| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 00:12 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 00:13 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:25 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:15 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 01:40 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:56 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 02:22 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 02:48 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:50 | |
| *** jbarratt has quit IRC | 02:52 | |
| *** jbarratt has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:53 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 02:57 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:05 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** cbeck has quit IRC | 06:33 | |
| *** jdag has quit IRC | 06:41 | |
| *** cbeck has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:41 | |
| *** mandela123 has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:32 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:35 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 07:50 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:58 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 08:25 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:58 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 10:41 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 10:59 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:03 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 11:33 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 11:38 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 11:47 | |
| mandela123 | hi | 11:47 |
|---|---|---|
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:28 | |
| *** cmagina has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:41 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 12:56 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:19 | |
| *** glenc_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:23 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 13:26 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:42 | |
| *** mandela123 has quit IRC | 13:44 | |
| *** deshantm has quit IRC | 13:54 | |
| *** glenc_ is now known as glenc | 13:55 | |
| *** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:55 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:56 | |
| *** Gordonz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:59 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:12 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 14:30 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:31 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:32 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 14:36 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:43 | |
| *** blamar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 14:50 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:56 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:56 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 15:01 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:06 | |
| *** jdag has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:10 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:12 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:14 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:21 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 15:35 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 15:56 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:57 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:22 | |
| *** HowardRoark has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:39 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:46 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:59 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:26 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:37 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:38 | |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 17:39 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 17:40 | |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 17:45 | |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:46 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:48 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:13 | |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 18:19 | |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:26 | |
| *** cynb__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:30 | |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| *** cynb__ is now known as cynb | 18:30 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| *** wwkeyboard has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| *** mrmartin has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:42 | |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 18:45 | |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 18:50 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:50 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 18:59 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | ola. anybody around? | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 20 19:03:11 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:03 |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:04 |
| carlp | o/ | 19:05 |
| vishy | o? | 19:06 |
| soren | o/ | 19:06 |
| soren | o⪐ | 19:07 |
| medberry | o no | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | I like o??? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last week | 19:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last week" | 19:07 | |
| mtaylor | #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-13-19.03.html | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | still nothing on those, sorry - been focused on getting diablo out the door | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor Add how to contribute section to ci.openstack.org | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor add packaging docs to ci.openstack.org | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor infrastructure.openstack.org web config | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor will work with carlp on setting up netstack CI hardware | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:09 | |
| mtaylor | soren, vishy and I (mostly soren and vishy) were talking earlier about pulling libvirt 0.9.5 into the openstack ppas | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | I've just about got a package ready there - but I'd LOVE it if you'd look at it soren | 19:10 |
| vishy | yehaw 9.5! | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | because there are a crap-ton of moving parts in there | 19:10 |
| carlp | I got a session approved for planning the CI for NetStack, I would love it if some or all of you could attend. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | carlp: oh, I'll be there | 19:10 |
| carlp | mtaylor: Awesome. I figured getting everyone in the same room for an hour may help things along :) | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | yes. I think you are 100% correct on that | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | soren, ttx: also - need to chat at some point (again, sorry I'm annoying) about version numbering. folks want to upload things to PyPI at a frequency greater than full releases, and the current versioning scheme and the mechanism that producees it are - well - problematic for PyPI | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | I don't have a specific fix in mind - but I know the two of you have spent a LOT of time working out how that version sequencing works | 19:13 |
| ttx | mtaylor: yes, it's about the only thing that works from trunk to release PPAs | 19:13 |
| ttx | so that's the reason why it looks like it does -- not sure you can come up with an alternative that would work | 19:14 |
| ttx | but you can try :) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | ttx: yup. heard and understood! :) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | ttx: perhaps sitting down with a whiteboard and a LOT of beer might be the right choice there | 19:15 |
| ttx | If the solution is to drop the capability to upgrade packages seamlessly whatever their origin, I think I'd not agree | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | nope. I do not want that to be the solution | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | either | 19:15 |
| ttx | I have ignorance of PyPI... hmm... specificities. | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | but I do think that we need to be able to produce tarball artifacts that work outside of the context of debian versioning | 19:16 |
| ttx | so I miss part of the puzzle | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | ttx: the main thing is that nobody other than debian understands ~ version specifiers | 19:16 |
| ttx | the reason why stuff is versioned 2012.1~ is so that you don't do a version bump as the very last thing before a release | 19:16 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| mtaylor | so when we depend on them, the version sequencing for our tarball releases becomes broken | 19:16 |
| ttx | it could be called 2012.1~prerelease~blabla so that people understand ~ | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | I totally undestand the reasoning there - I'm just saying that the mechanism isn't supported by all of the places where people would like for us to upload release artifacts (such as pypi) | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | it's that pypi and pip do not understand that 20112.1 > 2012.1~prerelease~blabla | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | afaik | 19:18 |
| medberry | nod. | 19:18 |
| ttx | mtaylor: we /could/ rename tarballs before uploading to ubuntu... the trick is that 2012.1~ enables us to have a painless release process | 19:18 |
| medberry | (that's pretty critical for ensuring clean debian-style upgrades. PyPI probably isn't worried about such OS-ish things.) | 19:18 |
| ttx | sice you don't regenerate anything one time at the very end | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | so, I think that where we are in trouble is that we're doing a GREAT job of getting things set for debian-based distro releases, but we sort of skip over the step of making sure our tarball sequencing is sane | 19:18 |
| ttx | mtaylor: the alternative is some fugly stuff like odd/even schemes + a version bump at the very end of the process that breaks stuff at the wors tmoment | 19:19 |
| ttx | and usually when everyone is sleeping and I have to release before 9am. | 19:19 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:20 | |
| ttx | I've been there before. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | well... as I think you know - I believe that any system in which a version bump breaks anything is a HUGE bug ... but I totally hear that pain and it's possible we have not fixed that in our codebase at the moment | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | but like I said- I don't have a solution - I just have a new use case/problem :) | 19:20 |
| ttx | mtaylor: not meant as a criticism of your work, but almost every piece of CI I have touched so far failed the first time I used it -- I'd rather that first time not be the release day. | 19:21 |
| ttx | that's release management common sense | 19:21 |
| ttx | does PyPI understand some alpha/beta/rc marker ? | 19:22 |
| soren | mtaylor: It's not just the chance of actual breakage. | 19:22 |
| soren | mtaylor: There are so many things that are massively more convenient by bumping early rather than late. | 19:22 |
| ttx | mtaylor: PyPI is just not meant to support beta versions, AFAICT | 19:22 |
| soren | mtaylor: A good example is documentation. The job that publishes documentation will simply publish the docs from trunk, saying "this is the docs for the thing that will eventually become version X", and it can publish this at docs.openstack.org/X/ with a "work in progress" disclaimer. | 19:24 |
| ttx | so trying to (ab)use it to deliver frequent milestones sounds... difficult | 19:24 |
| jeblair | mtaylor just told me he lost his network connection | 19:25 |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:25 | |
| soren | As one of the very last things before release, we set "Final = True" to remove the disclaimer. | 19:25 |
| soren | And whatever we push as the final version, automatically has its docs published in the right place. As the very next thing, we bump the version in the code to reflect the next planned version. | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | sorry - network droped me - I'm back | 19:26 |
| soren | mtaylor: Do you have scrollback? | 19:26 |
| ttx | mtaylor: did you see the backlog ? | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | yes. I have - reading | 19:26 |
| soren | Ok. | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | ok. yes. I agree with all of the words that you're saying. | 19:27 |
| soren | The alternative involves either maintaining the upcoming version number somewhere outside the repository and pull from there, but keeping things in sync is just easier if there's nothing to keep in sync, because everything reads from the same place: the code. | 19:27 |
| soren | Either that or having some sort of logic somewhere that's supposed to guess the next version. | 19:28 |
| soren | ...but then we have to disable that when we're pushing the final revision (because that's actually the final revision, not the first revision of the next version). | 19:28 |
| soren | It's mad. | 19:28 |
| soren | It's funny, really, because you were the one who bumped the version early to begin with. I went "wait, what?", but later realised this is the only sensible way to do things. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | ok. let's be clear ... I'm not criticising anyone's design or decisions - and yes indeed I did that | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | all I'm saying is - there is a desire from people to have things hit pypi more frequently than every six months | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | and the current system, for good or bad, does not support this as a goal | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | which means that as a goal should be re-assessed, or other elements of the system design should | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | which I believe is ripe for a conversation - probably one in person, I'm guessing | 19:30 |
| ttx | mtaylor: sure, I'll wait for a clear alternative | 19:30 |
| soren | Where can I read about the versioning limitations that pypi imposes? | 19:31 |
| ttx | just saying that we are not using ~ just because we can... We use the right solution, and ~ just enabls us to do it conveniently. | 19:31 |
| soren | I've not completely understood how our scheme is problematic for pypi. | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | soren: well, they are normal versioning limitations. nothing other than debian understands ~ as a version modifier | 19:31 |
| jeblair | http://epydoc.sourceforge.net/stdlib/distutils.version.StrictVersion-class.html | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | so pypi does not grok that 2012.1~a < 2012.1 | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | thanks :) | 19:32 |
| jeblair | is that documentation operative? | 19:32 |
| jeblair | i'm not positive, i've just been googling around during this conversation... | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | I believe so | 19:32 |
| ttx | mtaylor: yes, most others accept some 2012.1-alpha1 form though | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | they do | 19:32 |
| ttx | does PyPI support it ? | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | yes. check the link jeblair just posted. 0.5a1 | 19:33 |
| ttx | because then it's just a matter of renaming before using in Debian, that's not the first upstream that needs to d othat | 19:33 |
| vishy | it looks like 5a sorts before 5 | 19:33 |
| vishy | so can't we just replace the ~ with an a | 19:33 |
| ttx | way simpler than dropping the whole "name the version by the next release, not the previous one" discussion | 19:33 |
| vishy | and were golden? | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | right. I thnk that's all I'm getting at - tarballs/pypi need to be produced by those rules | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | potentially - we still hit the problem of our tarballs not being actually produced via version in setup.py but by renaming - which will cause some problems for the python setup.py sdist upload step | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | BUT | 19:34 |
| ttx | Yes, I respect that ~ is a debianism. I just want to make sure we don't throw the baby (pre-release versioning) with the bath water (~) | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | we can start from that versioning as a step one and see what we can come up with | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | ttx: oh god no | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | sorry if I was implying that | 19:34 |
| jeblair | hopefully there is a pipy compatible way of doing the same kind of versioning | 19:35 |
| mtaylor | for the record: | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | #link http://epydoc.sourceforge.net/stdlib/distutils.version.StrictVersion-class.html | 19:36 |
| jeblair | #link http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386/ | 19:36 |
| jeblair | should probably keep up with that too | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | agree | 19:37 |
| soren | Just read through the distutils code. | 19:38 |
| jeblair | there also seems to be some history and narrative in there (which i haven't read yet) | 19:38 |
| soren | 'a' and 'b' are magic. | 19:38 |
| soren | They're the only characters we can use for this. Anything else is rejected. | 19:38 |
| ttx | also you need a number | 19:38 |
| ttx | "a1" | 19:38 |
| jeblair | interesting. no gammas or c's. :) | 19:38 |
| soren | Right. | 19:38 |
| ttx | or e's for essex | 19:39 |
| soren | :( | 19:39 |
| ttx | so you could replace ~ by a1 but that would look fun. 2012.1a1~e2 | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | well - why e2? why not just 2012.1a20110944.1234 ? | 19:40 |
| ttx | you would probably drop the idea of naming the milestones e's, to just call them alphas | 19:40 |
| ttx | which sounds a bit scarier | 19:40 |
| soren | mtaylor: That's invalid as well. | 19:40 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:40 | |
| carlp | or just go the Flickr route and say "loves you" :) | 19:40 |
| soren | mtaylor: No dots allowed after the 'a' or 'b'. | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | 2012.1a201109441234 ? | 19:41 |
| ttx | mtaylor: because the milestones are "released" as nova-2011.3~d4.tar.gz currently | 19:41 |
| soren | The reason is that we.. | 19:41 |
| soren | right, what ttx said. | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | correct | 19:41 |
| ttx | how would you release them under a new scheme ? | 19:41 |
| soren | When we switched to having to branches, we had to be able to tell them apart. | 19:41 |
| soren | *two* branches. | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | I don't know - I need to think about it some... as I said earlier - I do not have this solved, merely wanted to bring up that it was something we needed to think about | 19:42 |
| soren | Not "to branches". That's nonsense. | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | hehe. if that's the only nonsense anyone says in this channel today then I think we're doing well :) | 19:42 |
| ttx | mtaylor: but yes, we should discuss that | 19:43 |
| ttx | the current scheme was defined in Brussles with lots of aspirin | 19:43 |
| ttx | and lots of graphs | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | #agreed we should discuss versioning and how it relates to tarballs and PyPI | 19:43 |
| soren | hm.. | 19:43 |
| ttx | I still have the drawings if you want to stress-test your solution | 19:43 |
| soren | WEll, how's this: | 19:44 |
| soren | On PyPI we either only ever publish stuff from trunk or the milestone branch. | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | yes. I agree with that | 19:45 |
| soren | Or, we create two separate.. err.. I don't know the terminology.. "projects"? | 19:45 |
| heckj | +1 | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | oh - wait. no. actually | 19:45 |
| soren | One for trunk, one for milestone. | 19:45 |
| heckj | (+1 for the first suggestion) | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | this becomes a bit of a shitshow as well | 19:45 |
| ttx | mtaylor: if you like to be hurt: http://ubuntuone.com/p/vjd/ | 19:45 |
| jeblair | #link http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/dropping-pep-386-versions-comparison/ | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | because of pip-requires | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | BUT | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | if we only released milestones and releases to pypi (probably frequent enough?) | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | then we could release 2012.1~d4 as 2012.1b4 on pypi, no? | 19:46 |
| soren | Yes. | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | so that pypi just always gets the latest milestone or release (or in the case of swift, every release) | 19:47 |
| soren | I think that makes sense. | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | and then we don't have to worry about 2012.1~d4~2340239742.234 | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | sweet | 19:48 |
| soren | If anyone cares enough, we can add a nova-i-like-pain project with stuff from trunk. | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | yes | 19:48 |
| soren | But meh. | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | but I think if they want that, then grabbing source and doing python setup.py develop is probably a better choice | 19:48 |
| * ttx takes a quick break before ppb meeting | 19:48 | |
| soren | ttx: Enjoy. | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | I would like to also do that. anybody got anything else for in here? | 19:49 |
| jeblair | #link http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/pep-345-and-386-accepted-summary-of-changes/ | 19:49 |
| heckj | mtaylor: I do the setup.py develop all the time - might be good to just suggest it as a standard pattern somewhere | 19:49 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor will propose something concrete based on milestone/releases going to PyPI using pep386 versioning | 19:49 |
| mtaylor | heckj: ++ | 19:49 |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| mtaylor | great. I need a sandwich | 19:51 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:51 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 20 19:51:05 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:51 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-19.03.html | 19:51 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-19.03.txt | 19:51 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-19.03.log.html | 19:51 |
| *** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| jmckenty | ppb in 4 minutes? | 19:56 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: that's what I hear | 19:56 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| zykes- | when is the quantum meeting if any ? | 19:58 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: 6pm EDT | 19:58 |
| zykes- | hmmm, is that today or ? | 19:58 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: do you want to have a ppb pre-meeting? | 19:58 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: every tuesday IIRC | 19:58 |
| zykes- | unsure of what time that is here locally :/ | 19:59 |
| zykes- | gmt+1 | 19:59 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: no, I was just checking if I have enough time to update the agenda | 19:59 |
| jmckenty | :) | 19:59 |
| jmckenty | which I did | 19:59 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: hmm, 22:00 I believe | 19:59 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: sorry, 23. | 19:59 |
| zykes- | ok : ) | 19:59 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| ttx | o/ | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | o/ | 19:59 |
| jk0 | \o | 20:00 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 20 20:00:12 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:00 |
| johnpur | o/ | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | )?( | 20:00 |
| jmckenty | o/ | 20:00 |
| jmckenty | ? | 20:00 |
| jmckenty | frowning cyclops? | 20:00 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:00 |
| jbryce | agenda can be found online: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:01 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 20:01 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:01 | |
| jbryce | there weren't really any previous actions beyond sending the guideline draft out for public comment which has been done | 20:01 |
| vishy | o/ | 20:01 |
| jbryce | #topic project APIs | 20:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "project APIs" | 20:01 | |
| jmckenty | status update? Are we working off of http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/APIManagement or is there further discussion? | 20:02 |
| jbryce | The etherpad has had some pretty good activity on it. Seems like people are reviewing. | 20:02 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| jbryce | I don't know how long we want to leave it open before we decide to say this is the first pass of guidelines | 20:02 |
| jbryce | the only point that we haven't really settled is if there's a need for an api coordinator. i kind of liked thierry's response on the ppb mailing list | 20:03 |
| ttx | I like it too. :) | 20:03 |
| jmckenty | +1 | 20:04 |
| *** jorgew has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| jbryce | basically don't make it an official governance position and leave it free for highly interested parties like jorge to get involved as heavily as they want | 20:04 |
| *** zns has left #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| jbryce | does anyone have a differing opinion on it? | 20:04 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| johnpur | +1, there is a need for api coordination, but should be done by an interested person | 20:05 |
| ttx | or group | 20:05 |
| pvo | o/ | 20:05 |
| johnpur | if there are more than 1 person interested, so much the better | 20:05 |
| jbryce | ok. we'll just leave it at that for now | 20:05 |
| jbryce | how long do we want to leave the guidelines open for review? | 20:05 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:05 | |
| jmckenty | Can we amend the proposal to remove the position and then vote on it? | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | Have the guidelines been pushed to the full community list? | 20:06 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: yes | 20:06 |
| jbryce | http://etherpad.openstack.org/RFC-API-Guidelines | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | Yeah, I've seen it | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | couldn't remember from where | 20:06 |
| jbryce | there were some comments on the mailing list and quite a few in the doc itself | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | I'd love to see it discussed in Boston | 20:06 |
| jmckenty | but I'm not attached | 20:06 |
| ttx | jmckenty: you can make it happen by submitting a session proposal ! | 20:07 |
| *** zns1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:07 | |
| jbryce | that's fine with me to if we want to just leave it open for 2 more weeks | 20:07 |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| jmckenty | ttx: I never got back a conclusive answer from my last session proposal | 20:07 |
| jmckenty | after three attempts | 20:07 |
| jmckenty | I was just going to show up and yell like last time | 20:07 |
| jmckenty | standard procedures only seem to work if you have admin access to the schedule | 20:07 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: why stop now? | 20:07 |
| jmckenty | YaaS | 20:08 |
| ttx | jmckenty: let's discuss that offline | 20:08 |
| jmckenty | Yelling as a Service | 20:08 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:08 |
| jbryce | back to the topic.... | 20:08 |
| jmckenty | sorry | 20:08 |
| johnpur | hehe | 20:08 |
| jbryce | #info No need to establish official API coordinator now. | 20:08 |
| jbryce | #info Guidelines will remain open for comment through Essex summit | 20:08 |
| jbryce | any other discussion on the API topic? | 20:08 |
| jmckenty | Can you restate that as API Guidelines? | 20:09 |
| jmckenty | just so it's obvious in the minutes | 20:09 |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| jbryce | sure, but it should show up under the project APIs heading | 20:09 |
| jbryce | irc://irc.freenode.net/#info API Guidelines will remain open for comment through Essex summit | 20:09 |
| jmckenty | ah, gotcha, thanks | 20:09 |
| jbryce | gah...autocomplete | 20:09 |
| jbryce | #topic FITs Working Group Update | 20:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "FITs Working Group Update" | 20:10 | |
| jbryce | jmckenty: want to take this one? | 20:10 |
| jmckenty | I sent out an initial proposal to the FITs mailing list | 20:10 |
| jmckenty | linking to http://etherpad.openstack.org/FITS | 20:10 |
| jmckenty | It's intended to be heretical | 20:10 |
| jmckenty | and provoke NOW the possible future arguments | 20:10 |
| jmckenty | Specifically, the proposals to measure and certify performance and stability as part of FITs | 20:11 |
| jmckenty | And, the proposal that "Built on OpenStack" means including everything in core | 20:11 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: how do you intend the debate to happen? | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | which, I admit, is devilishly difficult | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | johnpur: The FITs list has representatives from most of the commercial partners on it | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | well, the ones that are working on "Built on OpenStack" products | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | as opposed to "Powered by OpenStack" services | 20:12 |
| pvo | jmckenty: so if I'm only using a single component, you can't say "Built on Openstack" if i'm not using every core piece? | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | I'm hoping to get a decent clarification of the various points of view before the summit, and then open it up to PPB and community input | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | pvo: correct | 20:13 |
| jaypipes | "Currently, systems deployed using vanilla OpenStack will meet or exceed these targets." Hmm, that's not correct, AFAIK. | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | The 1,000 VM, 1,000 user targets? I think it is | 20:13 |
| jaypipes | the concurrency target. | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | Oh, hmm. I suppose I shouldn't count NASA Nebula as a vanilla openstack system | 20:13 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: you have no storage targets in there. where's the swift love? :-) | 20:13 |
| pvo | jmckenty: I dont' see the distinction of "Built with Intel" and "Using Intel" | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | API calls include swift and networking | 20:14 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:14 | |
| jmckenty | Built with Intel is Super Micro, using Intel is AWS | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | It's in the Trademark policy that way | 20:14 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: what about keystone and glance | 20:14 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: ah I see it | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | If it's using the OpenStack API, it'll be using keystone for the other api calls and glance for nova compute launches | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | at least, that's how I was thinking about it | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | 5 core project, right? | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | Nova, Swift, Glance, Keystone and Dashboard | 20:15 |
| pvo | I'm not sure there is a real distinction... at least that I can see. | 20:15 |
| ttx | "Dashboard" | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | http://openstack.org/brand pvo | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | right | 20:15 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| jmckenty | bourbon | 20:15 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: to further what jaypipes said, I'd encourage being really heretical and even defining things so that maybe not everything in core fits | 20:15 |
| vishy | jmckenty: could have a minimum amount of swift storage provided 1PB ? | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: my thinking was to kick them out of core if they don't fit | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | vishy: good call | 20:15 |
| pvo | "Built for" != "Built on" | 20:16 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: I'm not saying that yet, but it could clarify a few debates that might arise. at least to show where the boundries are | 20:16 |
| jmckenty | I think having "core" == "required for Built on OpenStack" provides a really rigid framework for answering what OpenStack IS | 20:16 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 20:16 |
| jmckenty | What the hell is up with the cyclops frowning? Did I miss a memo? | 20:17 |
| notmyname | vishy: jmckenty: is that raw storage or customer (usable) storage? is it not "openstack" if it uses the same code but doesn't have as many hard drives plugged in as a different cluster? | 20:17 |
| devcamcar | i'm here now gang, had a meeting run over | 20:17 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: it has to be certified to be ABLE to do that, not that it has to be deployed that way | 20:17 |
| jbryce | rather than trying to pick specific trademark names, i think it's more important to define what each of the projects would need to meet independently | 20:17 |
| jmckenty | that was the thinking, anyway | 20:17 |
| jbryce | then we can determine what the appropriate mixes of the various projects are | 20:17 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: I can go with that | 20:17 |
| vishy | notmyname: if we're defining minimum requirements to fit trademark, seems like we can define a minimum usable storage | 20:17 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: should we group the definition that way, then? | 20:17 |
| * jaypipes thinks that the FITS should be broken down into a FITS for the API and a FITS for performance/scalability. | 20:17 | |
| johnpur | i guess i have a different view, don't see how scale should be a part of the definition | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | and a third bucket for what's required to be in it? | 20:18 |
| jbryce | some people will only run object storage, but i still want customers to be able to figure out if that's really openstack object storage | 20:18 |
| notmyname | vishy: but as jmckenty said, the ability, not necessarily the actual deployment | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | johnpur: we're proposing scale as a proxy for quality | 20:18 |
| jbryce | same thing for compute | 20:18 |
| vishy | jaypipes: I suppose if we have multiple official divisions | 20:18 |
| johnpur | openstack in a box is not openstack? | 20:18 |
| zns1 | Would we commit to providing a FITS testing lab? | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | zns1: I think we would commit to certifying a number of them | 20:19 |
| vishy | * openstack-api-compatible * openstack-performance-certified ? | 20:19 |
| jmckenty | I know at least three labs that are interested | 20:19 |
| notmyname | johnpur: it can be. the code must be proven to have the ability to run at scale (but of course that gets in to the hardware nuances) | 20:19 |
| jmckenty | Intel Cloud Builders being one, obviously | 20:19 |
| jaypipes | re: this question: "Can we be heretical and require products to be written substantially in python in order to be “Built on OpenStack”?", I would absolutely say No. The implementation does not matter, IMHO. If an implementation implements the API faithfully and performs at some determined level of scalability, then it should not matter what language it is written in. | 20:19 |
| zns1 | jaypipes: +1 | 20:19 |
| jmckenty | jaypipes: -0 | 20:19 |
| jmckenty | I agree with the No, but not the reasons for it | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | I think the language discussion should be part of the PPB decision to adopt a project, not part of FITs | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | for all the reasons that have been previously hashed over | 20:20 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: is FITs to determine what components should be part of openstack or what deployments can use the name "we're openstack"? | 20:20 |
| devcamcar | jmckenty: +1 | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: the latter | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | but I'm suggesting they should be coupled | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | zns1: I actually don't think we should commit to providing a testing lab. I think it should be done via an independent organization (but nothing wrong with partner organizations ponying up for the work) | 20:21 |
| jbryce | so what is the path forward to defining this? for those who want to get involved, should they just start commenting on the etherpad, mailing list traffic, discuss at summit? | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | If they're passionately interested, let's get them added to the Fits mailing list | 20:21 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: johnpur: then perhaps the scale concerns are mor important | 20:21 |
| johnpur | jbryce: my question exactly | 20:21 |
| jbryce | i don't want to take up too much time getting into the details right now | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | it's private so that the vendor participants can let down their hair a bit | 20:21 |
| jbryce | we could set up a separate irc meeting to go into detail too | 20:21 |
| *** rmk has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| jmckenty | Agreed. I'd also suggest a big session at the summit | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | The target is resolved by end-of-year, correct? | 20:22 |
| jbryce | #info contact jmckenty to get involved in ongoing FITS discussion | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: where is the mailing list? | 20:22 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: correct | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | lists.openstack.org | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | Stephen Spector is the admin, currently. | 20:22 |
| vishy | jmckenty: not sure it fits there... | 20:22 |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| jaypipes | wah?! I thought that list server was deleted.... | 20:23 |
| vishy | bwahahah | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | k | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | no wonder | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | my posts have been bouncing | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | I'll set up a new one | 20:23 |
| * jmckenty grumbles about doing things the "right" way again | 20:23 | |
| johnpur | can i ask what the process for "completion" is? | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | PPB vote | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | and then presumably ratification by OpenStack LLC | 20:24 |
| mtaylor | no, I don't believe we deleted that server | 20:24 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: (lists.openstack.org) | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | since the proposal is to make it a part of the official trademark policy | 20:24 |
| jbryce | johnpur: this working group will come up with a proposal and then it would be a PPB vote to approve | 20:24 |
| johnpur | thx | 20:24 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: i think you're right. i got josh's message earlier, so it seems to be working at some level | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | oh, other FITs issues - delay on updates, etc. | 20:24 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: may have missed this. will there be a public comment time? | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | definitely | 20:24 |
| notmyname | good :-) | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | I'm hoping to use the mailing list to clarify different perspectives | 20:25 |
| *** mrmartin has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| jmckenty | and then get the broader community to provide feedback | 20:25 |
| johnpur | i agree with jmckenty, the etherpad is highly controversial... | 20:25 |
| jmckenty | Well, that definition bars everyone's product except mine | 20:25 |
| jmckenty | :) | 20:25 |
| johnpur | just wondering how to get to a real definition, with this as the starting point | 20:25 |
| jmckenty | Which I'm up front about | 20:25 |
| jmckenty | it's a starting point | 20:25 |
| *** zns1 is now known as zns | 20:25 | |
| jbryce | johnpur: edit the etherpad | 20:25 |
| johnpur | jbryce: haha... thanks. | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | FITs is either == core, == "supercore", or == any component | 20:26 |
| jbryce | seriously i think it would be good to have an irc on irl at the summit meeting | 20:26 |
| jk0 | ++ | 20:26 |
| jmckenty | ++ | 20:26 |
| devcamcar | ++ | 20:26 |
| johnpur | even core questions of "openstack is iaas only" is a point of huge debate | 20:26 |
| jbryce | can you set that up jmckenty? | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: I actually don't see why FITS has anything to do with core, supercore, or any of that. | 20:27 |
| notmyname | johnpur: with obvious right and wrong answers ;-) | 20:27 |
| jbryce | #action jmckenty to schedule FITS-specific meeting | 20:27 |
| jmckenty | yup | 20:27 |
| johnpur | email to spector to get additional folks on the working group? | 20:28 |
| jbryce | my thought is that it needs to be any component and whether specific collections of components get a special label is secondary to having established technical verification of the individual components | 20:28 |
| notmyname | jaypipes: because what is in core openstack is the openstack project leads to what other people call openstack | 20:28 |
| jbryce | johnpur: sounds like it | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | email me is easier, I can make sure all the participants know who else is on there, so they can be judicious about what they discuss | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | or spector and cc me? | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | there's no announcement to the list of new members, I'm nervous about lurkers | 20:28 |
| jbryce | let's move on | 20:29 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I get that, I'm just not sure why the definition of a FITS should have any opinion at all on *what* is in OpenStack core. It should just test what *is* in OpenStack core (API and functionality) | 20:29 |
| jmckenty | moving on | 20:29 |
| jbryce | this could easily eat multiple hours. = ) | 20:29 |
| jbryce | #topic Academic participation | 20:29 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: +1 | 20:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Academic participation" | 20:29 | |
| jmckenty | Brief update - I've dropped the ball on this, but I've seen folks on the LinkedIn network picking it up | 20:30 |
| * jaypipes would also prefer this FITS discussion be a lot more open in the future | 20:30 | |
| jmckenty | would like to delegate the academic coordination to someone else :) | 20:30 |
| jmckenty | Volunteers? | 20:30 |
| * jbryce hears the distinct sound of crickets | 20:30 | |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: perhaps reed on our team would be a good source here. | 20:30 |
| jmckenty | two seconds, finding link... | 20:31 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: reed == stefano maffulli | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3239106&type=member&item=71336544&qid=cebce5ab-f06c-49ca-ba53-3e0960e91c61&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_3239106 | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | stefano could definitely help coordinate | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | I was going to suggest Todd | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | Deshane | 20:31 |
| jaypipes | sure | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | he wrote up a pretty decent outline | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | http://etherpad.openstack.org/openstack-academic-initiative | 20:31 |
| jmckenty | I was going to forward him the contacts from folks who have already reached out to me (about a dozen institutions) | 20:32 |
| jbryce | if he wants to start working on it, i think that's great | 20:32 |
| jmckenty | and see if he can coordinate a mailing list and a session at the summit | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | ++ | 20:32 |
| jmckenty | Anyone know him IRL? | 20:32 |
| jbryce | not i | 20:32 |
| pvo | I do. | 20:33 |
| pvo | I'll ping him. | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | Thanks pvo | 20:33 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:33 | |
| ewanmellor | Sorry I'm late. | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | That's it for me on that topic, I'd suggest we defer any formal PPB proposal for a few months | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | until we've had a chance to canvas the interested parties | 20:33 |
| jbryce | #info Going to contact Todd Deshane about coordinating academic involvement. Stefano Maffulli may help as well | 20:34 |
| jbryce | #topic Git+Gerrit migration update | 20:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Git+Gerrit migration update" | 20:34 | |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: you're up | 20:34 |
| mtaylor | yay! | 20:34 |
| mtaylor | it's going great | 20:34 |
| mtaylor | we've got just about everyone migrated except for nova - who are migrating after diablo is cut | 20:35 |
| devcamcar | dashboard will migrate to gerrit the week after the boston summit | 20:36 |
| *** Gordonz_ has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| jmckenty | mtaylor: can you do gerritt training at the summit, over beer or in the evenings? | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | I keep meaning to loop in with python-novaclient as well | 20:36 |
| jbryce | i know there was a pretty voluminous discussion on the mailing list on gerrit usage. have we been able to get specific feedback out of that for improvements? | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yup | 20:36 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: yes, we have several bugs filed | 20:36 |
| pvo | jmckenty: sent Todd an email. | 20:36 |
| jmckenty | pvo: thanks. | 20:37 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: I expect a few more as we get the wave of nova folks on - but by and large people seem to be getting the hang of it | 20:37 |
| vishy | mtaylor: with your experience with nova devs, you expect bug reports and not complaints? Maybe we've changed at last ;) | 20:38 |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| mtaylor | vishy: not unless I respond to the complaint with "I take bug reports" :) | 20:38 |
| mtaylor | great way to triage the importance of something :) | 20:39 |
| vishy | mtaylor: you are brave. My response is: I accept patches... | 20:39 |
| mtaylor | I keep thinking we're going to see a new gerrit version drop any time now with the single-page-diff patch in it. | 20:40 |
| * jaypipes responds "I take beer" | 20:40 | |
| jbryce | any other questions around git+gerrit? or feedback? | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | just to confirm, | 20:41 |
| ttx | mtaylor: we have discovery sessions at the summit. You could propose one on the CI code | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | everything is on github.com/openstack/* right? | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | as far as official repos | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | on or soon to be on | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yes | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | cool, thanks | 20:41 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: the migration process includes setting up the mirroring to there | 20:42 |
| jmckenty | I can turn off my bzr-to-github mirror hudson job now | 20:42 |
| mtaylor | jmckenty: yes you can! see how much service we provide! :) | 20:42 |
| jmckenty | lovin it, thank you | 20:42 |
| jbryce | #topic open discussion | 20:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 20:43 | |
| mtaylor | ttx: should we do a session on the CI code? or on git/gerrit usage? or on both? | 20:43 |
| johnpur | git/gerrit would be good | 20:43 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| ewanmellor | jmkenty: Just to jump back to the Academic Initiative topic: Todd Deshane works for Citrix / Xen.org. I can give you contact details. | 20:44 |
| jbryce | i think usage for sure...the CI code would be good for those who want to make the workflow even better | 20:44 |
| jbryce | ewanmellor: i think pvo sent him a note already | 20:44 |
| ttx | mtaylor: discovery sessions are abot code, but you can probably show off both | 20:44 |
| *** xavicampa has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:44 | |
| ewanmellor | jmckenty: Figure out who jmkenty is, and get back to me ;-) | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | thanks | 20:45 |
| ewanmellor | Ah cool. Thanks pvo. | 20:45 |
| pvo | ewanmellor: np. | 20:45 |
| *** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:46 | |
| jbryce | will everyone be generally available on tuesday evening for some in person beers? | 20:46 |
| johnpur | jbryce is buying! heck yeah | 20:46 |
| jbryce | tuesday evening of the design summit that is | 20:46 |
| pvo | "generally" | 20:46 |
| jbryce | correct. i am buying | 20:46 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 20:47 | |
| jmckenty | not unless it's late | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: of course. | 20:47 |
| jbryce | but you all have to agree to tequila shots as well | 20:47 |
| ewanmellor | Will gladly take jbryce's shilling. | 20:47 |
| jmckenty | I've got an all-team celebration for piston peeps. | 20:47 |
| johnpur | jbryce: +1 | 20:47 |
| jmckenty | can we do it at 9pm or later? | 20:47 |
| jk0 | we can start early and just keep it going :) | 20:47 |
| * mtaylor is only coming if everyone does a pickleback shot | 20:47 | |
| jmckenty | jk0: that works, too | 20:48 |
| jbryce | i think i'd prefer to do it a little earlier if we can fit it before your dinner | 20:48 |
| jbryce | 9pm might be past my bedtime | 20:48 |
| jbryce | i'm getting old | 20:49 |
| pvo | jk0: but its EST | 20:49 |
| zns | jbryce: yes for Tuesday meet & drink | 20:49 |
| jbryce | any other items to discuss? | 20:49 |
| * ewanmellor googles "pickleback shot" | 20:49 | |
| * medberry will pass on the pickleback shot | 20:49 | |
| jk0 | pvo: good point. we lose an hour, so we'll need to start *extra* early | 20:49 |
| mtaylor | ewanmellor: you know you want to do a shot of well whiskey followed by a shot of pickle juice! | 20:49 |
| johnpur | about.com says it is a "hipster" drink | 20:50 |
| * ewanmellor will do anything once | 20:50 | |
| jbryce | thanks everyone! | 20:50 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:50 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 20 20:50:33 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:50 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-20.00.html | 20:50 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-20.00.txt | 20:50 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-20.00.log.html | 20:50 |
| *** jmckenty has left #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| vishy | picklbacked whiskey shots are gorgeous | 20:51 |
| *** zns has left #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| mtaylor | vishy: ++ | 20:51 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| vishy | well whiskey, pshaw, do it with macallan 21 | 20:51 |
| jk0 | is that where you chase it with pickle juice? | 20:51 |
| mtaylor | haha | 20:51 |
| mtaylor | yup | 20:51 |
| jk0 | yeah, good stuff | 20:51 |
| primeministerp1 | yum | 20:51 |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| johnpur | did we set up a security channel | 20:52 |
| ewanmellor | vishy: I will tolerate wasting cheap Irish whiskey. Be more gentle with a decent Scotch! | 20:52 |
| ttx | johnpur: the pages are not up yet | 20:52 |
| johnpur | do we have a process for reporting serious security issues... with fixes? | 20:53 |
| mtaylor | johnpur: not really | 20:53 |
| notmyname | ttx: our product person is looking for tickets to the conference. where do I send her? | 20:53 |
| johnpur | ttx: quick private chat? | 20:53 |
| ttx | notmyname: for the conference ? she should ask Stephen | 20:54 |
| ttx | johnpur: quick one yes | 20:55 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| notmyname | ttx: gotcha | 20:55 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jaypipes | notmyname: actually, no, contact Lauren Sell, as Stephen is out on leave for 2-3 weeks. | 20:55 |
| *** jorgew has quit IRC | 20:56 | |
| notmyname | jaypipes: thanks | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | np | 20:56 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:56 | |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 20:58 | |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** annegentl has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| ttx | plom plom | 20:59 |
| glenc | \o | 21:00 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** jcannava has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| ttx | notmyanme,jaypipes,vishy: still around ? | 21:01 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: yep | 21:01 |
| vishy | aye | 21:01 |
| ttx | notmyname: ? | 21:02 |
| *** kpepple has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 20 21:02:22 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 |
| medberry | \o | 21:02 |
| notmyname | ttx: here | 21:02 |
| ttx | Welcome to the last meeting of the Diablo era... Today's agenda is at: | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:02 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:02 | |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | * jaypipes to send a diablo-focus email for Glance devs: DONE | 21:03 |
| *** lou_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| ttx | * ttx to rename "Incubation" track to "NetStack" in summit: DONE | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Focus on release notes | 21:03 |
| *** cynb has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Focus on release notes" | 21:03 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| ttx | Starting today we are in pre-release stasis | 21:03 |
| ttx | So only critical showstoppers should be accepted to milestone-proposed | 21:03 |
| ttx | It's time to shift focus to documenting known issues, upgrade quirks, features... | 21:04 |
| *** tcampbell has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| ttx | It's a team effort, and the wiki is at: | 21:04 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Diablo | 21:04 |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: and documentation... | 21:04 |
| ttx | documentation is a bit outside the ReleaseNotes scope, but yes | 21:04 |
| ttx | This page needs to be complete and ready by end of day Sep 21, so please contribute... | 21:04 |
| ttx | Questions ? | 21:05 |
| jaypipes | ttx: will do. | 21:05 |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:05 | |
| *** jorgew has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:06 |
| notmyname | yay swift | 21:06 |
| notmyname | I don't think I have any news | 21:06 |
| ttx | for the ReleaseNotes, I guess you should focus on the difference with the last openstack common release | 21:06 |
| ttx | Do I have your final singoff to include Swift 1.4.3 in the common OpenStack 2011.3 release ? | 21:07 |
| ttx | signoff | 21:07 |
| notmyname | for version in VCS: cat CHANGELOG >>releasenotes.txt | 21:07 |
| notmyname | ttx: yes. swift 1.4.3 is good to be used as openstack 2011.3 release | 21:07 |
| ttx | notmyname: I was thinking about upgrade notes, like the fact that some patrs of the code now live in separate projects | 21:07 |
| ttx | but yes as far as features go, cat will work | 21:08 |
| notmyname | ttx: of course ;-) | 21:08 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:08 |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has quit IRC | 21:08 | |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:09 | |
| ttx | arh | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:09 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: o/ | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yo. | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: so... | 21:09 |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/2011.3 you have two RC bugs remaining ? | 21:09 |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| *** jshepher has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: we have two bugs targeted still. one is a documentation thing that I definitely want in the final release. the other clears up a problematic hack that was really just added as a way to do testing, and now needs to be remove as it causes confusion around authentication | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | Vek, wwkeyboard: ping | 21:10 |
| jaypipes | s1rp: ping | 21:10 |
| wwkeyboard | yes? | 21:11 |
| ttx | jaypipes: any chance they can be pushed today ? | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | wwkeyboard: heya, so I know that Vek has asked you to pick up that bug on removing the authtoken option in glance... not sure you will be able to get that done today? | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | wwkeyboard: it's really just removing code, nothing more. | 21:11 |
| s1rp | the documentation bug will be pushed today | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | s1rp: rock on. ty. | 21:11 |
| jaypipes | wwkeyboard: it's OK. I'm going to move that to Essex 1 milestone.. we can discuss offline... | 21:12 |
| wwkeyboard | OK | 21:12 |
| wwkeyboard | It does not look that simple to me. | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | wwkeyboard: :) no probs. we can discuss later. | 21:12 |
| Vek | probably isn't, given how intimately the token is tied to the functional tests... | 21:12 |
| ttx | jaypipes: so you only keep the doc bug ? | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yep, moved. | 21:13 |
| ttx | cool. | 21:13 |
| *** heckj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:13 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: I still need to cherry pick two patches into milestone-proposed, but we look pretty good. | 21:13 |
| ttx | so we should be all set today, barring any last minute kitten killer | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | ttx: what time exactly? | 21:13 |
| ttx | jaypipes: "end of day" ? | 21:14 |
| ttx | No strict deadline :) | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | ttx: ah, ok... yes, I think so? :) | 21:14 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:15 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:15 | |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 21:15 | |
| ttx | vishy: o/ | 21:16 |
| ttx | Looking at: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2011.3, one bug left: | 21:16 |
| vishy | hi | 21:16 |
| *** cburgess has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:16 | |
| *** xavicampa has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| ttx | but should be in once jenkins restarts | 21:16 |
| ttx | mtaylor: working on that ? | 21:16 |
| pvo | vishy: we foudn one where xenserver builds don't resize the disk on initial boot. | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, they are. | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | ttx: disk filled up... | 21:17 |
| pvo | its being worked now. | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: anything else in the pipe ? | 21:17 |
| vishy | ttx: keystone stuff | 21:17 |
| vishy | but we have a discussion on that later, yes? | 21:17 |
| mtaylor | ttx: yes | 21:17 |
| ttx | yes | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: there is a security bug coming up too | 21:17 |
| vishy | otherwise there is nothing pressing that I am aware of | 21:17 |
| ttx | hopefully will be filed today | 21:18 |
| annegentle | vishy: are we okay with no extension documentation going with the release? | 21:18 |
| vishy | pvo, ttx: i will get those in if i can, please backport them | 21:18 |
| ttx | johnpur: the sooner the better :) | 21:18 |
| johnpur | ttx: asap | 21:18 |
| annegentle | I can keep working on extension doc but it's swiss cheese holey. | 21:18 |
| johnpur | working on it now | 21:18 |
| pvo | vishy: will do. | 21:18 |
| ttx | pvo: bug number ? | 21:19 |
| pvo | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/845714 | 21:19 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 845714 in nova "VDI is not resized to instance_type local_gb on initial boot" [High,New] | 21:19 |
| wwkeyboard | ohh… thats me again | 21:19 |
| ttx | ok, targeted | 21:19 |
| ttx | wwkeyboard: are you the new default assignee ? | 21:19 |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:20 |
| wwkeyboard | Is that the downside of a name that starts with two 'a's | 21:20 |
| medberry | which explains the IRC nick | 21:20 |
| jaypipes | heh | 21:20 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects news | 21:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news" | 21:21 | |
| danwent | quantum: about to release for diablo | 21:21 |
| danwent | quantum: proposals for essex in full swing. | 21:21 |
| ttx | So there seems to be a problem with Keystone and Diablo. vishy ? | 21:21 |
| danwent | not much other than that :) | 21:21 |
| * ttx reconnects | 21:21 | |
| ttx | <ttx> So there seems to be a problem with Keystone and Diablo. vishy ? | 21:21 |
| danwent | quantum: oh, and we switched from launchpad to github, thanks jeblair! | 21:23 |
| vishy | there are many | 21:23 |
| ttx | vishy: do we have a known version that works with Diablo taht we could recommend ? | 21:23 |
| pvo | ttx: we also should consider this one as well: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/850389 | 21:23 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 850389 in glance "snapshots are not private by default" [Undecided,New] | 21:23 |
| ttx | (and that we would encourage Ubuntu to package) | 21:24 |
| vishy | so the main issue is that we don't have a consistent package for keystone that we can ship in diablo | 21:24 |
| ttx | jaypipes: ^ | 21:24 |
| vishy | apparently the first "release" of keystone is 6 weeks out | 21:24 |
| vishy | so we need an interim solution | 21:24 |
| ttx | a "recommended for Diablo" version ? | 21:24 |
| vishy | ttx: we could use a version from about a week ago | 21:25 |
| vishy | which mostly works (I think) | 21:25 |
| medberry | with the current Diablo? | 21:25 |
| antonym | i've had a few issues with the latest versions of keystone. i believe some of the changes around tenantid broke some stuff | 21:25 |
| medberry | with the current Diablo Nova? | 21:25 |
| vishy | but keystone has been in such flux, i don't know if there is a solid point to set it | 21:25 |
| rmk | antonym: yes, confirmed, I did as well and commented on the specific commit which changed that | 21:25 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, this has bitten us as well: https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/839559 | 21:25 |
| ttx | vishy: as far as I'm concerned (Keystone not being core in Diablo) we can go as far as talking abot it in release notes | 21:25 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 839559 in glance "update the glance config files with keystone auth examples" [Low,Fix committed] | 21:25 |
| rmk | ttx: The only way to use the dashboard is with keystone | 21:26 |
| johnpur | vishy, ttx: is it worth trying to ship an interim that we cannot validate? | 21:26 |
| *** adam_g has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: no I was talking about <pvo> ttx: we also should consider this one as well: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/850389 | 21:26 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 850389 in glance "snapshots are not private by default" [Undecided,New] | 21:26 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| rmk | So no keystone, no dashboard | 21:26 |
| ttx | johnpur: I don't ship Keystone in 2011.3 | 21:26 |
| johnpur | does dash have a version it is tested with? | 21:26 |
| vishy | ttx: so we ship diablo with no auth? | 21:27 |
| vishy | :( | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | ttx: oh, sorry... I guess I'm not sure what you're asking me? | 21:27 |
| johnpur | vishy: the old auth still works, correct? | 21:27 |
| westmaas | we can find one that works, and document that, I think that's what ttx is saying? | 21:27 |
| heckj_ | We've (dash) been attempting to track and test on trunk | 21:27 |
| vishy | westmaas: I'm all for that | 21:27 |
| ttx | vishy: Keystone is separate from core projects atm -- that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a version compatible with Diablo | 21:28 |
| vishy | i think we need at least some buy in from keystone guys | 21:28 |
| rmk | I'd suggest a branch prior to yesterday's commits | 21:28 |
| rmk | and fix whatever is broken against that | 21:28 |
| vishy | i.e. A tagged revision number | 21:28 |
| ttx | just that we have more flexibility due to it not being core and released | 21:28 |
| vishy | and hopefully we can build packages off of that | 21:28 |
| antonym | the most recent commit i had good success on with keystone was https://github.com/openstack/keystone/commit/8a0fcd001f547d7efe3b25e997ba2010111cc839 some of the newer ones past that may work but that's the one i've been running with for now | 21:28 |
| westmaas | any keystoners here? | 21:29 |
| annegentle | westmaas: heh. just heh. | 21:29 |
| dolphm | *raises hand* | 21:29 |
| Vek | *cough* | 21:29 |
| *** jrouault has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:29 | |
| westmaas | antonym: were you running that version with a nova pretty close to when we did our diablo branch? | 21:31 |
| dolphm | our goal right now is to fulfill the contract laid out in our documentation, and as we race toward that goal, we're creating work for the other projects... so if you define diablo-compatible in terms of our API, the implementation is a couple weeks away, but if you define diablo-compatible in terms of compatibility with other projects... i think that was yesterday as rmk pointed out | 21:31 |
| zykes- | any meeting now or ? | 21:31 |
| westmaas | I think it was broken for ant yesterday | 21:32 |
| ttx | I define diablo as compatible with the rest of diablo, personally | 21:32 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: 30 minutes until Quantum meeting. this is the weekly project status meeting. | 21:32 |
| medberry | zykes-, I think we're still in the middle. | 21:32 |
| antonym | westmaas: yeah, i had to roll back to that version | 21:32 |
| vishy | ok lets settle on on a revision number | 21:32 |
| zykes- | ok | 21:32 |
| rmk | 0425fba560e7d68e52f922667972765e64ad17dc mostly seemed to work | 21:32 |
| rmk | https://github.com/openstack/keystone/commit/0425fba560e7d68e52f922667972765e64ad17dc | 21:33 |
| *** danwent has left #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| rmk | Or https://github.com/openstack/keystone/commit/a9132101940ed85e86e44e1cd37cc5bfa07f0713 -- which goes back further and probably had a lot more usage against it | 21:34 |
| anotherjesse | sorry if I'm late - is it too late to talk about auth api for diablo? | 21:34 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: hehe, that's the current topic. | 21:34 |
| anotherjesse | the current thought is to ship an old version of keystone? | 21:35 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: looks like the only way out ? | 21:35 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: old == day or two ago... | 21:35 |
| dolphm | old == behind it's documentation | 21:36 |
| medberry | proposals are for 12d.o, 5d.o and 1d.o | 21:36 |
| zykes- | this is for the .3 milestone ? | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | shipping an old version means we are telling people to deploy clouds with auth that isn't done | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | there are 3 calls that need to be correct: | 21:36 |
| vishy | zykes-: this is for the diablo final release yes | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | CREATE TOKEN: | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | posting: https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identity-api/src/docbkx/samples/auth_credentials.json TO /v2.0/tokens | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | returns: https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identity-api/src/docbkx/samples/auth.json | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | (if this could return tenant id(/name) then we wouldn't need admin token for user dash) | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | VALIDATE (GET) TOKEN: (admin endpoint) | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | GET /v2.0/tokens/(TOKEN_ID) | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | returns: https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identity-api/src/docbkx/samples/validatetoken.json | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | ^ should have tenant id, tenant name , and user id | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | GET TENANTS FOR TOKEN: (user endpoint) | 21:36 |
| uvirtbot | anotherjesse: Error: "should" is not a valid command. | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | GET /v2.0/tenants | 21:36 |
| anotherjesse | returns: https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identity-api/src/docbkx/samples/tenants.json | 21:36 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| zykes- | vishy: i thought the final release was .4 ? | 21:37 |
| anotherjesse | if keystone implements those correctly, then we don't have to ship a broken auth system | 21:37 |
| vishy | dolphm: can we have those modifications in today? | 21:37 |
| vishy | zykes-: w'ere talking about the final diablo release that is supposed to ship on the 22nd | 21:37 |
| ttx | zykes-: Diablo = 2011.3 | 21:38 |
| zykes- | ah | 21:38 |
| zykes- | so keystone isn't milestoned ? | 21:38 |
| anotherjesse | I am concerned about people tooling for apis that kinda worked at some point | 21:38 |
| medberry | I don't think there will be a 2011.4 | 21:38 |
| westmaas | anotherjesse: changes are only required on keystone side? | 21:38 |
| ttx | zykes-: stop interrupting please | 21:38 |
| dolphm | vishy: looking at what anotherjesse pasted... I also just opened a review for role names & ID's in POST /tokens/{token_id} | 21:38 |
| anotherjesse | westmaas - and middleware | 21:38 |
| anotherjesse | westmaas - yes | 21:38 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: that means patching middleware in all three projects as well | 21:38 |
| anotherjesse | vishy - yes - a pita | 21:38 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: is the swift middleware still in keystone? | 21:39 |
| anotherjesse | not sure - swift guys around? | 21:39 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: I'm not worried about the pita. I'm worried about getting it in by tomorrow and having any confidence that it will actually work | 21:39 |
| anotherjesse | vishy - the interace between the mdidleware and projects isn't changing | 21:39 |
| anotherjesse | vishy - so I don't worry about cascading failures (that much) | 21:39 |
| anotherjesse | who needs sleep ;-/ | 21:40 |
| ttx | depending on keystone in any way while it was still outside the release process was not such a great idea. | 21:40 |
| vishy | jaypipes: thoughts? | 21:40 |
| dolphm | anotherjesse: i think we can have those changes done late today / tomorrow | 21:40 |
| jaypipes | vishy: reading back.. | 21:40 |
| dolphm | ttx: agree | 21:40 |
| *** alandman has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:40 | |
| anotherjesse | dolphm: we (sleepsonthefloor, myself and a few others) can help | 21:41 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: maybe a solution is that we ship diablo (nova/..) with noauth | 21:41 |
| anotherjesse | and then separately have keystone release with the middleware? | 21:41 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: we are shipping with noauth by default | 21:41 |
| anotherjesse | i REALLY don't want a auth api that we are going to delete in weeks to continue to be what we have to support for years | 21:41 |
| pvo | anotherjesse: ++ | 21:42 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: at this point this would have my preference. | 21:42 |
| pvo | dare I ask should we delay? | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | OK, so is this something that we want to postpone the Diablo release until Keystone is stabilized on the issues anotherjesse brought up above? | 21:42 |
| anotherjesse | so - nova/swift/glance ship without keystone integration - and we work our *** off to make it so we have a keystone release this week that works iwth them? | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | pvo: heh, beat me to it :) | 21:42 |
| dolphm | anotherjesse: is that a complete list? | 21:43 |
| *** annegentl has quit IRC | 21:43 | |
| pvo | jaypipes: but you are more eloquent. : ) | 21:43 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: I'm not opposed to merging changes into nova for keystone middleware, since it isn't the default install | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm: for the integration yes | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm: the other apis aren't in use (yet) | 21:43 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I don't want to delay because an incubated project is not ready. that's the whole point of having core and noncore projects | 21:43 |
| dolphm | what's our ideal deadline to make those changes at this point? | 21:43 |
| medberry | EOD | 21:43 |
| vishy | dolphm: + more change | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | a week ago | 21:43 |
| vishy | 1 more that is | 21:43 |
| vishy | ec2tokens needs to stay the same and send back the same stuff as tokens | 21:44 |
| anotherjesse | given that we are shipping noauth in nova/swift/glance | 21:45 |
| anotherjesse | is it acceptable to say that keystone integration middleware won't be in the core projects --- it will be in keystone for now? | 21:45 |
| anotherjesse | (as it has been for nova) | 21:45 |
| *** jshepher has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| ttx | anotherjesse: that makes sense to me | 21:45 |
| anotherjesse | if so - then we should release diablo and work our *** off to get keystone out the door - since the changes should not require changes in nova/swift/glance | 21:45 |
| *** jshepher has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| johnpur | anotherjesse: +1 | 21:46 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: I don't like it but I don't see much other choice | 21:46 |
| jaypipes | ttx: well, if it means anything, we've been bitten by keystone version drift affecting glance, but fixes for those things have gone into essex, not diablo: https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/851026 | 21:46 |
| westmaas | is the middleware in glance and swift right now? | 21:46 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 851026 in glance "Keystone version drift impacting functional tests" [High,Fix committed] | 21:46 |
| Daviey | wait, keystone is still optional for diablo? | 21:46 |
| anotherjesse | Daviey: if you don't care about auth you don't have to use keytsone | 21:46 |
| jaypipes | westmaas: the middleware is actually in the keystone project, but yes... | 21:46 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: we're basically saying diablo is broken imo | 21:46 |
| rmk | anotherjesse: Or don't care about the dashboard | 21:46 |
| vishy | the current middleware for nova is in nova | 21:46 |
| vishy | not keystone | 21:46 |
| vishy | so we need to move it to keystone | 21:47 |
| anotherjesse | rmk: we've been working on the dash integration with keystone,glance,nova - exactly the problem :) | 21:47 |
| westmaas | oh i see. | 21:47 |
| jaypipes | vishy: westmaas was referring to swift and glance, sorry | 21:47 |
| vishy | shall i propose a patch, removing the middleware from nova? | 21:47 |
| Daviey | vishy: for Essex, right? | 21:47 |
| rmk | anotherjesse: right but all of those can work without keystone except the dashboard | 21:47 |
| ttx | vishy: does that plan mean any change on nova's side ? Like doc ? | 21:47 |
| ttx | jaypipes: same question for glance | 21:47 |
| * ttx is a bit lost in the implications | 21:47 | |
| vishy | Daviey: no we're talking about removing it completely | 21:47 |
| Daviey | !!! | 21:47 |
| openstack | Daviey: Error: "!!" is not a valid command. | 21:47 |
| vishy | I know, I'm not happy either | 21:47 |
| Daviey | This is really kinda scary to be doing it moments before release. | 21:48 |
| * ttx missed a few messages | 21:48 | |
| vishy | it means anyone who wants auth is forced to used deprecated auth | 21:48 |
| anotherjesse | we aren't removing anything -it is that we didn't get keystone integration done | 21:48 |
| annegentle | the documentation is behind anyway, as far as integration with Compute | 21:48 |
| ttx | Daviey: told you that was the right choice :) | 21:48 |
| Daviey | vishy: In Ubuntu, we are defaulting to deprecated auth for diablo. | 21:48 |
| vishy | ttx: I don't think there are significant doc changes | 21:48 |
| vishy | Daviey, so you got no worries then | 21:48 |
| Daviey | ttx: Erm, do you want me to grep my logs? ;) | 21:48 |
| anotherjesse | deprecated auth is :( | 21:49 |
| anotherjesse | but better than nothing | 21:49 |
| vishy | so do we put deprecated auth back to default? | 21:49 |
| vishy | or default to noauth? | 21:49 |
| anotherjesse | or no-auth? | 21:49 |
| annegentle | deprecated auth helps the doc situation. | 21:50 |
| Daviey | Well the problem is, the cycle started not knowing that keystone was going to be core midway. | 21:50 |
| johnpur | vishy: yes | 21:50 |
| rmk | at least people are used to deprecated auth | 21:50 |
| dolphm | Daviey: ++ | 21:50 |
| ttx | Daviey: it's not core midway | 21:50 |
| medberry | it's core at Essex? | 21:50 |
| ttx | Daviey: it's still incubating for diablo. | 21:50 |
| jaypipes | is deprecated auth the original sqlalchemy-based auth manager? | 21:50 |
| Daviey | ttx: When did keystone become core? | 21:50 |
| vishy | jaypipes: yup | 21:50 |
| jaypipes | Daviey: essex | 21:50 |
| Daviey | ttx: incubating, but close to mandatory? | 21:50 |
| ttx | Daviey: the problem is that Nova grew an overconfident dep on it | 21:50 |
| vishy | sqlalchemy + ldap | 21:50 |
| jaypipes | Daviey: it was voted into core from incubation about 3 weeks ago. | 21:50 |
| anotherjesse | the issue with deprecated auth manager is that it means there is not a good user experience… which is why we've been pushing hard | 21:51 |
| jaypipes | vishy: got it, thx | 21:51 |
| vishy | ttx: we don't have a dependency on it | 21:51 |
| anotherjesse | anyway - so - noauth vs. deprecated - which is less confusing? | 21:51 |
| ttx | vishy: dependency is not the right word. Affinity ? | 21:51 |
| Daviey | jaypipes: Ah yes, but it looks like the direction of this conversation was to make it pretty much mandatory for diablo? | 21:51 |
| vishy | ttx: we just decided to default to noauth with the idea that people could use keystone for real deploys | 21:51 |
| anotherjesse | neither works with dashboard? (or is there a branch it works with?) | 21:51 |
| ttx | vishy: ok | 21:51 |
| rmk | anotherjesse: I'd love to know if there's a branch which doesn't require keystone - haven't seen one | 21:52 |
| ttx | then maybe we should default to noauth... your choice | 21:52 |
| johnpur | people are running with the deprecated auth currently | 21:52 |
| anotherjesse | then let them eat cake ;) | 21:52 |
| vishy | no keystone == no functional openstack system IMO | 21:52 |
| johnpur | i vote to make this the default (still) | 21:52 |
| jaypipes | Daviey: Glance never took the approach of making it mandatory... Glance has entirely optional integration with keystone. | 21:52 |
| anotherjesse | deprecated auth | 21:52 |
| vishy | I had no idea keystone wasn't going to release at diablo | 21:53 |
| anotherjesse | me either :( | 21:53 |
| Daviey | jaypipes: Glance can be smug then :) | 21:53 |
| anotherjesse | Daviey: we have optional integration | 21:53 |
| anotherjesse | in nova | 21:53 |
| jaypipes | ok, brass tacks here... do we delay the release or not? | 21:53 |
| jaypipes | Daviey: not being smug... life was easier for Glance. :) | 21:53 |
| Daviey | :) | 21:53 |
| vishy | guys, it is all well and good to say, hey we're great we don't need keystone | 21:53 |
| *** aabes has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:53 | |
| anotherjesse | the problem is that it is nova/dash/swift each have their own user systems without | 21:53 |
| vishy | but fyi, you can't deploy a cloud without it | 21:54 |
| *** galthaus has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| vishy | you have a) no dashboard | 21:54 |
| vishy | b) no public glance server | 21:54 |
| anotherjesse | no private | 21:54 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I understand you completely. that's why I'm asking if we should delay. | 21:54 |
| pvo | I think we should delay to get it working. | 21:54 |
| jk0 | +1 | 21:54 |
| vishy | c) you have to manage users and tenants separately for swift and nova | 21:54 |
| Daviey | vishy: Our stance is that for diablo, keystone and dashboard are released - but not offically supported. | 21:54 |
| Daviey | Ie, doesn't work OOTB | 21:54 |
| vishy | Daviey: that is fine, what are you doing with glance? | 21:54 |
| Daviey | Which is why we are using deprecated auth for default install. | 21:55 |
| ttx | pvo: if I had *any* visibility on when it will be ready, i could consider a short delay. But I have none | 21:55 |
| vishy | Daviey: how do users upload images, using nova-objectstore? | 21:55 |
| Daviey | vishy: yes | 21:55 |
| pvo | ttx: are any keystone people here that can speak to this? | 21:55 |
| vishy | Daviey: so you have a reasonable solution, which is use the ec2 api | 21:55 |
| *** jcannava_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| dolphm | pvo: on what issue, exactly | 21:55 |
| vishy | Daviey: unfortunately I don't think that solution works for openstack | 21:55 |
| westmaas | dolphm said a today or tomorrow for what anotherjesse laid out | 21:55 |
| *** jcannava has left #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| pvo | dolphm: <vishy> Daviey: how do users upload images, using nova-objectstore? | 21:56 |
| westmaas | assuming that's all we have | 21:56 |
| pvo | er | 21:56 |
| pvo | silly scroll | 21:56 |
| dolphm | lol | 21:56 |
| pvo | dolphm: ttx> pvo: if I had *any* visibility on when it will be ready, i could consider a short delay. But I have none | 21:56 |
| Daviey | vishy: ah. | 21:56 |
| ttx | vishy: you have a complete cloud with nova + keystone, doesn't mean we need to wait for keystone to release nova, right ? | 21:56 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| vishy | ttx: it all works fine if you are deploying independent chunks | 21:57 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:57 | |
| vishy | ttx: or testing it, etc. | 21:57 |
| anotherjesse | so - if we don't think there will be changes to nova/swift/glance | 21:57 |
| vishy | ttx: but we have no fully operational production cloud without something like keystone | 21:57 |
| anotherjesse | should we release as is | 21:57 |
| Daviey | Is it unreasonable for nova to suggest a keystone snapshot, until it is released? | 21:57 |
| johnpur | vishy: or have worked around it | 21:57 |
| vishy | Daviey: that is what I was proposing | 21:57 |
| ttx | vishy: agreed, and wez should definitely have a good keystone released asap | 21:57 |
| anotherjesse | and then have a "diablo+" documentation which talks about integration with incubation projects: dash/keystone | 21:57 |
| vishy | Daviey: but anotherjesse is pushing to make sure the api is right in the snapshot | 21:58 |
| anotherjesse | since it isn't really a step backwards | 21:58 |
| vishy | which i agree with | 21:58 |
| pvo | anotherjesse: sure, that works. | 21:58 |
| vishy | but it might means waiting a few days | 21:58 |
| Daviey | vishy: the only problem comes, if nova needs changes for keystone final | 21:58 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: we don't have to wait - diablo released without keystone isn't what we want | 21:58 |
| *** marktvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| anotherjesse | but it isn't worse than cactus | 21:58 |
| anotherjesse | :-/ | 21:58 |
| vishy | Daviey: they will be middleware changes | 21:58 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: +1 | 21:58 |
| Daviey | I can state that Ubuntu will not be upset if nova is delayed BTW. | 21:58 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: hilarious | 21:58 |
| Daviey | We have a few patches that we need that won't land in time as-is, then we were looking to get into trunk and backporting. | 21:59 |
| anotherjesse | I definitely do not want to ship with an auth api that isn't good | 21:59 |
| anotherjesse | rather not have auth than auth that we don't want | 21:59 |
| ttx | vishy: we still hope that keystone will be released asap | 21:59 |
| anotherjesse | what is the cost of a delay to friday? | 21:59 |
| anotherjesse | (i'm saying both things I realize - ship now and ship in 3 days) | 21:59 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: friday is ok, but I see no reason t othink it would be ready on friday | 22:00 |
| *** wwkeyboard has left #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| ttx | especially since "ready on friday" means released friday morning | 22:00 |
| pvo | ttx: doesn't it give time to find the right snapshot? | 22:00 |
| medberry | ttx, +1, I've not seen a real blueprint review of what it would take for Keystone to be done. | 22:00 |
| anotherjesse | is the diablo+ documentation (where we talk about diablo plus the inclubation projects) a reasonable appraoch? | 22:00 |
| dolphm | ttx: i think anotherjesse's short list of issues can certainly be done *well* before friday | 22:00 |
| vishy | it seems like we could accomplish the goal of having the api correct | 22:00 |
| anotherjesse | pvo - I'm pretty sure that what I posted is good enough | 22:00 |
| vishy | we need concurrent changes to all the middlewares | 22:01 |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| ttx | ok, we need to make progress. Could all people with an idea sum up their proposal | 22:01 |
| anotherjesse | vishy - keysotne would release middleware in that project | 22:01 |
| ttx | anotherjesse, vishy | 22:01 |
| annegentle | who will write the diablo+ docs? | 22:01 |
| pvo | anotherjesse: will re-read when we're done. Had to page out for a sec. | 22:01 |
| anotherjesse | release diablo as planned -- then do a seperate preview release of dash/keystone that integrates with diablo asap with the proper auth api | 22:02 |
| *** jmeredit has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| anotherjesse | diablo as released doesn't have unified auth | 22:02 |
| johnpur | and default to deprectaed auth | 22:02 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | Greetings! | 22:02 |
| anotherjesse | the seperate release has updated middleware for each project that it integrates with | 22:02 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| pvo | anotherjesse: hmm. Ok. That works. | 22:02 |
| ttx | then Keystone is released and all is great | 22:02 |
| edgarmagana | Hi all! | 22:02 |
| danwent | sumit: netstack meeting is delay until nova is finished | 22:02 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: that's it ? | 22:02 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: thouhts? | 22:03 |
| ttx | sorry about that -- but this is pretty critical | 22:03 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: do we pull out the existing middleware? | 22:03 |
| danwent | ttx: no worries, this is very important. | 22:03 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: I think it might be good to remove - or at least put a header in the file saying experimental? | 22:03 |
| vishy | ok | 22:03 |
| westmaas | the keystone release is going to include the new middleware right | 22:03 |
| ttx | vishy: your counter-proposal is ? if any ? | 22:03 |
| westmaas | seems like it should just come out | 22:03 |
| dolphm | anotherjesse: that would be a very fair statement | 22:03 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: yes | 22:03 |
| vishy | I'm ok with that. | 22:04 |
| ttx | that's what makes sense from a "core" projects pure definition | 22:04 |
| vishy | I just really don't like the story that it tells | 22:04 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| anotherjesse | I know | 22:04 |
| vishy | but I guess that is my medicine to take | 22:04 |
| anotherjesse | not a step back - no one realized it was broken yet ;( | 22:04 |
| ttx | any other plan sounds a bit open ended | 22:04 |
| vishy | any other opinions on the default auth? Deprecated auth or no auth? | 22:05 |
| jaypipes | what about documentation? Specifically about this diablo+ release. annegentle? | 22:05 |
| *** galstrom has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:05 | |
| annegentle | ^ yes what jaypipes said | 22:05 |
| uvirtbot | annegentle: Error: "yes" is not a valid command. | 22:05 |
| ttx | deprecatedauth makes more sense from an update perspective.. but noauth has been default now forever | 22:05 |
| anotherjesse | annegentle: yes | 22:05 |
| ttx | so any will do | 22:05 |
| anotherjesse | annegentle: we will help | 22:05 |
| vishy | ttx: yes I'm a little concerned about reverting the changes, but i think i could swing it if it is really important | 22:06 |
| annegentle | anotherjesse: okay. I'd prefer generally the incubated project puts doc resources in. | 22:06 |
| vishy | i think if we put in the release notes about how to configure each it is probably fine | 22:06 |
| ttx | vishy: no, I'd keep noauth and explain in releasenotes | 22:06 |
| johnpur | vishy: agree | 22:06 |
| vishy | ok, so I will propose a merge removing the keystone middlewares | 22:06 |
| ttx | not something we should change on day-1 | 22:07 |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| ttx | (the default) | 22:07 |
| vishy | who can take proposing them into keystone? | 22:07 |
| vishy | and I assume all of the other middlewares are still in keystone? | 22:07 |
| dolphm | vishy: I can +2 for openstack/keystone, if that's what you're referring to | 22:07 |
| ttx | notmyname, jaypipes ^ | 22:08 |
| vishy | dolphm: I was actually looking for someone else to do the proposal | 22:08 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: can you or sleepsonthefloor do that part? | 22:08 |
| dolphm | vishy: i guess i'm lost | 22:08 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: ya - we will tag on that today | 22:08 |
| *** jshepher has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| vishy | dolphm: I need to sleep :at some point | 22:08 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm: we'll catch you up | 22:09 |
| anotherjesse | :) | 22:09 |
| *** galstrom has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:09 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: yes, glance and swift middleware is in keystone already. | 22:09 |
| dolphm | appreciated :) | 22:09 |
| ttx | ok, can we wrap up ? | 22:09 |
| ttx | or are there still hard feelings ? | 22:09 |
| ttx | a release without a last-minute crisis is not a release. | 22:09 |
| *** jamesurquhart has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:09 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: and actually, Nova's is too apparently... https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/master/keystone/middleware | 22:09 |
| ttx | is the plan clear to everyone ? | 22:10 |
| vishy | jaypipes: that was the old one | 22:10 |
| vladimir3p | ttx: can you pls summarize it | 22:10 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: can you take the lead on moving middleware back to keystone ? | 22:10 |
| vishy | jaypipes: the "shim" version | 22:10 |
| jaypipes | vishy: k | 22:10 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: yes | 22:10 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: not sure if shim will change | 22:10 |
| ttx | because it's getting late around here | 22:10 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: but will anyway | 22:10 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 22:11 | |
| *** jcannava_ has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| annegentle | I wanted to say thanks to all who participated in the Doc Blitz. Over 100 comments on the http://docs.openstack.org/docblitz pages, wow. In the afternoon session we had a comment a minute rate. | 22:12 |
| ttx | vladimir3p: do not ship keystone middleware in nova since keystoe is still evolving by release time | 22:12 |
| ttx | ok, I'll skip the last topic | 22:12 |
| ttx | #action ttx to turn his propose session rant into an email | 22:12 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 22:12 |
| ttx | anything else ? | 22:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 22:12 | |
| * ttx 's network dropped for a second | 22:13 | |
| ttx | vishy: are we ok ? | 22:13 |
| ttx | anyone hears me ? | 22:14 |
| jk0 | yep | 22:14 |
| medberry | yes | 22:14 |
| * Vek stopped paying attention a half-hour ago | 22:14 | |
| johnpur | ttx: yes | 22:14 |
| ttx | ok :) | 22:14 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:14 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:14 | |
| * salv Netstack people hear you from outside the room | 22:14 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 20 22:14:48 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:14 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-21.02.html | 22:14 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-21.02.txt | 22:14 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-21.02.log.html | 22:14 |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:15 | |
| Vek | (yay ADD) | 22:15 |
| danwent | ok netstack… let's start this up again | 22:15 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 22:15 | |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| salv | Hi everybody | 22:15 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:15 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Sep 20 22:15:25 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:15 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks Dan for the heads up earlier :-) | 22:15 |
| danwent | no worries | 22:15 |
| somik | Hi folks | 22:15 |
| debo_os | Hi | 22:15 |
| carlp | Hello | 22:15 |
| troytoman | hello | 22:16 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 22:16 | |
| danwent | agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:16 |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| somik | I guess the keystone stuff will also impact Quantum's keystone integration story | 22:16 |
| danwent | any topics for general discussion? | 22:16 |
| salv | I shall see it | 22:16 |
| danwent | #topic melange status | 22:17 |
| somik | Should we also follow suit of merging the keystone integration middleware into keystone? | 22:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange status" | 22:17 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** marktvoelker has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| danwent | somik: let's add an item in the quantum section for that | 22:17 |
| anotherjesse | somik: it is a short term thing | 22:17 |
| danwent | troy? | 22:17 |
| troytoman | sorry, still suffering keystone fatigue | 22:18 |
| anotherjesse | somik: if you are doing a diablo release I'd move it - otherwise there isn't a good reason | 22:18 |
| danwent | :) | 22:18 |
| *** galthaus has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** aabes has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| troytoman | melange was repropped today | 22:18 |
| troytoman | we've broken it down into multiple merges within Nova | 22:18 |
| troytoman | this will make reviews easier | 22:18 |
| troytoman | should start seeing traction in the next week or two. | 22:18 |
| troytoman | that's pretty much the focus at this point | 22:19 |
| danwent | great. | 22:19 |
| danwent | any questions on melange? | 22:19 |
| carlp | yes | 22:19 |
| carlp | troytoman: Do you want us to get together with you off-line on how to get the IP discovery stuff working and when? | 22:20 |
| carlp | or do we just want to talk about it at the summit? | 22:20 |
| troytoman | carlp: probably makes sense - summit sounds like a great plan | 22:20 |
| carlp | troytoman: OK, we'll make a time to sync up with you there | 22:20 |
| danwent | carlp: probably good to have a bp on this at least | 22:20 |
| somik | anotherjesee: we have a diablo release, so we will consider that option. | 22:21 |
| danwent | or is it not generally applicable? | 22:21 |
| troytoman | carlp: i think there is a blueprint placeholder - perhaps a few more details around the idea | 22:21 |
| danwent | great. | 22:21 |
| *** alandman has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| danwent | ok, last call for melange... | 22:21 |
| carlp | I'll see if I can find it, and do that | 22:21 |
| danwent | #topic donabe status | 22:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe status" | 22:22 | |
| danwent | debo? | 22:22 |
| debo_os | update 1) WIP on donabe api simplification (nested containers) and demo (link it with quantum) 2) Writing a doc summary for the models 3) We have a donabe session and we need to pick up steam 4) Possible directions for the session - i) Is a simple nested container good enough? ii) use cases for 3 tier apps, services iii) container scheduling | 22:22 |
| debo_os | batch update ... :) | 22:22 |
| troytoman | carlp: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/melange-address-discovery | 22:22 |
| danwent | :) | 22:22 |
| debo_os | Rick was supposed to be here to finalize the meeting for Donabe but didnt he sy Wed same time? | 22:22 |
| salv | debo: in my order of preference: 2, 1, 3 | 22:22 |
| debo_os | 'Also please provide comments on the docs in the repo lp:donabe/docs | 22:23 |
| debo_os | salv: there are some sketches in the repo | 22:23 |
| danwent | debo: is there still a meeting scheduled for tomorrow? | 22:23 |
| debo_os | feedback is *really* appreciated | 22:23 |
| debo_os | Rick hasnt said anything to the contrary .... since he was organizing the meeting | 22:24 |
| *** heckj_ has quit IRC | 22:24 | |
| debo_os | so I guess lets still plan for tomorrow | 22:24 |
| zykes- | is there meetings on wednesdays as well ? | 22:24 |
| danwent | is this going to be an IRC meeting, a phone call, something else? maybe I missed an email? | 22:24 |
| salv | debo_os: can you remind us the time? | 22:24 |
| debo_os | 3pm PST 6pm EST | 22:25 |
| debo_os | same place | 22:25 |
| *** jrouault has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| danwent | zykes: I believe this is intended to be a one-time sync pre-summit, but debo or dendrobates can clarify | 22:25 |
| debo_os | yes thats correct | 22:26 |
| debo_os | we could make it into a more regular meet if we need to | 22:26 |
| danwent | ok, anything else for donabe? | 22:26 |
| debo_os | thats all from me | 22:26 |
| debo_os | anyone? comments? | 22:27 |
| danwent | #topic quantum status | 22:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum status" | 22:27 | |
| debo_os | Thanks Salvatore for the prioritization sequence comment! | 22:27 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/2011.3 | 22:27 |
| salv | np | 22:27 |
| danwent | goes out on 9/22 (thursday) | 22:27 |
| salv | no pre-release drama for us? | 22:27 |
| danwent | salv got the API docs proposed. | 22:27 |
| danwent | salv: fingers crossed :) | 22:28 |
| danwent | I think they need one more review (while they aren't code and can't break anything, it woudl be good to get another set of eyes on it) | 22:28 |
| somik | salv: I think we should back out the keystone integration as our middleware will not work with keystone and can be misleading | 22:28 |
| Daviey | How is the quabtum docs and examples looking? Still feels very un-exposed from my PoV | 22:28 |
| Daviey | quantum* | 22:28 |
| salv | somik: do you want to throw it out of the source code tree? | 22:29 |
| danwent | Daviey: API docs are shaping up nicely. Admin docs are the next priority… still need a lot of work. | 22:29 |
| * vishy is jealous | 22:29 | |
| danwent | This is on my plate… I | 22:29 |
| danwent | Daviey, I'd encourage you to ping the netstack list and you can get the privilege of being an early reviewer of the docs if you like :) | 22:30 |
| danwent | we'll need lots of eye-balls | 22:30 |
| carlp | I'll be happy to look over the docs as well | 22:30 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| salv | carlp: lp:~salvatore-orlando/quantum/quantum-api-doc | 22:31 |
| salv | or, more easily, I can send you a preview pdf by email. | 22:31 |
| danwent | carlp: thanks. API docs are were to start. i'm definitely hoping people will take a break from the pre-summit madness to help with docs. | 22:31 |
| salv | Or maybe I will circulate it on the Openstack ML | 22:31 |
| Daviey | danwent: sounds good. | 22:31 |
| danwent | salv: I'm sure that won't open up a can of worms :) | 22:32 |
| danwent | but hey, the more eyeballs, the merrier | 22:32 |
| salv | danwent: definitely. | 22:32 |
| danwent | Ok, somik, I think you wanted to bring up some issues with quantum + the dashboard? | 22:33 |
| somik | yup, the issues with quantum and dashboard were partially related to keystone | 22:33 |
| somik | but in general, there is a little misalignment in our dashboard's expectations | 22:34 |
| somik | Essentially, creating networks in the dashboard doesn't reflect the network in quantum | 22:34 |
| somik | whic*nova | 22:34 |
| somik | *nova | 22:34 |
| salv | I don't get this, I'm sorry. Can you elaborate a bit more? | 22:35 |
| somik | So, the user still has to use nova-manage tool with quantum manager to create nova networks that can be used by VMs | 22:35 |
| somik | Basically, there is no way to create and nova networks using Dashboard | 22:36 |
| danwent | somik: because of IPAM and vNIC ordering? | 22:36 |
| somik | danwent: correct and because nova is not notified of quantum networks created through dashboard | 22:36 |
| danwent | (i.e., nova networks represent more than just L2 networks, they also handle IPAM, and they determine the number of vNICs a VM gets in Nova) | 22:36 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| danwent | somik: I dont' think its a matter of notification… as nova will query the set of networks a tenant has in quantum. | 22:37 |
| somik | I believe we will need to fix this and also create a top level non-nova Quantum UI that directly interacts with Quantum service. | 22:38 |
| danwent | IPAM to me seems like the real blocker. | 22:38 |
| danwent | are there any plans to expose melange via the dashboard to let the customer define subnets similar to Amazon VPC? | 22:38 |
| somik | danwent: currently IPAM and such is done through nova, so we will need dasboard to support nova way of creating networks. | 22:38 |
| troytoman | i think that once melange merges into nova, more integration will happen | 22:39 |
| troytoman | also, there is no clean way to add NICs/networks to nova outside of nova manage | 22:40 |
| salv | So, if I get it right the reason for which networks created in dashboard do not work whereas they work if created with nova-manage is that the dashboard creates only the L2 part of the network and not the L3 part? | 22:40 |
| somik | salv: correct and nova network table doesn't have a L2 network entry | 22:40 |
| salv | Fine. I don't there's a lot we can do for diablo release | 22:41 |
| somik | salv: I think, taking some time to discuss the UI use-cases and workflows during the summit might be helpful to iron out these kinks. but I just wanted to point out the current state of things. | 22:41 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| salv | What would be the impact of disabling quantum network creation in the dashboard? | 22:42 |
| danwent | somik: I agree. that is part of what I was hoping to do with the nova-parity session, but hadn't been explicitly considering dashboard | 22:42 |
| salv | somik: agreed, and probably also something more on nova <-> net_services interfaction | 22:42 |
| somik | for Diablo release, we will have to default to nova-manage as the primary network creation mechanism. | 22:42 |
| danwent | somik: ok, thanks. let's move this on to the ML if more discussion is needed. | 22:43 |
| danwent | Next topic: keystone issues (follow-up from nova meeting) | 22:43 |
| salv | I haven't followed everything in the nova meeting | 22:44 |
| salv | anyone can summarize the issue? | 22:44 |
| danwent | Do we feel we need to make any diablo changes for this? | 22:44 |
| vishy | i can summarize | 22:44 |
| somik | for this, I believe the decision was to remove keystone middlewar from project trunks and put it into keystone trunks | 22:44 |
| vishy | keystone is not releasing for ~6 weeks | 22:44 |
| salv | vishy: thanks! | 22:44 |
| vishy | which causes major issues for a full deployment | 22:44 |
| vishy | i.e. no dashboard, no public glance server without security issues | 22:45 |
| vishy | etc. | 22:45 |
| *** jorgew has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| vishy | so we decided to remove all middleware from the official diablo release | 22:45 |
| vishy | and when keystone ships it will include the required middleware | 22:45 |
| vishy | the issue is keystone implementation is changing rapidly right now | 22:46 |
| *** jorgew has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:46 | |
| danwent | ok, so we should remove middleware from quantum? | 22:46 |
| salv | vishy: thanks again. I reckon that the best thing we can do is follow the other projects. | 22:46 |
| salv | yep, let's get rid of it. | 22:46 |
| carlp | +1 | 22:46 |
| vishy | so it keeps breaking everything else and we can't track it because we need ano official release | 22:46 |
| edgarmagana | salv: +1 | 22:46 |
| vishy | I'm sure if you prop the middleware into the keystone project with the other ones it will be fine | 22:46 |
| * salv is extremely disappointed about wasted time for doing keystone integration | 22:46 | |
| danwent | yay, and to think I was worried we wouldn't get a last minute bug for the diablo release :) | 22:46 |
| edgarmagana | we had experienced the same issues in our test beds | 22:47 |
| vishy | salv: tell me about it | 22:47 |
| somik | salv: but we will need to have quantum integration middleware in keystone and have to make sure when keystone releases we have the appropriate support.. | 22:47 |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| danwent | salv: we'll all buy you a beer at the summit | 22:47 |
| salv | visky: you sure wasted more time then me! | 22:47 |
| vishy | the hope is in a month or so there will be diablo+keystone | 22:47 |
| salv | danwent: that would make up for it | 22:47 |
| danwent | somik: ok, can you track this with a bug for essex? | 22:47 |
| vishy | otherwise we can't really deploy dashboard | 22:47 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| somik | danwent: sure, I'll file a tracker bug | 22:48 |
| edgarmagana | is there any way we can deploy dashboard without keystone? | 22:48 |
| salv | somik: I think we need also a quick branch for diablo to revert quantum to pre-keystone status | 22:48 |
| edgarmagana | I man a quick fix? | 22:48 |
| danwent | #action #somik add bug to remove keystone middleware in diablo, work with keystone folks to make sure their diablo+ release works with quantum | 22:48 |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:49 | |
| somik | salv: correct, I'll file a tracker bug for that too | 22:49 |
| edgarmagana | mean* | 22:49 |
| salv | It should be easy: just take out the two middleware and remove the already commented line in quantum.conf for keystone pipeline | 22:49 |
| danwent | edgar: not that I know of, but perhaps others can correct me. | 22:50 |
| danwent | Ok, 10 minutes left. anything left to discuss on this topic? | 22:50 |
| danwent | Brad, can you chime in about the github transition? | 22:51 |
| edgarmagana | dan and salv: thanks | 22:51 |
| bhall | danwent: sure | 22:51 |
| bhall | we're transitioned (thanks jeblair) .. we've done a few pushes already and they seem to work | 22:51 |
| bhall | there was an issue with not getting emails from gerrit but that has been resolved | 22:52 |
| bhall | (if you find you don't get emails just reregister your address in gerrit) | 22:52 |
| danwent | bhall: are all of the groups setup appropriately so that core-devs can approve? | 22:52 |
| danwent | last I checked I couldn't +2, only +1 | 22:52 |
| danwent | (gotta love gerrit-speak) | 22:53 |
| bhall | I just saw a couple "you've been added" notifications, so I think that is set up now | 22:53 |
| danwent | great. | 22:53 |
| bhall | lets try it out today but I think we're ok | 22:53 |
| bhall | any other questions on the transition? | 22:53 |
| danwent | bhall: what's the best way for everyone to get familiar with gerrit reviews? are there some simple commits people can do to play with it? | 22:54 |
| bhall | fix a pylint error or two and submit it to get an idea of the workflow | 22:54 |
| danwent | are you able to do reviews for arbitrary branches, or just trunk? | 22:54 |
| bhall | both | 22:54 |
| danwent | great, that should make playing around with it easy. | 22:54 |
| danwent | bhall: great idea :) | 22:55 |
| bhall | currently our trunk isn't gated by pylint checks | 22:55 |
| bhall | it will be at some point | 22:55 |
| danwent | we also have a few branches to carry over right? like salv'e pylint branch? | 22:55 |
| bhall | so if we could fix the ones we've got, that'd be great | 22:55 |
| danwent | salv's | 22:55 |
| bhall | danwent: yup.. I can help if he needs help with that | 22:56 |
| danwent | Ok, any pressing issues to bring up around the design summit? | 22:56 |
| danwent | lot's of energy around proposals, which is great. | 22:57 |
| bhall | danwent: do you mean wrt github or in general? | 22:57 |
| bhall | oh, ok | 22:57 |
| bhall | n/m :) | 22:57 |
| danwent | bhall: sorry, trying to move quickly :) | 22:57 |
| salv | Not any pressing issue, but I would like to start seeing more detailed proposals on the ML | 22:57 |
| salv | just to go to summit sessions with a rather precise idea of the things that will be discussed in each session | 22:57 |
| danwent | salv: took the words out of my mouth :) | 22:57 |
| carlp | The session for CI discussion was approved, so I'm looking forward to see everyone there! | 22:57 |
| danwent | this will also be key when we try to organize and order the sessions. | 22:57 |
| danwent | remember that you do NOT have to have a session at the summit in order to work on something during essex. | 22:58 |
| salv | definitely. This why we should decide to schedule sessions only for items that really deserve discussion | 22:58 |
| danwent | sessions are designed when you want input, feel that your changes affect others, want to recruit people, or just improve awareness. | 22:59 |
| danwent | but space is limited, so we may have to prioritize | 22:59 |
| danwent | discussion on the ML helps us figure out what sessions can be merged as well. | 22:59 |
| danwent | (edgar: thanks for sending that draft out!) | 22:59 |
| danwent | ok, 4pm… anything else folks need to discuss? | 23:00 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 23:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 23:00 | |
| salv | also, we will soon know which sessions will be approved, and it might help if we inform the summit drivers about our priorities | 23:00 |
| edgarmagana | dan: i hope we can start the discussion on that draft over ML | 23:00 |
| salv | edgarmagana: had a quick look at it, will send some comment tomorrow | 23:00 |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 23:01 | |
| danwent | ok, going once…, twice... | 23:01 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 23:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 23:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Sep 20 23:01:27 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 23:01 |
| *** jmeredit has left #openstack-meeting | 23:01 | |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-22.15.html | 23:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-22.15.txt | 23:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-09-20-22.15.log.html | 23:01 |
| bhall | adios | 23:01 |
| salv | bye bye | 23:01 |
| danwent | see you all next week. keep up the great discussion on the ML :) | 23:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye | 23:01 |
| edgarmagana | adios | 23:01 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** jamesurquhart has left #openstack-meeting | 23:02 | |
| somik | have a good one everybody! | 23:02 |
| *** salv has left #openstack-meeting | 23:02 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** jeremyb_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:03 | |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:04 | |
| *** jorgew has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** jeremyb_ has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** jeremyb_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:05 | |
| *** jeremyb has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** jeremyb_ is now known as jeremyb | 23:09 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** blamar_ has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** edgarmagana has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** debo_os_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:30 | |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 23:33 | |
| *** debo_os_ is now known as debo_os | 23:34 | |
| *** Binbin has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
| *** primeministerp1 has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!