| *** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:26 | |
| *** blamar__ is now known as cg01 | 00:28 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 00:36 | |
| *** martine_ has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 01:00 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:21 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:38 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:51 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:06 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:09 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 03:12 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 03:14 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:19 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 03:21 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:22 | |
| *** cg01 has quit IRC | 03:45 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 04:09 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 04:34 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:01 | |
| *** tsuzuki has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:13 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:18 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:14 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 08:38 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:53 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:58 | |
| *** tsuzuki has quit IRC | 12:07 | |
| *** stiekes has quit IRC | 13:58 | |
| *** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:07 | |
| *** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:10 | |
| *** stiekes has quit IRC | 14:12 | |
| *** stiekes_ has quit IRC | 14:15 | |
| *** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:16 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:17 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:22 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:26 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 14:31 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:36 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:52 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 14:58 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:11 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:13 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:16 | |
| *** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:46 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:26 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:40 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:48 | |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:56 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:16 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 17:23 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:29 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:36 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:26 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:46 | |
| *** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:49 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:58 | |
| *** nati_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:59 | |
| mtaylor | hey all - anybody wanna talk about CI | 19:03 |
|---|---|---|
| nati_ | Hi~ | 19:03 |
| jeblair | sure | 19:04 |
| nati_ | mtaylor: I`m SF now :D | 19:04 |
| bengrue | I'm here. | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:05 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 9 19:05:30 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:05 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting" | 19:06 | |
| mtaylor | Real quick update on stuff from last week: | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | The milestone proposed jobs were fixed and can run on the right build slaves now | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | tarball_script.sh and ppa_script.sh were updated for the glance transition | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | and jaypipes and I did nothing on the glance upgrade path testing job | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #action jaypipes design upgrade path jenkins job with mtaylor | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:07 | |
| notmyname | mtaylor: how goes gitweb/gitorious? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | on positive notes - glance migrated to git/gerrit | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: we spun up a gitweb and I've been poking at gitorious | 19:08 |
| notmyname | cool. just curious to see the differences | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: I think that gitorious could be a solution even using gitorious.org - but I think we could do some additional integration if we ran our own | 19:08 |
| bengrue | why not github? | 19:08 |
| bengrue | (Did I miss something earlier?) | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: I set up https://gitorious.org/openstack just to look at it | 19:09 |
| bengrue | lack of collaboration tools? | 19:09 |
| notmyname | bengrue: with gerrit, we wouldn't use any github features | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: longer ongoing discussion - but it has been put across that if we aren't using pull requests, then putting branches on github is confusing | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | which is, I think, correct | 19:10 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 19:10 | |
| mtaylor | notmyname: the hosted gitorious.org does allow you to turn off merge requests ... so that's workable - however, I was going to spin up an instance locally and see what that looked like | 19:10 |
| jeblair | if we do use github, we might try to auto-respond to pull requests (either by converting them to gerrit changes, or closing them with a message pointing to gerrit) | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | cause if we're going to do that - perhaps having it at git.openstack.org might be preferrable | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: is the gitweb thing from gerrit publicly accessible? | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: also, it's notable that gerrit themselves don't use the bundled gitweb and instead use a gitweb running elsewhere that they mirror to | 19:11 |
| bengrue | There are hooks we can fire in github upon pull request, right? | 19:11 |
| notmyname | interesting | 19:12 |
| jeblair | it's only on a dev server, and it's mostly useful for viewing the state of the gerrit repo. i think we should turn it on on the production server, because it's free. | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: yes - there are hooks - but for what purpose are you suggesting? | 19:12 |
| jeblair | however, i don't think it's a good public entry point to viewing the repos. for that, if we wanted to use gitweb, we should probably have a separate server | 19:12 |
| jeblair | (or a separate gitweb instance) | 19:13 |
| jeblair | like: https://android.git.kernel.org/?p=tools/gerrit.git | 19:13 |
| jeblair | is separate from: https://review.source.android.com/#/q/status:open,n,z | 19:14 |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:14 | |
| bengrue | mtayor: I was following up on jeblair's statement about auto-responding/converting-to-gerrit for clarification | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: ah. cool. | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: and yes | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | that would likely be how we would go about such a thing ... however, I think the point made that it might just be eaiser for folks to grok if we weren't showing pull requests at all might make more sense | 19:15 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 19:15 | |
| notmyname | unfotunately (for this use case), pull requests are so deeply integrated into github that hiding them would be unlikely | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | agree | 19:17 |
| notmyname | so, if we can't use github's pull requests, issues, etc (/sad notmyname), then I think we should avoid the confusion | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: any thoughts on hosted gitorious vs. us running one just on general principle? | 19:19 |
| bengrue | What's specifically the problem with pull requests? openstack has too many? | 19:19 |
| notmyname | but, I'd like to see the options before committing to one or the other (thanks to mtaylor and jeblair for the effort of looking in to it all) | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: I just sent a follow up email to the openstack mailing list about that | 19:19 |
| notmyname | bengrue: "they" ;-) want gated trunks | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: :) | 19:19 |
| bengrue | Who are "they"? | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: you will find that we have a multitude of opinions and goals ;) | 19:20 |
| bengrue | Indeed. | 19:20 |
| bengrue | We are OpenLegion, for we are many. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | hahaha | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | hahahahaha | 19:20 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: no opinions on hosted or self-hosted. however, we are hosting part of it and do have a large hosting company helping out openstack.... | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | ok - that may be the funniest thing I've heard in this context in months | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: that was sort of my thought | 19:21 |
| termie | we chatted a bit about this in the office yesterday | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: once we crossed the line of "hosting some of it" ... hosting more of it isn't really much more of an imposition :) | 19:21 |
| termie | we felt there were still useful things for using github as we do a lot of collab that is outside of just pushing code reviews | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | totally - and those things can still really be done no matter what | 19:21 |
| termie | sure, but github offers a useful multi-user environment | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | no - I meant github can still be used for those no matter what | 19:22 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: you mean, even if the "official" location is gitorious or gitweb? | 19:23 |
| termie | we also brought up that a lot of people currenlty _are_ using github for issues | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | yes they are ... although none of those issues are in the set of project tracked and officially planned for issues | 19:23 |
| bengrue | We currently (at Piston) have an internal cron that polls launchpad every 20 minutes and shoves it into github. | 19:24 |
| bengrue | nova and swift, at least. not every project. | 19:24 |
| notmyname | bengrue: issues? | 19:24 |
| notmyname | or code? | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | the main issue feature requirement that has been stated is the ability to attach an issue to more than one project and/or more than one release of a project | 19:25 |
| bengrue | none yet, we're just starting to use it... I'm sure there will be some. | 19:25 |
| bengrue | Oh, code. | 19:25 |
| bengrue | Sorry. | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | but I'm actually interested in clarifying termie's point from earlier | 19:25 |
| notmyname | bengrue: the "unoficial" swift mirror is kept up to date (http://github.com/openstack/swift) | 19:25 |
| bengrue | notmyname: ah, nice. | 19:25 |
| notmyname | bengrue: i'd suggest keeping that repo as an upstream remote | 19:26 |
| termie | my only point is that i don't think there is sufficient reason to self-host the git parts, i think we are actually getting stuff out of github even if not using it for official pull requests or issues | 19:26 |
| *** stiekes_ has quit IRC | 19:26 | |
| mtaylor | termie: are you saying you think that just continuing to mirror to github and telling people to use gerrit ... | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | termie: you answered even as I was asking | 19:26 |
| notmyname | termie: what about confusion of how to get stuff in to master? | 19:26 |
| *** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:26 | |
| termie | notmyname: either automated thing telling people who send pull requests to master to use gerrit or get gerrit to bring them in | 19:27 |
| notmyname | I've only seen 1 issue come up on github for swift, and I hate having to tell that person "sorry, learn bzr/lp and resubmit" | 19:27 |
| termie | notmyname: pretty easy cronjob to write | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: it's really only confusion the first time someone tries to submit ... and a github hook that gave someone to ping them | 19:27 |
| termie | you can disable issues for the project | 19:27 |
| bengrue | Automated messages explaining what to do when the "wrong" thing is done is a favorite method of mine. | 19:27 |
| bengrue | It's passive education. | 19:27 |
| notmyname | termie: ya, actually it was a pull request | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | and easy to accomplish | 19:27 |
| bengrue | It leads to immediate discoverability. | 19:27 |
| termie | (though obvs i still think we should ditch launchpad with haste on all possible fronts) | 19:28 |
| notmyname | if pull request hooks solve the problem, that may be sufficient | 19:28 |
| bengrue | I'm relatively new to openstack development myself, and I'd say there are some hard to discover things all over the project. The clearer the feedback on bad actions, the easier it becomes to bootstrap into the project. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | I would say a) auto responses to pull requests with links to gerrit instructions and b) look in to whether it makes physical sense to auto-create a gerrit request for them - yeah? | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | #info termie hates launchpad | 19:29 |
| jeblair | here's a quick comparison of the things we've looked at: | 19:29 |
| termie | mtaylor: wouldn't want my position to be clouded | 19:29 |
| jeblair | github: unable to disable pull requests, so we would have to either attempt to automatically move them to gerrit or automatically close them with instructions pointing to gerrit. does not support openid as a provider or consumer, so separate authn needed. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | termie: nope. it's totally clear :) | 19:29 |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:29 | |
| jeblair | gitorious: can disable merge requests. open source, so can develop enhancements as needed. supports openid as a consumer, so can SSO with other tools in use (launchpad, jenkins, gerrit). | 19:29 |
| jeblair | gitweb: simple, read-only, no collaboration features. | 19:29 |
| jeblair | does that suggest anything we should explore further? | 19:30 |
| notmyname | jeblair: seems to imply that gitweb wouldn't be sufficient for replacing lp code hosting | 19:31 |
| notmyname | (although it is useful for other use cases) | 19:31 |
| jeblair | it gives us a place to point to and say "here's where you can browse the code". i'd sort of characterize it as saying it's the way to go if the project as a whole wants to avoid endorsing a web-based method of collaboration during development. | 19:33 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: thought we wanted to steer away from "us" vs. "them"? | 19:33 |
| jeblair | people will still use github certainly. probably more so if we went with gitweb. but the project would be out of the business of telling people how and why to use it. | 19:33 |
| termie | *~-we-~* | 19:33 |
| jeblair | oh, and i'm assuming gerrit is performing code rewiew with all of those options, just to be clear. | 19:34 |
| jeblair | 'review' even. | 19:34 |
| notmyname | jeblair: those reasons for gitweb seem to be great if each project is responsible for its own hosting, etc. but since openstack has chosen to do everything the same way, there is still a need for the collaborative tool, right? | 19:36 |
| notmyname | ie, using gitweb doesn't meet the requirements (unless I'm missing something). it would have to be gitweb + something, right? is that something gerrit or would there still be a missing piece? | 19:37 |
| termie | so, another reason i'd like github: all of my teams other projects are already on there | 19:37 |
| termie | s/teams/team's/ | 19:38 |
| notmyname | termie: in the same boat. all of the other cloud files stuff (swauth, slogging, language bindings) are all on github as well | 19:38 |
| jeblair | gitweb will "host code", and gerrit will handle code reviews and merging, so at a minimum, it seems to meet the requirements for "code hosting". i think it's the collaborative aspect of github (and perhaps gitorious) that's appealing. | 19:38 |
| jaypipes | and how many people work on those projects? 3 or 4 maybe? we're talking about a different type of complexity here... | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | I agree with that. | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | not jaypipes, jeblair | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | I think we have two different things here: | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | a) code review/queue management and | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | b) from where do people clone | 19:39 |
| termie | a) gerrit, b) github | 19:40 |
| jaypipes | cool with me. | 19:40 |
| bengrue | another reason I like github: it increases visibility into the community from the outside world. | 19:40 |
| * mtaylor tends to agree with termie there | 19:40 | |
| notmyname | mtaylor: termie: if the pull request confusion is addressed properly | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | as long as the pull request auto-closing-with-instructions hook is acceptable to folks | 19:40 |
| jaypipes | jinks. | 19:40 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I think it's a pretty good/reasonable solution | 19:41 |
| jaypipes | or GitHub becomes open source... | 19:41 |
| termie | notmyname: i think that is a pretty easy thing to solve | 19:41 |
| bengrue | I like the solution. | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: yes. I would suggest we start with the auto-close hook, and then if it's an ongoing problem, investigate creating gerrit reviews | 19:41 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ++ | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | ok - so I'm going to consider this some sort of agreement :) | 19:41 |
| * termie looks outside to check for flying pigs | 19:42 | |
| jeblair | termie pointed me to some code that can do a lot of the pull request work. i'd be happy to do that. | 19:42 |
| bengrue | sweet. | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | #agreed continue to mirror gerrit projects to github and put in an auto-closing hook for pull requets | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | #action jeblair auto-closing pull request hook | 19:42 |
| _0x44 | mtaylor: Instead of auto-closing-with-instructions, why don't you make a hook that auto-adds it as a request in gerrit? | 19:42 |
| _0x44 | mtaylor: And have gerrit auto-close the pull-request after merge? | 19:43 |
| termie | _0x44: more complicated, stretch goal | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: I would like to look in to that as step two ... I just think the instructions one could probably be done in a half an hour or so | 19:43 |
| termie | _0x44: the other option is a 4 line script and a cronjob | 19:43 |
| jaypipes | _0x44: I think he said above they'd try that at a later time. | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | wow. | 19:43 |
| termie | don't worry guys, i'll try not to make this agreeing thing a habit | 19:43 |
| jaypipes | we know. ;) | 19:44 |
| _0x44 | termie: A 4 line script will be a "solution" that probably won't get fixed, though. | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | quick everybody ... vi or emacs? | 19:44 |
| termie | VI | 19:44 |
| jaypipes | vi | 19:44 |
| termie | fuck | 19:44 |
| heckj | vi | 19:44 |
| jaypipes | ooh. | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | _0x44: we keep todo lists and work on them | 19:44 |
| termie | s/fuck/dang/ | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | vi | 19:44 |
| nati_ | vi | 19:44 |
| _0x44 | vi, and bengrue is volunteering to write the second-round hook to auto-integrate gerrit and github. | 19:44 |
| jeblair | emacs | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | yay! | 19:44 |
| termie | jeblair: BOOO | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | dissent! | 19:44 |
| jaypipes | hehe | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | ok- the world is ok again | 19:44 |
| jeblair | we also keep scripts in git, and accept patches. | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | speaking of ... | 19:45 |
| _0x44 | bengrue: pipe up so they don't think I'm just volunteering you. :) | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | anybody want to write better css for gerrit? | 19:45 |
| bengrue | yes, I can write the stretch goal script. | 19:45 |
| notmyname | _0x44: now he has to. aren'tyou his boss? ;-) | 19:46 |
| bengrue | As long as I have an introduction to gerrit. | 19:46 |
| _0x44 | notmyname: Yes ;) | 19:46 |
| creiht | lol | 19:46 |
| bengrue | jmckenty said lat week that I can use 4 hours a week on CI tasks for openstack. | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | w00t | 19:46 |
| bengrue | So as I come up to speed that'll be more and more useful. | 19:46 |
| notmyname | your 2% time? | 19:46 |
| heckj | ++ | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: happy to have you help! | 19:47 |
| bengrue | I'm still in the learning phases of openstack development, but CI methodology is something I'm a bit more familiar with. | 19:47 |
| _0x44 | notmyname: We don't work quite 168 hours a week, so it might be a bit more than 2%. | 19:47 |
| bengrue | Glad to help. | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: be sure to bug jeblair or I if you grind to a halt anywhere | 19:47 |
| bengrue | ha, good to know. | 19:47 |
| bengrue | (lunch has arrived at piston) | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | ok - anybody got anything else? | 19:50 |
| jaypipes | nope | 19:51 |
| mtaylor | great. thanks everybody ... and try not to have your day ruined by us agreeing on something | 19:52 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:52 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 9 19:52:12 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:52 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.html | 19:52 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.txt | 19:52 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.log.html | 19:52 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| *** jmckenty_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:59 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 19:59 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 9 20:00:08 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 |
| termie | jbryce: ! | 20:00 |
| jbryce | termie: ! | 20:00 |
| soren | o/ | 20:00 |
| jbryce | which ppb members do we have? | 20:00 |
| anotherjesse | here | 20:01 |
| vishy | chuck norris: ! | 20:01 |
| notmyname | here | 20:01 |
| soren | present | 20:01 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 20:01 | |
| jmckenty_ | heyo | 20:01 |
| dendrobates | o/ | 20:01 |
| * jmckenty_ waves | 20:01 | |
| eday | here | 20:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:02 |
| jmckenty_ | no ewan expected, right? | 20:02 |
| vishy | wow good turnout | 20:02 |
| jmckenty_ | he's in some weird time zone | 20:02 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:02 |
| vishy | missing ewan and purrier | 20:02 |
| *** mgius has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| jbryce | well let's get started. agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:02 |
| jbryce | #topic previous action items | 20:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "previous action items" | 20:03 | |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: any update on FITS or academic cooperation? | 20:03 |
| jmckenty_ | I have two of those | 20:03 |
| jmckenty_ | FITS has a mailing list set up, and a reasonably representative set of members | 20:03 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| jmckenty_ | We haven't done a kickoff yet, was waiting to hear how things went with Dell first | 20:03 |
| jmckenty_ | as it probably changes our mandate somewhat | 20:04 |
| jmckenty_ | Academics, I've spoken with Stephen Spector and a few others directly (Qatar Foundation, etc), should have a proposal in shape in a few weeks, but I was thinking we should set aside a couple of blocks at the summit | 20:04 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:05 | |
| * jaypipes wonders if I missed some ML post on FITS... | 20:05 | |
| jmckenty_ | jaypipes: what, specifically? | 20:05 |
| zns | Hi - is there a PPB mtg today? | 20:05 |
| jbryce | zns: yes. going on right now | 20:05 |
| ttx | zns: it's on | 20:05 |
| jaypipes | zns: you're in it :) | 20:05 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 20:05 | |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: about FITS. Were you going to introduce the concept on the ML and invite people to comment? | 20:06 |
| zns | Cool. Multi-tasking.. :-) | 20:06 |
| jmckenty_ | jaypipes: wasn't planning on it. | 20:06 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: any reason? | 20:06 |
| jmckenty_ | not until we had a proposal | 20:06 |
| jmckenty_ | I think it makes a very messy public discussion topic | 20:07 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:07 | |
| jmckenty_ | Would rather come to the community with two or three distinct proposals | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: ah, ok. but after you have a proposal, you will, correct? | 20:07 |
| jmckenty_ | and some background research that's well articulated | 20:07 |
| jmckenty_ | current | 20:07 |
| jmckenty_ | current / correct | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | :) gotcha. ok, cool. | 20:07 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:07 |
| jbryce | other outstanding action item is the next item on the agenda | 20:08 |
| jmckenty_ | project autonomy? | 20:08 |
| jbryce | #topic common project tooling/processes aka autonomy | 20:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "common project tooling/processes aka autonomy" | 20:08 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/ProjectToolingAndPractices | 20:08 |
| jbryce | i plan on adding that to the existing project description page that already covered some of the project philosophy ideas | 20:08 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes | 20:09 |
| ttx | jbryce: I sent my comments to the thread | 20:09 |
| ttx | otherwise lgtm | 20:09 |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:09 | |
| jbryce | ttx: i haven't been getting lp email today, but i just saw them on the web archive | 20:09 |
| johnpur | i am in basic agreement with ttx | 20:09 |
| jbryce | i'll add in a note about default 4-week milestone | 20:10 |
| jmckenty_ | I'd rather hold off on approving that doc until we get a status update from the vetting process for github+gerritt | 20:10 |
| jaypipes | already responded, lgtm.. | 20:10 |
| jmckenty_ | If we're going to have vetted options, we should have more than one, imo | 20:10 |
| jaypipes | why? | 20:10 |
| jaypipes | meaning, why does one affect the other? | 20:11 |
| jmckenty_ | because a very large community contingent has asked for it | 20:11 |
| ttx | jmckenty_: some people are waiting for doc approval to vote, so it looks like a catch-22 | 20:11 |
| jaypipes | so, you're fine with vetted options as long as they're the vetted options you approve of... | 20:11 |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: once approved, i will update this list | 20:11 |
| jaypipes | but that's not what the vote is on. The vote is whether to have a set or a single vetted option. | 20:11 |
| jbryce | the bottom section would change anytime we add new options or categories | 20:11 |
| eday | notmyname: were there any specific things you were waiting on from project autonomy docs? I know you had been asking for it | 20:11 |
| soren | I expected we'd discuss whether we'd have "one true set of tools" vs. "a set of vetted optoins" before we discussed a document that specifically speaks of "the vetted options". | 20:11 |
| jmckenty_ | soren: we did that already | 20:11 |
| jmckenty_ | and voted on it | 20:11 |
| jmckenty_ | and then reviewed it | 20:12 |
| ttx | jmckenty_: not everyone is convinced of that. | 20:12 |
| jmckenty_ | I can pull up the ppb meeting logs | 20:12 |
| eday | jmckenty_: it ended in a tie | 20:12 |
| jaypipes | no, we didn't. | 20:12 |
| soren | So why was the question raised again on the mailing list? | 20:12 |
| jmckenty_ | really? I don't remember a tie | 20:12 |
| eday | jmckenty_: someone changed their vote, and we didn't have enough folks attending to break the tie | 20:12 |
| soren | If it's the meeting I remember, it ended up a tie as dendrobates changed his vote. | 20:12 |
| jmckenty_ | ah, gotcha | 20:13 |
| jmckenty_ | sorry | 20:13 |
| jbryce | we did discuss it in subsequent meetings | 20:13 |
| dendrobates | :) | 20:13 |
| notmyname | eday: that's what I was waiting on :-) | 20:13 |
| jmckenty_ | yes, but I was never clear about why we were discussing it again | 20:13 |
| jmckenty_ | it's clear now | 20:13 |
| jaypipes | so, we ready to vote on it? | 20:13 |
| jmckenty_ | wait | 20:14 |
| jmckenty_ | we still don't have a set of options | 20:14 |
| jbryce | the last discussion it seemed that most people were on the side of a vetted set of options (which could be a set of one) | 20:14 |
| jmckenty_ | we have a single option | 20:14 |
| jmckenty_ | in every case | 20:14 |
| jmckenty_ | hence my feeling that voting is premature | 20:14 |
| jbryce | the next step was to attempt to draft the summary of the discussion that went on over multiple weeks | 20:14 |
| notmyname | jmckenty_: are you ok with the idea of having a set of options? | 20:14 |
| jbryce | hence the document with the link | 20:14 |
| jmckenty_ | notmyname: yes | 20:14 |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: the document includes existing approved options which is only one currently | 20:15 |
| jmckenty_ | but I'm not okay with approving that as our official mechanism when there's only one option | 20:15 |
| jbryce | if we approved additional options they get added to the document | 20:15 |
| notmyname | so we can settle the single option/vetted list issue? | 20:15 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: the point is to vote on whether to have a single option or more than one, not whether LP or Gerrit/GitHub IS the single option or one of the options. | 20:15 |
| ttx | "a set of options" actually includes "only one option" | 20:15 |
| soren | Whether we want a set of vetted options vs "one true set of options" is orthogonal to whatever the vetted options would be, hopefully. | 20:15 |
| jmckenty_ | it's not semantics per se... | 20:15 |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: i'm totally fine with a set only have one element | 20:15 |
| jmckenty_ | I'm not | 20:15 |
| soren | Then what's the problem? | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: you are if it's the option you prefer. | 20:16 |
| jbryce | so you want to always force multiple options to be available? | 20:16 |
| soren | You've clearly decided on what your vote is going to be. | 20:16 |
| jmckenty_ | jaypipes: not true | 20:16 |
| eday | how about "should we ever support more than one project hosting option?" | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | eday: right, that is the question. | 20:16 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:17 | |
| eday | at least, until we vote on this again :/ | 20:17 |
| jaypipes | ugh | 20:17 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:17 |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: i don't understand your issue. are you saying you want to require more than one option in every category? | 20:17 |
| jmckenty_ | no | 20:17 |
| jmckenty_ | I'm just saying that voting to approve multiple options, when we don't have a SINGLE alternative, | 20:18 |
| jbryce | right | 20:18 |
| jmckenty_ | is a bunch of sycophantic posturing | 20:18 |
| jbryce | no | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: no, it's not. | 20:18 |
| soren | It's not at all. | 20:18 |
| jbryce | step one is to approve a philosophy that allows for multiple options | 20:18 |
| johnpur | sycophantic? | 20:18 |
| jbryce | step two is to add the addition options | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty_: replace Launchpad with "BLAHBLAH". It doesn't matter what is on there to vote on whether ot have >1 option. | 20:18 |
| * johnpur gets out his dictionary | 20:19 | |
| jmckenty_ | "http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sycophantic" | 20:19 |
| jbryce | this document attempted to capture the idea that there can be multiple options | 20:19 |
| ttx | johnpur: give it to me when you're done | 20:19 |
| mtaylor | it's voting to allow approval of a second option without having to categorically remove the first option at the same time | 20:19 |
| johnpur | jmckenty_: thanks | 20:19 |
| jbryce | next item on the agenda was to vote on if there's a second option in 2 of these categories | 20:19 |
| johnpur | mtaylor: +1 | 20:20 |
| jmckenty_ | fine, I won't hold it up. | 20:20 |
| jbryce | so can we vote on this: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/ProjectToolingAndPractices | 20:20 |
| soren | No? | 20:20 |
| soren | That's the entire point. It speaks of "vetted options". | 20:21 |
| soren | What if we don't want such a concept? | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | don't we need to vote on >1 vs. 1 option? | 20:21 |
| mtaylor | (although me would like to put out there, as a person who supports a good amount of this - that he'd prefer long term to only be supporting a single infrastructure- but is fine with "set of vetted options" | 20:21 |
| jmckenty_ | I had a minor observation on the autonomy point | 20:21 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: yes. that is what the document discusses | 20:21 |
| jmckenty_ | just that, although swift works perfectly well standalone, nova depends on glance, and glance (at scale) depends on swift | 20:21 |
| jbryce | the key point of the document being that for certain categories there are predefined default options that projects should choose from | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: ah, so you're saying since the document says vetted options, we are voting up or down on that? | 20:21 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: correct | 20:22 |
| soren | Ah. | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | ready when you are. | 20:22 |
| jmckenty_ | +1 for vetted options | 20:22 |
| soren | But... | 20:22 |
| johnpur | is there a "preferred" designation on the betted options? | 20:22 |
| jmckenty_ | johnpur: separate vote? | 20:22 |
| jbryce | the bottom is just a catalog that we would update as things change | 20:22 |
| soren | What if we reject this document? | 20:22 |
| soren | What happens then? | 20:22 |
| jbryce | then someone else gets to draft the next one. = ) | 20:23 |
| jbryce | and go through 6 weeks of meeting logs to try to understand the discussion | 20:23 |
| mtaylor | hahaha | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | inded | 20:23 |
| ttx | +1 as vetted options is still very open-ended :) | 20:23 |
| soren | -1 | 20:23 |
| notmyname | -1 for vetted options | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | ttx: no, it's not... it's merely a vote on 1 or >1 option. | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | -1 on vetted options. +1 on singular option. | 20:24 |
| johnpur | +1 for vetted options | 20:24 |
| ttx | jaypipes: no, it's a vote on 1 or >=1. | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | ttx: sure, yes. | 20:24 |
| mtaylor | ttx++ | 20:24 |
| soren | Then I don't undertand what we're voting? | 20:24 |
| soren | At all. | 20:24 |
| eday | -1 for vetted (since we voted one project, we shouldn't split it) | 20:24 |
| dendrobates | -1 | 20:24 |
| ttx | soren: we are voting on enforcing 1 optoin... or deciding to keep the option to have >=1 | 20:24 |
| soren | I'd like to retract my vote on the grounds of not having the faintest idea what we're voting on. | 20:24 |
| jmckenty_ | aha! | 20:25 |
| ttx | should it be ==1 or >=1 option. | 20:25 |
| soren | But. | 20:25 |
| soren | Ok. | 20:25 |
| soren | fine. | 20:25 |
| jbryce | eday: to be precise we voted on one product made up of independent projects | 20:25 |
| soren | Then ==1 | 20:25 |
| jmckenty_ | fetch me... an HALIBUT! | 20:25 |
| soren | That's unambiguous. | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | soren: if you want no flexibility on whether an openstack project gets to choose from a list of vetted options, vote -1. | 20:25 |
| soren | -1 | 20:25 |
| soren | Wicked. | 20:25 |
| soren | jaypipes: Thanks. | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | np. | 20:26 |
| soren | (then why did people start saying "no" when someone tried to sum it up that way?) | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | who's missing a vote? | 20:26 |
| vishy | +1 | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: your vote? | 20:26 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:26 |
| anotherjesse | what is the score? | 20:26 |
| jbryce | i have no idea | 20:26 |
| jbryce | trying to scrollback and see where everyone ended up | 20:26 |
| jmckenty_ | Vetted = jmckenty, jbryce, vishy, johnpur | 20:27 |
| vishy | 6 -2 i think | 20:27 |
| * ttx retracts to +0 if it's tied. | 20:27 | |
| jmckenty_ | oh, and ttx | 20:27 |
| jmckenty_ | and mtaylor, or no? | 20:27 |
| vishy | k missed a few | 20:27 |
| soren | notmyname: I'm kind of baffled here. You've spent the last 7 meetings talking about autonomy and letting people choose their own tools, but now you're voting against having options? | 20:27 |
| * mtaylor doesn't get a vote | 20:27 | |
| ttx | I don't really mind -- I expect that the PPB will only vet one option at a time anyway. | 20:27 |
| * mtaylor just lurks and talks | 20:27 | |
| jmckenty_ | right, sorry | 20:27 |
| jmckenty_ | the pluses confused me | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: yeah - reasoning? | 20:27 |
| vishy | so 1 option is -> ewan, soren, jaypipes, dendrobates, eday | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | single option = eday, dendrobates, soren, jaypipes | 20:28 |
| vishy | so 5 -5 ? | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | was that ewans? | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | k | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | so we're deadlocked on ttx | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | fun | 20:28 |
| vishy | i thought he said one option in his email | 20:28 |
| jmckenty_ | yeah, he did | 20:29 |
| jbryce | where is ewan? | 20:29 |
| vishy | anotherjesse can tie break | 20:29 |
| notmyname | my understanding of the original autonomy descision is that openstack is a single unit with cooperating components. I think my current vote goes along with that. I was never for a vetted set. I originally wanted no set approved or otherwise | 20:29 |
| jmckenty_ | he doesn't want to teach his devs git and bzr | 20:29 |
| soren | jbryce: Sleeping, probably. He's in India (where it's 2 AM). | 20:29 |
| ttx | nah, notmyname votes -1 | 20:29 |
| ttx | so -1 wins | 20:29 |
| *** mauricioarango has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:29 | |
| jbryce | so where did his vote come in? | 20:29 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: k - I agree | 20:29 |
| anotherjesse | and vote with notmyname | 20:29 |
| ttx | jbryce: PPB ML post | 20:29 |
| jmckenty_ | k, I'm happy | 20:29 |
| vishy | so single option wins 6 - 5? | 20:29 |
| ttx | yes | 20:30 |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:30 | |
| jmckenty_ | so we chuck that page, then | 20:30 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: did you vote? | 20:30 |
| jmckenty_ | he voted with notmyname | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | yes same as notmyname - not sure if that is + or - | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | ;) | 20:30 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:30 |
| notmyname | I voted -1 | 20:30 |
| notmyname | for single option | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | who's missing? | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | we have 12, right? | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | oh, ttx | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | abstained | 20:31 |
| jbryce | #agreed VOTE: Not vetted set of options allowed. All projects must use same tooling. result 7 - 5 | 20:31 |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:31 | |
| jmckenty_ | jbryce: it's 6-5 | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | with one abstention | 20:31 |
| jmckenty_ | right? | 20:31 |
| jbryce | i thought ttx was abstaining if it was tied? | 20:32 |
| jmckenty_ | oh, I see | 20:32 |
| jmckenty_ | gotcha | 20:32 |
| jbryce | #topic GItHub + gerrit | 20:32 |
| soren | jbryce: Hang on, hang on. | 20:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "GItHub + gerrit" | 20:32 | |
| jbryce | soren: ok | 20:32 |
| soren | jbryce: You said explicitly that voting against this only meant that we rejected that document. Not that any specific other options was then chosen. | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | soren: that's correct. | 20:33 |
| jmckenty_ | um... no? | 20:33 |
| jbryce | jaypipes:soren: if you want no flexibility on whether an openstack project gets to choose from a list of vetted options, vote -1. | 20:33 |
| jbryce | [3:25pm]soren:-1 | 20:33 |
| jbryce | [3:25pm]soren:Wicked. | 20:33 |
| jbryce | [3:26pm]soren:jaypipes: Thanks. | 20:33 |
| ttx | jbryce let's quickvote on "single optoin everywhere" then | 20:33 |
| jmckenty_ | +1 | 20:33 |
| soren | +1 | 20:33 |
| * jmckenty_ is avoiding further ambiguity | 20:33 | |
| vishy | +1 | 20:33 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:33 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | +1 | 20:33 |
| dendrobates | +1 | 20:33 |
| ttx | I want a rule, whatever that ends up being. | 20:33 |
| soren | jmckenty_: I asked what happened if we voted against it. The answer was htat someone would get th epleasure of coming up with a new document. | 20:33 |
| jmckenty_ | that was in reference to a previously proposed vote, not the vote we ended up having, though | 20:34 |
| jmckenty_ | right? | 20:34 |
| jmckenty_ | we didn't vote on the doc | 20:34 |
| jaypipes | soren: right, and the change would be everywhere it says "vetted options" would be replaced with "a single option". | 20:34 |
| jmckenty_ | we revoted on the ==1 or >1 | 20:34 |
| jbryce | i'm assuming the new document would represent the outcome of the vote | 20:34 |
| jaypipes | right | 20:34 |
| soren | ...but I'm perfectly happy to *not* have someone do that. I just want us to actually be consistent in what we're saying we're voting on and then what we state for the record was decided. | 20:34 |
| jbryce | which is that we don't want to allow a vetted set of options | 20:34 |
| jmckenty_ | so tooling is now by PPB decree, right? | 20:35 |
| jbryce | that is what i understand it to mean | 20:36 |
| jmckenty_ | cool | 20:36 |
| jmckenty_ | done | 20:36 |
| jmckenty_ | ? | 20:36 |
| ttx | I think this was beaten to death, let's move on | 20:36 |
| johnpur | jmckenty_: no the *policy* for tooling is directed by the ppb | 20:36 |
| eday | jmckenty_: well, it has been since the vote a few weeks ago, now it's just only one option choosen by PPB, not many choosen by PPB | 20:36 |
| jmckenty_ | right | 20:36 |
| johnpur | the actual tooling needs wider community input (ala the github thing) | 20:37 |
| jbryce | so on github, this is now an interesting situation | 20:37 |
| jmckenty_ | can we get a status update? | 20:37 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:37 | |
| mtaylor | sure | 20:37 |
| mtaylor | we've moved glance over to git/gerrit | 20:37 |
| mtaylor | which went much better than the keystone move :) | 20:37 |
| mtaylor | and then in the openstack-ci meeting earlier today, we got agreement from me, jay, notmyname AND termie that continuing to mirror to github and installing a hook that automatically closes pull requests submitted with instructions on submitting to gerrit was acceptable | 20:38 |
| * jaypipes was amazed.. | 20:38 | |
| * mtaylor believes that some pigs flew | 20:39 | |
| jmckenty_ | So I set up my own mirrors to Github last weekend | 20:39 |
| jmckenty_ | because the openstack ones had bitrotted | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | in any case- that means that the overall system as put forward is the one we have now | 20:39 |
| jmckenty_ | will that be part of the CI infrastructure going forward? | 20:39 |
| notmyname | jmckenty_: the swit one is kept up-to-date ;-) | 20:39 |
| termie | jmckenty_: they aren't bitrotted | 20:39 |
| jmckenty_ | *how* up to date? | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty_: well, once nova/swift are in gerrit, that will be done automatically on merge | 20:39 |
| _0x44 | Piston is also volunteering to write the app that integrates gerrit+github pull-requests so the auto-closing can go away. | 20:39 |
| notmyname | jmckenty_: latest commit | 20:39 |
| termie | jmckenty_: nova is current as of yesterday most recently | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty_: but to answer your question - yes, if we move forward with this setup, that will be part of CI infrastructure | 20:40 |
| jmckenty_ | termie: I'm on a 20-minute task | 20:40 |
| jmckenty_ | k | 20:40 |
| jmckenty_ | cool | 20:40 |
| termie | jmckenty_: nova is now 1 second old | 20:40 |
| zns | Would be great to get pull requests in. But does the vote on "one option" mean we only support LP or github now? | 20:40 |
| notmyname | of course, based on the last descision, either the other projects need to move to github+gerrit or glance/keystone need to move back | 20:40 |
| soren | zns: That remains to be decided. | 20:40 |
| zns | soren: when/how will it be decided? | 20:41 |
| soren | zns: Momentarily, I imagine. | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | I would put forward, that since we are in a transition period- as long as the decision has been made and plans are afoot, that immediate moving in either direction isn't required, no? | 20:41 |
| jbryce | zns: that's the current discussion | 20:41 |
| soren | mtaylor: I would support that. | 20:41 |
| jmckenty_ | I wouldn't | 20:41 |
| jmckenty_ | I believe we made a previous decision to resolve this in time for Diablo summit | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | as in - if the ppb votes yay in the next 5 minutes we don't have to IMMEDIATELY throw a switch - we just need to plan to throw the switch | 20:42 |
| jmckenty_ | sorry, essex summit | 20:42 |
| ttx | jmckenty_: in time for essex summit sounds reasonable | 20:42 |
| notmyname | jmckenty_: +1 | 20:42 |
| soren | jmckenty_: We have different ideas of what "immediate" means, apparently. | 20:42 |
| ttx | jmckenty_: nova is a bit late already, I'd hate to lose time in a transition before d4... and I'd hate to transition in the last weeks before release | 20:43 |
| soren | There's plenty of room for plenty of immediates before the Essex summit in my calendar. | 20:43 |
| johnpur | ttx: are you nervous about the timing of all of this? | 20:43 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ++ | 20:43 |
| jbryce | any other questions? ready to vote on approving github + gerrit as the source control system for all core openstack projects with a timeline of moving to it by essex design summit? | 20:43 |
| ttx | johnpur: yes | 20:43 |
| vishy | _0x44: +1000 | 20:43 |
| eday | so, the proposal to vote on is: the official option is code=>GitHub, review=>Gerrit, bugs/blueprints/release stay on LP for now? | 20:43 |
| mtaylor | vishy: jeblair and I will work with Piston on that for sure | 20:43 |
| johnpur | the most important votes are the ptls | 20:43 |
| jmckenty_ | johnpur: what? | 20:43 |
| jaypipes | eday: yes. | 20:43 |
| jbryce | eday: correct | 20:44 |
| zns | mtaylor: ++ | 20:44 |
| jmckenty_ | the point of having a vote is that all votes are equakl | 20:44 |
| johnpur | the ptls are on the hook to make sure their stuff and processes work after a move | 20:44 |
| jmckenty_ | everyone is on that hook | 20:44 |
| jmckenty_ | the ptl is holding the hook that's all | 20:44 |
| johnpur | not discounting your opinion of course :) | 20:44 |
| mtaylor | something tells me /me will be on the hook if it fails ... :) | 20:44 |
| soren | I'd say mtaylor and his posse is more on the hook in that respect than anyone else. | 20:44 |
| jaypipes | ttx: moving Nova in the final "integrated milestone release" cycle might actually be better, since fewer features going in... | 20:45 |
| ttx | jaypipes: ...or just after release. | 20:45 |
| jmckenty_ | negative | 20:45 |
| jmckenty_ | we hashed this already | 20:45 |
| vishy | jaypipes, ttx: I've been thinking immediately after D4 myself | 20:45 |
| jaypipes | ttx: when features are lined up to go in? | 20:45 |
| soren | ttx: As opposed to when we're trying to polish a release? | 20:45 |
| soren | err.. | 20:46 |
| ttx | vishy: miletsone-proposed branch handling is not baked yet | 20:46 |
| soren | jaypipes: As opposed to when we're trying to polish a release? | 20:46 |
| jaypipes | ttx: having just gone through this with glance, I don't think it will be too bad to do Nova after d4, but that's vishy's decision... | 20:46 |
| mtaylor | ttx: it can be | 20:46 |
| mtaylor | ttx: we can set up some tests over to the side | 20:46 |
| ttx | anyway, that's out of scope | 20:46 |
| jaypipes | soren: meh, no good time, really. :( | 20:46 |
| ttx | I agree on "before essex summit" | 20:46 |
| ttx | depending on how ready milestone-proposed is (glance will need it) maybe post-D4 is ok for Nova | 20:47 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: GitHub for Source Control; Gerrit for merge; everything else stays the same. Goal of having all core projects moved before Essex design summit. | 20:47 |
| jmckenty_ | +1 | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | +1 | 20:47 |
| vishy | +1 | 20:47 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:47 |
| eday | At one point (at diablo summit I think) we decided to have a community-wide survey once we had a git-based option. Should we still do this before having a PPB vote? | 20:47 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:47 |
| soren | +1 | 20:47 |
| eday | I guess that is a no :) | 20:47 |
| dendrobates | +1 | 20:47 |
| jmckenty_ | eday: if they riot, we'll revisit it? | 20:48 |
| termie | eday: PPB CRUSH PUNY COMMUNITY | 20:48 |
| jmckenty_ | "I'm on the brute squad."... "You ARE the brute squad" | 20:48 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:48 |
| notmyname | +1 | 20:48 |
| jmckenty_ | anotherjesse: ? | 20:48 |
| jmckenty_ | I think we can count ewan at +1 as well | 20:49 |
| anotherjesse | +1 | 20:49 |
| ttx | jbryce: we might have time for the next topic, hurry up :) | 20:49 |
| jmckenty_ | eday - vote? | 20:49 |
| jaypipes | does it matter? :) | 20:49 |
| eday | 0, I'd rather have seen community survey feedback first | 20:49 |
| jmckenty_ | I like to have the counts right :) | 20:49 |
| jmckenty_ | fair enough | 20:49 |
| jbryce | #agreed GitHub for Source Control; Gerrit for merge; everything else stays the same. Goal of having all core projects moved before Essex design summit. 10 +, 2 abstain | 20:50 |
| jmckenty_ | +0 or -0 ? | 20:50 |
| jbryce | #topic Deadline for Essex core projects applications | 20:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Deadline for Essex core projects applications" | 20:50 | |
| jbryce | ttx: this one yours? | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | I think ttx offered Setp 3rd? | 20:50 |
| ttx | sure | 20:50 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:50 |
| jmckenty_ | Sept 3rd seems reasonable | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | Sept 3rd. Good with folks? | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | +1 | 20:50 |
| jmckenty_ | Any feedback on the PTL voting mechanism? | 20:50 |
| vishy | =1 | 20:50 |
| vishy | er +1 | 20:50 |
| anotherjesse | +1 | 20:50 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:50 |
| eday | +1 | 20:50 |
| jmckenty_ | +1 | 20:50 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:51 |
| ttx | I'm fine with first PTL being not elected. | 20:51 |
| notmyname | +0 | 20:51 |
| johnpur | vishy: now you are just confusing us | 20:51 |
| dendrobates | +1 | 20:51 |
| jbryce | #agreed September 3rd is the deadline for core project applications. 9 +, 3 abstain | 20:52 |
| ttx | the idea is that they can participate in design summit org, as well as the newly-elected PTLs | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | this has been the most productive PPB meeting in months. or ever. | 20:52 |
| jbryce | #topic open discussion | 20:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 20:52 | |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| jmckenty_ | jaypipes: the first few were good | 20:52 |
| jbryce | anyone have any random thoughts or observations? | 20:52 |
| mtaylor | quick question - should I submit openstack-ci to be a project? or are we fine with managing it how it is now? | 20:52 |
| jbryce | it helps to have a full contingent present | 20:52 |
| jmckenty_ | mtaylor: I'd like to see it as a project | 20:52 |
| soren | mtaylor: I woulnd't bother. | 20:52 |
| ttx | jaypipes: that's just because you won every vote. | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I have lots of random thoughts, but probably shouldn't say them. | 20:53 |
| jmckenty_ | but I'm not fussy | 20:53 |
| ttx | mtaylor: it's not a code project. | 20:53 |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| soren | mtaylor: It's not going to do releases, for instance. It seems pointless. | 20:53 |
| ttx | it's an infrastrtcture thing | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | it's not - and I'm fine with it not being- I just wanted to make sure folks were happy | 20:53 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: yeah, leaving it as-is is fine I think... | 20:53 |
| ttx | do we expect core promotions for Essex ? | 20:54 |
| mtaylor | ok | 20:54 |
| johnpur | keystone? | 20:54 |
| ttx | is one of the incubated projects considering filing for core ? | 20:54 |
| jaypipes | ttx: thought you wanted to vote on Sept 3rd? :) | 20:54 |
| jbryce | ttx: i'll check with keystone and dashboard and see if they want to try | 20:54 |
| jmckenty_ | I think keystone should try for core | 20:55 |
| jmckenty_ | anotherjesse: thoughts? | 20:55 |
| ttx | I'd rather have them present *before* Sep 3rd | 20:55 |
| johnpur | jbryce: those are the two i would think | 20:55 |
| jaypipes | ttx: ah, yes. | 20:55 |
| jbryce | ttx: I agree | 20:55 |
| ttx | otherwise it's a straight yes/no, no second chance. | 20:55 |
| jmckenty_ | I'd rather see keystone go first, fwiw | 20:55 |
| jmckenty_ | Since I'd love to see dashboard support keystone well before it goes in | 20:55 |
| jbryce | all right...last call | 20:56 |
| anotherjesse | jmckenty_: I think keystone needs to go to core … but we need to get the extensions stuff done | 20:56 |
| jmckenty_ | thanks jbryce | 20:56 |
| jbryce | thanks everyone | 20:56 |
| johnpur | i think the dashboard is somewhat inevitable, and they can work to improve keystone support over time | 20:56 |
| jmckenty_ | hey, any dell update? | 20:56 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:56 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 9 20:56:54 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:56 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.html | 20:56 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.txt | 20:56 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.log.html | 20:57 |
| jbryce | jmckenty_: not from me | 20:57 |
| *** mgius has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| jmckenty_ | aight | 20:57 |
| *** jmckenty_ has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| *** mgius has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| *** mauricioarango has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| *** shwetaap has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| ttx | o/ | 21:00 |
| dabo | \o | 21:00 |
| Daviey | o/ | 21:00 |
| ttx | Daviey: I can almost feel you above me. | 21:00 |
| *** katkee has left #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| soren | o/ | 21:01 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | vishy, notmyname: still around ? | 21:01 |
| tr3buchet | which one does not look like the rest | 21:01 |
| notmyname | yes | 21:01 |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| jaypipes | tr3buchet: dabo, in more ways than one! :P | 21:02 |
| dabo | I'm left-handed | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 9 21:02:29 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:02 |
| tr3buchet | haha | 21:02 |
| ttx | Welcome to the OpenStack team meeting... | 21:02 |
| ttx | Today's agenda is at: | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:02 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:03 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:03 |
| notmyname | swift status: fixing bugs, adding features | 21:03 |
| ttx | Any precision on 1.4.3 date yet ? | 21:04 |
| *** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| notmyname | no. whenever is convenient for you. whatever we get in by then will be our diablo release | 21:04 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| ttx | notmyname: ok, I'll think about it and propose something to you, then | 21:05 |
| notmyname | ok | 21:05 |
| ttx | #action ttx to look at best dates for final 1.4.3 | 21:05 |
| ttx | notmyname: Other announcements/comments ? | 21:05 |
| vishy | o/ | 21:05 |
| notmyname | looks like we'll be moving to github | 21:06 |
| notmyname | no date set yet | 21:06 |
| notmyname | but before the summit | 21:06 |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| mtaylor | notmyname: let us know when you'd like to work on that | 21:07 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have questions on Swift... | 21:07 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: we've already got an up-to-date mirror on github | 21:07 |
| *** masumotok has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| jk0 | s/moving to github/hosting code there but nothing else/ | 21:07 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: so it should be easy | 21:07 |
| ttx | notmyname: anything else ? | 21:07 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: yup. should be a piece of cake | 21:07 |
| notmyname | ttx: nothing else, unless I can answer questions | 21:07 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: let me know when is good for you and I'll try to get it on the schedule here | 21:08 |
| notmyname | mtaylor: we can talk offline on when to do it | 21:08 |
| ttx | notmyname: we should retrospectively have a BP for that feature you told me about | 21:08 |
| ttx | and target it to 1.4.3 | 21:08 |
| notmyname | ok | 21:09 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: ++ | 21:09 |
| ttx | ok then, moving to Glance in 10 sec. | 21:09 |
| *** yogirackspace has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:09 | |
| jaypipes | https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-4 | 21:09 |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: yoy | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | We're kicking ass and taking names in D4. | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | Any questions? :) | 21:10 |
| ttx | Please remember that feature branches need to be merged by August 22 ! | 21:10 |
| ttx | That leaves only two weeks. | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | yup. we're good to go. | 21:10 |
| ttx | jaypipes: how is authentication going ? | 21:10 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:10 | |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| ttx | (the bp) | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | ttx: well. Vek is working on Shared image groups currently and the only thing left on the auth BP is a functional test case. | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | ttx: that was blocked on the test-refactor BP, which is now in trunk. | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | ttx: so, should be pretty good to go. | 21:11 |
| ttx | ok, so should be in by next week ? | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | yes | 21:11 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Anything else ? | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | ttx: not really. | 21:11 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:11 |
| *** stiekes_ has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:12 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:12 |
| vishy | hi | 21:12 |
| ttx | Looking at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-4 -- looks better now | 21:13 |
| vishy | my main focus is on auth for the next couple of weeks | 21:13 |
| vishy | i got ec2 signature processing into keystone | 21:13 |
| vishy | going to put some middlewares together and I think we can deprecate AuthManager | 21:14 |
| ttx | vishy: so finalize-nova-auth is in good shape ? | 21:14 |
| ttx | (Remember the deadline here is also August 22 !) | 21:14 |
| *** shwetaap has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| vishy | we will need some migration scripts to move from old auth to new, but I think that we can hit those in the final integration | 21:14 |
| ttx | vishy: you mean post-d4 ? | 21:15 |
| vishy | so i think it is looking good | 21:15 |
| vishy | ttx: aye, they will be external scripts that will migrate nova users and projects to keystone | 21:15 |
| vishy | for people that are going to switch | 21:15 |
| ttx | vishy: would be great to have them early, so that we can get them into Ubuntu packaging without violating too many of their freezes | 21:15 |
| ttx | I'll discuss that wit hthem tomorrow. | 21:15 |
| vishy | ttx: ok | 21:15 |
| ttx | Daviey: ^ | 21:15 |
| ttx | I asked pvo about admin-account-actions, which is not picked up yet. | 21:16 |
| Daviey | That sounds super! | 21:16 |
| ttx | vishy: Announcements, comments ? | 21:16 |
| Daviey | vishy: So this migrates cactus to d? Or from pre keystone d to d trunk? | 21:17 |
| vishy | I'm going to be discussing the vsa code with zadara on thursday | 21:17 |
| vishy | Daviey: pre-keystone to keystone | 21:17 |
| vishy | Daviey: there shouldn't be any migration for c to d | 21:17 |
| Daviey | vishy: Does that include cactus upgardes? | 21:17 |
| Daviey | ok | 21:17 |
| Daviey | thanks. | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: any news from the configuration-drive side ? | 21:17 |
| vishy | Daviey: the cactus upgrades should be handled by nova-manage db sync | 21:18 |
| vishy | ttx: no | 21:18 |
| Daviey | good cookies. | 21:18 |
| vishy | soren: still here? | 21:18 |
| soren | I am, yes. | 21:18 |
| ttx | ok, I'll ping 0x44 again | 21:18 |
| vishy | soren: just checking on the source group code, needed a trunk merge | 21:18 |
| soren | vishy: Oh, again? | 21:18 |
| soren | vishy: /me does so. | 21:18 |
| vishy | i'm also meeting with ntt guy who wrote block migration on thursday | 21:18 |
| ttx | Questions for Nova PTL ? | 21:18 |
| Daviey | vishy: non-shared storage kvm migration? | 21:19 |
| vishy | I still haven't been able to get it working, so he is coming by the office to troubleshoot, so hopefully we will be able to approve that soon. | 21:19 |
| vishy | Daviey: correct, they have it working in their lab | 21:19 |
| vishy | Daviey: it requires changing libvirt.conf pretty significantly as well | 21:19 |
| Daviey | vishy: If a doc is written on that from your meeting with ntt - i'd appreciate that from my perspective. | 21:20 |
| vishy | Daviey: so if ubuntu wants it ootb, we might need to change the libvirt packaging a bit | 21:20 |
| vishy | will try and get everything nailed down this week on those fronts | 21:20 |
| Daviey | vishy: I don't think we do (personal perspective i would). | 21:20 |
| vishy | If any one else has input on the vsa branch, give it now | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy: anything else ? | 21:20 |
| vishy | I'm going to try and work out with them how they can implement there stuff with a little less coupling | 21:21 |
| vishy | but they have put a lot of work into it, so I'd like to get it in some form | 21:21 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 21:21 | |
| soren | vishy: I'd like to see what sort of changes are needed in libvirt.conf. | 21:21 |
| soren | vishy: Where can I see this? | 21:21 |
| vishy | soren: I haven't gotten it working quite yet, but the main one is you have to enable tcp access | 21:22 |
| vishy | I should know more on thursday | 21:22 |
| soren | Oh, dear. | 21:22 |
| soren | Ok. | 21:22 |
| vishy | i misspoke | 21:23 |
| vishy | you can do it with other types of connections | 21:23 |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| vishy | but you have to be able to remotely connect to libvirt on the target machine from the host machine | 21:23 |
| soren | That's required for live migration already, isn't it? | 21:23 |
| vishy | I think this is probably true for the live migration as well, although i didn't check | 21:23 |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| soren | I can't quite see how that would work otherwise. | 21:24 |
| ttx | vishy: ok to move on to incubation news ? | 21:24 |
| vishy | yes, unfortunately getting libvirt to do that in ubuntu is a little painful | 21:24 |
| vishy | ttx: yes | 21:24 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects news | 21:24 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news" | 21:24 | |
| vishy | soren: particularly passing the -l parameter into libvirtd is tough | 21:24 |
| soren | vishy: You don't need to. | 21:24 |
| ttx | devcamcar, dolphm_: news from your side ? | 21:24 |
| jaypipes | yogirackspace, dolphm_: update on Keystone? | 21:25 |
| devcamcar_ | hey hey | 21:25 |
| devcamcar_ | so lots happening on the dashboard side | 21:25 |
| dolphm_ | ttx, lots of improvements to our testing approach (thanks jay!), vastly improved coverage, and ec2 auth! (thanks vishy!) | 21:25 |
| devcamcar_ | we've fully integrated keystone support | 21:25 |
| ttx | devcamcar: did we get to the bottom of what's broken in Nova for you ? | 21:25 |
| devcamcar_ | the gang at cisco is about to drop quantum support into dashboard as well | 21:25 |
| * markvoelker w00ts | 21:26 | |
| jaypipes | w00t. \o/ | 21:26 |
| *** cp16net has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| devcamcar_ | we've been focused on stabilizing for d4 primarily with new architecture based on openstack api | 21:26 |
| yogirackspace | started implementing some of the blue prinst wud probably lock down the API this week | 21:26 |
| * ttx would w00t if he knew what "quantum support in dashboard" actually means. | 21:26 | |
| danwent | ttx: soon you'll see :) | 21:27 |
| vishy | devcamcar_: sexy! | 21:27 |
| markvoelker | ttx: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumClientGUI | 21:27 |
| mgius | ttx: we are still having issues with trunk Nova. it looks like a Project object is being passed to sqlalchemy rather than a projectId. I haven't tracked down the root cause yet | 21:27 |
| * ttx suspects it has rounded corners. | 21:27 | |
| vishy | danwent: are we actually going to be able to beta quantum in time for diablo? | 21:27 |
| danwent | vishy: definitely | 21:27 |
| danwent | in fact, you can beta quantum right now | 21:27 |
| *** rafadurancastane has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:27 | |
| danwent | its mainly docs that are lagging... will send something out soon | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | danwent: haven't seen a whole lot of updates to the ML about Quantum. Perhaps a post is in order :) | 21:28 |
| danwent | jaypipes: sure, update sounds like a good idea | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | coolio. | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | good to hear about progress! | 21:28 |
| danwent | I'll send a general update along with some pointers to "nova-quantum.sh" script I created | 21:28 |
| salv-orlando | Sorry jay we have our own mailing list. Perhaps we could send an update at some point during this week | 21:28 |
| * markvoelker thinks individuals interested in Quantum may also want to hang around after this meeting for the Netstack meeting...same channel! | 21:28 | |
| danwent | based on vish's famous nova.sh script | 21:29 |
| ttx | danwent: scary. | 21:29 |
| jaypipes | markvoelker: same Bat-channel? :) | 21:29 |
| danwent | ttx :) | 21:29 |
| jaypipes | salv-orlando: hey, no worries... just a suggestion, nothing more. :) | 21:29 |
| ttx | mgius: you can post a bug with the symptom -- analyzing root cause can come after | 21:30 |
| mtaylor | markvoelker: speaking of - that email I sent a few days ago about migration ... might be more interesting to you guys now | 21:30 |
| * jaypipes needs to send out an update on Glance too... | 21:30 | |
| salv-orlando | jaypipes: or you can subscribe to the netstack mailing list :-) | 21:30 |
| danwent | mtaylor: there's actually an item on our agenda about that. | 21:30 |
| ttx | mgius: I want to make sure it doesn't slip under the radar | 21:30 |
| mtaylor | danwent: oh great- I'll stick around and chat then | 21:30 |
| jaypipes | salv-orlando: I will now that I know about it | 21:31 |
| danwent | I can bump it up the agenda so you don't have to stick around for the whole meeting | 21:31 |
| markvoelker | mtaylor: yep | 21:31 |
| ttx | dolphm_, devcamcar: anything else ? | 21:31 |
| dolphm_ | ttx, not from me | 21:31 |
| devcamcar_ | that's all for now | 21:31 |
| ttx | questions for our baby projects ? | 21:32 |
| ttx | (I mean, other than the ones that were already asked) | 21:32 |
| *** sk_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| ttx | okthen. | 21:32 |
| ttx | #topic Docs team meeting moved to Aug 15 | 21:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Docs team meeting moved to Aug 15" | 21:32 | |
| ttx | annegentle: that's yours ? | 21:32 |
| annegentle | Yes, I was taken off guard due to Monday being the 1st so the 2nd Monday snuck up on me. | 21:33 |
| annegentle | I'll hold the meeting next week. | 21:33 |
| ttx | eh | 21:33 |
| annegentle | not a permanent move. | 21:33 |
| ttx | did you update the calendar ? | 21:33 |
| annegentle | Any doc questions for me? | 21:33 |
| annegentle | ttx: not sure how to edit the calendar, but I sure can. | 21:34 |
| ttx | annegentle: I gave you access to it... I can certainly edit it though | 21:34 |
| annegentle | ttx: ok, will look for the access and update it. | 21:34 |
| ttx | annegentle: done | 21:34 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 21:34 | |
| annegentle | ttx: thanks. | 21:35 |
| ttx | annegentle: it's 20:00 UTC still ? | 21:35 |
| annegentle | yes, that's right. | 21:35 |
| ttx | ok then it's up to date. | 21:35 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:35 | |
| jk0 | *cough* https://github.com/blog/904-announcing-github-issues-for-iphone *cough* | 21:35 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| Vek | do you develop on an iphone, jk0? | 21:36 |
| primeministerp1 | so | 21:36 |
| jk0 | Vek: yes | 21:36 |
| ttx | jk0: that explains /some/things. | 21:36 |
| Vek | cool; I've developed on an android ;) | 21:36 |
| primeministerp1 | just an fyi, giving a discussion on cloud computing to some of our friends at the boston fbi cyber crime division tomorrow | 21:36 |
| jk0 | ttx: :) | 21:36 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: sounds scary. | 21:37 |
| primeministerp1 | hehe | 21:37 |
| primeministerp1 | hey any time I can spread the word | 21:37 |
| primeministerp1 | i'll take whomever i can get to listen | 21:37 |
| ttx | The design summit is on Oct 3-5 in Boston -- book the date | 21:38 |
| primeministerp1 | woot | 21:38 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Summit/Essex | 21:38 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: not at your place though. | 21:38 |
| primeministerp1 | i know | 21:38 |
| primeministerp1 | that's ok | 21:38 |
| ttx | but not very dar. | 21:38 |
| ttx | far, even | 21:38 |
| primeministerp1 | nope it's going to be fun | 21:38 |
| primeministerp1 | hopefully going to present | 21:39 |
| ttx | doesn't mean we can't individually pay you a visit | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | there as well as at brainshare in slc the week after | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | hehe | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | well | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | we can have you all come by | 21:39 |
| * ttx smells a party cooking up | 21:39 | |
| Vek | heh. | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | hahaha | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | the cbc is down the street | 21:39 |
| primeministerp1 | "cambridge brewing company" | 21:40 |
| ttx | spectorclan: looks like we have a location for the developer party. | 21:40 |
| Vek | if we all came, wouldn't be about like sardines, given typical Boston living spaces? :) | 21:40 |
| Vek | ^it | 21:40 |
| uvirtbot | Vek: Error: "it" is not a valid command. | 21:40 |
| primeministerp1 | in our space | 21:40 |
| primeministerp1 | no | 21:40 |
| * Vek slaps uvirtbot | 21:40 | |
| primeministerp1 | we could probably jam 20 for a quick lab tour | 21:40 |
| primeministerp1 | or more | 21:40 |
| primeministerp1 | if we want to get friendly | 21:41 |
| ttx | ok, anyone has anything more before we close ? | 21:41 |
| primeministerp1 | but the overall msft space | 21:41 |
| primeministerp1 | is big | 21:41 |
| * Vek is tempted to organize an orange tour, but resists the temptation | 21:41 | |
| ttx | alright then | 21:41 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:42 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 9 21:42:03 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:42 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.html | 21:42 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.txt | 21:42 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.log.html | 21:42 |
| ttx | Thanks everyone ! | 21:42 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 21:42 | |
| danwent | FYI: netstack meeting is at the top of the hour | 21:42 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: it looks like it's a busy agenda tonight | 21:46 |
| *** sk_ has quit IRC | 21:46 | |
| danwent | yes, we'll have to try and keep design discussions to a minimum.... probably best targeted to the netstack list | 21:46 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| danwent | do you think we need much discussion on the API? | 21:46 |
| danwent | particular the question of "state" being in 1.0 vs. not in? | 21:47 |
| salv-orlando | I think we will just try and gather a decision about whether we want to have in 1.0 or not. If people say "yes, we want it" we will defer the discussion to the ML | 21:49 |
| salv-orlando | I tried to anticipate most of what I had to say with an email I sent around today. By the way, thanks for filing the bugs for tracking progress on unit tests for client tools. | 21:50 |
| danwent | yeah, it was really funny because, I had the exact same thought about needing unit tests for cli/batch_config last night, when i discovered that batch_config.py had been busted. | 21:51 |
| *** dabo has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| salv-orlando | If that can be of any consolation to you, I discovered it last night as well | 21:52 |
| salv-orlando | but it was UK night... so I discovered it before you :) | 21:52 |
| danwent | :) | 21:52 |
| *** mgius has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| *** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:59 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:00 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 22:00 | |
| danwent | hello netstackers | 22:00 |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| salv-orlando | hello! | 22:01 |
| asomya | hi | 22:01 |
| markvoelker | o/ | 22:01 |
| hisaharu | hello | 22:01 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| troytoman | hello | 22:01 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 9 22:01:43 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:01 |
| danwent | Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:01 |
| danwent | busy meeting, lots of topics, so if something gets too detailed, we'll probably have to pull it to the netstack list | 22:02 |
| danwent | #general status | 22:02 |
| danwent | #topic general status | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "general status" | 22:02 | |
| danwent | wanted to touch on issue of moving to github/gerrit | 22:02 |
| danwent | recent ppb meeting said that core projects are going to try and move before essex summit | 22:02 |
| danwent | of course, there's natural concern about it not wanting to disrupt diablo release | 22:03 |
| danwent | plan is to try and move after we close D-4 | 22:03 |
| danwent | any thoughts or concerns on this? | 22:03 |
| salv-orlando | better move now than later | 22:03 |
| markvoelker | mtaylor: around? | 22:03 |
| mtaylor | markvoelker: hey | 22:04 |
| danwent | salv: agreed... there will only be more code, more people, more merges, etc. in the future | 22:04 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| markvoelker | mtaylor: quick overview of what's necessary to get us moved perhaps? | 22:04 |
| salv-orlando | I'd say after D-4 we start a "transition period". I think the official diablo release should still come from launchpad | 22:04 |
| danwent | salv: yes | 22:04 |
| mtaylor | markvoelker: it's not too terrible - we have scripts to sync your user account info with gerrit already | 22:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | why not move after essex summit? | 22:05 |
| danwent | mtaylor: don't oversell :P | 22:05 |
| mtaylor | markvoelker: the general steps are: 1) stop using the launchpad branches 2) let us do a few things (transitioning your branches) 3) start using gerrit | 22:05 |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:05 | |
| danwent | Sumit: I think that is what it will amount too... anything targeted for Diablo will be fully launchpad | 22:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok good | 22:05 |
| mtaylor | so the main thing is just that you need to coordinate with jeblair and I | 22:05 |
| danwent | but anything targeted for beyond diablo will end up in git/gerrit | 22:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | perfect | 22:06 |
| danwent | definitely don't want disruption to mess with the release | 22:06 |
| bhall | mtaylor: are the karma points migrated too? :) | 22:06 |
| danwent | we stay on launchpad for BP, bugs, right? | 22:06 |
| mtaylor | yes | 22:06 |
| salv-orlando | thanks mtaylor. Does not sound too hard... do we have a tutorial for github/gerrit ? (we had one for bzr + launchpad) | 22:06 |
| danwent | as well as releases | 22:06 |
| markvoelker | mtaylor: Ok, sounds about like what I expected. I have no problems with this (kinda looking forward to it even =p). | 22:06 |
| mtaylor | and gerrit has integration with lp bugs | 22:06 |
| danwent | so salv, bhall.... your karma is safe | 22:06 |
| mtaylor | markvoelker: it'll be fun! | 22:06 |
| mtaylor | salv-orlando: we do | 22:06 |
| mtaylor | http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow | 22:07 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: you can buy a lot stuff on amazon with your karma points :-) | 22:07 |
| mtaylor | key points to remember there are instaling the commit hook in each repo you clone | 22:07 |
| salv-orlando | mtaylor: thanks for the pointer | 22:07 |
| mtaylor | and setting up the review git alias | 22:07 |
| mtaylor | but if you do all the steps on the wiki page, you should be set | 22:07 |
| mtaylor | we're trying to keep that up to date as we migrate other people | 22:08 |
| danwent | great. we can play around with it a bit before making the real jump | 22:08 |
| danwent | any other questions/thoughts on github/gerrit? | 22:08 |
| mtaylor | also - the biggest hurdle is a slight change in mentality from bzr ... where squashing multiple commits into one to submit is the best practice here | 22:08 |
| mtaylor | but once you get used to that - it's pretty straight forward | 22:08 |
| mtaylor | there's also command line access to gerrit- https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/cmd-index.html | 22:09 |
| mtaylor | for your reading pleasure | 22:09 |
| danwent | ok, thanks mtaylor... much appreciated | 22:09 |
| markvoelker | mtaylor: Great. Ok, I know we have a crowded agenda tonight, so suggest we move on if no other major concerns? | 22:09 |
| mtaylor | my pleasure! | 22:09 |
| danwent | #topic melange | 22:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange" | 22:09 | |
| danwent | troy? | 22:09 |
| danwent | just said hello a minute ago... | 22:10 |
| troytoman | we are moving forward on integration | 22:10 |
| troytoman | (sorry, I have deployment going on with our UK service right now - little distracted.) | 22:10 |
| danwent | ok, maybe send an email to the netstack list if you have any other info to share. | 22:11 |
| danwent | anything else on melange? | 22:11 |
| troytoman | we have been working on validating our ability to meet Nova needs before we drop it into a folder | 22:11 |
| troytoman | so far, things look good | 22:11 |
| danwent | great | 22:11 |
| danwent | #topic donabe | 22:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe" | 22:11 | |
| danwent | any updates? | 22:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | afaik rick is on it | 22:12 |
| danwent | is rick online? a couple people were asking about public code for this... I didn't really have an update for them. | 22:12 |
| danwent | Ok, let's ping rick to get an update as well. | 22:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | rick/debo have started a branch | 22:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i dont have it here with me | 22:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but he had sent it out earlier | 22:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i will ping him again | 22:13 |
| danwent | ok, here's what I have: https://code.launchpad.net/~netstack-core/donabe/diablo | 22:13 |
| danwent | Sumit: thanks! | 22:14 |
| somik | i saw the branch publicly but there was just framework stuff and some API | 22:14 |
| salv-orlando | SumitNaiksatam: last time Rick was mentioning an API landing soon in that branch. Is this API there? | 22:14 |
| somik | but no blueprints for the API yet | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv: last I looked through the branch I didn't see it. | 22:14 |
| danwent | it would be great to have something concrete before the essex summit | 22:14 |
| danwent | ok, anything else on donabe? | 22:15 |
| danwent | #topic quantum | 22:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum" | 22:15 | |
| danwent | several people have been asking about incubation, now that dashboard and keystone are incubated. | 22:15 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:15 | |
| danwent | I definitely think we're ready | 22:15 |
| danwent | as far as quantum is concerned... the stats and progress on the project has been really impressive. | 22:16 |
| somik | +1 | 22:16 |
| danwent | I'd like to be incubated before the essex summit. | 22:16 |
| danwent | I'll be pushing on this in the next few weeks, will keep the list updated. | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: It would be great to see you incubated at the summit :-) | 22:16 |
| danwent | thoughts? | 22:16 |
| troytoman | +1 | 22:17 |
| salv-orlando | +1 | 22:17 |
| danwent | more importantly, anyone who feels incubation is not the right thing to do? | 22:17 |
| danwent | and if so, why not? | 22:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | what's the other option? | 22:17 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| danwent | limbo... which is where we are not | 22:18 |
| devcamcar | danwent: I'd say based on the progress you guys have made, it may be the right time to propose for incubation | 22:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | + incubation :-) | 22:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | +1 | 22:18 |
| danwent | everyone things we're an openstack project, we act like an openstack project, but we aren't actually an openstack project | 22:18 |
| danwent | things -> thinks | 22:18 |
| danwent | Ok, sounds pretty unamimous | 22:18 |
| salv-orlando | IMHO incubation has only advantages, I don't see any cons | 22:18 |
| danwent | we've done an incredible amount of work... definitely think it deserves official openstack incubation status. | 22:19 |
| danwent | cool. | 22:19 |
| salv-orlando | if Quantum gets incubated does that imply we then shall run it only against Openstack? I don't think so... | 22:19 |
| danwent | #agreed #danwent, make progress on incubation status | 22:19 |
| danwent | salv: definitely not | 22:19 |
| somik | I dont think thats a requirement, for e.g. swift can run against Nova or standalone serviing objects | 22:20 |
| troytoman | salv-orlando: no - just puts it on a course to be a core openstack project | 22:20 |
| salv-orlando | so I'm 101% in favour of incubation | 22:20 |
| danwent | it does mean adherence to PPB guidelines, etc though. | 22:20 |
| danwent | but that's already a core part of the project | 22:20 |
| danwent | D-4 milestone | 22:20 |
| salv-orlando | we should also get one of us in Openstack PTL which is more than good | 22:20 |
| somik | I think that would come after incubation | 22:21 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/diablo-4 | 22:21 |
| salv-orlando | somik: sure I was referring to dan mentioning "official openstack project" | 22:21 |
| danwent | there's a lot of stuff there. I'd like to identify anything that we consider "at risk" and make sure someone is on it. | 22:22 |
| *** yogirackspace has left #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| danwent | I think ryu is out this week, but the nova vif-id stuff is going to be a bit tricky.... | 22:22 |
| danwent | I think he already has a branch | 22:22 |
| *** rafadurancastane has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | is anyone reviewing our branch? :-) | 22:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | we got to add more stuff | 22:23 |
| danwent | if you're the assignee of a D-4 item, please let me know if you consider it at risk (just send an email) | 22:23 |
| danwent | Sumit: we're definitely planning on reviewing (congrats on the branch) | 22:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | branch -> merge-prop | 22:23 |
| danwent | Sumit: I would change the status to WIP if you want to make more changes | 22:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | ok, you mean on the BP? | 22:24 |
| danwent | to avoid people reviewing code if you plan on making additional changes. | 22:24 |
| salv-orlando | the merge proposal | 22:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | oh let me clarify - the merge prop is good for review | 22:24 |
| salv-orlando | SumitNaiksatam: BTW, that merge proposal does not target lp:quantum | 22:24 |
| asomya | Dan, is there more to the VIF-id's than just exposing them in the nova instance view builder? | 22:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | once merged, we need to add more after that | 22:24 |
| danwent | asomya: yes, it is also making sure it is passed to the vif-plugin, and making sure it is globally unique (sequential integers don't tend to be) | 22:25 |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| danwent | Sumit: that is fine | 22:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam_ | salv: i am referring to: https://code.launchpad.net/~cisco-openstack/quantum/l2network-plugin/+merge/70804 | 22:25 |
| danwent | In fact, I'd encourage you to merge in multiple chunks, as long as they can be indepdentently verified | 22:25 |
| salv-orlando | SumitNaiksatam_: If the current merge-prop is self contained you can stack the other on top of it using the previous one as a pre-requisite | 22:26 |
| danwent | Ok, officially moving to the "merges + reviews" section of the agenda | 22:26 |
| markvoelker | danwent: Looking at that list, CI still doesn't have an assignee...but I think heckj has it? | 22:26 |
| Jamey_ | . | 22:26 |
| danwent | https://code.launchpad.net/quantum/+activereviews | 22:26 |
| danwent | heckj, does that sound OK with you? | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando | 4907 lines... it's going to take a while :-) | 22:26 |
| danwent | #action #danwent, find owner for CI blueprint, possibly heckj | 22:27 |
| heckj | uh, just a sec - reading back | 22:27 |
| danwent | on the topic of merges, congrats to Vinkesh, Santhosh and team on the extensions branch. | 22:27 |
| heckj | danwent: yeah, good for me | 22:27 |
| danwent | heckj: thx | 22:27 |
| danwent | extensions branch is good to merge, once they clear out a couple merge conflicts. | 22:28 |
| danwent | thanks for all the reviews. | 22:28 |
| carlp | I guess I need to coordinate with mtaylor and heckj this week to get the Jenkins environment up | 22:28 |
| mtaylor | carlp: yes! we shall make everything lovely | 22:28 |
| asomya | danwent: ok, I managed to expose just the VIf id's with the nova network and fixed_ip details for the dashboard from nova and just pass the vif id to the quantum client to plug into a port. Should I commit this bit if it's useful? | 22:28 |
| danwent | carlp: that would be great. Shweta from cisco is also going to be getting involved | 22:29 |
| danwent | Shweta, you here? | 22:29 |
| danwent | asomya: cool. I think ryu has a branch as well. please send an email to the netstack list with a pointer to the branch and we'll coordinate on that. | 22:29 |
| * markvoelker calls over the cubical walls for shwetaap to wake up | 22:30 | |
| asomya | danwent: soudns good | 22:30 |
| shwetaap | dawent: I am here | 22:30 |
| danwent | no worries, just wanted to make sure they new to keep her in the loop | 22:30 |
| danwent | CC'ing the list will also be sufficient. | 22:30 |
| markvoelker | danwent: better, even. =) | 22:31 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:31 | |
| danwent | big focus of this week on merges will be getting the cisco plugin reviewed. | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando | om review and merges. we have two fairly big merge-props | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando | test-refactor: 896 lines, and l2network-plugin from Cisco: 5109 lines | 22:31 |
| danwent | and salv's API as well. | 22:31 |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| danwent | test-refactor is just a lot of code moved around, review should be quite simple | 22:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | on the cisco plugin - all the code is new, so it wont break anything :-) | 22:32 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam_ has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| salv-orlando | I moved api-alignment back to WIP, should be merge prop again next monday | 22:32 |
| danwent | we'll talk more about the API later, but getting that code frozen ASAP will be important. | 22:32 |
| danwent | salv: great, good to know. we should also coordinate on changing the client code, as I believe there were some changes to API attributes, no? | 22:33 |
| salv-orlando | I will volunteer for reviewing the Cisco plugin, should be able to get a review in by Thursday | 22:33 |
| mtaylor | heckj: I've added carlp to openstack-ci-admins so that he can be directly involved | 22:33 |
| danwent | #info extension code is reviewed and ready for merge | 22:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: thanks! | 22:33 |
| danwent | #info major review this week are cisco plugin code | 22:34 |
| danwent | #info expect merge prop of API alignment next monday | 22:34 |
| danwent | ok, let's move on to discussing API spec alignment | 22:34 |
| danwent | salv? | 22:34 |
| salv-orlando | Good. | 22:34 |
| salv-orlando | I've taken into account your feedback | 22:34 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:35 | |
| salv-orlando | and updated the spec accordingly. Most of the confusion was due to the concept of port state, and of a non-up-to-date section on "theory of operation" | 22:35 |
| salv-orlando | now it should all be consistent. I saw a bit of email on the enum values for port states. Whether we choose "ACTIVE" or "UP" is more or less the same for me. Personally I'd have "UP" in the API, as it makes more sense in networking terms | 22:36 |
| salv-orlando | Apart from this, the merge prop will be delayed until next monday as I need to make sure the clients will not be broken | 22:36 |
| *** zns1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| salv-orlando | I also want to make sure we kind of stop changing the API spec by the end of this week. | 22:37 |
| somik | salv-orlando: I was reviewing gaps in our tests and had came across a test that enforces that quantum network names are unique, but reviewing API wiki, I dont see such agreement. I believe since we already have UUID assocaited with every quantum network, there should be no requriement to have redundant uniqueness of names either. | 22:37 |
| danwent | salv: is plan to keep state in for v1.0, or shift it to v1.1? | 22:37 |
| salv-orlando | for resource state, I still see too much noise on the mailing list to declare it could be in API 1.0 | 22:38 |
| somik | we should finalize what we have as 1.0 | 22:38 |
| salv-orlando | if anybody feels the need to have it in 1.0, please speak now. | 22:38 |
| danwent | I think it will be very valuable, but we need to lock down the API and it still seems to need more discussion on the details. | 22:39 |
| danwent | i'm in favor of leaving it out for 1.0 | 22:39 |
| salv-orlando | somik: about that test. You're right, but that constraint is actually in the db model. I did not want to mess with that code, but I too think we can remove this constraint. | 22:39 |
| heckj | mtaylor: sweet! | 22:39 |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:39 | |
| danwent | somik: please file a bug on this | 22:39 |
| somik | salv : DB model != API :) | 22:39 |
| somik | danwent: sure, will do. | 22:39 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| salv-orlando | I know that, but how can I possibly create two network with the same name, if then each plugin that uses that db model is going to raise an exception? :-) | 22:40 |
| danwent | salv: what is the plan regarding the existing "state" field in the API? keep it but define it as a logical-only "admin state"? remove it? something else? | 22:40 |
| salv-orlando | logical-only administrative state. | 22:40 |
| danwent | salv, somik: this is outdated code in the db, will remove | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | No implications on operations you can perform | 22:41 |
| danwent | salv: ok, makes sense | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | Will smooth this out (the db thing) in API alignment | 22:41 |
| danwent | salv: anything else on API alignment? | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | Somik: if you file a bug, link lp:~salvatore-orlando/quantum/quantum-api-alignment to it | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | I guess that is all | 22:41 |
| danwent | thx. | 22:41 |
| salv-orlando | Summarizing: | 22:41 |
| somik | salv-orlando: sounds good. | 22:42 |
| salv-orlando | few bits left to smooth | 22:42 |
| salv-orlando | make sure clients do not break | 22:42 |
| salv-orlando | and status will NOT be part of API 1.0 | 22:42 |
| salv-orlando | that's decided, unless you express your disagreeement now :-) | 22:42 |
| danwent | ok, on to nova + quantum | 22:42 |
| danwent | already talked about vif-id workasomya will send an email to the list, | 22:43 |
| danwent | #action asomya will send an email to the list about vif-id branch | 22:43 |
| danwent | linuxnet_vif plug branch has two approves, one needs info | 22:43 |
| danwent | should be merged soon. | 22:43 |
| salv-orlando | what about the admin API? | 22:44 |
| danwent | quantum manager: I need to send out a link to this branch | 22:44 |
| danwent | salv: yup, I was trying to whip of a first cut at the admin api, two goals: | 22:44 |
| danwent | communicate ownerhship of "interface-ids" from nova to quantum, so quantum can enforce that only the owner of an interface can plug that interface in. | 22:45 |
| *** zns1 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:45 | |
| danwent | this will probably just be a simple call that includes the interface-id and the tenant-id | 22:45 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| danwent | was also planning on trying to tackle a generic admin API for "interface bindings".... though this requires some more thought/input | 22:46 |
| danwent | I ported the code over to use the new quantum client lib though, so adding these calls once we know what they want to look like should be simple. | 22:46 |
| danwent | currently we copy the client.py file over, but I'd like to have the packaging so we can just install a dependency, which is definitely the right way to go. | 22:47 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: elaborate on generic admin API | 22:47 |
| danwent | sorry, the generic referred to "interface bindings".... i.e., an interface bindings API that could work with any plugin | 22:47 |
| salv-orlando | is that meant to be part of nova or quantm | 22:47 |
| danwent | salv: same discussion we had on the launchpad merge prop.... | 22:48 |
| salv-orlando | ok, let's take it offline. move to next topic. | 22:48 |
| danwent | #action: #danwent, send out link to discussion on quantum admin APIs | 22:48 |
| danwent | Ok, GUI work | 22:49 |
| markvoelker | New screenshots for anyone who hasn't seen 'em (great work here asomya!): http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumClientGUI | 22:49 |
| danwent | awesome screenshots uploaded to wiki page | 22:49 |
| danwent | anything else to report that wasn't already mentioned on the email list? | 22:49 |
| asomya | thanks guys.. Dashboard's done and ready all basic quantum operations are fully functional | 22:49 |
| danwent | can't wait to try it out | 22:49 |
| asomya | just working on a few enhancements like the breadcrumbs and instance details in the VIf column | 22:49 |
| danwent | plans for multi-nic support? | 22:49 |
| somik | the GUI is coming along really great guys! Very good work! | 22:50 |
| asomya | it's totally agnostic to the instances.. just gets a list of VIF's from nova with the instance labels and prceeds to attach whatever VIF to any port | 22:50 |
| danwent | ok, very cool | 22:50 |
| danwent | salv: api auth, anything to add beyond your detail email to the list? | 22:51 |
| markvoelker | Also, there was some discussion on the ML with devcamcar regarding a possible better way to integrate with Dashboard rather than the top-level module route....haven't seen a reply lately though. | 22:51 |
| salv-orlando | just that I'd like to hear your opinion | 22:51 |
| markvoelker | devcamcar: around? | 22:51 |
| danwent | salv: sent some questions via email, but overall sounds great. | 22:51 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| salv-orlando | about whether we should use keystone's middleware and talk to keystone people for issue, or develop our own middleware based on keystone one | 22:52 |
| danwent | mark: he's definitely interested in helping, so i suspect he'll respond soon | 22:52 |
| danwent | salv: what's your expert opinion? | 22:52 |
| markvoelker | danwent: grand. | 22:52 |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| salv-orlando | I think it will surely be quicker if we develop a middleware starting from keystone | 22:53 |
| danwent | btw, is tyler around to talk about packaging? | 22:53 |
| danwent | salv: makes sense.... probably the right place to start. | 22:53 |
| salv-orlando | but it would be good to talk to Ziad & other folks at keystone as well. | 22:53 |
| devcamcar | markvoelker: pong | 22:53 |
| markvoelker | danwent: unfortunately not, but should have a bp out later this week I think. | 22:53 |
| salv-orlando | okay, move to packaging | 22:53 |
| dolphm_ | salv-orlando, what are you looking for that keystone middleware doesn't currently provide? | 22:53 |
| danwent | mark: k, sounds good. | 22:53 |
| devcamcar | markvoelker: speak of the devil, I actually just hit send on a message about how best to integrate quantum and dashboard | 22:54 |
| salv-orlando | it provides all that I need, the bit I don't really understand is why we have need an admin token rather than admin credentials | 22:54 |
| markvoelker | devcamcar: awesomesauce! Reading... | 22:54 |
| salv-orlando | what if that token expires? | 22:54 |
| danwent | #action: #danwent send email to netstack list about where interface ownership should be enforced. | 22:54 |
| dolphm_ | salv-orlando, reauthenticate with keystone and get a new admin token? | 22:55 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:55 | |
| salv-orlando | dolphm_: sure. that is fine. The bit that puzzles me is that the admin token goes in the configuration file | 22:56 |
| danwent | please continue to talk about keystone auth, as well as anything else (5 minutes left) | 22:56 |
| asomya | A minor dashboard thing I forgot.. quantum needs a setup script for the dashboard venv installer .. i've been using a private branch with the setup script.. i'll check the script in tomorrow to trunk | 22:56 |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| dolphm_ | salv-orlando, which configuration file are you referring to?? | 22:56 |
| danwent | asomya: great. are there any gotchas in setting up the dashboard with quantum? definitely want to take a crack at that soon (as, I assume, will others) | 22:56 |
| salv-orlando | the one for using auth_token.AuthProtocol as a middleware in your app pipeline | 22:56 |
| asomya | danwent: it;s fully function here : https://github.com/CiscoSystems/dashboard-quantum-beta .. just that it should grab my private branch instead of trunk | 22:57 |
| danwent | asomya: sweet | 22:57 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:58 | |
| danwent | ok, will keep the logger running to capture the keystone discussion, but any other topics for opendiscussion? | 22:58 |
| somik | asomya: I am guessing once you have the setup script, we are good to grab and setup dashboard | 22:58 |
| dolphm_ | salv-orlando, that's a good question that i can't answer (haven't looked at the middleware much) - can you open an issue on github.com/rackspace/keystone ? | 22:59 |
| dolphm_ | salv-orlando, doesn't make sense to me either | 22:59 |
| somik | that would be a great UI to showcase quantum and even test quantum | 22:59 |
| asomya | somik: you're good to go now.. it graba a private quantum branch that has the setup script | 22:59 |
| carlp | mtaylor: when do you want to talk jenkins? after this? | 22:59 |
| salv-orlando | dolphm_: sure. (I wanted to do that earlier today - too lazy to set up a github account) | 22:59 |
| danwent | ok, going once.... twice.... | 23:00 |
| markvoelker | General topic for disussion... | 23:00 |
| danwent | just in time :) | 23:00 |
| somik | asomya: tahnks! | 23:00 |
| markvoelker | I was at CloudCamp earlier this week and got lots of questions about OpenStack in general and Quantum in particular. That's good. =) | 23:00 |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| danwent | very cool | 23:01 |
| markvoelker | However I noticed a few BP's were showing still in Unknown state that were actually in flight..mostly ours. =) Some of them hadn't been moved to Approved because I'm not sure we'd agreed on what it takes to be approved? | 23:01 |
| danwent | mark: funny, this topic has actually come up recently in email to | 23:02 |
| markvoelker | danwent: exactly. =) Partly why I thought I'd bring it up here too | 23:02 |
| danwent | my take is that we're still a small group of devs.... there doesn't need to be an official "approval" process. | 23:02 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| danwent | right now, if your code impacts someone else, you should be sure to bring it up in the IRC Meeting. | 23:02 |
| markvoelker | danwent: +1, great. Just wanted to make sure we weren't stepping on any toes. | 23:03 |
| salv-orlando | IMHO the BP approval process should be something that will come in place with time. | 23:03 |
| danwent | once we grow larger, this may have to change | 23:03 |
| salv-orlando | +1 | 23:03 |
| danwent | #agreed no official blueprint approval process for quantum.... feel free to move your own blueprint to approved, and be a nice community member and make sure you let people know if your changes affect code they care about | 23:03 |
| salv-orlando | talking about quantum interest, my blog post has now 913 views, in 6 weeks | 23:04 |
| danwent | I'm super happy with the velocity we've been able to have with this project, see no reason to change. | 23:04 |
| danwent | salv: great | 23:04 |
| danwent | ok, we're 5 minutes over, anything else? | 23:05 |
| salv-orlando | just goodnight from me... | 23:05 |
| danwent | great work folks, let's keep it up | 23:05 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 23:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 23:05 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 9 23:05:22 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 23:05 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.html | 23:05 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.txt | 23:05 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.log.html | 23:05 |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| danwent | have a good afternoon/evening | 23:05 |
| *** markvoelker has left #openstack-meeting | 23:06 | |
| *** asomya has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| somik | have a good one all! | 23:06 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:07 | |
| mtaylor | carlp: I've gotta run after this - can we talk tomorrow? | 23:07 |
| carlp | absolutely, I think you have my numbers. Gimme a call! | 23:07 |
| carlp | or email, whatever works best | 23:08 |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:11 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:17 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 23:18 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:19 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:22 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:34 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:36 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:39 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** cg01 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 23:42 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:42 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:44 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:46 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!