| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** tong has quit IRC | 00:33 | |
| *** uvirtbot has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:36 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 00:36 | |
| *** uvirtbot` has quit IRC | 00:37 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:38 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 00:39 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 00:43 | |
| *** bhall has quit IRC | 00:48 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:53 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:54 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 00:57 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 01:02 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 01:16 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:33 | |
| *** huntern has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:34 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:39 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:41 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 01:43 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 01:43 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 01:44 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 01:48 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:48 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:49 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:51 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 01:54 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 01:55 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 01:55 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:59 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 02:02 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 02:02 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 02:12 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 02:13 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:13 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:15 | |
| *** ywu has quit IRC | 02:17 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ is now known as kindaopsdevy | 02:18 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has left #openstack-meeting | 02:22 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:43 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 02:54 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:55 | |
| *** fattarsi has quit IRC | 02:57 | |
| *** fattarsi has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:57 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 03:03 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:07 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:14 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 03:16 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:17 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 03:29 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:35 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:37 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 03:40 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 03:47 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 03:55 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:56 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 04:18 | |
| *** huntern_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:19 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 04:20 | |
| *** huntern has quit IRC | 04:22 | |
| *** huntern_ is now known as huntern | 04:22 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:32 | |
| *** huntern has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** huntern has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:41 | |
| *** ravi has left #openstack-meeting | 04:43 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:43 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 04:46 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:48 | |
| *** nikhil_ has quit IRC | 04:56 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:01 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** 50UAAW7Z0 is now known as sleepsonzzz | 05:29 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 05:50 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:05 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 06:21 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 06:41 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 07:21 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:01 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:11 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 08:18 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:18 | |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 08:22 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:29 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 08:31 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:32 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 09:54 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:00 | |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:07 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 11:21 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:23 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 11:28 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:30 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:32 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:35 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 11:38 | |
| *** xsad has quit IRC | 11:39 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:39 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:41 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 11:43 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 11:44 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:59 | |
| *** davlaps has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:09 | |
| *** davlaps has quit IRC | 12:10 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 12:12 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 12:16 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:23 | |
| *** GheRivero is now known as GheAway | 12:50 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:51 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:01 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:10 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has quit IRC | 13:10 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 13:13 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 13:20 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:24 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 13:25 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:27 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:37 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:38 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:44 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:57 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:59 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 14:00 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:01 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:02 | |
| *** davidkranz has quit IRC | 14:02 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:07 | |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:24 | |
| *** xsad has quit IRC | 14:26 | |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:27 | |
| *** xsad has quit IRC | 14:28 | |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:28 | |
| *** edygarcia_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:31 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:32 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 14:34 | |
| *** edygarcia_ is now known as edygarcia | 14:34 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:40 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:42 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 14:43 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 14:44 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:52 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 14:52 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 14:54 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:09 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:09 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 15:10 | |
| *** davidkranz_ is now known as davidkranz | 15:11 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:14 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 15:15 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:21 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:25 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 15:25 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:26 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:29 | |
| *** edygarcia_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:30 | |
| *** xsad has quit IRC | 15:32 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:33 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** edygarcia_ is now known as edygarcia | 15:33 | |
| *** Amw3000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:33 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:34 | |
| *** nikhil__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:35 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 15:38 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:45 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:46 | |
| *** huntern has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:52 | |
| *** ravi_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| *** ravi_ is now known as ravi | 16:01 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** ravi_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:02 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:02 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:04 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:09 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:10 | |
| *** ravi_ has quit IRC | 16:10 | |
| *** ravi_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:11 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** ravi_ is now known as ravi | 16:11 | |
| *** _jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:14 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:19 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:20 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 16:22 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:23 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 16:25 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:29 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:31 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:31 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 16:32 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:34 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:38 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 16:39 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:39 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:44 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 16:45 | |
| *** _jgriffith is now known as jgriffith | 16:46 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:48 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:48 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:54 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:55 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:55 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:01 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:02 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti1 has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:03 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:03 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 17:14 | |
| *** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has left #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 17:20 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:37 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:37 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:47 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:50 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| *** tong has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:53 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:57 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** Dug has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| heckj | ola | 18:03 |
|---|---|---|
| heckj | Anyone around for a keystone meeting? | 18:03 |
| rafaduran | me | 18:03 |
| rafaduran | hi, all | 18:03 |
| jsavak | \o - here, but on 2 calls as well (not here). ;) | 18:04 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| adam_g | o/ | 18:04 |
| * cloudfly fly on the wall | 18:05 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 18:05 | |
| heckj | joesavak: heh - doing about the same 3 things at one | 18:05 |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:05 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Apr 24 18:05:14 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:05 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 18:05 |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| heckj | welcome back from the summit! | 18:05 |
| jsavak | :) | 18:05 |
| heckj | #topic - future work | 18:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "- future work" | 18:05 | |
| heckj | We had some great conversations at the summit, and most (but not all) are reflected in blueprints | 18:06 |
| heckj | With Folsom, I'm aiming to move any "need to do this" into blueprints (away from "bugs). So if you have elements you'd like to do, please add them in as blueprints over the next few days | 18:06 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| *** dolphm__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| jsavak | what's the approval process for the bp? | 18:07 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| dolphm__ | Bug heckj? | 18:08 |
| heckj | jsavak: right now, create it as "new" and assign it to yourself. When we're agreed on method implementation, someone on the core team (me, termie, etc) will change the BP to approved | 18:08 |
| jsavak | okie. | 18:08 |
| heckj | You *do not* need to wait for a BP to be approved to start work | 18:08 |
| heckj | submitting a code review is a perfectly acceptable (and actually quite effective) way to get an implementation conversation started. | 18:09 |
| heckj | The blueprint should ideally outline "success" criteria more than anything else. | 18:09 |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 18:09 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 18:09 | |
| jsavak | ok, cool, thx | 18:11 |
| gyee | heckj, I am changing the role apis to add the service_id back in there | 18:11 |
| heckj | #topic: next api | 18:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to ": next api" | 18:12 | |
| *** johnpostlethwait has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:12 | |
| gyee | role apis | 18:12 |
| heckj | related to gyee - with the feedback we gathered, I'll be working with termie to consolidate the API into a next revision and get that up as a document proposal over the next few weeks. | 18:12 |
| gyee | I've add the service_id back in there | 18:12 |
| gyee | added | 18:12 |
| heckj | will be looking forward to feedback from y'all on that document when we get it live | 18:13 |
| heckj | In the meantime, there's an open discussion on modeling the endpoints on the mailing list - please contribute to the conversation there. | 18:13 |
| dolphm | heckj: etherpad or anything for api stuff? | 18:14 |
| gyee | heckj, you are proposing that we move service_type and region to attributes? | 18:14 |
| heckj | doplhm: I was going to follow Jay's pattern and make a google doc for feedback - easier to track (for me) on feedback than etherpad | 18:14 |
| heckj | gyee: I'm promising to get an API up for feedback - I'm looking for more conversation related to relevant attributes and how to think about them on the mailing list. | 18:15 |
| heckj | gyee: I'm not sure what "region" means to folks - so it's hard to assert anything concrete there | 18:15 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:15 | |
| dolphm | heckj: +1 | 18:16 |
| heckj | gyee: and I'm not sure entirely which field you're referring to re: service_type | 18:16 |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:16 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 18:17 | |
| heckj | gyee: did that answer your question? | 18:18 |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| gyee | there's a service_type field in the endpoint templates right? | 18:18 |
| dolphm | <service name="My Nova" type="compute" region="north" /><endpoint ... /><endpoint ... /></service> | 18:18 |
| heckj | the one that contains "image", "compute" - yeah | 18:18 |
| gyee | so we are moving that one to attributes? I wasn't clear on that | 18:19 |
| heckj | gyee: I'm more asking what people think about representing the resources over trying to assert a specific proposal at this point. | 18:19 |
| *** dolphm__ has quit IRC | 18:19 | |
| heckj | gyee: I'm not 100% certain what we're modelling and what it's inteded to represent, so I'm asking for people (you, dolph, etc - anyone who cares) to assert opinions there | 18:20 |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:21 | |
| gyee | sure, I'll spend some time catching up on on the emails | 18:21 |
| heckj | gyee: cool, thank you | 18:21 |
| heckj | (the keystone stuff has been light - mostly it's been hyperactive discussions on metrics and billing data) | 18:21 |
| heckj | #topics issue and open questions | 18:21 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:21 | |
| heckj | General discussion time - I didn't have anything else formal | 18:21 |
| rafaduran | I have some patchs that need review | 18:22 |
| rafaduran | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6447/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6448/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6425/ | 18:22 |
| rafaduran | I don't what's the better way to get attention to them | 18:23 |
| rafaduran | I don't know | 18:23 |
| heckj | you just did :-) | 18:23 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 18:24 | |
| heckj | rafaduran: you can also request specific reviewers (heckj, termie, dolphm, bcwaldon, etc) when you go to the review page. It's a good way to "poke" someone to review your code | 18:24 |
| dolphm_ | rafaduran: as i said in the reviews, this functionality is already covered by the core api spec, and your implementation doesn't match that | 18:24 |
| rafaduran | heckj: thx, I will do that way next time | 18:24 |
| dolphm_ | rafaduran: those features were present pre-redux, and i'd be happy to see them return | 18:25 |
| dolphm_ | rafaduran: but not under a whole new api | 18:25 |
| rafaduran | dolphm_:I've sent new patches | 18:25 |
| dolphm_ | rafaduran: unless we're changing the *whole* api :) | 18:25 |
| cloudfly | i was going to post a question about preventing mitm attacks on keystone to the list =/ | 18:25 |
| cloudfly | i hope it does not get large | 18:25 |
| heckj | cloudfly: give it a shot - hard to tell :-) | 18:25 |
| dolphm_ | rafaduran: ah, i'll take another look then - totally didn't notice | 18:26 |
| rafaduran | dolphm_: ok, thx for your attention | 18:26 |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| heckj | dolphm: My thought is to aiming for a fairly heavy revision, consolidating token more than really changing it, and bringing many of the extensions into core | 18:30 |
| heckj | and adding the CRUD elements with the expectation that backends may return "not implemented" as a valid response | 18:31 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: i'm all for that, generally speaking | 18:31 |
| heckj | Other questions or issues? ideas? etc? | 18:31 |
| dolphm_ | heckj: and i'm all for simplifying the service catalog | 18:31 |
| *** joearnol_ has quit IRC | 18:32 | |
| gyee | by simplifying you also mean maintaining backward compatibility as well right? | 18:35 |
| jsavak | or at least have it under v3.0 | 18:36 |
| gyee | open season for v3.0 :) | 18:36 |
| dolphm_ | or we could skip to 4.0 | 18:36 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:37 | |
| dolphm_ | or more appropriately, v4 | 18:37 |
| *** tong has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:37 | |
| heckj | gyee: maintaining backward compatibility will be keeping the same versioned API - my proposal will be to make a new versioned API for this next round | 18:40 |
| heckj | And being able to run both of them together | 18:40 |
| gyee | nice | 18:40 |
| heckj | Okay - I think that's it for today's meeting | 18:42 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 18:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 18:42 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Apr 24 18:42:25 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:42 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-18.05.html | 18:42 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-18.05.txt | 18:42 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-18.05.log.html | 18:42 |
| heckj | http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting updated - I'll be back around next week! (and on IRC lurking) | 18:43 |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:47 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| *** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| *** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea | 18:51 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 18:56 | |
| *** tong has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:58 | |
| *** clarkb has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| soren | mtaylor: CI meeting? | 19:02 |
| LinuxJedi | soren: you took the words right out of my fingers :) | 19:02 |
| * LinuxJedi notes to kick mtaylor earlier next week :) | 19:03 | |
| ttx | .0o. | 19:03 |
| jeblair | ... | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi | want me to start it? | 19:04 |
| jeblair | lets do it | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi | #startmeeting | 19:04 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Apr 24 19:04:24 2012 UTC. The chair is LinuxJedi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:04 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi | #topic CI meeting | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "CI meeting" | 19:04 | |
| jeblair | I'll start talking... | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi | Hi guys, welcome to this week's CI meeting, really 2 weeks since we were all at the summit | 19:04 |
| * LinuxJedi hands over to jeblair | 19:04 | |
| jeblair | mtaylor has a list of work items for us collected from the summit | 19:05 |
| jeblair | real soon now, he's going to make bugs from them, de-dup, etc. | 19:05 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:06 | |
| jeblair | i'm expecting to work on improving the gerrit trigger plugin | 19:06 |
| jeblair | starting soon. | 19:06 |
| jeblair | to add better support for matrix and triggered jobs. | 19:06 |
| LinuxJedi | \o/ | 19:06 |
| soren | Cool beans. | 19:07 |
| jeblair | that will help with some of the automatic job creation LinuxJedi is doing, as well as make things nicer for other CI systems that plug into us | 19:07 |
| ttx | jeblair: I'd like us to brainstorm the "separate baking" while at UDS | 19:07 |
| jeblair | (that's a couple steps away, but a better job structure would let us do things like run some tests immediately on uploads, so others can trigger their jobs on that) | 19:08 |
| ttx | so it would be good if you could spend some time thinking about that in the next week | 19:08 |
| jeblair | ttx: yes, that's at least one, maybe 2 or 3 of the items on the list. | 19:08 |
| soren | Separate baking? | 19:08 |
| ttx | soren: experimental branches to keep crap out of release branch | 19:09 |
| soren | Topic branches? | 19:09 |
| * LinuxJedi assumes we can't bake the cookies and cakes at the same time | 19:09 | |
| ttx | not formally topic branches | 19:09 |
| soren | Right. That. Cool. | 19:09 |
| ttx | since the term is overloaded a bit | 19:09 |
| ttx | and bleeds into implementation detail | 19:09 |
| *** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| jeblair | i'm going to take next week off, so maybe we can regroup on that during UDS week? | 19:10 |
| soren | Who will be at UDS? | 19:10 |
| soren | o/ | 19:10 |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:10 |
| * LinuxJedi can't make it unfortunately | 19:10 | |
| ttx | jeblair: sure thing | 19:10 |
| LinuxJedi | plus they may hate the fact I run Fedora ;) | 19:10 |
| soren | LinuxJedi: People have been thrown in the pool for less. | 19:11 |
| jeblair | mtaylor hopefully will be. everybody poke him and tell him it's important. | 19:11 |
| soren | jk :) | 19:11 |
| LinuxJedi | lol :) | 19:11 |
| clarkb | remind me when he gets back | 19:11 |
| jeblair | oh. clarkb just started! | 19:11 |
| LinuxJedi | oh so, everyone, say hi to clarkb. A new member to the CI team | 19:11 |
| soren | hi to clarkb | 19:12 |
| clarkb | oh hi | 19:12 |
| Shrews | hiya clarkb | 19:12 |
| LinuxJedi | Shrews is also getting up to speed and we have some evil... I mean great things for him to cut his teeth into soon | 19:12 |
| Shrews | yay! … i mean, booo | 19:13 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: any other cool stuff on your side? | 19:13 |
| jeblair | that's all i can think of right now | 19:14 |
| LinuxJedi | ok, on my side: | 19:14 |
| LinuxJedi | we have a big improvement to the puppetized automatic Jenkins job creator thing coming very soon. This will help both Openstack and Stackforge | 19:15 |
| LinuxJedi | we have parameters for more stuff | 19:15 |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair and I (mostly jeblair) have been tweaking a few things in gerrit's source to make some subtle improvements to the look of it (hiding silly 'X's and background colour on outdated branches) | 19:16 |
| LinuxJedi | I have everything ready to put meetbot into puppet. So hopefully that will happen in the next week and will be much easier for us to manage | 19:16 |
| jeblair | actually darraghb wrote the code to fix "X" | 19:17 |
| LinuxJedi | we also have some improvements to meetbot lined up | 19:17 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| LinuxJedi | ah, awesome. Ok, thanks to darraghb then ;) | 19:17 |
| jeblair | I've just been writing the puppet commands to cause the servers to upgrade. :) | 19:17 |
| LinuxJedi | so many branches went through CI today I lost track of who owned what ;) | 19:17 |
| jeblair | which is great, cause that's exactly the system we wanted. it's now easier for us to take code contributions to gerrit and implement them in production. :) | 19:18 |
| LinuxJedi | in the next week I think I will be concentrating on improving Stackforge since there has been quite a lot of interest and it isn't quite as all automated to add projects as I would like yet | 19:18 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:18 | |
| * LinuxJedi also has lots of new CI docs to write after everything we have been doing over the last couple of weeks | 19:19 | |
| jeblair | yes, sdake from the "Heat" project just popped into #openstack-infra and it sounds like they might be a good fit for stackforge | 19:19 |
| jeblair | he's going to run it by the rest of the heat developers | 19:20 |
| LinuxJedi | erm... I think that is all I have right now. There was lots of things in the CI talk summit but those will appear as bugs later on | 19:20 |
| *** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:20 | |
| * LinuxJedi has a template for a stackforge website mostly baked but no content at the moment. Something else to do this week | 19:20 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:21 | |
| * LinuxJedi is sure mtaylor has lots to add to this meeting for those who weren't at the CI talk in the summit last week, but that may have to wait | 19:22 | |
| jeblair | http://openstack-ci.github.com/publications/ci-roadmap-folsom/index.html | 19:22 |
| ttx | Could be good to track the biggest efforts (think I18N) as a blueprint rather than a bug ? | 19:22 |
| jeblair | #link http://openstack-ci.github.com/publications/ci-roadmap-folsom/index.html | 19:23 |
| jeblair | is the presentation with (nearly all of) the items we had identified during the summit | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: excellent point, I keep forgetting about the publications stuff | 19:23 |
| jeblair | (as well as things we did during essex) | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: yep, that one in particular will probably be one or more blueprints | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: it almost looks like we did work in the last 6 months | 19:24 |
| ttx | whenever I'm back to 100% I'll check that nothing was forgotten there | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: awesome, thanks :) | 19:24 |
| ttx | jeblair: were you the one suggesting that we should outsource our mailman support ? | 19:24 |
| jeblair | ttx: a little more nuanced than that... | 19:25 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: did I suggest it? (I was thinking it at the time) | 19:25 |
| jeblair | more like "it's great that launchpad runs our mailing lists right now so we don't have to" | 19:25 |
| jeblair | and "it's a good deal of work to run mailing lists properly (spam, delivery problems, etc)" | 19:25 |
| LinuxJedi | ++ | 19:25 |
| ttx | we actually have a mailman instance running | 19:25 |
| ttx | (lists.openstack.org) | 19:26 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: who manages it? | 19:26 |
| jeblair | yeah, and pretty much no one manages it. which works fine until you start having bigger, more important lists that people care about | 19:26 |
| soren | LinuxJedi: You do. Didn't you get the memo? | 19:26 |
| ttx | some troll in a closet, afaik | 19:26 |
| * soren kids | 19:26 | |
| LinuxJedi | soren: lol, that wouldn't surprise me actually, I somehow owned a lot recently by accident ;) | 19:26 |
| jeblair | so basically, i don't feel like it's something monty, andrew, and i can do in the margins, as it were... but... | 19:27 |
| ttx | jeblair: would you have suggestions of where we could set it up instead ? | 19:27 |
| LinuxJedi | if any company wants to invest time in it too maybe we could do something? | 19:27 |
| jeblair | if there are more resources/people that want to contribute to it, we are _very_ happy to help do it within the server management infrastructure we've set up. | 19:27 |
| jeblair | or, perhaps it's easier to subscribe to a service that will do it for us. :) | 19:28 |
| ttx | mmmmkay | 19:28 |
| * LinuxJedi suspects something that Rackspace may have resources for? | 19:29 | |
| LinuxJedi | at least for mail filtering/spam | 19:29 |
| ttx | LinuxJedi: Rackspace runs the current one. | 19:29 |
| LinuxJedi | ah! | 19:29 |
| ttx | we just don't know how serious they actually are about it :) | 19:29 |
| LinuxJedi | so, maybe something for us to investigate further | 19:30 |
| ttx | I will probably have to look into it | 19:30 |
| ttx | jeblair: is your "pretty much no one" the result of an analysis, or a gut feeling ? | 19:31 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: well, I'm sure someone in our team can look into the best solution | 19:31 |
| jeblair | ttx: a talk with stef | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | morning | 19:31 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: welcome! | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | sorry I'm late - had trouble finding working internet - now solved | 19:31 |
| ttx | mtaylor: you flew out of the US ? | 19:32 |
| ttx | (to solve that issue ?) | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | ttx: it's the usual solution | 19:32 |
| *** joearnol_ has quit IRC | 19:33 | |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: I hand this meeting over to you (me and jeblair covered all our stuff) | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | I'm mostly not even here today - so you guys feel free to keep up the good work | 19:34 |
| LinuxJedi | oh, ok :) | 19:34 |
| LinuxJedi | anyone have anything else to add today? | 19:34 |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| LinuxJedi | #action research a mailing list solution | 19:34 |
| jeblair | nope | 19:35 |
| LinuxJedi | adding that as an action item ^ | 19:35 |
| ttx | LinuxJedi: will talk to you about features we might want in | 19:35 |
| LinuxJedi | to find out more about the current mailman and a new one | 19:35 |
| * Shrews is working on tox changes to inject dependencies from jenkins runs without modifying tox.ini | 19:35 | |
| jeblair | Shrews: woot! | 19:36 |
| Shrews | but having an issue with the tox test suite, so can't push upstream just yet. | 19:36 |
| jeblair | hehe | 19:36 |
| LinuxJedi | so, basically we want something that CI team can manage as far as infrastructure is concerned but not manage at the message/spam level | 19:36 |
| LinuxJedi | multiple lists and maybe some review system like gerrit to add new lists | 19:37 |
| LinuxJedi | which would be cool if CI puppet owned that part | 19:37 |
| LinuxJedi | or just Launchpad but from the sound of it others aren't happy with that? | 19:38 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:38 | |
| jeblair | oh, so there was a requirement collected at the summit for lists that can have sub-topics | 19:39 |
| jeblair | which is a mailman feature launchpad does not expose | 19:39 |
| jeblair | (i wasn't at that session, i'm relaying second-hand) | 19:39 |
| jeblair | ttx: is there an etherpad from that session? | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: none of us were unfortunately | 19:39 |
| ttx | jeblair: there was, but it didn't capture 100% of the spirit | 19:39 |
| jeblair | and also, mailing lists that aren't slower than molasses is an oft-requested feature. :) | 19:40 |
| ttx | due to Wifi Fail | 19:40 |
| LinuxJedi | #link http://etherpad.openstack.org/FolsomCommunication | 19:40 |
| LinuxJedi | ttx: requirement for the next summit: a wifi that can handle more than a couple of hundred users ;) | 19:40 |
| ttx | jeblair: where is sub-topics documented ? | 19:40 |
| ttx | jeblair: I searched and could not find such a feature | 19:41 |
| jeblair | ttx: you mean in standard mailman? | 19:42 |
| jeblair | ttx: http://web.mit.edu/lists/mailman/topics.html | 19:43 |
| jeblair | there's also the umbrella list concept | 19:43 |
| ttx | jeblair: looked at umbrealla and siblings, but they do not really do what we want them to | 19:43 |
| jeblair | where you have multiple lists (like nova-volume) and nova is subscribed to it. | 19:44 |
| jeblair | yeah. similar, but different details. | 19:44 |
| jeblair | honestly though | 19:44 |
| ttx | what we want is enforce use of prefixes | 19:44 |
| ttx | if that allows topic-specific subscription, why not | 19:44 |
| jeblair | we should consider very carefully whether we want to use mailman topics. they are _complicated_ | 19:45 |
| ttx | frankly, I think enforcing house rules on a single ML will do | 19:45 |
| ttx | (single -dev ML, I mean) | 19:45 |
| jeblair | it's worth a try, i think. | 19:45 |
| ttx | not sure we should go through the hassle of a complex setup just to kinda enforec the setting of a prefix | 19:46 |
| ttx | will look into topics. | 19:46 |
| ttx | but they seem to be the other way around (allow topic-specific subscription, do not enforce a topic being set) | 19:47 |
| jeblair | you might be able to enforce prefixes with sender filters (i doubt launchpad exposes that either) | 19:47 |
| * LinuxJedi personally doesn't like the fact that mailman signups and Launchpad signups will probably be disconnected | 19:49 | |
| ttx | jeblair: I think there is general consensus that we'll need more than Launchpad ML. If only to have fast discussions | 19:49 |
| * LinuxJedi agrees there | 19:49 | |
| ttx | LinuxJedi: so you need to find an ML provider that takes OpenID :) | 19:50 |
| LinuxJedi | ++ :) | 19:50 |
| LinuxJedi | bound to be one if we look around | 19:50 |
| ttx | lists.openid.net being a mailman instance, they would know :) | 19:50 |
| LinuxJedi | hehe, something we will look into :) | 19:51 |
| LinuxJedi | I'd rather not own a mailman patch but that is also an option | 19:51 |
| LinuxJedi | ok, so any more things before we sign-off? | 19:52 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| LinuxJedi | with that I shall end the meeting, see you all next week :) | 19:53 |
| LinuxJedi | #endmeeting | 19:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 19:53 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Apr 24 19:53:56 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:53 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-19.04.html | 19:53 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-19.04.txt | 19:54 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-19.04.log.html | 19:54 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 19:56 | |
| *** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| ttx | Anyone around for PPB meeting ? | 20:00 |
| Dug | lurking | 20:00 |
| danwent | i'm here | 20:01 |
| soren | There's a PPB meeting today? I must have missed the announcement. | 20:01 |
| danwent | i didn't get an email, I don't think | 20:01 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:01 | |
| ttx | There might be an informal PPB meeting today | 20:01 |
| soren | Seems /very/ informal so far :) | 20:02 |
| ttx | danwent: did you receive the emails where Vish asked for the meeting ? | 20:02 |
| johnpur | hey folks | 20:02 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| danwent | ttx: don't think so. I can check my spam filters | 20:02 |
| ttx | danwent: you need to subscribe to the list. You did not do that | 20:02 |
| vishy | hi | 20:02 |
| ttx | danwent: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc <-- click "subscribe" | 20:03 |
| danwent | ttx: I believe I did that last time we had this conversation, but i'll check again :) | 20:03 |
| vishy | I was off yesterday so my request was outside the 24 hour window | 20:03 |
| vishy | :) | 20:03 |
| johnpur | hi Vish! | 20:03 |
| ttx | danwent: you don't appear on https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc/+mailing-list-subscribers so I bet you didn't :) | 20:03 |
| ttx | vishy missed the 24-hour window so this can't be an official meeting, but NOBODY WILL PREVENT US from talking. | 20:04 |
| danwent | ttx: huh, yeah. openstack-poc was listed on my set of mailing lists, but my delivery preference was set to "don't subscribe". my fault :) | 20:04 |
| vishy | are you sure! | 20:04 |
| vishy | ? | 20:04 |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| * ttx talks to vishy. | 20:05 | |
| vishy | basically I want to find out if there needs to be ppb level involvement for 3rd party apis | 20:05 |
| vishy | or if we are just managing it in project | 20:05 |
| vishy | there was some push towards openstack being about the api not the implementation | 20:05 |
| ttx | vishy: what do you call "3rd party api" exactly ? | 20:05 |
| vishy | does that mean if a project wants to include occi or cimi for example | 20:05 |
| vishy | (or conversely doesn't want to include it) | 20:05 |
| vishy | that either is ok? | 20:05 |
| notmyname | I'm here | 20:06 |
| notmyname | including aws APIs | 20:06 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| vishy | notmyname: yes I'm including everything outside of openstack api | 20:07 |
| notmyname | just wanted to be explicit :-) | 20:07 |
| johnpur | vishy: if we have the canonical OS API as "native", I don't see why we would object to other API's being introduced that either proxy or are added as "extensions" | 20:08 |
| danwent | one tricky issue is that third-party APIs are likely to cut across projects (e.g., Amazon API includes networking, volumes), so making decisions per-project might be tough. | 20:08 |
| Dug | IMO this might go to a bigger issue since consistency across the API is important too and might not be left as an exercise for each project. | 20:08 |
| vishy | danwent: true | 20:08 |
| vishy | Dug: we've decided in the past that ppb can set policy for best practices for apis, but that individual apis are managed in-project | 20:08 |
| ttx | vishy: my first thought would be... as long as the project doesn't have to pick one (think a default), and that API is well-supported... I don't see why the PPB (or future TC) would interfere. | 20:08 |
| notmyname | johnpur: some of the biggest concerns is protecting the core devs and keeping the codebase simpler | 20:09 |
| johnpur | consistency would be achieved by the implemtors, if they have to orchestrate across multiple OS API's | 20:09 |
| *** mjfork has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:09 | |
| ttx | vishy: the PPB could technically complain that a half-supported API taints the quality feel of the project | 20:10 |
| vishy | so the easiest solution I think is to just say other apis are not our problem | 20:10 |
| ttx | vishy: but as long as it's well done... | 20:10 |
| danwent | I tend to view such third-party APIs more as just clients on the main OS API(s). | 20:10 |
| vishy | implementers are welcome to create an affiliated project and try to get the distros to support them | 20:10 |
| johnpur | notmyname: if we separate the concerns (OS API vs higher level/proxied API) the core devs don't even need to know someone is providing the alternative API (they are consumers of the project's API) | 20:10 |
| heckj | o/ | 20:11 |
| vishy | johnpur: That is ideal for us, it is a terrible story for the implementers of those apis though | 20:11 |
| johnpur | why so? | 20:11 |
| notmyname | I agree. but meanwhile we have people proposing APIsinto the core codebase (and existing support there) | 20:11 |
| vishy | johnpur: they would like to be able to say openstack supports their api | 20:11 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:11 | |
| vishy | johnpur: so they are all pushing to get into core | 20:12 |
| notmyname | defaults matter, so they want to be in the core codebase (vishy +1) | 20:12 |
| notmyname | and then things get political | 20:12 |
| Dug | @vishy - agreed. A really selling for OS (over aws) will be to claim its standards based - as an example. And if there's no guarantee that OS (by default) ships with a standard API then I don't think OS can make that claim. | 20:12 |
| johnpur | vishy: different question then. if we accept that folks *can* provide alternate API's, the issue you are raising is "blessing" by OS... | 20:12 |
| Dug | (not I said "ships" not "is turned on") | 20:13 |
| Dug | s/not/note/ | 20:13 |
| vishy | johnpur: I think inclusion in core is perceived as de-facto blessing | 20:13 |
| tong | @johnpur, it may be the other way around. The standard bless OS. | 20:13 |
| heckj | vishy: I think it is too | 20:13 |
| johnpur | IMO, we have only 1 API in core, the OS API (and I know this means some work for Nova) | 20:14 |
| notmyname | vishy: agreed. and the cost is high for core devs maintaining it and reviewing it | 20:14 |
| ttx | vishy: so your question is about including a piece of code that is technically correct... but that might not fit into the definition of "what is OpenStack", which kinda belongs to the PPB right now ? | 20:14 |
| vishy | ttx: I think we need a consistent story about what to do with this type of thing | 20:14 |
| vishy | is it a model where we just accept everything and remove it if it breaks | 20:15 |
| vishy | or a model where we accept nothing and everything goes into separate projects/repos | 20:15 |
| vishy | or is it completely up to the project? | 20:15 |
| vishy | I'm asking because all the ptls will be dealing with this, especially in the case of CIMI/CDMI | 20:15 |
| ttx | so far it was up to the project, and Nova opted for "accept everything" afaict | 20:15 |
| johnpur | agree we need to be consistent... | 20:16 |
| Dug | consistency is good and I think consumers will expect it | 20:16 |
| vishy | and it is going to be awkward if it is different | 20:16 |
| ttx | johnpur: I agree with you... the question is, where do we draw the line | 20:16 |
| johnpur | ttx: nova accepts everything? what has been accepted beyond OS and EC2? | 20:16 |
| ttx | johnpur: it's not just about APIs. Nova accepted many hypervisors for example | 20:17 |
| johnpur | aha | 20:17 |
| notmyname | hypervisor support is different IMO | 20:17 |
| johnpur | for good reason :) | 20:17 |
| ttx | Where do we draw the line ? Only external APIs ? | 20:17 |
| Dug | if people agree that consistency is important than this can't be decided on a per-project basis. | 20:17 |
| notmyname | ya, I think this is consistency for external APIs | 20:18 |
| johnpur | dug: agree | 20:18 |
| ttx | if you ask the PPB to decide if a given feature fits in the OpenStack product, that means it vets all proposed features in core projects | 20:18 |
| johnpur | notmyname +1 | 20:18 |
| ttx | ok, external APIs only. | 20:18 |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| vishy | keeping in mind that none of this is saying whether or not a 3rd party API could be created or even shipped with a distro | 20:18 |
| vishy | (or even be proposed as an incubated project) | 20:19 |
| Dug | right - at least for things that impact the external facing side of things - might be annoying, but I think consistency is that important for consumers. | 20:19 |
| tong | @ttx, probably make it that anything is middleware can be accepted which has small impact in terms of deployment. | 20:19 |
| johnpur | actually, if we talk about mechanics or logistics... do the 3rd party API's get into the functional test suites? gerrit gates? etc. | 20:19 |
| heckj | johnpur: I think they should | 20:20 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 20:20 | |
| heckj | johnpur: interop is the greatest thing that we're offering behind our "product" of OpenStack | 20:20 |
| vishy | notmyname: I think offering 3rd party test integration is underway regardless | 20:20 |
| ttx | vishy: this discussion tends to prove that the PPB should definitely be involved more formally. Worst case scenario it could vote "projects decide" | 20:20 |
| Dug | they should have the same bar as the OS APIs - if they can meet it then they should not be accepted | 20:20 |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ has left #openstack-meeting | 20:20 | |
| johnpur | dug: lol, cannot? | 20:21 |
| notmyname | Dug: accepted is an interesting wrod thee | 20:21 |
| Dug | LOL oops | 20:21 |
| Dug | yes "cannot" - sorry :-) | 20:21 |
| notmyname | Dug: if CI is provided for third party projects, there is nothing to "accept" or "reject". | 20:21 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| ttx | vishy: and now that I understand the question, I could definitely use a bit more time to think about it before deciding. | 20:22 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:22 | |
| notmyname | ttx: you have a week :-) | 20:22 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| johnpur | i think the point is that if the CI fails it shouldn't be merged (not "accepted") | 20:22 |
| vishy | ttx: cool, should we start an ml thread? | 20:22 |
| ttx | vishy: do we already have a complete list of candidate 3rd-party APIs ? | 20:22 |
| vishy | ttx: OCCI and CIMI/CDMI are the only ones I know of | 20:22 |
| Dug | yes "merged" - still learning the proper terms | 20:23 |
| ttx | vishy: sounds like a good idea. | 20:23 |
| notmyname | johnpur: but that's the case now. to me the bigger question is are we going to include them in the codebase or not | 20:23 |
| johnpur | vishy: coming out of SF do you have a defined gameplan for the EC2 API? | 20:23 |
| * ttx needs to RTFM on those a bit | 20:23 | |
| vishy | johnpur: defined plan was to bugfix it in place and see how AWSOME comes along, with potential to move it over | 20:23 |
| Dug | @ttx bring coffee | 20:23 |
| vishy | I'm just discussing in dev prototyping a split into a separate repo | 20:23 |
| Dug | :-) | 20:23 |
| johnpur | OK... do you know if anyone is also looking at the CloudBridge effort? | 20:24 |
| notmyname | johnpur: swift would prefer to prune swift3 and CDMI APIs | 20:24 |
| notmyname | FWIW, I've seen rumors that AWESOME is not license-compatible with openstack | 20:24 |
| vishy | might be nice to see how hard it is to manage stuff separately. If it works, we could use it as a model for other apis that come down the pipe | 20:24 |
| vishy | notmyname: it isn't currently | 20:24 |
| ttx | notmyname: they are supposed to relicense under Apache2 if we want it | 20:25 |
| vishy | notmyname: it was discussed that they would be open to changing if that presents a problem | 20:25 |
| notmyname | ah. interesting | 20:25 |
| ttx | notmyname: that said, stacking APis migt not be the best way, as evidenced by the discussion on the ML | 20:25 |
| vishy | ttx: we are going down the path of versioning the rpc api anyway | 20:26 |
| ttx | sounds like proper API plugins on top of a clean internal API could be easier... and turn that 3rd party API discussion into a core plug-in vs. official vs. ecosystem plugin discussion | 20:26 |
| vishy | ttx: so 3rd party api plugins could write to the rpc layer if necessary for performance | 20:26 |
| vishy | ttx: the db is a little trickier | 20:26 |
| ttx | the db is always a little trickier | 20:27 |
| notmyname | I think options are to 1) include all comers into the codebase, all equally blessed 2) bless a subset of 3rd party APIs 3) don't bless any 3rd party, but don't discourage them either | 20:27 |
| vishy | ttx: honestly i don't see an advantage to plugins sharing the db. | 20:27 |
| danwent | nova versioning an rpc doesn't solve the entire problem if the API needs to manage network, volumes, etc. | 20:27 |
| Dug | would that put os, ec2, occi, cimi all at the same level in the repo? and then each distro would decide which to grab? | 20:27 |
| vishy | ttx: so we may just have to enforce that plugins do db management separately. | 20:27 |
| ttx | Dug: we would certainly bless os as a "core" plugin or something | 20:28 |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:28 | |
| vishy | danwent: true, it would probably have to take a different approach with each project | 20:28 |
| johnpur | i don't think allowing a distro to *not* provide the OS API is a good thing | 20:28 |
| vishy | danwent: but you could have a ec2 project that could talk to nova and volume via rpc and quantum via rest | 20:29 |
| ttx | johnpur: we already do. | 20:29 |
| danwent | vishy: sure, just wanted to make sure people where aware that this would be the case. | 20:29 |
| johnpur | ttx: really? | 20:29 |
| heckj | ttx: which one isn't? | 20:29 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| ttx | johnpur: nothing forces the distributions to ship OSAPI. | 20:29 |
| ttx | johnpur: so we "allow" it. | 20:30 |
| vishy | Dug: I was thinking of OS living in the core repo as an example of an api implementation | 20:30 |
| vishy | Dug: but it would talk through the same versioned interface that the other apis could talk through | 20:30 |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:30 | |
| ttx | heckj: not saying a distro does not... johnpur was talking about "not allowing distros to not ship OSAPI" | 20:30 |
| johnpur | now we might have an interesting ppb discussion... w/o the OS API no wordmarks, trademarks, or other identifying term to indicate "OpenStack" should be allowed | 20:31 |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| ttx | johnpur: indeed. | 20:31 |
| heckj | vishy: and then (in an ideal world?) other projects live in separate repos to provide the other APIs? | 20:31 |
| notmyname | heckj: +1 | 20:31 |
| heckj | johnpur: ++ | 20:31 |
| ttx | heckj: +1 | 20:32 |
| vishy | heckj: yes, and it is the responsiblity of those projects to generate their own mindshare | 20:32 |
| Dug | separate repo would not encourage the proper examination I think these other APIs might need | 20:32 |
| notmyname | johnpur: we can't prevent a project from completely wrapping an openstack project and not exposing the openstack API. a current example is what gluster has done with swift | 20:32 |
| vishy | heckj: if people like them and use them, then distros will start offering them | 20:32 |
| notmyname | sortof | 20:32 |
| ttx | heckj: and then we are back to the next interesting discussion... categories of plugins. Core Official Supported Ecosystem Satellite ... | 20:32 |
| notmyname | we could not try to manage 3rd party plugins (we have plenty to manage as it is) and let the community come up with ways to manage openstack plugins/extentions/etc | 20:34 |
| ttx | I think we'll have "Core plugins" for the things that can be plugged out but are the default options... "Official" or "Supported" plugins for stuff that goes through our dev infra and community | 20:34 |
| notmyname | see greesemonkey and userscripts as an example | 20:34 |
| ttx | and "Ecosystem" or "Satellite" for external stuff | 20:34 |
| johnpur | notmyname: it is a policy decision about whether we allow that to self-identify as OpenStack | 20:34 |
| notmyname | johnpur: "* for openstack" is fine | 20:34 |
| notmyname | that's covered under existing trademark policy | 20:35 |
| johnpur | hmmm... i need to go back and re-read. could be wrong, i thought we had hashed this out, and the API was required. | 20:36 |
| ttx | we should decide everything before the foundation starts stealing our toys :) | 20:37 |
| vishy | sigh, computer froze, checking logs | 20:40 |
| johnpur | 4 minutes of silence :) | 20:40 |
| ttx | vishy: nothing happened :) | 20:41 |
| vishy | :o | 20:41 |
| heckj | heh | 20:41 |
| ttx | vishy: in fact YOUR COMPUTER DIDN'T FREEZE | 20:41 |
| ttx | the world around it did. | 20:42 |
| *** blamar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:42 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| *** blamar_ is now known as blamar | 20:44 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| notmyname | heckj: vishy: someone suggested that we manage community stuff in the project's README | 20:45 |
| heckj | notmyname: how so? | 20:46 |
| notmyname | instead of managing a contrib/satellite list of projects at an official website, keep a list of links in the README | 20:47 |
| heckj | notmyname: minimally functional, but I think we'd be better served with a website. I suspect that if we (as a project) don't do it, someone else will - and maybe several someones | 20:48 |
| notmyname | heckj: ya, I'm leaning that way too for the long term | 20:49 |
| heckj | notmyname: I thought Monty was moving ahead with a basic "here's something related to OpenStack" web site as it was - just now official stamps of approval or such | 20:49 |
| heckj | (now --> no) | 20:49 |
| notmyname | ok | 20:49 |
| tong | if that is the case, then people will have to deploy with extra steps. normally that will work well for customers. | 20:50 |
| heckj | tong: presumably there would be a base openstack instance/installation, and then whatever plugins could be added in after that. | 20:51 |
| heckj | keystone, like quantum (I think) wants to support back-end drivers that aren't nessecarily open, but have a functional & completely open default that gets installed as a baseline | 20:52 |
| tong | right, I got that part, but it won't be a nice story to tell to customers. | 20:53 |
| heckj | tong: sorry, I'm missing your point of view there, why not? | 20:54 |
| notmyname | tong: right. 2 installs instead of one | 20:54 |
| tong | these extra steps to download and configure won't be really nice for a guy to install these plugins. | 20:54 |
| notmyname | while I agree it's not as simple if there are multiple install steps, I don't think that's a heavy burden to put on deployers | 20:55 |
| *** belliott has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| heckj | tong: so you'd prefer to have all options available as a single installation and then use - er, configuration - to decide what's enabled and what isn't? | 20:55 |
| notmyname | tong: and, for example, you could provide a bundled version | 20:55 |
| heckj | notmyname: ++ | 20:56 |
| notmyname | for your users | 20:56 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| tong | I do suggest to have a plugin directory and put accepted plugins in these directory and these plugins will be available for anyone to use. | 20:56 |
| notmyname | tong: in the core repo? | 20:57 |
| tong | yes. | 20:57 |
| xsad | @tong ++ | 20:57 |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| tong | if not the core repo, anyone can setup repo and do their own stuff. | 20:57 |
| heckj | tong: I believe the key argument is that such a mechanism is putting a large (overwhelming in some cases) burden on the core developers to review all plugins that could be potentially used. | 20:57 |
| notmyname | my concern is protecting the core reviewers from having an ever-expanding scope of code to review | 20:58 |
| jgriffith | If you do that it's not really a \"plugin\" any more is it? | 20:58 |
| notmyname | are we continuing this on the ML or next week's meeting time? | 20:58 |
| xsad | but when we said plugins , they are supposed to be used selectively , not responsibility of the core repo | 20:59 |
| notmyname | (1 minutes until the next meeting in here) | 20:59 |
| tong | if things go into plugins (or contri), then it should be considered as such. | 20:59 |
| heckj | notmyname: I'm fine either way | 20:59 |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| heckj | I need to do more reading on the CIMI/CDMI apis as it is | 20:59 |
| tong | these things should no impact the core unless it is enabled. | 20:59 |
| xsad | but have we decided what all stuff can be run from plugins? | 20:59 |
| tong | should not, | 20:59 |
| vishy | notmyname: both | 21:00 |
| notmyname | cool | 21:00 |
| ttx | ok, time for next meeting | 21:00 |
| vishy | notmyname: email thread and hopefully have some actual votes next week | 21:00 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon, devcamcar, danwent: around ? | 21:01 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yep yep | 21:01 |
| danwent | yup | 21:01 |
| ttx | is anyone replacing devcamcar ? gabrielhurley ? | 21:03 |
| ohnoimdead | i can | 21:03 |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: cool | 21:03 |
| heckj | ttx: ^^ | 21:03 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Apr 24 21:03:41 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:03 |
| ttx | Today's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:03 |
| ttx | We are still recovering from the Design Summit, I'd like to get some feedback from it while it's fresh | 21:03 |
| ttx | But first, let's discuss the Folsom release schedule for a bit | 21:04 |
| ttx | #topic Proposed release schedule options | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Proposed release schedule options" | 21:04 | |
| ttx | For the projects wanting to follow a common schedule, please see the options at: | 21:04 |
| ttx | #link http://ubuntuone.com/4J6FGOsWNdTCpUWUf9S87X | 21:04 |
| ttx | there are 4 options outlined in there | 21:05 |
| ttx | let me know if you can't read it | 21:05 |
| med_ | reads fine. | 21:05 |
| ttx | First I'd like to confirm whether you want to have 4 milestones + final release (option A, milestone every 4-5 weeks) | 21:05 |
| ttx | or 3 milestones + final release (options B to D, milestone every 5-7 weeks) | 21:05 |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | For Essex we did 4 milestones + Final release (every 5-6 weeks) | 21:05 |
| ttx | At the design summit the PTLs present said 3 milestones + final release was preferable | 21:05 |
| ttx | especially if we want to keep the option of using milestones as "releases" toward the end of the cycle if ready | 21:06 |
| ttx | I don't think Dan, Devin and Joe were there though. | 21:06 |
| heckj | ttx: I'm in agreement with that | 21:06 |
| ohnoimdead | devin agrees (i hope) | 21:06 |
| ttx | heh | 21:06 |
| danwent | I'm ok with that. | 21:06 |
| ttx | Another question: Do you prefer to have one week between release and design summit (options B, D)... or two weeks (option C) ? | 21:06 |
| annegentle | in docland we did talk about it, but not sure resources are there to track docs with milestones (regardless of 3 or 4) | 21:07 |
| ttx | so far we did one week... and it puts some stress on our collective shoulders | 21:07 |
| danwent | things were pretty rushed with essex release and folsom summit | 21:07 |
| heckj | danwent: ++ | 21:07 |
| danwent | and I noticed people pulling back from testing to begin prepping for the summit, which was bad | 21:07 |
| ttx | I don't want to "lose" too much time between the two, but I could use a week to breathe | 21:07 |
| heckj | ttx: I'd prefer 2 weeks given the option. | 21:08 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 21:08 | |
| vishy | ttx: I like C with the extra time | 21:08 |
| ttx | C is pretty regular | 21:08 |
| johnpostlethwait | 2 weeks is probably better/safer: Option C | 21:08 |
| russellb | I like C too fwiw :) | 21:08 |
| ttx | don't book travel just yet :) | 21:08 |
| xsad | C ++ :D | 21:08 |
| annegentle | hee | 21:09 |
| ttx | I'll pursue C as the proposed option. | 21:09 |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: if C causes problems to Horizon, let me know soon | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:10 |
| xsad | so first agenda is done ? | 21:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:10 | |
| ttx | xsad: yes | 21:10 |
| ttx | heckj: Could you sum up the main outcome of the Keystone sessions for us ? (if any) | 21:10 |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 21:10 | |
| ttx | Anything affecting the other projects that they should be aware of ? | 21:10 |
| heckj | ttx: at the moment, not - but some will be | 21:10 |
| ohnoimdead | ttx: i think c is good | 21:10 |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| heckj | ttx: looking at taking a number of what were previously extensions and bringing them into core with a new rev API. | 21:11 |
| heckj | proposal for the new API to be up as a google doc (ala Jay Pipes setup) in a few weeks, ideally implemented by F2 | 21:11 |
| ttx | heckj: ok | 21:11 |
| ttx | heckj: When do you think you'll be able to have the folsom plans filed as blueprints ? | 21:12 |
| heckj | aim is to keep any broad changes mostly done by F2 to propogate and implement with other projects over that last milestone | 21:12 |
| ttx | heckj: I like that | 21:12 |
| heckj | ttx: initial blueprints are up there, pending some additional that weren't in the keystone track to get created. | 21:12 |
| ttx | heckj: ok, we could do a Folsom review next week then | 21:12 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| ttx | heckj: anything else ? | 21:13 |
| heckj | blueprint for the "v.Next API" pending documenting a proposal | 21:13 |
| heckj | nope | 21:13 |
| ttx | Questions about Keystone ? | 21:13 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:13 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:13 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:13 |
| notmyname | o/ | 21:13 |
| ttx | notmyname: A quick summary of the Swift sessions outcome ? | 21:14 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| ttx | Anything significant or affecting others ? | 21:14 |
| notmyname | swift sessions went very well, I thought. we've got some good changes coming up (statsd integration and splitting the client library) | 21:14 |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| ttx | About splitting the client library. Would that be for the next release ? or some after that ? | 21:15 |
| notmyname | and we've got some other proposals (like CDMI support) that are also dependent on ongoing discussions in the PPB, etc | 21:15 |
| * ttx needs to align the release machinery for a separate release deliverable | 21:15 | |
| notmyname | I'm not sure when we'll split the client lib. probably not in the next swift release, but perhaps for the one after that. either way, I expect it to be int he folsom cycle | 21:16 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:16 | |
| ttx | ok. I'll try to follow the work on that | 21:16 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:16 |
| notmyname | thinking | 21:16 |
| notmyname | not I don't think so. lots of exciting stuff at the summit. mostly around a growing installed base | 21:17 |
| ttx | I saw that with my own eyes ;) | 21:17 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:17 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:18 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:18 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: How did the Glance sessions go ? | 21:18 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: excellent! | 21:18 |
| bcwaldon | We discussed quite a bit at the summit. It looks like we'll be investigating trusted glance deployments, image replication, image property detection, and the v2 API. I'm working on getting everything set up in blueprints now. | 21:18 |
| ttx | Do you expect to separate the Glance client out of Glance itself ? | 21:18 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yes, already working on that | 21:18 |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 21:18 | |
| ttx | Any timeframe on that ? | 21:18 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: python-glanceclient is being integrated into devstack right now | 21:18 |
| ttx | F1 or F2 ? | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: F1 hopefully | 21:19 |
| ttx | ok | 21:19 |
| ttx | Will you have all blueprints filed by next week ? | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: that would be a good goal to have, yes | 21:19 |
| ttx | cool. | 21:19 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:19 |
| *** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| bcwaldon | no sir | 21:20 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:20 |
| gabrielhurley | just that https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/987654 is a blocker for integrating glanceclient right now | 21:20 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 987654 in openstack-ci "glanceclient bin scripts overwrite glance" [Undecided,New] | 21:20 |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: yep, I saw that | 21:20 |
| ttx | sounds annoying. | 21:20 |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: not sure how to move forward on it :/ | 21:20 |
| gabrielhurley | I wouldn't care except it kills the integration test gate | 21:20 |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: it would only break things if the commands were expecting old glance client | 21:21 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 21:21 | |
| gabrielhurley | nope, check out the log I linked to in the bug report | 21:21 |
| gabrielhurley | it actually kills the setup of the env | 21:21 |
| bcwaldon | ok, we can follow up on this later | 21:21 |
| gabrielhurley | k | 21:21 |
| ttx | mtaylor and jeblair can certainly help | 21:21 |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: but I'll start looking into that now, thanks for bringing it up | 21:22 |
| ttx | #topic Quantum status | 21:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status" | 21:22 | |
| johnpostlethwait | yeah | 21:22 |
| ttx | danwent: hey | 21:22 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:22 | |
| danwent | hey | 21:22 |
| johnpostlethwait | Wrong window, sorry. | 21:22 |
| ttx | danwent: Could you do a quick summary of Quantum track, especially where the decisions affect the other projects ? | 21:22 |
| danwent | yup. | 21:22 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| *** markmcclain1 has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| danwent | probably biggest topic was merging in Melange IPAM functionality, which will be part of Quantum in Folsom | 21:23 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| danwent | we'll also have a heavy focus on making sure functionality like L3 Forwarding + NAT, Security Groups, etc. are implemented in Quantum to give Quantum full Nova parity | 21:23 |
| ttx | definitely. I need to know if I should still consider Melange in incubation for milestone release purposes | 21:23 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| danwent | I believe you should not | 21:23 |
| danwent | but an email to troytoman wouldn't hurt :) | 21:24 |
| ttx | Would Melange be merged by F1 ? | 21:24 |
| ttx | (in which case it's a non-issue) | 21:24 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:24 | |
| danwent | We're shooting for it, but I can't say for sure right now. When is F1 with new schedule? | 21:24 |
| danwent | either way, I don't think it makes sense to have melange releases for F | 21:24 |
| ttx | May 24 | 21:25 |
| danwent | i'll talk to troy about it and get back to you | 21:25 |
| ttx | ok, thx | 21:25 |
| ttx | #action danwent to see what to do with Melange for F1 | 21:25 |
| danwent | Other questions were around what it means for Quantum to be core in Folsom, and whether that means it would be "default". Based on past discussions with Vish, we definitely won't remove old networking managers from nova in Folsom | 21:25 |
| danwent | but we need to see if Quantum is up to par to be the default in Folsom. | 21:25 |
| danwent | My goal was to make that call based on the F2 release | 21:26 |
| ttx | I think we can make that decision by F2 | 21:26 |
| danwent | yup. | 21:26 |
| ttx | great minds alike :) | 21:26 |
| danwent | :) | 21:26 |
| *** User327 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| ttx | but I'd be "hell yeah" | 21:26 |
| danwent | other touch points are with Horizon, we'll work with them directly to help support their quantum integration work. that depends on the new api with melange folded in. | 21:26 |
| ttx | danwent: when do you think you'll be able to finialize digesting the sessions into meaningful blueprints ? | 21:26 |
| ttx | next week might be a bit short ? | 21:27 |
| danwent | We're also working with CI team to get gating on quantum (still some issues to sort out here) | 21:27 |
| danwent | ttx: spent a good chunk of time on it already. I think we can have rough bps next week. | 21:27 |
| danwent | I want people to be able to get to work :) | 21:27 |
| ttx | ack | 21:27 |
| ttx | danwent: Anything else ? | 21:27 |
| danwent | i think that's good for now | 21:27 |
| ttx | Questions on Quantum ? | 21:27 |
| danwent | oh, one more thing | 21:27 |
| ttx | go for it | 21:28 |
| danwent | we're going to be in a holding pattern with respect to using the netstack list until the OS community decides on its overall email list strategy | 21:28 |
| danwent | hopefully that will be wrapped up soon. | 21:28 |
| ttx | right. I'm on it. Unfortunately piled up lots of work in the last weeks | 21:28 |
| danwent | understood :) | 21:28 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:29 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:29 |
| vishy | heyo! | 21:29 |
| ttx | vishy: Won't ask you for a complete summary, anything particular you wanted to mention ? | 21:29 |
| vishy | so there were an epic amount of discussions | 21:29 |
| vishy | ttx: I don't think we have a complete plan regarding upgrades esp. regarding db migrations | 21:29 |
| vishy | rpc versioning and ability to shutdown workers | 21:29 |
| vishy | is part of it that we are well underway | 21:30 |
| vishy | I understand there was a discussion about db migrations at the summit that I missed, but I think we don't have a good plan there yet. | 21:30 |
| ttx | yes, in openstack-common | 21:30 |
| ttx | led by adam_g | 21:30 |
| vishy | ok we may need to take that one to the ml | 21:31 |
| vishy | other stuff seems underway, I need to spend the next week or two dealing with blueprints etc. | 21:31 |
| ttx | What's the general plan for nova-volumes -> Cinder ? Anything that needs to be implemenetd on Nova side to make room ? | 21:31 |
| med_ | are the nova "spinoffs" going to be projects in here? | 21:31 |
| vishy | but the plans all seem pretty clear. | 21:31 |
| ttx | med_: what spinoffs ? | 21:31 |
| med_ | jinx, Cinder for one | 21:32 |
| vishy | ttx: there are a couple of things. I'm taking the lead on that | 21:32 |
| ttx | med_: Cinder is not core, will certainly be incubated in Folsom | 21:32 |
| vishy | I will be shepherding cinder for the first month or two | 21:32 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| vishy | ttx: there are a couple of changes that need to go into nova that are already proposed | 21:33 |
| gabrielhurley | if Cinder isn't core, what's the state of volume support for Folsom? | 21:33 |
| vishy | there will be a couple more once python-cinderclient exists | 21:33 |
| *** tong has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: use of Cinder is supposed to be optional in folsom. | 21:33 |
| ttx | a bit like Quantum was in Essex | 21:34 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: interesting. nova volume was sort of implicitly core in essex since it was in nova, which is core... right? | 21:34 |
| ohnoimdead | i thought cinder was nova-volume+? | 21:34 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: my understanding is that code would survive in Nova in Folsom | 21:34 |
| med_ | so will there still be a nova-volume throughout F? and then cutover in G timeframe (similar to nova-network)? | 21:34 |
| ttx | vishy: ? | 21:34 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: it's not a one-time split, it's a parallel thing. | 21:35 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: gotcha. interesting. | 21:35 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: that's my understanding, mind you I wasn't even in the room :) | 21:35 |
| ttx | that's a second-hand report | 21:35 |
| vishy | existing code will stay in | 21:36 |
| ohnoimdead | should horizon support both? | 21:36 |
| ttx | vishy should be able to confirm when his MacBook unfreezes | 21:36 |
| vishy | until we are sure that we should move back | 21:36 |
| vishy | * move over | 21:36 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:36 |
| vishy | ttx: I didn't commit to a specific time frame, but I don't see any reason to remove it prior to the folsom release | 21:36 |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:37 | |
| vishy | but it will be literally just specifying a different endpoint in settings | 21:37 |
| vishy | to switch back and forth | 21:37 |
| ttx | vishy: it would cause interesting "core nomination" problems. | 21:37 |
| vishy | ttx: I was considering that cinder would become the default for folsom | 21:37 |
| ttx | vishy: unless we do fast releases befor ethe end of Folsom, which is a bit unlikely now | 21:37 |
| vishy | ttx: but old code would stay in for compatibility | 21:37 |
| ohnoimdead | one question on nova-client: will we ever get an update in pypi? | 21:38 |
| vishy | ttx: I think we need a month to see if we can get everything lined up though | 21:38 |
| ttx | vishy: for Cinder to be default it needs to be core... and you can't be incubated and core in the same cycle so far | 21:38 |
| vishy | ttx: does it need to go through incubated? | 21:38 |
| vishy | glance was immediately core when we split it from nova | 21:38 |
| russellb | it was incubated inside of nova :) | 21:39 |
| ttx | vishy: it's not really the problem. I kinda prefer that a core project goes through the whole cycle | 21:39 |
| gabrielhurley | ohnoimdead: mtaylor has committed to doing that. he's just slacking (by his own admission) ;-) | 21:39 |
| ttx | vishy: but we could relax that | 21:39 |
| ohnoimdead | gabrielhurley: that's why i'm bringing it up. ;) | 21:39 |
| ttx | since we are getting used to the f | 21:39 |
| ttx | dance* | 21:39 |
| vishy | ttx: i expect cinder to be ready to release a milestone along with the other projects | 21:39 |
| ttx | (and Cinder was discussed at the design summit) | 21:39 |
| vishy | milestone 1 probably won't add any new code, just be nova-volumes transplanted into new project | 21:40 |
| ttx | #action ttx to look into relaxing the Core rules for project splits | 21:40 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:41 |
| annegentle | who is the team working on Cinder? | 21:42 |
| ttx | (the rule was there to protect the release against late additions that would not suffer under release management the whole cycle, we can certainly relax it for project splits if the first milestones are followed) | 21:42 |
| * annegentle hunts for docs pros | 21:42 | |
| jgriffith | jgriffith, Renuka, Nirmal and Vladimir to start | 21:42 |
| annegentle | jgriffith: ok, thanks. | 21:42 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:43 | |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: How did the Horizon track go ? Anything that the other projects should know about ? | 21:43 |
| ohnoimdead | track went well. main focuses for folsom: workflows, scaffolding for dashboards/panels, making volume/cinder optional, quantum support, new swift ui, more extenisibility, more ux improvements | 21:44 |
| ohnoimdead | most of those have blueprints and i'll be adding a couple more over the next couple of days | 21:44 |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: do you think you'll have F1 plans as blueprints ready for review next week ? | 21:45 |
| ohnoimdead | yes | 21:45 |
| * ttx will create the milestones with dates btw | 21:45 | |
| ttx | #action ttx to create F milestones where missing when schedule is ready | 21:45 |
| *** zaitcev has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| ttx | ohnoimdead: Anything else ? | 21:45 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:46 |
| ohnoimdead | let's do this!! | 21:46 |
| ttx | #topic Other Team reports | 21:46 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports" | 21:46 | |
| ttx | annegentle: want to summarize doc track outcome ? | 21:46 |
| annegentle | ttx: I want to log maybe 2 blueprints - | 21:47 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| annegentle | summary was lots of people wanting to contribute more operations and daily use content | 21:48 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| annegentle | and publish early publish often | 21:48 |
| ttx | annegentle: got new doc team members signed up ? | 21:48 |
| ttx | jaypipes: around ? | 21:48 |
| annegentle | ttx: seems like it - for sysadmins and daily operators especially. It's tough when the processes are very very dev-centered though, need better onboarding. | 21:49 |
| *** bhall has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| ttx | annegentle: we should discuss together how we can improve that | 21:49 |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? | 21:50 |
| annegentle | ttx: sure, and would love input on easier "just find and fix doc bugs" workflow | 21:50 |
| ttx | FWIW I piled up some work on fixing our communication & bug handling, will post to ML soon | 21:50 |
| annegentle | ttx: nice | 21:51 |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:51 | |
| ttx | "soon" becoming farther away as we speak | 21:51 |
| annegentle | another doc note - I plan to "close out" the docs for Essex by May 1 or so | 21:51 |
| ttx | ok, good to know | 21:51 |
| ttx | #topic General design summit feedback | 21:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "General design summit feedback" | 21:51 | |
| ttx | It is my understanding that a survey should soon be out, but I welcome your direct feedback here... | 21:52 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: where are actions following up on the internationalistion meeting? | 21:52 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: we need someone to take the lead on that. Counting on me is a recipe for failure | 21:52 |
| gabrielhurley | so the action is find a team lead and make a team? ;-) | 21:52 |
| ttx | that's what I said in that meeting. We need a I18N advocacy group to pressure the other stakeholders | 21:53 |
| ttx | and the group won't rise without someone committing time to it | 21:53 |
| gabrielhurley | cool. just wanted to follow up. | 21:53 |
| ttx | I'll send something to the ML if that doesn't naturally happen, though | 21:53 |
| ttx | So, design summit. While it's hot. Anything we should change next time ? Do we need more time ? | 21:54 |
| danwent | wifi was good :0 | 21:55 |
| ttx | Some people told me the schedule was too busy so they were double-booked all the time... and some others told me they would not survive 4 or 5 days of this | 21:55 |
| russellb | it was my first summit. i loved it and it left me even more pumped up about OpenStack in general. My main issue was too many good sessions I wanted to be in. :-) <3 | 21:55 |
| med_ | we do need to clone ourselves. but I don't think you want to spread it out to account for double booking. | 21:55 |
| ttx | my way of cloning is to accept to defer to others to make the right decisions | 21:56 |
| med_ | +1 | 21:56 |
| ttx | I can't really sign up for more work than I can attend sessions anyway :) | 21:56 |
| med_ | is it possible to stagger/stairstep the wrapups (maybe that happened to some extent) | 21:56 |
| annegentle | I thought the tracks were well separated by interest - loved that there was a devops track too. | 21:56 |
| ttx | med_: stairstep ? | 21:56 |
| annegentle | So you could follow your interest. If you have multiple interest/investments then yes delegation is about the only option :) | 21:56 |
| * ttx looks up a dictionary | 21:57 | |
| annegentle | What did you think of the Ecosystem track folks? | 21:57 |
| ttx | annegentle: I think it was great, but we had too many non-Ecosystem talks in there | 21:57 |
| ttx | like things that was actually Nova or CI but could not fit in other track | 21:58 |
| ttx | hence my suggestion of adding one day | 21:58 |
| danwent | ttx: how would it work with conference if we added one day? | 21:58 |
| med_ | ttx, I meant not putting all of the track wrapups at the same time (ie, the last hour of the third day) | 21:58 |
| ttx | Lots of tracks would have loved to have more time in their track | 21:58 |
| *** belliott has left #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| ttx | med_: oh, I see. Good suggestion | 21:58 |
| gabrielhurley | ecosystem++, but i second not turning it into the dumping ground/overflow track. | 21:59 |
| ttx | danwent: the conference could run in parallel. Or the next week, for all I care :) | 21:59 |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| russellb | one thing that was kind of weird was the overlapping hour vs half-hour blocks. It led to some odd leaving or joining in the middle of some sessions. | 22:00 |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 22:00 | |
| ttx | russellb: it's an artifact of track-specific scheduling | 22:00 |
| russellb | I don't know if standardizing on a single length (45 min?) would be better, though. | 22:00 |
| ttx | if we do 4-5 days, we can standardize on a one-hour track | 22:01 |
| annegentle | We really need discussions about what the Conference should be, how it helps people, and more details around invites and scaling the events for more and more contributors. | 22:01 |
| med_ | there were also a few complaints about the remote access/days | 22:01 |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 22:01 | |
| med_ | there were also a few complaints about the remote access | 22:01 |
| ttx | and just close the discussion if you don't have enough material to fit one hour | 22:01 |
| *** xsad has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| annegentle | 25 minutes was right for many brainstorming sessions and two of the 50 minute ones ended early that I was in. | 22:01 |
| ttx | annegentle: we should try to open up the design of the design summit, earlier rather than later | 22:02 |
| ttx | anyway, time is up | 22:02 |
| ttx | make sure to mention that in the upcoming survey | 22:02 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Apr 24 22:02:36 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-21.03.html | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-21.03.txt | 22:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-21.03.log.html | 22:02 |
| ttx | thanks, everyone! | 22:02 |
| danwent | ok, time for a quick quantum meeting | 22:03 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Apr 24 22:03:14 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:03 |
| danwent | or maybe I should first check if anyone is here. I know several key people said they couldn't make it. | 22:03 |
| salv-orlando | well, I'm here :) | 22:03 |
| rkukura | I'm here | 22:04 |
| GheRivero | here | 22:04 |
| danwent | great :) | 22:04 |
| med_ | I'm not here. :^) | 22:04 |
| danwent | boo | 22:04 |
| danwent | ok, let's get started. | 22:04 |
| danwent | We're going to target more of a quick scrum, since quantum is now discussed at the main meeting. | 22:04 |
| danwent | I've been mapping out all of the items we discussed at the summit, dependencies, etc. I will be harassing people to create blueprints this week. | 22:05 |
| danwent | For the key topics we need to achieve Nova parity, I'd like to make sure we have a bp by next week, with at least an outline. | 22:06 |
| *** gabrielhurley has left #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| danwent | jkoelker: are you here? | 22:06 |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| *** edgarmagana has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| danwent | #action get jkoelker to put together bp for melange integration | 22:06 |
| danwent | carlp: around? bp on dhcp? | 22:07 |
| danwent | Ok, sounds like this is a losing strategy :) | 22:07 |
| salv-orlando | maybe they are writing the bps... | 22:07 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| danwent | haha :) | 22:08 |
| cdub | ah, just no topic change... | 22:08 |
| danwent | Ok, anyone who's actually here need to talk about BPs? | 22:08 |
| danwent | otherwise, we can call it a meeting. Don't want to wait people's time. | 22:08 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| med_ | #info annegentle is closing Essex docs in a week | 22:08 |
| danwent | i'll do a better job of making sure the right people actually show up next week. | 22:08 |
| rkukura | Are we going to keep meeting weekly? At the same time? | 22:08 |
| danwent | med_: good to know. med_ and rkukura are both working to see how we can better document ubuntu + fedora setup in the Quantum admin guide. | 22:09 |
| mnewby | I have a question regarding agents | 22:09 |
| danwent | rkukura: plan was to use it as a scrum. but if the right people don't show up, perhaps we shouldn't bother :) | 22:09 |
| danwent | mnewby: go ahead | 22:09 |
| mnewby | In reviewing the agent code I noticed that at least the linuxbridge and ovs plugins need direct access to the quantum db | 22:10 |
| mnewby | Is this going to remain for folsom? I can see the potential for major problems with this design. | 22:10 |
| danwent | yes, same model as nova-compute, I believe | 22:10 |
| mnewby | yikes | 22:10 |
| mnewby | Ok. | 22:10 |
| rkukura | Are you more concerned with the plugins or their agents? | 22:11 |
| mnewby | The agents. | 22:11 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:11 | |
| mnewby | I'm going to research possible alternatives with an eye towards using a more distributed approach. | 22:11 |
| rkukura | I'm signed up to look at using amqp. | 22:11 |
| mnewby | I'll discuss on the ml and capture my ideas in a bp. | 22:11 |
| danwent | other model I guess is to pass everything via RPC, I guess that would save on DB conections. | 22:11 |
| danwent | or shifting to a more distributed data store | 22:12 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| mnewby | The issue with rpc is whether we use persistent queues or acknowledgement. | 22:12 |
| mnewby | But we can discuss going foward. | 22:12 |
| danwent | right now I'm much more worried about getting something functional, and for functional, the "centralized db" model works pretty well. | 22:12 |
| mnewby | I'm not going to get in the way of that, but 'functional' isn't 'scalable'. | 22:13 |
| danwent | the good news is that the plugin model can handle this pretty well | 22:13 |
| danwent | I'd focus on a plugin that we're targeting to be the "super-stable, nova-parity" option for Folsom. | 22:13 |
| danwent | if we get that locked up quickly, we can easily start working on another plugin that uses more exotic datastores | 22:14 |
| danwent | and will scale better. | 22:14 |
| cdub | mnewby: did you have a specific issue w/ something like amqp? | 22:14 |
| salv-orlando | mnewby: what you're proposing falls in the category of "give some love to the open source plugins". | 22:14 |
| mnewby | Agreed. And better plugin->agent communication model is developed won't hinder other efforts. | 22:14 |
| mnewby | cdub: amqp is certainly an option, but nova has had scalability issues with the rabbitmq implementation. | 22:14 |
| *** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:14 | |
| mnewby | zeromq may be a better fit. | 22:15 |
| mnewby | Or just using a better centralized store. | 22:15 |
| salv-orlando | I'd love that, but agree with Dan that we want to have a basic thing working and super-stable. Is a fork from ovsplugin something that can be considere? | 22:15 |
| danwent | I think we can pretty easily get rid of the polling in existing plugins using an RPC for notifications | 22:15 |
| cdub | yes, i'd expect so | 22:15 |
| med_ | I thought that the rabbitmq scalability issue was somewhat debunked at ODS-F (but not really a Quantum issue) | 22:15 |
| mnewby | salv-orlando: I'm not suggesting replacement from what, at present, works. | 22:15 |
| mnewby | Just that I'd like to consider alternative. | 22:16 |
| mnewby | s | 22:16 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: I think if we're good about designing plugin code as libraries, it should be easy to have a stable one, then a more aggressive one that shares much of the same code. | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | mnewby: agreed | 22:16 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: agree with you too :) | 22:16 |
| rkukura | Why keep the non-scalable one around if we solve the scalability issue without decreasing stability? | 22:16 |
| mnewby | Anyway, just wanted to raise the issue. | 22:16 |
| mnewby | rkukura: nice to have options ;) | 22:16 |
| danwent | mnewby: sure. but what really keeps me up at night is making sure we have a rock solid open source plugin, so I'm nervous about dividing our focus until we achieve that. | 22:16 |
| danwent | mnewby: definitely good to raise. | 22:17 |
| cdub | danwent: actually database access is part of stabliilty issue w/ current agents ;) | 22:17 |
| rkukura | We have stability issues right now regarding DB connection management. | 22:17 |
| cdub | danwent: so 2 birds w/ one rabbit (or qpid, or..) | 22:17 |
| mnewby | Yes, that's my concern. Stability won't last with centralized db once scaling is involved. | 22:17 |
| somik | rkukura: I think the no-scalable one is 'as scalable' as nova, so we can do better, but this works and we can make it scale better after we are done with functionality | 22:17 |
| danwent | rkukura: my main comment is a design that is simple to understand, build, debug…. regardless of technology | 22:17 |
| mnewby | Yes, that is definitely the goal. | 22:18 |
| rkukura | agreed | 22:18 |
| danwent | my experience with nova is that adding a bunch of RPC calls does not help :) | 22:18 |
| mnewby | Simple/maintainable is usually easier to scale, too. | 22:18 |
| mnewby | danwent: at least not using rabbitmq | 22:18 |
| mnewby | Time to do some reading on distributed systems ;-) | 22:18 |
| mnewby | Anyway, in the same vein, I'm going to file a bug on testing the agents. | 22:18 |
| danwent | Ok, so I think we're clear on goals. I don't particularly care about the technology, so much as making sure we get something stable and working quickly. | 22:19 |
| danwent | mnewby: great. good testing infrastructure will help in both cases. | 22:19 |
| danwent | ok, where were we? :) | 22:19 |
| mnewby | One more thing: reviewing | 22:19 |
| danwent | mnewby: that was my next topic :) | 22:20 |
| mnewby | Nice :) | 22:20 |
| danwent | mnewby is doing a kick-ass job fixing bug and improving the code base. | 22:20 |
| danwent | we at the very least need to support him by reviewing code :) | 22:20 |
| danwent | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/quantum,n,z | 22:20 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| danwent | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/python-quantumclient,n,z | 22:20 |
| danwent | probably most urgent is patch to get rid of quantum.common, is that true mnewby ? | 22:20 |
| danwent | server-side must go in first, then client side | 22:21 |
| danwent | then probably good to do the HACKING patches to avoid being in rebase hell. | 22:21 |
| mnewby | Yes | 22:21 |
| danwent | or should HACKING be first? | 22:21 |
| mnewby | quantum.common first. Then hacking. | 22:21 |
| danwent | k | 22:22 |
| mnewby | They are dependent changes, in any case. | 22:22 |
| danwent | I've already reviewed the quantum.common stuff…. I think we're in good shape there. | 22:22 |
| danwent | also garyk has some fixes for the OVS plugin… would like to get those merged quickly. | 22:22 |
| danwent | any other urgent reviews? | 22:22 |
| danwent | Ok, and any other topics to discuss? | 22:23 |
| rkukura | gary has some DB connection fixes as well | 22:23 |
| mnewby | I've noticed a drop-off in the number of participating core reviews post-summit. I'm hoping things will swing back to pre-summit levels sooner. | 22:23 |
| danwent | rkukura: yup, just mentioned those :) | 22:23 |
| rkukura | linuxbridge and openvswitch | 22:23 |
| mnewby | Is there manual testing being done of those changes? | 22:24 |
| mnewby | I reviewed the code and saw at least one bug. | 22:24 |
| danwent | mnewby: we need better agent test coverage on both sides. | 22:24 |
| cdub | mnewby: i believe gary's manually testing, yes | 22:24 |
| mnewby | cdub: I'll ask him about that then. He clearly wasn't testing the failure case or he would have had a failing linuxbridge agent. | 22:25 |
| cdub | mnewby: ok, yeah, definitely note it in review | 22:25 |
| danwent | there' s a lot of code from the OVS agent that has been copied to other agents as well… I think we really need to get an agent.common directory going, so we don't have similar patches against all agents when we want to change something. | 22:25 |
| mnewby | I was wondering that. | 22:26 |
| rkukura | What about config, logging, etc., across agents and the server? | 22:26 |
| mnewby | How are the agents deployed at present? | 22:26 |
| mnewby | Is all of quantum installed with them? | 22:26 |
| mnewby | Ah, logging. | 22:26 |
| mnewby | I'm displaying my ignorance, but do agents log to the server? | 22:27 |
| danwent | mnewby: no, which is part of the issue. we don't want all quantum dependences, so really we need to have something like a quantum-agent-common package | 22:27 |
| mnewby | Or would logs have to be collected? | 22:27 |
| rkukura | That's distro-specific, but fedora includes the agents in the plugin packages | 22:27 |
| mnewby | danwent: understood. | 22:27 |
| salv-orlando | danwent: I kind of agree with Dan that refactoring is a sort of priority | 22:27 |
| salv-orlando | mnewby: no, if they do, the log is local | 22:27 |
| danwent | mnewby: agents log locally (or not at all...) | 22:27 |
| mnewby | danwent: It would be really good to extract the common stuff out of at least ovs and linuxbridge. | 22:27 |
| danwent | #action danwent create common agent framework | 22:28 |
| mnewby | danwent: So the agent has to update the db for quantum to know what's going on? | 22:28 |
| rkukura | I really think the agents and server should also handle DB connections, config, and logging consistently - so its not just the agents | 22:28 |
| danwent | mnewby: its actually even beyond that… even ryu borrows code from OVS significantly. | 22:28 |
| mnewby | danwent: Did you want to do that, or are you just going to file a bug? | 22:28 |
| danwent | rkukura: yes… sharing should happen at both the server + agent level. | 22:29 |
| mnewby | rkukura: agreed. And that stuff should be shared. | 22:29 |
| danwent | mnewby: I was going to do it, but if you want to, I'm fine with that :P | 22:29 |
| mnewby | (between all plugins). | 22:29 |
| mnewby | danwent: It's yours if you want it. :) | 22:29 |
| danwent | mnewby: you're doing lots of stuff already. I'll take this one | 22:29 |
| rkukura | danwent: We need to pay attention to openstack-common for a lot of that | 22:30 |
| mnewby | rkukura: Is there much of anything in common yet? | 22:30 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:30 | |
| danwent | rkukura: i've been talking with those folks. Their next priority is wsgi stuff, which will help on the server, but doesn't really apply to plugin code. | 22:30 |
| danwent | mnewby: not much yet… though some of the config stuff may be applicable. | 22:30 |
| rkukura | The config stuff is there (almost) I think | 22:31 |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| danwent | ok, now is a good time to do a lot fo this clean-up, so let's push forward with it. | 22:31 |
| danwent | ok, any other topics to discuss? | 22:32 |
| danwent | ok, great. thanks folks. don't forget to keep an eye on reviews! | 22:32 |
| salv-orlando | bye! | 22:32 |
| mnewby | bye! | 22:33 |
| danwent | talk to you next week, at which point we should have a lot of the key bps together. | 22:33 |
| markvoelker | 'night! | 22:33 |
| cdub | cya | 22:33 |
| med_ | #endmeeting | 22:33 |
| danwent | later! | 22:33 |
| danwent | no soup for you med_ ! | 22:33 |
| * med_ can't actually end it | 22:33 | |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:33 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Apr 24 22:33:24 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:33 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-22.03.html | 22:33 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-22.03.txt | 22:33 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-04-24-22.03.log.html | 22:33 |
| danwent | med_: :) | 22:33 |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 22:34 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:34 | |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 22:35 | |
| *** zaitcev has left #openstack-meeting | 22:35 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:43 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** Dug has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 22:55 | |
| *** User327 has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:00 | |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:17 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:17 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:25 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** xsad has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:36 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** patelna has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:52 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 23:53 | |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 23:57 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!