finance and Sales for instance. Finance wants to allow sales instances to attach to their network. | 22:15 |
| Jamey | The use case is either B2B apps or community clouds | 22:15 |
| salv-orlando | Jamey: right | 22:15 |
| danwent | In a logical world, I wonder to what degree they have to be the same network, vs. networks that are just linked. | 22:15 |
| midodan | danwent: my question exactly | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | danwent:, midodan: my question too... | 22:16 |
| danwent | I don't really have a strong opinion here, but it would be great if someone who does care about this starts flushing out use cases. | 22:16 |
| midodan | why would they need to be on the same network segment? | 22:16 |
| danwent | (either for or against :) ) | 22:16 |
| Jamey | Until we offer some sort of L3 routing as a service they would | 22:17 |
| jamesurquhart | I don't see the need. A solution looking for a problem, IMHO. | 22:17 |
| danwent | I will make the broader point that it would be great if someone wanted to take up the broader work of Quantum API authentication and authorization. | 22:17 |
| carlp | I certainly for it, as I can see the use case from a Ceph perspective. You want access to all the nodes on the backend, so I should grant you access to that network. Could be solved by routing too, however. | 22:17 |
| danwent | Ok, sounds like no one is dying for this, so we can probably table it. | 22:18 |
| salv-orlando | Or by bridging as well. | 22:18 |
| primeministerp1 | why can't we use LACP | 22:18 |
| danwent | if you want to take it and run with it, just holler :) | 22:18 |
| salv-orlando | I agree with tabling it. | 22:18 |
| jamesurquhart | carlp: Right. Should be addressed by L3 abstraction, unless there is an airtight use case for doing differently. Again, IMHO. | 22:18 |
| danwent | Is Ryu here? | 22:18 |
| primeministerp1 | to just connect into the switch | 22:18 |
| danwent | or perhaps midodan, do you want to give an update on the nova refactoring? | 22:18 |
| danwent | code is here: https://code.launchpad.net/~midokura/nova/network-refactoring | 22:19 |
| danwent | ryu was nice enough to start writing a blueprint to share their current plans and get feedback: http://wiki.openstack.org/network-refactoring | 22:20 |
| ryu_ishimoto | i can do that, right now, we're looking into two main issues: 1. how to launch a VM with network connectivity, and 2. how to handle libvirt XML generation for various interfaces | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | yes | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | for the network refactoring | 22:20 |
| danwent | ryu: great, i think those are two great areas to focus on. | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | can we discuss network interface type | 22:20 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| danwent | sure | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | i.e. emul vs. vert | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | er paravirt | 22:20 |
| primeministerp1 | as a field option | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | in some hypervisors | 22:21 |
| danwent | primeministerp1: can you explain in more detail? | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | you get different functionality | 22:21 |
| danwent | is this nova related, or quantum related? | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | based on the network interface type | 22:21 |
| midodan | i think that's Nova related | 22:21 |
| midodan | hypervisor related | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | believe it's the new bits | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | well | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | sort of | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | for example | 22:21 |
| midodan | primeministerp1: i totally agree that should be part of the model | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | on xen or hyperv you can have paravirt or full virt nics | 22:21 |
| primeministerp1 | one is emulated the other paravirt | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | we need to account for this | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | on hyperv for example | 22:22 |
| danwent | so the goal is to have this in the nova database along with other info about the vnic? | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | we can only pxe from a emul device | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | not the enlightened/paravirt | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | so in instances | 22:22 |
| danwent | or expose this to customers? | 22:22 |
| carlp | KVM also has virtio NICs vs. emulated NICs. Emulated NICs have greater compatibility, but the virtio NICs have better performance. | 22:22 |
| carlp | Customers will need to be able to choose between the two | 22:22 |
| primeministerp1 | where we want to have a vm pxe into an iscsi initation | 22:22 |
| danwent | It definitely makes sense that nova should be able to spin up either type, based on the provider's preference. | 22:23 |
| primeministerp1 | we need to start w/ the emul interface | 22:23 |
| primeministerp1 | for the connection | 22:23 |
| danwent | and perhaps a provider would expose this to the customer via the nova API (would flavors be used?) | 22:23 |
| danwent | I suspect the best way to resolve this would be to work with the nova team. | 22:24 |
| midodan | agree | 22:24 |
| midodan | this is a Nova issue | 22:24 |
| midodan | should be part of the Nova model | 22:24 |
| danwent | primeministerp1: does that make sense to you? | 22:24 |
| primeministerp1 | awesome guys | 22:24 |
| primeministerp1 | sounds good to me | 22:24 |
| danwent | great. | 22:24 |
| primeministerp1 | as long as we address it | 22:24 |
| *** MarkAtwood has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | ryu: thanks for starting the nova-refactoring blueprint | 22:25 |
| danwent | ok, ryu, just wanted to give you a heads up that we'll be pulling the network-refactoring branch and starting to prototype against it. | 22:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | is there any progress on "TODO: Decide on how compute communicates with Quantum" | 22:25 |
| danwent | Sumit, it would be great if you could prototype your stuff against it too. | 22:25 |
| ryu_ishimoto | SumitNaiksatam: no problem, still need to update it quite a bit | 22:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ryu: thanks | 22:25 |
| danwent | ryu: yes, the code has a simple example of passing an "interface binding" to something that could be quantum. | 22:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: definitely can start prototyping | 22:26 |
| danwent | good place to start | 22:26 |
| danwent | anything else on nova refactoring? | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: did we put aside only the idea of shared network, or authN/authZ as well? | 22:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | however don't want to go in a completely different direction from what you guys are thinking | 22:26 |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:26 | |
| danwent | salv-orlando: I believe we tabled it, based on lack of interest. If anyone wants to drive exploring this model more, they're more than welcome to | 22:27 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: misunderstood | 22:27 |
| danwent | sorry, | 22:27 |
| ryu_ishimoto | danwent: that's it but let's keep the discussion going offline to iron out the remaining issues. I will keep updating the wiki | 22:27 |
| danwent | ryu: great, thanks. | 22:27 |
| *** mrmartin has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** edconzel_ has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| danwent | salv-orlando: I agree, getting someone to spend time on even the basic authn/authz stuff is important. | 22:27 |
| danwent | any volunteers? | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: definitely. | 22:28 |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| danwent | right now, quantum really only supports a "single tenant" from an auth perspective | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | I can volunteer for that. As I've done the basic API work | 22:28 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| danwent | all right ! | 22:28 |
| danwent | that would be great. | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | it makes sense I do some work on making sure the api has authN/authZ as well. | 22:28 |
| salv-orlando | I will start by preparing a blueprint and getting in touch with Ziad (Keystone) | 22:29 |
| danwent | please take ownership of the blueprint. Let us know how we can help out. | 22:29 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: perfect | 22:29 |
| Jamey | Not single tenant but single owner | 22:29 |
| danwent | Jamey: yes | 22:29 |
| salv-orlando | Jamey: 1 network, 1 owner | 22:29 |
| salv-orlando | but possibly n users, as it happens for public networks | 22:30 |
| danwent | Jamey: you can have multiple tenant strings in the URI, that is correct. | 22:30 |
| danwent | I think Jamey is talking about what exists today | 22:30 |
| danwent | you can technically create multiple tenants | 22:30 |
| danwent | but there is no auth | 22:30 |
| Jamey | I'm thinking of shared networks like the public Internet network | 22:30 |
| Jamey | Or management net | 22:31 |
| danwent | ah, i get it | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando | Jamey: these kinds of networks are the ones for which I think we need to have both auhN and authZ | 22:31 |
| danwent | Yes Jamey, VIFs from multiple tenants may be on a network, but a single auth entity controls the whole network. | 22:31 |
| danwent | controls -> owns | 22:32 |
| salv-orlando | as we have two 2 roles: the owner of the network, which set up the network layout, and the users of the network, which plug interfaces in its ports | 22:32 |
| danwent | (using our terminology from before). | 22:32 |
| Jamey | That's what I meant by single owner | 22:32 |
| *** cp16net has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| danwent | lots of interesting things to explore here. look forward to seeing the blueprint :) | 22:32 |
| salv-orlando | yet, better move to the next topic now, we are already halfway through the meeting! | 22:33 |
| danwent | moving on to system test + api validation tests. | 22:33 |
| danwent | we're going to start doing some system testing, but the more people who want to pitch in, the merrier. | 22:33 |
| danwent | if you have thoughts on this, let me know. | 22:33 |
| carlp | danwent: are you setting up a jenkins for that? | 22:33 |
| danwent | I will be updating the blueprint for this. | 22:34 |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-system-test | 22:34 |
| danwent | carlp: haven't talked about that yet. | 22:34 |
| mtaylor | I would love it if you'd integrate with the current jenkins instead of setting up a whole new one ... | 22:35 |
| danwent | I think dendrobates was talking to someone about integration into that infrastructure | 22:35 |
| mtaylor | so feel free to ping me whenever | 22:35 |
| danwent | this is partially tied to our status as an incubated project | 22:35 |
| danwent | mtaylor: thanks. will do. | 22:35 |
| * mtaylor wants to make sure that we don't wind up with multiple parallel sets of infrastructure - because that's just fail | 22:35 | |
| danwent | I need to explore this in more detail. Please sign up on the blueprint if you're looking to get involved. | 22:35 |
| danwent | and if you want to drive, by all means :) | 22:36 |
| danwent | that last message was to everyone, not mtaylor | 22:36 |
| danwent | mtaylor: agreed | 22:36 |
| mtaylor | well - I want to drive the infrastructure part :) | 22:36 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| danwent | great. can you add yourself to the blueprint? | 22:36 |
| danwent | as a watcher? | 22:37 |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| danwent | or owner, if you want :P | 22:37 |
| mtaylor | done | 22:37 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| danwent | thx | 22:37 |
| danwent | Ok, and the non-system test part of this is that I'd like to review our API unit tests and make sure that we have unit tests that cover all of the corner cases documented in the API spec | 22:38 |
| danwent | http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumAPISpec | 22:38 |
| salv-orlando | ok, that's another call for me :-) | 22:38 |
| danwent | awesome, i don't even have to ask :) | 22:38 |
| bhall | salv-orlando: I'm glad to help with those as well; we can divide it up if you want | 22:39 |
| salv-orlando | bhall: sure, we can talk about this offline | 22:39 |
| bhall | sounds good | 22:39 |
| danwent | and one final note on quantum, i'm looking for guinea pigs who want to test out some docs for how to setup quantum + the OVS plugin on ubuntu. They're not quite done, but I will send them your way if you're interested. | 22:40 |
| carlp | danwent: Sign me up! | 22:40 |
| danwent | would like to get some test eyes on them before sending it out more broadly. | 22:40 |
| danwent | great carlp | 22:40 |
| carlp | I have your docs from a few weeks ago, but haven been way to busy to look at them until now | 22:40 |
| danwent | ok, anything else for quantum? | 22:40 |
| danwent | carlp: have done more work since then. am hoping to automate a lot of the setup. | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | on the OVS plugin: do we support multiple servers at the moment? | 22:41 |
| carlp | danwent: awesome | 22:41 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: yup | 22:41 |
| danwent | though i've only tested with a few. | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: I ran the agent plugin but the integration bridge did not pick any physical interface.... | 22:42 |
| danwent | yes, as you probably figured out, we hadn't actually used that setup script yet. | 22:42 |
| danwent | I just configured it to use an external bridge. | 22:42 |
| salv-orlando | ok so i did the right thing by adding one with ovs-vsctl... | 22:42 |
| danwent | I have a couple of OVS plugin bugfixes queued up as well. | 22:43 |
| danwent | hopefully those will get merged soon though. Might want to hold off until then :) | 22:43 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: yup, exactly | 22:43 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: can sync up offline if you need more details. | 22:43 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: sure... maybe it would be better to post those bugs on launchpad, if you haven't already done so. This way, we will be aware of this | 22:43 |
| danwent | yeah, agreed :) | 22:44 |
| danwent | anyone from melange or donabe around to provide an update? | 22:44 |
| carlp | I don't have any specific update for Melange | 22:45 |
| danwent | #topic open-discussion | 22:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open-discussion" | 22:45 | |
| salv-orlando | webex for next meeting? | 22:45 |
| danwent | since rick and ram are not here, we'll probably delay the webex topic. | 22:46 |
| danwent | anything else? | 22:46 |
| carlp | I was curious about the Melange + Quantum integration topic, any ideas what that was about? | 22:46 |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| danwent | carlp: yes, agreed. | 22:46 |
| danwent | I was hoping to get an update on the status of a melange alpha. | 22:46 |
| danwent | I think the high-level plan now is that melange and quantum will be independent "building blocks" that can be used directly via the APIs or by orchtestration components | 22:47 |
| carlp | Me too :) I know Troy and his team have been working on the IP management part. Once that was done we were going to dive into the discovery integration. | 22:47 |
| danwent | melange will likely have the ability to store a quantum network ID associated with a subnet | 22:47 |
| danwent | Ok, let's pester troy via email :) | 22:47 |
| carlp | Sounds like a plan. | 22:47 |
| danwent | anything else? | 22:48 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:48 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jun 21 22:48:21 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:48 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-22.03.html | 22:48 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-22.03.txt | 22:48 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-21-22.03.log.html | 22:48 |
| danwent | Ok, thanks all | 22:48 |
| danwent | and special thanks to salvatore! | 22:48 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: my pleasure | 22:48 |
| salv-orlando | talk to you next week | 22:48 |
| carlp | danwent: What would you like me to do in order to get those docs from you? | 22:48 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| danwent | I already was planning on pinging you based on the previous thread. | 22:49 |
| danwent | will send you something in the next day or two | 22:49 |
| carlp | danwent: sounds great, looking forward to iy | 22:50 |
| carlp | it even | 22:50 |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** midodan has left #openstack-meeting | 22:53 | |
| *** masumotok has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** romain_lenglet has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:01 | |
| *** romain_lenglet has left #openstack-meeting | 23:03 | |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:28 | |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 23:44 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:50 | |
| *** sebastianstadil has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 23:58 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!