| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:14 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:15 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 00:29 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 00:34 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 00:35 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 00:49 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 00:50 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 00:54 | |
| *** sprintnode has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:06 | |
| *** sprintnode has left #openstack-meeting | 01:07 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 01:09 | |
| *** mdrnstm has quit IRC | 01:11 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:20 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 01:25 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** milner has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:45 | |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:47 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:48 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:57 | |
| *** pengyong has quit IRC | 02:00 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 02:11 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:20 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 02:26 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:29 | |
| *** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:35 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 02:36 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 02:46 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:47 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:54 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 02:54 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:57 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 03:06 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:07 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:22 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:23 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 03:32 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 03:32 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:35 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 03:40 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:53 | |
| *** jgriff has quit IRC | 04:10 | |
| *** mnewby_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:15 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:16 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 04:17 | |
| *** mnewby_ is now known as mnewby | 04:17 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 04:18 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 04:26 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 04:35 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 04:55 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:05 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 05:12 | |
| *** gakott has quit IRC | 05:13 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 05:13 | |
| *** dabo has quit IRC | 05:13 | |
| *** westmaas has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:17 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 05:17 | |
| *** Madkiss has quit IRC | 05:18 | |
| *** soren has quit IRC | 05:18 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 05:20 | |
| *** troytoman-away has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** Kiall has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** ttrifonov has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** ywu has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** justinsb has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** zykes- has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** dendro-afk has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** cp16net has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** fattarsi has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jd___ has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** clarkb has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** xtoddx has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** med_ has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jamespage has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jeblair has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** mikal has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** phantomcircuit has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** Guest34196 has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** chmouel has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** no`x has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** jaypipes-afk has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** LinuxJedi has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** cdub has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** pknouff_ has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** nikhil__ has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** comstud has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** termie has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** tr3buchet has quit IRC | 05:21 | |
| *** soren_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Mandell_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Madkiss_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jkoelker_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** edleafe has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** westmaas has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** justinsb has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** troytoman-away has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jd___ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** chmouel has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** pknouff_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Kiall has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** no`x has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** dendro-afk has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** phantomcircuit has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Guest34196 has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jaypipes-afk has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** fattarsi has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** nikhil__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** clarkb has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** med_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** termie has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** LinuxJedi has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** tr3buchet has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** ttrifonov has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:22 | |
| *** tightwork_ has quit IRC | 05:22 | |
| *** Madkiss_ is now known as Madkiss | 05:23 | |
| *** tightwork has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:26 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:38 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:39 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 05:43 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:44 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:51 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 05:58 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 06:05 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 06:10 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:32 | |
| *** Mandell_ has quit IRC | 06:56 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 06:57 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:09 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 07:27 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:04 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 08:10 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:13 | |
| *** mancdaz1203 has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:24 | |
| *** pengyong has quit IRC | 10:01 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:35 | |
| *** primeministerp has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:50 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:01 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:01 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 12:02 | |
| *** pvo-away is now known as pvo | 12:11 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:24 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:28 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:48 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 12:48 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:00 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:00 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:00 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 13:08 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 13:12 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 13:17 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:24 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 13:28 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:37 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:38 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:43 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:45 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:53 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:00 | |
| *** GheRivero_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:01 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:11 | |
| *** soren_ is now known as soren | 14:17 | |
| *** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:17 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 14:17 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:17 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 14:20 | |
| *** jaypipes-afk is now known as jaypipes | 14:25 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:34 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:35 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:36 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 14:52 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:53 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:00 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:07 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 15:15 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:17 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:20 | |
| *** aclark_ has quit IRC | 15:21 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:24 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** notmyname has quit IRC | 15:30 | |
| *** notmyname has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:30 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 15:30 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 15:31 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:35 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 15:43 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:43 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:43 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:44 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 15:45 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 15:51 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:51 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:52 | |
| *** winston-d has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:58 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| *** milner has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:02 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:05 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:05 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:11 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:13 | |
| *** mancdaz1203 has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:13 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 16:15 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:16 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** zigo-_- has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:18 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:29 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 16:31 | |
| *** somik is now known as s0mik | 16:31 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 16:34 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:36 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 16:41 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:47 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:48 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:50 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:00 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:04 | |
| *** winston-d has left #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 17:09 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:18 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:21 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:21 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:22 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 17:23 | |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 17:31 |
|---|---|---|
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 17:31:00 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:31 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:31 |
| heckj | testing the meeting bot | 17:31 |
| *** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:31 | |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 17:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 17:31 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 17:31:12 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 17:31 |
| med_ | heh. | 17:31 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.html | 17:31 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.txt | 17:31 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.log.html | 17:31 |
| heckj | Yeah!!! | 17:31 |
| med_ | :) | 17:31 |
| *** ayoung_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:32 | |
| *** GheRivero_ has quit IRC | 17:34 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:37 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:42 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| notmyname | heckj: do you have stable internet this week? ;-) | 17:47 |
| heckj | hopefully | 17:50 |
| heckj | at least not working from a coffee shop to avoid riots in Seattle | 17:50 |
| *** anderstj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:50 | |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:50 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 17:52 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 17:52 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** zigo-_- has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| heckj | morning! | 18:00 |
| heckj | folks here for Keystone? | 18:00 |
| heckj | o/ | 18:00 |
| gyee | \o | 18:01 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| heckj | morning gyee! | 18:01 |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 18:01:46 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:01 |
| heckj | Not much on the topic list for this week | 18:01 |
| heckj | Next week we've got rafaduran wanting to discuss https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 and a related blueprint that I think he's creating | 18:02 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged] | 18:02 |
| heckj | #topic open discussion | 18:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 18:02 | |
| gyee | heckj, I need some love on the serviceId review | 18:02 |
| rafaduran | the bluprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security | 18:02 |
| annegentle | heckj: I have a question re: keystone database support also | 18:03 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| heckj | gyee: could you put a link up here for folks to review? | 18:03 |
| dolphm | v.next api draft link- now, tomorrow, soon? | 18:03 |
| rafaduran | and a draft https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/ | 18:03 |
| gyee | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7010/ | 18:03 |
| *** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| heckj | dolphm: soon - haven't made as much progress last week and weekend as I'd hoped | 18:03 |
| heckj | annegentle: question? | 18:04 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7010/ <-- requesting review | 18:04 |
| annegentle | heckj: is postgresql tested at all as a backend for the catalog? I'm trying to find the bug where dolph said he fixed it, still looking | 18:04 |
| heckj | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security <-- for discussion next week | 18:04 |
| annegentle | heckj: I wondered if it was going to be punted to openstack-common | 18:04 |
| heckj | annegentle: not explicitly testing postgresql | 18:05 |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 18:05 | |
| dolphm | annegentle: https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/987121 ? | 18:05 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 987121 in keystone "strict constraint for database table creation" [Medium,Fix committed] | 18:05 |
| annegentle | ok, it's https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/885426 | 18:05 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 885426 in keystone "type error with postgresql" [Medium,Fix released] | 18:05 |
| annegentle | apparently one of the CSS OSS guys tested it for the manual they just released, and said there's still a problem. | 18:05 |
| dolphm | annegentle: tested essex-3? | 18:06 |
| annegentle | dolphm: no, their manual documents what shipped with 12.04 | 18:06 |
| dolphm | annegentle: that bug fix isn't in the current codebase (pre-redux) | 18:07 |
| dolphm | annegentle: they must be seeing a new bug | 18:07 |
| annegentle | he didn't know whether to open a new bug or reopen that old one | 18:07 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| annegentle | ok | 18:07 |
| ayoung_ | rafaduran, let me look | 18:07 |
| heckj | dolph - should we reset that to triaged/confirmed and hit it now? | 18:07 |
| heckj | dolphm: ^^ | 18:08 |
| *** ayoung_ is now known as ayoung | 18:08 | |
| dolphm | heckj: that bug is unreproducable against ksl | 18:08 |
| heckj | Ah - | 18:09 |
| heckj | annegentle: if it's still an issue, let's open a new bug with as much repro info as we can against it | 18:09 |
| annegentle | I'll have him open a new bug against keystone then. He also was unsure if it was a distro problem. | 18:09 |
| ayoung | annegentle, I can give it a test on Fedora or RHEL if that will help | 18:09 |
| rafaduran | ayoung_:I'm sorry, bu I'm not really sure what are you asking for | 18:10 |
| annegentle | ayoung: sure, that would help. I want to genericize the install/deploy guide for those distros too | 18:10 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:10 | |
| ayoung | rafaduran, disregard... | 18:10 |
| ayoung | annegentle, that is the Grail, isn't it | 18:10 |
| ayoung | we were discussing (internal IRC) the multiple ways people automate install | 18:11 |
| ayoung | annegentle, CC me when you open the ticket | 18:11 |
| annegentle | ayoung: you got it | 18:12 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, for the "3 times and you are "(locked) out" issue, we were discussing whether this is a generic Keystone problem or should it just be for the Keystone Database impl | 18:12 |
| ayoung | It seems like many people that have their own Identity Managment would get account locking from a centralized source already...ie LDAP | 18:13 |
| gyee | :) | 18:13 |
| gyee | especially AD, I had my locked the other day | 18:13 |
| ayoung | Sorry gyy, thought i was better at hacking your account. I'll get it right next time :) | 18:14 |
| gyee | but keystone password policy might be a nice to have though | 18:15 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, but regarding the general "imporve security" I suspect we should focus on reusing what has been done for HTTPD | 18:15 |
| ayoung | as opposed to trying to bolt things on to eventlet | 18:15 |
| ayoung | which leads to my next topic... | 18:15 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: but reporting and rate limit doesn't conflict that | 18:16 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, agreed that reporting stands alone. | 18:16 |
| ayoung | Not sure about rate limit | 18:16 |
| ayoung | you might be right there. | 18:16 |
| ayoung | There also might be something in HTTPD to perform that as well. | 18:16 |
| liemmn | ayoung, is the HTTPD SSL stuff ready for review yet? We are looking to push the 2-way SSL back in... | 18:17 |
| ayoung | liemmn, SSL or Client cert? | 18:17 |
| ayoung | HTTPD SSL works | 18:17 |
| liemmn | 2-way SSL | 18:17 |
| liemmn | client cert | 18:17 |
| ayoung | liemmn, OK, so that Requires HTTPD | 18:17 |
| liemmn | yep | 18:17 |
| ayoung | and so I was asking if we can make that the one and only, or if we need to keep eventlet around? | 18:18 |
| ayoung | heckj, ^^ is really a question for you | 18:18 |
| heckj | sorry - distracting. reading | 18:18 |
| ayoung | liemmn, however, I have a paste I want to share which is the general approach | 18:18 |
| liemmn | sure... please shoot it my way and I can take a look... thx | 18:19 |
| ayoung | http://fpaste.org/9PLL/ | 18:19 |
| ayoung | lots of duplicated code there from higher, but the gist is this | 18:19 |
| ayoung | configure HTTPD to do authentication for you, | 18:19 |
| ayoung | and then in Keystone, the rule is | 18:19 |
| ayoung | 1. Look for UserId/ Password in the message itself | 18:19 |
| ayoung | 2. Look for a token | 18:20 |
| ayoung | 3. Look for REMOTE_USER | 18:20 |
| ayoung | REMOTE_USER means that HTTPD authenticated you already | 18:20 |
| heckj | ayoung: we should keep both around from an internal code point of view. | 18:20 |
| *** joearnol_ has quit IRC | 18:21 | |
| heckj | ayoung: we could also really use some documentation in the ReST files (doc/source) walking someone through how to configure to take advantage of the 2-way SSL and such. | 18:21 |
| ayoung | heckj, for 2 Way SSL , I'm not there yet, but I would be happy to once I get it working. | 18:22 |
| gyee | ayoung, that's for authentication only right? what about token validation? | 18:22 |
| liemmn | From the middleware perspective, there is still a need to have both 2-way SSL and normal token validation... i.e., I only allow these hosts with these signed certs to do valiidate token. | 18:22 |
| ayoung | It is going to be slightly different for Fedora and Debian based distros due to the way that HTTPD gets set up. We already see that in Devstack | 18:22 |
| ayoung | gyee, same general rule | 18:22 |
| ayoung | except the user part doesn;t apply | 18:22 |
| ayoung | so only look for admin auth token and then REMOTE_USER | 18:23 |
| ayoung | and then confuirm that remote user has admin privs | 18:23 |
| *** patelna has quit IRC | 18:24 | |
| gyee | heckj, yeah, lots of docs for ayoung | 18:24 |
| ayoung | heckj, how about for a devstack install? Is it OK if we go HTTPD there? | 18:24 |
| heckj | ayoung: it should be an option for the devstack setup as well, but I don't see anything wrong with the idea. | 18:25 |
| ayoung | heckj, I see Eventlet being troublesome | 18:25 |
| ayoung | also | 18:25 |
| ayoung | Devstack is getting pretty complex | 18:25 |
| ayoung | and I would like to avoid putting more knobs to turn in there | 18:25 |
| ayoung | It comes down to most people using the default options | 18:26 |
| ayoung | except maybe for the piece they are working on. | 18:26 |
| ayoung | So I'd like, in devstack, for httpd to be the default | 18:26 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: why do you think eventlet is a problem? | 18:26 |
| heckj | ayoung: that's the right place to start, but I'm not sure I agree that it *should* be default when I haven't seen it working yet. I don't doubt your work, just want to see it operational before we make it a default | 18:27 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, 1. SSL support is spotty in Python, not just Eventlet. 2. IPv6, 3.Client Certs and other auth versions. | 18:27 |
| ayoung | heckj, understood | 18:27 |
| ayoung | but | 18:27 |
| ayoung | if I am making it work as a devstack patch | 18:27 |
| ayoung | I write it one way if it is going to be the one true approach | 18:27 |
| ayoung | and another way if it is going to be just an option | 18:27 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, rafaduran there are also issues in the Eventlet_>SQL code that we are seeing else where that I fear are going to bite us | 18:28 |
| liemmn | IMHO, SSL should be an option... For someone who wants to get started quickly with Keystone, certificates is cumbersome. Make testing more cumbersome too. | 18:29 |
| ayoung | liemmn, that is correct | 18:29 |
| ayoung | certs are only an option if the site admin sets them up | 18:29 |
| ayoung | the nice thing about fronting with HTTPD is that they can even use basic-auth without changing the Python side of things | 18:29 |
| ayoung | the changes are confined to /etc/httpd/conf.d/keystone.conf | 18:30 |
| ayoung | (on Fedora) | 18:30 |
| ayoung | liemmn, but, if you want to do , say Kerberos (AD) you get that, too | 18:30 |
| liemmn | yeah... reading your blog on setup howto :) | 18:31 |
| liemmn | are we unit testing with httpd, too? | 18:32 |
| ayoung | liemmn, good question...I would argue that if you are running a webserver, you are probably not "Unit testing" but that is neither here nor there | 18:33 |
| gyee | ayoung, for certificate authentication, how do you map user certificate to keystone user ID? | 18:33 |
| ayoung | gyee, I was thinking that REMOTE_USER should be username. So it is probably the Principal in the X509 | 18:33 |
| gyee | that configurable in your implementation? | 18:34 |
| ayoung | gyee, I don't think we want to put the UserID into the Certificates, do you? | 18:34 |
| ayoung | gyee, no, but Client Certs are not done or tested yet anyway. | 18:34 |
| liemmn | user name sounds good to me | 18:34 |
| ayoung | Iwas focusing on getting Keystone to work with Nova first. | 18:35 |
| ayoung | I have it working with Glance. | 18:35 |
| gyee | I am looking at http://fpaste.org/9PLL/ | 18:35 |
| gyee | how does httpd translate user cert into user_ref? | 18:35 |
| liemmn | Line 12 | 18:36 |
| ayoung | gyee, just to set expectations corectly: I just wrote but have not tested that code...it was more a "thinking along these lines" | 18:36 |
| ayoung | self.identity_api.get_user_by_name(context=context, user_name=context['REMOTE_USER']) | 18:36 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: a user can be authenticated for a given tenant too? | 18:36 |
| gyee | oh ok, I'll wait for your rst doc then | 18:37 |
| liemmn | I do think we want to test 2-way SSL with unit tests... I am a big fan of unit tests... We were doing it before; we should be able to do it now. | 18:37 |
| gyee | +2 | 18:37 |
| ayoung | liemmn, agreed. The question, then, is how to run HTTPD for unit tests | 18:37 |
| liemmn | I have no answer yet, but... just something to keep in mind when it comes to configuration :) | 18:37 |
| ayoung | I'd guess something along the lines of : "see if you can run HTTPD listening on 5000 or 35757 as the current user, reading all config info out of the git tree:" | 18:39 |
| ayoung | liemmn, but I'd almost think that Eventlet+basic_auth would be a good first step | 18:40 |
| ayoung | assuming that Eventlet then sets REMOTE_USER, the rest of the Python code would remain unchanged | 18:40 |
| liemmn | The client needs to validate server cert as well... so, need HTTPD there. | 18:43 |
| ayoung | liemmn, so Eventlet , SSL and Client certs should really be a sn upstream Eventlet feature, not anything specific to any Openstack | 18:43 |
| ayoung | liemmn, is that really unit testing Keystone, or just that SSL is set up? | 18:43 |
| liemmn | yeah, actually, if my memory serves me correctly, that's where I made the changes... | 18:44 |
| ayoung | I mean, you can always run curl -k ... | 18:44 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 18:44 | |
| ayoung | liemmn, OK, so there should be a pretty simple way to run and test SSL in Eventlet as well as HTTP, if you can find your notes, send them to me | 18:45 |
| heckj | liemmn: would love to see the same ^^ if you're finding them | 18:45 |
| gyee | he's code were on the E3 branch I think | 18:45 |
| ayoung | cc2330a8e1c1d55e6ae23d05ab5d09d3fd511ea7 | 18:46 |
| gyee | before the KSL cut over | 18:46 |
| liemmn | (digging up old mails... :) ) | 18:46 |
| liemmn | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/1038/ | 18:46 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/1038/ <-- two way SSL from prior to KSL integration | 18:47 |
| liemmn | (that was my very first commit in Openstack... so, I f'up a lot... laugh it up :) ) | 18:47 |
| liemmn | yeah | 18:47 |
| ayoung | 126 sslsocket = eventlet.wrap_ssl(socket, certfile=certfile, | 18:48 |
| ayoung | 127 keyfile=keyfile, | 18:48 |
| ayoung | 128 server_side=True, cert_reqs=cert_reqs, | 18:48 |
| ayoung | 129 ca_certs=ca_certs) | 18:48 |
| ayoung | that seems to be the heart of it... | 18:48 |
| ayoung | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/1038/9/keystone/common/wsgi.py | 18:48 |
| liemmn | yep | 18:48 |
| liemmn | should be a fairly small effort to get it working with eventlet | 18:49 |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 18:50 | |
| ayoung | heckj, I keep hearing that SSL support in Python is problematic. Buy oviously Swift has been running this way for years...what am I missing? Do real world Swift deployments just run with Hardware SSL ? | 18:50 |
| notmyname | ayoung: you should run swift with external ssl termination (in the load balancer or something like that) | 18:51 |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| heckj | ayoung: I'm not sure what's behind the "SSL in python is problematic" - I haven't done much with it personally to know what the issues are or have been. | 18:51 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| gyee | python httplib2 does not do server cert validation | 18:51 |
| ayoung | notmyname, doesn't that defeat the purpose of using eventlet or a similarly event driven web server? | 18:52 |
| notmyname | ayoung: https://github.com/notmyname/ssl_eventlet_slowloris | 18:52 |
| ayoung | heckj, IIUC it comes down to Python taking the GIL when doing the SSL, which means that a web server blocks for each request, but I am not sure if that is the whole story | 18:53 |
| notmyname | ayoung: it's not as much a problem with eventlet as much as how python exposes the socket to eventlet. but I'd like to explore more on this (it's near the bottom of my todo list) | 18:53 |
| *** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:54 | |
| ayoung | notmyname, would swift benefit from HTTPD support? | 18:54 |
| ayoung | we can have that conversation later...times almost up for this meeting and I've waxed poetic | 18:55 |
| heckj | heh | 18:55 |
| heckj | 5 minutes left | 18:55 |
| gyee | heckj, I've started the domain bp impl | 18:57 |
| heckj | anything last minute before I close this down? | 18:57 |
| heckj | gyee: excellent! | 18:57 |
| gyee | should I stash the stuff in contrib or identity? | 18:57 |
| gyee | in the absence in /v3.0 | 18:57 |
| heckj | start with contrib/ - and we'll work on moving/merging when we get /v3 settled | 18:57 |
| gyee | cool | 18:57 |
| liemmn | quick question... heckj, how are the v3 api comming? | 18:58 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 18:58 | |
| liemmn | any etherpad? | 18:58 |
| heckj | leimmn: way back to the begining of the meeting - didn't get the time I wanted this past week & weekend to work on it. | 18:58 |
| heckj | No etherpad | 18:58 |
| heckj | will be in google docs for feedback - etherpad is just a touch too unstructured for what I want | 18:59 |
| liemmn | cool... please keep me and gyee in the loop.... thx | 18:59 |
| heckj | absolutely | 18:59 |
| heckj | Okay - that's it for today! | 18:59 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 18:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 18:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 18:59:35 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.html | 18:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.txt | 18:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.log.html | 18:59 |
| heckj | ^^ so glad that worked this week! | 18:59 |
| uvirtbot | heckj: Error: "^" is not a valid command. | 18:59 |
| LinuxJedi | lol :) | 18:59 |
| liemmn | lmao | 19:00 |
| *** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:00 | |
| *** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:00 | |
| heckj | fuckin bot | 19:00 |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 19:01 | |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: ready? | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | sure | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 19:02:08 2012 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | morning everybody, who wants to talk about CI stuff? | 19:02 |
| clarkb | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| LinuxJedi | o/ | 19:02 |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | whee! | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | so, the big news this week is that I actually encoded the current todo list into bugs! | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+milestone/folsom | 19:03 |
| LinuxJedi | during the weekend, you need a kick for that part | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | anything we think we're actually going to do in the folsom cycle has now been targetted to the folsom milestone | 19:03 |
| LinuxJedi | but awesome otherwise :) | 19:03 |
| jeblair | LinuxJedi: you're one to talk -- you'd prefer he do it while on vacation? :P | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | nice side benefit - we also get to keep seeing fix released bugs in that list ... | 19:04 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: neato | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: yes, but I'm not supposed to be the sane one (I think) | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | so, for those of you who did some bugs since ODS ... if you feel like targetting them to folsom it'll help us remember that we did them at the next summit | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | but, you know, not super important | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: you wanna tell folks about etherpad? | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | #topic etherpad | 19:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "etherpad" | 19:05 | |
| clarkb | sure https://15.185.171.66/p/test is an instance that I got going this morning completely from scratch through puppet | 19:05 |
| clarkb | aside from a few minor details. SSL certs and mysql db backups are not puppeted | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | do we want ssl on it? | 19:06 |
| LinuxJedi | maybe for private etherpads? | 19:07 |
| clarkb | we don't necessarily need it but it was the default in all the reverse proxy examples | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | I mean, I like ssl and stuff | 19:07 |
| * jeblair is never opposed to ssl | 19:07 | |
| clarkb | also devstack horizon was already listening on port 80 :) | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | we have multiple things using databases now | 19:07 |
| *** pengyong has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| jeblair | clarkb: are there options to make chat and user lists visible by default? | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | if we use upstream mysql module, will that do sane backups and stuff? | 19:08 |
| clarkb | jeblair: I there may be in the settings file | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: there's a personal config setting for chat to always be visible | 19:08 |
| clarkb | mtaylor: I am not sure about backups but it is cross platform mysql able | 19:08 |
| jeblair | i feel like having chat be hidden may cause people not to notice there is a chat going on, and not showing the user list may leave people editing without setting user names. | 19:08 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: have we even considered centralising the databases to a couple of servers? | 19:08 |
| *** mdrnstm has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:08 | |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: ++ | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: I wouldn't be opposed to that in general... but at the very least having a mysql module that we use in our tree that does sane things with backups would be a great start! | 19:09 |
| clarkb | I can spend some time this afternoon to see what the mysql and vcsrepo modules will give us | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:10 |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 19:10 | |
| mtaylor | also, nice things about new etherpad is rest api | 19:10 |
| clarkb | seems like a lot of our modules do similar things in a bunch of different ways so moving to the upstream ones should be beneficial | 19:10 |
| jeblair | clarkb: yes, that's very much desired | 19:10 |
| jeblair | moving to external or upstream modules, that is | 19:11 |
| jeblair | not doing things different ways. :) | 19:11 |
| jeblair | i like the new etherpad. | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:11 |
| jeblair | one more question: is etherpad-lite easily themable? | 19:11 |
| *** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:11 | |
| clarkb | yes, iirc you drop your custom stuff in a special folder and everything is happy | 19:12 |
| jeblair | or would we just be wasting space if we put an openstack banner on top... | 19:12 |
| LinuxJedi | judging by the source of the html it should be easy enough | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | I think we'd be wasting space ... | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | but perhaps an small openstack logo to the left of the bold button? | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | in the button bar? | 19:13 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:13 | |
| clarkb | oh and before I forget you can import documents too which is shiny | 19:13 |
| zykes- | ok danwent now i've purged the db | 19:13 |
| zykes- | restored essex manager.py, recreated the nova + ovs_quantum db and repopulated the settings, now i'm back to the error that it doesn't create gw-<uuid ish> interfaces when it spawns a vm | 19:14 |
| clarkb | sounds like I need to look at defaulting the chat window to open and ading an openstack logo | 19:14 |
| jeblair | zykes-: i think you have the wrong channel. :) | 19:15 |
| clarkb | I think the 404 message is pretty blah too | 19:15 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 19:15 | |
| clarkb | and need backups | 19:15 |
| zykes- | oh, darn it ;) | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: ++ | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | cool. | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | #topic Jenkins Job Filler | 19:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Jenkins Job Filler" | 19:17 | |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: wanna chat about that? | 19:17 |
| LinuxJedi | sure | 19:17 |
| *** Haneef has left #openstack-meeting | 19:17 | |
| LinuxJedi | so, I have been fixing bugs in our puppet module which automatically generates Jenkins jobs | 19:17 |
| LinuxJedi | but... it is getting insanely complex to describe a job now | 19:18 |
| LinuxJedi | like, I managed to confuse mtaylor with it last week | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | yes. you did | 19:18 |
| LinuxJedi | so, I am working on 2.0 right now | 19:18 |
| LinuxJedi | it will be writing in Python and jobs are described in YAML | 19:18 |
| LinuxJedi | it also talks directly to Jenkins rather than screwing with the FS | 19:19 |
| LinuxJedi | which gives us lots of wins | 19:19 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:19 | |
| mtaylor | w00t | 19:19 |
| Shrews | LinuxJedi: so they'd no longer be in puppet? | 19:19 |
| LinuxJedi | Shrews: we will put the script and the YAML in puppet with some cron or something | 19:19 |
| Shrews | ah gotcha | 19:19 |
| LinuxJedi | anyway, by the end of today it will probably be 33% there, hoping to have something we can really play with by the end of week | 19:20 |
| LinuxJedi | in the mean time I'm not planning on fixing any 1.0 bugs since it is getting too hard to describe a job in puppet language | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | agree | 19:21 |
| LinuxJedi | and I hate ruby so I'm not going there | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | I think that finishing the good python version is the most important thing for your life at the moment | 19:21 |
| LinuxJedi | :) | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | because we have reached the tipping point where the number of jobs we have is completely unworkable | 19:21 |
| jeblair | i'm very supportive of this. :) | 19:22 |
| LinuxJedi | oh totally | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | #topic PyPI Mirrors | 19:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "PyPI Mirrors" | 19:22 | |
| mtaylor | Shrews: ? | 19:22 |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 19:22 | |
| Shrews | so, working on setting up a local pypi mirror (sample here: http://15.185.15.185/) | 19:23 |
| Shrews | waiting for RS machine for a permanent home | 19:23 |
| Shrews | mtaylor: you on that? | 19:23 |
| Shrews | the plan is to mirror everything, which should be interesting | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | Shrews: nope. LinuxJedi - can you help Shrews out with a machine in the openstackci account? | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: sure | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | what hostname do you want to give it guys? | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: pypi.openstack.org ? | 19:24 |
| Shrews | that url was wrong.. should have been http://15.185.171.147 | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | sounds good to me. I'll arrange is straight after this meting | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: thank you | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | Shrews: how much disk would you like for it? | 19:25 |
| * mtaylor thinks our mirror should mirror EVERYTHING, not just select things | 19:25 | |
| Shrews | LinuxJedi: gonna have to guess at that... let's try 25G? | 19:25 |
| Shrews | or more | 19:25 |
| LinuxJedi | Shrews: should be able to give you at least 40G easily I think | 19:26 |
| Shrews | LinuxJedi: great | 19:26 |
| jeblair | rs cloud machines can be upgraded after creation, so it's simple to move to another size | 19:26 |
| Shrews | so i've been looking at what we need to do to manage that sucker through puppet | 19:26 |
| Shrews | shouldn't be too hard | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | cool. clark did some crazy tihngs with etherpad ... so he might be a good person to ping in terms of getting a weird thing installed | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | it's _possible_ that a full pypi mirror might be quick enough to obviate the need for the .cache.bundle work we've been doing | 19:28 |
| clarkb | crazy? the fun can be found here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7206/ | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | speaking of - we should review that... | 19:28 |
| clarkb | I don't think it is ready | 19:28 |
| * LinuxJedi has also done some crazy-insane things with puppet so can help out if stuck | 19:29 | |
| mtaylor | no. LinuxJedi has no time for Shrews | 19:29 |
| clarkb | I want to take a quick stab at the items above and try and incorporate them all, however I am not opposed to merging sooner :) | 19:29 |
| LinuxJedi | haha :) | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: no rush | 19:29 |
| Shrews | awwww | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | Shrews: LinuxJedi must finish pyhton job filler before you can talk to him again ;) | 19:29 |
| clarkb | ha | 19:30 |
| * LinuxJedi locks himself away in the corner | 19:30 | |
| Shrews | mtaylor: but he's so lonely in the morning/afternoon :( | 19:30 |
| LinuxJedi | Shrews: not true, my wife is at hom... oh I see your point ;) | 19:30 |
| Shrews | you dang west coasters get up too late | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | hah | 19:31 |
| clarkb | Shrews: I have been trying to get up earlier, but it is hard | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | well, I'm about to be east coast for a while, so I'll be around to yell at you earlier | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | #topic bare metal | 19:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bare metal" | 19:32 | |
| mtaylor | in other news, devananda has gotten our new bare metal machines accessible! | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | so we might actually have some bare metal builders again | 19:32 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| mtaylor | #topic general things | 19:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "general things" | 19:33 | |
| LinuxJedi | bare metal sounds like some top-shelf robot magazine, we should really think of a better name | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | anybody got anything else? | 19:33 |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | jeblair - go! | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: (want me to change the topic for you?) | 19:33 |
| jeblair | at UDS, some ubuntu folks are interested in making sure that openstack runs on arm as well as intel | 19:34 |
| LinuxJedi | oh yea, I remember that coming up at ODS and thinking we my need to test that | 19:34 |
| clarkb | I have a beagleboard if we need bare metal testing hardware :) | 19:34 |
| jeblair | while i'd love to have a 2u, 250 watt, 48 arm processor machine in my room... i told them since they'll be doing stuff in a lab anyway, we can hook their testing up to gerrit | 19:35 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:35 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: we could by some raspberry pi boxes ;) | 19:35 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| mtaylor | jeblair: were they amenable to participating in our external-testing-interface program? | 19:36 |
| jeblair | so we can expect a couple of jenkinses from ubuntu to be reporting back to gerrit this cycle, if all goes well | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | SWEET | 19:36 |
| jeblair | (end) | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | love it | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | oh - don't know if I mentioned before, but jclouds plugin is released and in the wild, so we're going to try to get it to spin up our slaves soon | 19:37 |
| LinuxJedi | one more thing from me, we have started documenting how to get external testing setups to report to Jenkins | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: ++ | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: did you see my notes in the bug about that? | 19:37 |
| LinuxJedi | #link http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/995600 | 19:38 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 995600 in openstack-ci "document external testing hooks" [High,Triaged] | 19:38 |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:38 | |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: nope, I must have missed that when skimming them, sorry | 19:38 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: ah, want me to take that on? | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | there you go, I jst assigned it to you | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | however, job filler more important :) | 19:38 |
| LinuxJedi | of course :) | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | unless you need to context switch for sanity | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | obviously - do what works :) | 19:39 |
| Shrews | except speak to me | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | no, I'd rather concentrate on one thing at a time so that I don't forget where I am | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | that is all I've got for now - anybody else? | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | I lost sanity years ago | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | around the time I worked for a company beginning with 'O' | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | only other thing is meetbot should be stable now | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:41 |
| LinuxJedi | I fixed the last few minor issues last week | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | alright - I've got a doctor's appointment ... thanks guys! | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 19:42 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 19:42:09 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:42 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:42 | |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.html | 19:42 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.txt | 19:42 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.log.html | 19:42 |
| *** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:42 | |
| *** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:43 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:43 | |
| *** ewindisch has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:48 | |
| *** thingee has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 19:51 | |
| *** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea | 19:51 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:51 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 19:52 | |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:53 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 19:54 | |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 20:00 | |
| notmyname | o/ | 20:00 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 20:00:37 2012 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 20:00 |
| johnpur | o/ | 20:00 |
| *** milner has quit IRC | 20:00 | |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| danwent | \o | 20:00 |
| jbryce | hi everyone | 20:00 |
| bcwaldon | hello | 20:01 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda | 20:01 |
| jbryce | i see notmyname, ewanmellor, johnpur, ttx, danwent, bcwaldon...anyone else here? | 20:01 |
| *** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| heckj | o/ | 20:02 |
| bcwaldon | anotherjesse is out today | 20:02 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:03 |
| jbryce | well let's get started | 20:03 |
| jbryce | #topic 3rd Party APIs | 20:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "3rd Party APIs" | 20:03 | |
| jbryce | vishy: you around? | 20:03 |
| vishy | yup | 20:03 |
| vishy | sorry, just reading the last couple posts in the thread | 20:04 |
| jbryce | so we've had some discussion on the mailing list, last week's chat, etc | 20:04 |
| jbryce | how much do we want to try to tackle today? apis? core/non-core? | 20:05 |
| johnpur | looks like there are various issues wrapped into the discussion | 20:05 |
| johnpur | standards? | 20:05 |
| vishy | on the mailing list it sounded like people were mostly for option b | 20:05 |
| heckj | yeps | 20:05 |
| notmyname | vishy: can you paste in option b? | 20:05 |
| ttx | on it | 20:05 |
| vishy | thanks ttx: | 20:05 |
| vishy | It hink markmc made some good points in his email though. | 20:06 |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:06 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:06 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:06 | |
| jbryce | #info third party apis are not part of openstack core, and we focus on building a strong ecosystem where these apis could exist as proxies or external plugins. It is up to deployers to decide which ecosystem projects to include in their distributions | 20:06 |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 20:06 | |
| jbryce | that was option b | 20:06 |
| jbryce | vishy: i agree | 20:06 |
| ttx | ^ | 20:06 |
| devcamcar_ | o/ | 20:06 |
| vishy | to take nova specifically, I'm not totally sure that we have the architecture for external plugins for apis really locked down | 20:07 |
| vishy | so allowing them into feature branches in the meantime might be the only option | 20:07 |
| jbryce | my instinct is mostly in line with option b as well, but i think the issue i'm having trouble understanding how to make that a smooth experience for people | 20:07 |
| johnpur | while i agree in principle with b, we need to ensure that the actual implementations by the projects support high performance and compatible solutions | 20:07 |
| johnpur | otherwise, the external API's will always suck | 20:08 |
| jbryce | people in my statement being developers who want to create a plugin api for CIMI or another api as well as deployers who want to include them | 20:08 |
| ttx | I think mark's point is that we shouldn't be closing the door on the idea getting proper separation of compute code vs. API - which would enable APIs as plu-ins rather than as proxies | 20:08 |
| jbryce | to vishy's point, some of that is definitely architecture related | 20:09 |
| ttx | but I'm not sure that's orthogonal to (b) | 20:10 |
| johnpur | also, as a policy do we need to make a statement that the core projects must support an API extension/plug-in model? It will be weird to have solutions for only some of the projects. | 20:10 |
| vishy | so it seems like we could agree to make an effort in the projects to allow these external plugins to be as performant as what we work on internally, and to improve stability and testing of the interfaces we expose to the plugins so that they can be as solid. | 20:10 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:11 | |
| jbryce | johnpur: i think a key would be having some kind of standard convention if not a policy around how to do this across projects. otherwise it will only make these efforts more and more confusing | 20:11 |
| johnpur | vishy: + | 20:11 |
| vishy | and we could encourage the contributors to help improve those things in the core projects. | 20:11 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| notmyname | johnpur: vishy: it becomes hard to make general decisions when the APIs are so different in functionality | 20:12 |
| vishy | jbryce: I don't know that there is something that makes sense across the projects | 20:12 |
| jbryce | it doesn't have to be at a code architecture level | 20:12 |
| johnpur | notmyname: understood, doesn't mean we should punt on the issue, right? | 20:12 |
| vishy | notmyname: agreed, we can't make general technical decisions, so I think the best we can do is make general policy decisions about best effort. | 20:12 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| notmyname | ok. just don't want to go too far ;-) | 20:12 |
| jbryce | but a basic convention of where they live and how they are treated. like what you (vishy) said | 20:12 |
| johnpur | vishy: agree | 20:13 |
| jbryce | let me see if we've got some general agreement on some things | 20:13 |
| jbryce | openstack projects should support an official openstack project api directly in the core implementation | 20:13 |
| johnpur | must | 20:13 |
| jbryce | additional APIs ("3rd party APIs") will live outside of the core implementation and can be integrated in individual deployments through and extenion/plugin mechanism | 20:14 |
| notmyname | jbryce: I agree, but it's almost a truism because whatever API they implement is the openstack API for that project | 20:15 |
| jbryce | notmyname: i agree, just trying to define the differences between openstack API and 3rd party API | 20:15 |
| jbryce | the core implementation should allow 3rd party APIs to be as performant as the openstack API by exposing solid, stable interfaces | 20:16 |
| vishy | jbryce: I'm not sure that we can mandate that they must live outside | 20:16 |
| vishy | jbryce: unless we are just talking ultimate goal here. | 20:16 |
| johnpur | can a project support two "official" API's? for instance, a rest openstack implementation *and* a native standards based api? if it makes sense? | 20:16 |
| vishy | johnpur: I don't know if we have enough information to make that decision | 20:17 |
| jbryce | vishy: ok. option b seemed to say that 3rd party APIs are not put in core | 20:17 |
| vishy | if one of the standards apis takes off and it makes sense, then i could see that happening | 20:17 |
| vishy | jbryce: I agree with the principle that they should be there | 20:17 |
| heckj | vishy: ++ | 20:17 |
| vishy | jbryce: I just don't know if we are technically at the point where they can | 20:17 |
| vishy | (in some of the projects) | 20:18 |
| johnpur | vishy: it is the same thing you just raised... do we mandate the 3rd party api live outside? | 20:18 |
| jbryce | vishy: let's work on defining the end state of this as the goal/convention to aim for | 20:18 |
| vishy | ok | 20:18 |
| notmyname | we should talk about the ultimate goal instead of what is possible today | 20:18 |
| johnpur | agree | 20:18 |
| notmyname | s/.*/jbryce +1/ | 20:18 |
| vishy | the end goal is that 3rd party apis live outside and are just as performant and well-tested as what is inside | 20:18 |
| jbryce | so if a formal standard takes off, would we want it in core, or treat it as a 3rd party api still that lives outside? | 20:19 |
| vishy | jbryce: cross that bridge when we come to it? | 20:19 |
| notmyname | vishy: with the caveat that "if one of the standards apis takes off and it makes sense, then [we include it in the core]"? | 20:19 |
| johnpur | if the goal of being performant and stable is achieved, it shouldn't matter | 20:19 |
| jbryce | johnpur: i agree | 20:19 |
| johnpur | except perhaps in a pckaging and deployment option sense | 20:20 |
| ttx | notmyname: "taking off" is a bit subjective unfortunately | 20:20 |
| notmyname | ttx: true | 20:20 |
| vishy | notmyname: +1 (if every deployer is primarily deploying CIMI or OCCI or <insert new api here> and everyone is using it, then we can determine whether it should join/replace the openstack api at that point) | 20:20 |
| jbryce | so from an implementation standpoint it sounds like we want to direct people developers working on 3rd party APIs to develop those externally to the core source? agree? | 20:21 |
| vishy | johnpur: agreed, if we are successful, it shouldn't matter whether the code is 'in core' or not. | 20:21 |
| heckj | jbryce: I believe so, yes | 20:22 |
| johnpur | jbryce: yes. but this will only work if the projects do the work to allow the 3rd party API's to be integrated smoothly | 20:22 |
| ttx | if we do plug-ins well, and the packagers support the popular ones well, in the end it shouldn't matter that much | 20:22 |
| johnpur | ttx: agree | 20:22 |
| jbryce | so is there any exposure/status for 3rd party apis? | 20:23 |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:23 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 20:23 | |
| notmyname | jbryce: the first easy way is with wsgi middleware | 20:23 |
| jbryce | do we leave it completely up to packagers, deployers and distributions to find the set they want to include | 20:23 |
| ttx | jbryce: that's the difference between the (c) and (b) options | 20:23 |
| ttx | c is b with some kind of blessing | 20:23 |
| notmyname | oh, sorry. wrong definition of "exposure" | 20:23 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:24 | |
| ttx | we can definitely start with (b) and see. While we can't really do the other way around | 20:24 |
| notmyname | jbryce: I'd prefer to leave it up to the packagers and deployers and not give any status to one or another | 20:24 |
| ttx | like start blessing some plugins and then remove that notion... | 20:24 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| heckj | ttx: I don't want to "bless" anything - I think that's the wrong approach. I DO want to make the extensions and additional components easily visible and findable. Just not asserting any "recommended", "official", or other heavily-laden word for our opinion of it. | 20:25 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:25 | |
| vishy | I kind of prefer going the free market route and allow blessing to come from usage instead of some magic want wielded by us. | 20:25 |
| johnpur | jbryce: i think you are brining up a bigger issue... i am composing a ML for this, and want to discuss next week or so. the core issue is what the "container" is for openstack projects | 20:25 |
| notmyname | heckj: +1 | 20:25 |
| ttx | heckj: I think it's fair | 20:25 |
| johnpur | notmyname's swift status triggered this for me | 20:25 |
| ttx | heckj: the grey area is about test integration I guess. We might want to "mark" some of them as being integrated into our CI | 20:25 |
| jbryce | heckj: i agree. i think the visibility part is way more important anyway | 20:26 |
| heckj | johnpur: I'm not sure what you mean by "container" | 20:26 |
| johnpur | is there a difference between "swift" and "openstack object storage"? i think there is. | 20:26 |
| jbryce | ttx: that was my next question = ) | 20:26 |
| johnpur | let me send thoughts to the ml before we get into it. | 20:26 |
| notmyname | johnpur: the old question of openstack == API or openstack == api+implementation | 20:26 |
| heckj | ttx: I don't think we should do that *now*. We can certainly approach it in the future, but we're not even fully testing our stuff yet - I wouldn't want to try and add in, and come up with a policy for what we add and what we don't, for external projects. | 20:26 |
| jbryce | johnpur: i like the ml idea | 20:27 |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:27 | |
| ttx | heckj: right, so we can definitely do (b) and see if there is a need for some amount of (c) to stamp some of them "CI-tested" | 20:27 |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 20:27 | |
| johnpur | notmyname: add in openstack == core plus other stuff | 20:27 |
| ttx | heckj: we might realize free market and a good website are better than the stamp. | 20:28 |
| notmyname | johnpur: I look forward to your email :-) | 20:28 |
| johnpur | :) now i actually have to send it! | 20:28 |
| heckj | ttx: I think we should not even approach testing any other APIs at this time. We need to get our own house in order and better test our own APIs prior to embracing anything external. | 20:28 |
| jbryce | ttx: i agree. i think we need to offer some mechanism for visibility and free market will take care of stamping | 20:28 |
| vishy | ok sounds like we are in agreement, but should we formalize the opinion so we can all +1 it? | 20:29 |
| heckj | ttx: yes - I think free market and approval will be better than any official stamp | 20:29 |
| notmyname | vishy: +1 your +1 idea | 20:29 |
| jbryce | vishy: yes. let me take a stab at it | 20:29 |
| ttx | this meeting is way more interesting as a post-lunch thing than as a pre-sleep thing. | 20:32 |
| ttx | I should move to PST. | 20:32 |
| jbryce | an openstack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the openstack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner. 3rd party APIs will not make use of OpenStack resources or have an official OpenStack blessing, but we may provide som | 20:32 |
| jbryce | visibility for them (perhaps in the form of a website/directory). | 20:32 |
| johnpur | ttx: are you in CA? | 20:32 |
| ttx | johnpur: currently yes | 20:32 |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 20:32 | |
| ttx | maybe we can spare the "not make use of openstack resources" part | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: sounds good to me. | 20:33 |
| jbryce | ttx: ok | 20:33 |
| ttx | I expect some of htem to be developed under Stackforge or whatever | 20:33 |
| ttx | which could be considered "openstack reousrces" in a way | 20:34 |
| jbryce | true | 20:34 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: an member:openstack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the member:openstack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner. 3rd party APIs will not have an official member:OpenStack blessing, but we may provide some | 20:34 |
| jbryce | visibility for them (perhaps in the form of a website/directory). | 20:34 |
| notmyname | jbryce: ya, I'd prefer to remove the whole last sentence | 20:34 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:35 |
| ttx | #startvote above motion: +1, +0, -0, -1 | 20:35 |
| jbryce | do other people agree with that? we seemed to make a lot of statements about the unofficial nice of it | 20:35 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| jbryce | unofficial *nature of it | 20:35 |
| devcamcar | everything except the last sentence makes sense? | 20:35 |
| notmyname | I think remaining silent on its "officialness", then unofficial is implied | 20:36 |
| *** User has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| jbryce | ok | 20:36 |
| johnpur | i would like to be encouraging about the 3rd party API projects, not position them so clearly outside of the openstack dev world | 20:36 |
| notmyname | but remaining silent also allows us to change our mind to some degree of "blessing" later on | 20:36 |
| heckj | jonhpur: then assert will *will* provide a means of exposing and advertising them (aka StackForge or equiv) | 20:36 |
| jaypipes | johnpur: does it depend on the API? You want to encourage the EC2 API in the same way as, say, OCCI? | 20:36 |
| johnpur | also, if these projects adopt the openstack ci, qa, and automation startegies it is all tot he good | 20:36 |
| jbryce | i'd vote for staying silent on it initially then | 20:37 |
| jbryce | until we figure out what makes sense | 20:37 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: an OpenStack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the OpenStack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner. | 20:37 |
| ttx | #startvote above motion? +1, +0, -0, -1 | 20:37 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: both are valid examples of external API's. the difference is that the OCCI api can be influenced by active contributions by the openstack community | 20:37 |
| johnpur | that does make a difference | 20:38 |
| ttx | jbryce: use that line to start a meetbot vote count | 20:38 |
| jaypipes | #vote +1 | 20:38 |
| devcamcar | #vote +1 | 20:38 |
| heckj | #vote +1 | 20:39 |
| ttx | jbryce needs to start the vote first | 20:39 |
| jbryce | sorry | 20:39 |
| * vishy grins | 20:39 | |
| jbryce | #startvote above motion? +1, +0, -0, -1 | 20:39 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: above motion? Valid vote options are , 1, 0, 0, 1. | 20:39 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:39 |
| ttx | Hahaha | 20:39 |
| heckj | #vote +1 | 20:39 |
| openstack | heckj: +1 is not a valid option. Valid options are , 1, 0, 0, 1. | 20:39 |
| clarkb | oh damb | 20:39 |
| clarkb | *damn | 20:39 |
| ttx | excellent. | 20:39 |
| heckj | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| clarkb | it splits on non characters darnit | 20:40 |
| devcamcar | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| jaypipes | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| devcamcar | also: lulz | 20:40 |
| jbryce | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| johnpur | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| ttx | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| notmyname | schrodingers vote | 20:40 |
| jbryce | haha | 20:40 |
| notmyname | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| ttx | (use vote 0 if you don't agree, I guess | 20:40 |
| ttx | ) | 20:40 |
| danwent | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| ewanmellor | #vote 1 | 20:40 |
| ttx | jbryce: you need to #endvote at the end. | 20:41 |
| vishy | #vote 1 | 20:41 |
| johnpur | look like a bug in meetbot :)? | 20:41 |
| clarkb | yup | 20:41 |
| vishy | you can use yes, no, abstain i guess? | 20:41 |
| ttx | it's an experimental feature ;) | 20:41 |
| jbryce | anyone else? | 20:41 |
| clarkb | the "parsing" cound be a little more robust | 20:41 |
| jbryce | #endvote | 20:41 |
| openstack | Voted on "above motion?" Results are | 20:41 |
| openstack | 1 (10): ttx, jbryce, vishy, heckj, jaypipes, johnpur, danwent, devcamcar, ewanmellor, notmyname | 20:41 |
| jbryce | wow...that is so much easier than my previous scroll, add....scroll, add.....scroll, add method | 20:42 |
| ttx | clarkb: is the vote results logged to the meeting minutes ? | 20:42 |
| clarkb | yes | 20:42 |
| ttx | great | 20:42 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:43 |
| jbryce | well looks like we have a path forward on that | 20:43 |
| jbryce | how do we identify what work we need to actually go do to make that a reality? | 20:43 |
| johnpur | ptl's need to take the action | 20:43 |
| ttx | I think each PTL will have to... what johnpur said | 20:43 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| jbryce | anything else on this topic? | 20:44 |
| jbryce | #topic Relaxing core promotion rules for existing core project split | 20:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Relaxing core promotion rules for existing core project split" | 20:45 | |
| jbryce | how does everyone feel about an expedited path for things like cinder that are being broken out of existing projects? | 20:46 |
| ttx | right, quick history first | 20:46 |
| ttx | currently you have to ask for core promotion before the cycle starts, so that you follow the whole cycle | 20:46 |
| notmyname | jbryce: to me that's the 2nd question. the first is if split projects should be sibling projects of the original project, or should they be part of a tree of projects under the parent | 20:46 |
| ttx | but when a project is the result of a code split, we should relax that | 20:47 |
| ttx | that said, we should have project splits happen early in the cycle | 20:47 |
| heckj | notmyname: what's the practical difference? | 20:47 |
| ttx | so that we can exercise the release process and train the new PTL in time | 20:47 |
| notmyname | heckj: core project vs subteam of a project | 20:47 |
| johnpur | notmyname: this is part of the question i raised earlier... is "openstack compute" == nova, or == nova+cinder+... | 20:48 |
| heckj | +1 for some additional PTL training... | 20:48 |
| heckj | (would've helped me anyway) | 20:48 |
| ttx | heckj: client libraries, for example, still belong to same PTL | 20:48 |
| johnpur | let's focus today on the tactical question | 20:48 |
| ttx | while cinder has its ow nfull project | 20:48 |
| ttx | anyway | 20:48 |
| ttx | My point is.. I'd like project splits to be completed by mid-cycle at the latest | 20:48 |
| devcamcar | johnpur: openstack compute == nova, openstack block stroage == cinder | 20:49 |
| johnpur | so vish and crew can move forward with the creation and transition of nova volume to cinder | 20:49 |
| ttx | which means folsom-2 | 20:49 |
| vishy | ttx: I think that is reasonable | 20:49 |
| devcamcar | anything else is super confusing | 20:49 |
| jbryce | devcamcar: +1 | 20:49 |
| *** milner has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:49 | |
| ttx | so we need to have a folsom-2 milestone for Cinder that reproduces the functionality of nova-volume | 20:49 |
| ttx | does that sound fair ? | 20:49 |
| devcamcar | i'd suggest we relax the rules for core for cinder but also require milestones to be hit - for instance, if cinder isn't healthy by folsom 2 then it probably shouldn't be core? | 20:50 |
| johnpur | devcamcar: in this case i agree with you, but there are other not so clear cases | 20:50 |
| ttx | devcamcar: my point exactly. | 20:50 |
| vishy | ttx: sounds reasonable | 20:50 |
| jbryce | ttx: so to be clear, we would be granting cinder expedited core status for OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if they are able to replicate nova-volume functionality by folsom-2? | 20:50 |
| devcamcar | johnpur: do we need a wide reaching policy? why not evaluate these on case by case basis | 20:50 |
| ttx | so Cinder is currently a "prospective project split" and may be fast-tracked to core status if folsom-2 milestone is hit properly | 20:51 |
| devcamcar | not like there's going to be hundreds of them | 20:51 |
| johnpur | vishy: you are going to maintain full nova-volume functionality while cinder is being created, right? | 20:51 |
| jbryce | i would prefer to do anything out of the process to be case-by-case basis | 20:51 |
| vishy | johnpur: yessir | 20:51 |
| notmyname | devcamcar: I'll propose hundrends of parts of swift ;-) | 20:51 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think there is nothing cinder-specific in this rule | 20:51 |
| johnpur | so we have a fallback against milestones not being hit for folsom cinder | 20:52 |
| ttx | johnpur: I'd generally like release deliverables to be set in stone by folsom-2 / mid-cycle. So client library splits for Glance/Swift should also happen before | 20:52 |
| johnpur | we need to listen to ttx, he is the man! I agree. | 20:53 |
| annegentle | is cinder going to have a PTL? Doc requirements? What are the definitions around this process other than dev milestones? | 20:53 |
| ttx | annegentle: cinder has a ptl | 20:53 |
| johnpur | annegentle: yes | 20:53 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| ttx | annegentle: part of the idea behind having everything ready by mid-cycle is so that docs can be set up way before the last milestone and rc period | 20:54 |
| jbryce | #startvote Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone? 1, 0 | 20:55 |
| openstack | Begin voting on: Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone? Valid vote options are 1, 0. | 20:55 |
| openstack | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 20:55 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| vishy | #vote 1 | 20:55 |
| ewanmellor | #vote 1 | 20:55 |
| jbryce | do we need to include something about the interim PTL as well? | 20:55 |
| devcamcar | #vote 1 | 20:55 |
| ttx | PTL should join PPB by folsom-2, imo | 20:55 |
| notmyname | #vote 0 | 20:55 |
| jbryce | #vote 1 | 20:56 |
| ttx | notmyname: does that mean 0 or -1 ? | 20:56 |
| johnpur | given the midcycle requirement, it is incumbent on the project ptl(s) to manage this appropriately, with full disclosure if milestones will not be hit. this is a key for folsom deliverables. | 20:56 |
| ttx | #vote 1 | 20:56 |
| danwent | #vote 1 | 20:56 |
| vishy | jbryce: we have an acting ptl, the plan was to have a vote for actual ptl later, perhaps we do that at folsom-2 as well | 20:56 |
| notmyname | ttx: mostly 0 not -1 | 20:56 |
| johnpur | #vote 1 | 20:56 |
| heckj | #vote 1 | 20:56 |
| ttx | jbryce: that said, I thin k it's not a case-by-case, it's a general rule for project splits | 20:56 |
| johnpur | vishy: +1 on the vote | 20:57 |
| jbryce | #info will vote on interim cinder PTL at folsom-2 along with review of status | 20:57 |
| ttx | so we define what rules apply to "proposed project splits", and say that Cinder is one | 20:57 |
| *** markmc has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| ttx | applied* | 20:57 |
| jbryce | any other votes? | 20:57 |
| jbryce | #endvote | 20:58 |
| openstack | Voted on "Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone?" Results are | 20:58 |
| openstack | 1 (8): ttx, jbryce, vishy, heckj, johnpur, danwent, devcamcar, ewanmellor | 20:58 |
| openstack | 0 (1): notmyname | 20:58 |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| jbryce | with the new meetbot voting counter, we can never vote against anything | 20:58 |
| clarkb | you can use things other than 1 and 0 | 20:58 |
| clarkb | Yes, No, Abstain, Maybe etc | 20:58 |
| ttx | should be: yes, abstain, no | 20:58 |
| clarkb | but for numberic votes I will need to write a patch | 20:59 |
| jbryce | clarkb: cool. thanks | 20:59 |
| *** alpha_ori has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | we're out of time | 20:59 |
| ttx | we can use real words. I think. | 20:59 |
| jbryce | ttx: -1 | 20:59 |
| jbryce | thanks everyone! | 20:59 |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 20:59 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has quit IRC | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:59 |
| ttx | jbryce: #endmeeting | 20:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 20:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 20:59:51 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:59 |
| ttx | yay | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.html | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.txt | 20:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.log.html | 20:59 |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| ttx | heckj, notmyname, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: still around ? | 21:00 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: around ? | 21:00 |
| vishy | yup | 21:00 |
| heckj | o/ | 21:00 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:00 |
| danwent | o/ | 21:00 |
| heckj | I'll grab food after the keystone update | 21:01 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yes | 21:01 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 21:01:25 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 21:01 |
| ttx | Today's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:01 |
| ttx | #info We'll be mostly reviewing folsom-1/1.5.0 plans for each project | 21:01 |
| ttx | #info Folsom-1 is May 24th, so the milestone branch should be cut on May 22nd | 21:02 |
| ttx | That means we have two weeks left. | 21:02 |
| ttx | But first... | 21:02 |
| ttx | #topic Final Folsom release schedule | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Final Folsom release schedule" | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/FolsomReleaseSchedule | 21:02 |
| ttx | This is the final proposal, which reflects the option we discussed last week. | 21:02 |
| ttx | That makes final common "Folsom" release on September 27th. | 21:03 |
| ttx | And for milestone-following projects, feature freeze on August 14 (two days before last milestone) | 21:03 |
| ttx | And next Design summit on the week of October 15, with an extra week post-release to prepare. | 21:03 |
| ttx | PTLs: Does that sound good to you ? | 21:03 |
| heckj | ttx: yep | 21:03 |
| notmyname | ttx: I think I'm free that week ;-) | 21:04 |
| bcwaldon | yep yep | 21:04 |
| ttx | notmyname: good! | 21:04 |
| ttx | I tried to avoid Columbus Day week which apparently some people like to have off | 21:04 |
| ttx | moving on then | 21:05 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:05 | |
| ttx | heckj: o/ | 21:05 |
| heckj | ola | 21:05 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:05 |
| ttx | Two blueprints targeted (both essential)... | 21:05 |
| ttx | heckj: Is it a complete view of your folsom-1 plans ? | 21:05 |
| heckj | yep. implementation in progress on both of them, slower than I'd like on the API drafting, but coming along | 21:06 |
| ttx | stop-ids-in-uris: is marked beta available, so I guess it should be proposed for review soon ? | 21:06 |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 21:06 | |
| heckj | ttx: Some of that code is in review now | 21:07 |
| ttx | draft-v3-api: is the work on this started ? Is this really necessary by folsom-1 ? (if not, we can downgrade to "High") | 21:07 |
| heckj | ttx: if we want to get it out, yes - it's essential. If we don't do it by F1, then we won't be doing a significant API upgrade this release at all. | 21:07 |
| ttx | fair enough | 21:08 |
| ttx | but work started on that, right ? | 21:08 |
| heckj | ttx: yes | 21:08 |
| ttx | ok, will update | 21:08 |
| ttx | Looking at targeted bugs, there are three that are unassigned. | 21:08 |
| ttx | Should probably be untargeted if nobody is working on them. | 21:08 |
| heckj | will update individually | 21:09 |
| ttx | thx | 21:09 |
| ttx | heckj: anything else ? | 21:09 |
| heckj | I'm good | 21:09 |
| ttx | Questions about Keystone ? | 21:09 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| ttx | heckj: go grab lunch :) | 21:10 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:10 |
| heckj | FOOD!!! | 21:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:10 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:10 |
| notmyname | o/ | 21:10 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.5.0 | 21:10 |
| ttx | 4 blueprints, 2 completed already, looks good to me | 21:10 |
| ttx | Any vague idea of the ETA for 1.5.0 yet ? | 21:10 |
| notmyname | indeed. the important one there is https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/add-associated-projects-docs | 21:10 |
| * ttx looks | 21:11 | |
| notmyname | there is no timeframe for 1.5.0 yet (beyond the vague "in the next few weeks") | 21:11 |
| notmyname | there is a lot of coordination to split out the pieces and make sure they are ready to go | 21:11 |
| ttx | notmyname: sometime in May/early June ? | 21:11 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 21:11 | |
| notmyname | background: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg11237.html | 21:11 |
| notmyname | ttx: I'd hope by the end of this month | 21:12 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:12 | |
| ttx | notmyname: you can use "priority" in the blueprint to convey how important each blueprint relatively is | 21:12 |
| notmyname | this means that swift 1.5.0 will be somewhat larger than other releases | 21:12 |
| ttx | ok | 21:12 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:12 |
| notmyname | by "larger" I mean it may take extra effor for deployers to upgrade since dependencies may have been added | 21:13 |
| ttx | that way people will think they know why it's called 1.5.0 instead of 1.4.10 :) | 21:13 |
| notmyname | indeed | 21:13 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:14 |
| notmyname | one more thing | 21:14 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| ttx | notmyname: go for it | 21:14 |
| notmyname | swift now has http://swift.openstack.org/associated_projects.html and if someone has something they want aded, it can be added with a patch to the swift docs in the swift codebase (normal openstack conditions apply) | 21:14 |
| ttx | ack | 21:15 |
| ttx | no question on Swift ? | 21:15 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:15 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: yo | 21:15 |
| bcwaldon | hey | 21:15 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:16 |
| ttx | 5 blueprints, all essential... | 21:16 |
| bcwaldon | that's how I roll | 21:16 |
| ttx | almost all. | 21:16 |
| ttx | Essential ones: all completed except one in review ? | 21:16 |
| ttx | Looks almost done, which is good :) | 21:16 |
| bcwaldon | Yep, I'm just pulling things in as they seem like they'll get done | 21:16 |
| ttx | Is it a complete view of the Glance f1 targets ? | 21:16 |
| bcwaldon | My target for the v2 API is Folsom, dont have a good milestone yet | 21:17 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I doubt it | 21:17 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: probably adding more as the work gets done | 21:17 |
| ttx | but all the others would not be blocking anything, so Med/Low prio | 21:17 |
| bcwaldon | I guess i'm thinking about priority within the context of Folsom, not just F1 | 21:17 |
| ttx | hmm | 21:17 |
| bcwaldon | so I have more Essential blueprints that arent targeted to F1 | 21:18 |
| ttx | sure | 21:18 |
| bcwaldon | I have asked for some help with the v2 APi blueprints on the list, but I didn't get any response | 21:18 |
| ttx | Next week we'll probably be looking at the whole folsom essential stuff and make sure the map to milestones is coherent | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | So if theres anybody thats interested in helping, I do have some work to be done | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: fine with me | 21:19 |
| ttx | today I wanted to make sure folsmo-1 objectives were mostly making sense. | 21:19 |
| ttx | #help <bcwaldon> I have asked for some help with the v2 APi blueprints on the list, but I didn't get any response | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: ok, as far as F1 is concerned, we're fine :) | 21:19 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:19 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: Nope | 21:20 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:20 |
| ttx | #topic Quantum status | 21:20 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status" | 21:20 | |
| ttx | danwent: hey | 21:20 |
| danwent | hey | 21:20 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:20 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:20 |
| danwent | :) | 21:20 |
| ttx | :P | 21:20 |
| ttx | 9 blueprints, all assigned | 21:20 |
| danwent | so we've made good progress on everything but the two most important things. | 21:21 |
| danwent | the new API with melange merged in | 21:21 |
| danwent | and keystone integration. | 21:21 |
| ttx | ok... | 21:21 |
| ttx | Three are in unknown state: | 21:21 |
| ttx | melange-integration: is that one started ? | 21:21 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:21 | |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/melange-integration | 21:21 |
| danwent | refresh? | 21:22 |
| ttx | arh | 21:22 |
| danwent | yes, that is started and jkoelker_ has a design he's going to send out soon. | 21:22 |
| danwent | but that's my main concern, as there are many dependencies for F-2 that require that work to be done by F-1 | 21:22 |
| ttx | yes, refreshed earlier today, you're good now | 21:22 |
| danwent | sorry for the last minute tweaks | 21:22 |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 21:23 | |
| ttx | danwent: should I just set the two "undefined" ones to "Low" prio ? | 21:23 |
| danwent | i know heckj and troytoman-away have been talking about the keystone integration, but I'm less familiar with the current status. | 21:23 |
| ttx | (database-common and man-support) | 21:23 |
| danwent | ah, yes, I will do that. | 21:23 |
| danwent | those are both in review already anyway, so I'm not worried about them at all. | 21:24 |
| ttx | like you said, you look generally on track, but the essential/high stuff looks a bit behind | 21:24 |
| danwent | yup, i think that's a good summary | 21:24 |
| ttx | danwent: Anything else ? | 21:24 |
| danwent | we have our quantum scrum meeting next. hopefully jkoelker_ will be there to comment | 21:24 |
| danwent | nope, that's it | 21:24 |
| ttx | Questions on Quantum ? | 21:25 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:25 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:25 | |
| vishy | hi | 21:25 |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:25 |
| jkoelker_ | I'm here, i'm updating the blueprint with the etherpad links | 21:25 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:25 |
| vishy | I haven't heard back from some of the blueprint assignees as to when they will be complete | 21:26 |
| ttx | 15 blueprints - some in unknown state | 21:26 |
| vishy | so there may be one or two more joining that list soon | 21:26 |
| *** egallenZinux has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:26 | |
| ttx | vishy: should I assume the "unknown" ones are "not started" ? | 21:26 |
| *** jkoelker_ is now known as jkoelker | 21:27 | |
| ttx | or that you will hunt down the assignees to get some input from them ? | 21:27 |
| russellb | formalized-message-structure sort of overlaps with versioned rpc apis .... so it's started | 21:27 |
| russellb | i would just call it 'started' | 21:27 |
| ttx | on it | 21:27 |
| vishy | beat you | 21:27 |
| vishy | :) | 21:27 |
| ttx | arh | 21:27 |
| ttx | I's easier when there is more lag between us | 21:28 |
| vishy | they are all prioritized and have a status | 21:28 |
| ttx | good! | 21:28 |
| ttx | In general, this looks mostly on track. Any particular concern ? | 21:28 |
| vishy | there are a bunch of important blueprints for folsom in general that have no assignees | 21:29 |
| vishy | so no concerns about this milestone, but there is lots of work that needs to be done | 21:29 |
| ttx | #help <vishy> there are a bunch of important blueprints for folsom in general that have no assignees | 21:29 |
| vishy | #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/general-host-aggregates | 21:29 |
| vishy | #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/config-drive-v2 | 21:30 |
| ttx | vishy: did you call for volunteers on the ML yet ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | are two big ones | 21:30 |
| vishy | i did | 21:30 |
| vishy | i didn't call out specific blueprints though | 21:30 |
| jog0 | I can take https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/general-host-aggregates | 21:30 |
| ttx | We could try to convince smoser to take config-drive-v2. He can be convinced with beer. | 21:30 |
| oubiwann | hehe | 21:31 |
| ttx | vishy: quick, grab jog0! | 21:31 |
| vishy | jog0: oh you emailed me about that didn't you | 21:31 |
| vishy | awesome will assign you | 21:31 |
| jog0 | vishy: yup, thanks | 21:31 |
| *** egallenZinux has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| ttx | #action ttx and vishy to pour beer into smoser and get him to take config-drive-v2 | 21:32 |
| ttx | I'd like to talk briefly about Cinder... | 21:32 |
| *** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| ttx | It will probably be "core" in Folsom as an existing core project split. | 21:32 |
| ttx | We should have a recurrent Cinder topic at the weekly meeting | 21:32 |
| ttx | There was a discussion at hte PPB meeting just before this one | 21:33 |
| vishy | ttx: good idea, we might need to make sure jgriffith knows about it | 21:33 |
| ttx | Where we decided that Cinder would be core if it can reach feature partity and release process conformity by folsom-2 | 21:33 |
| ttx | parity* | 21:33 |
| ttx | #action ttx to invite jgriffith to a regular Cinder topic at the weekly meeting | 21:34 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:34 |
| vishy | just a reminder about the email i sent regarding blueprints | 21:34 |
| vishy | I'm going to obsolete all of the blueprints next week that are not targetted to folsom | 21:35 |
| vishy | so if anyone knows of one that should stick around, let me know! | 21:35 |
| ttx | I think that's ok to do, it's not as if you can't revert that move | 21:35 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? on Cinder ? | 21:35 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:36 | |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:36 |
| ttx | devcamcar: o/ | 21:36 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:36 |
| devcamcar | i still have a few blueprints to create from the summit | 21:36 |
| devcamcar | i retargeted a few for folsom-2 to keep the amount of work under check | 21:36 |
| ttx | Status looks good to me... | 21:36 |
| ttx | Progress looks a bit slow (2 "High" are "not started"), still on track from your point of view ? | 21:37 |
| devcamcar | good progress on one of the bigger items: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/workflows | 21:37 |
| devcamcar | ttx: yep, should still be good on the blueprints | 21:37 |
| devcamcar | they are pretty narrow in scope | 21:37 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:37 |
| devcamcar | no, other than to say folsom-1 is mostly preparing for folsom-2 changes which depend on workflows | 21:38 |
| *** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: could you explain workflows in a few words ? | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | yep | 21:38 |
| devcamcar | we can currently swap out dashboards/panels and customize pretty extensively | 21:38 |
| ttx | devcamcar: sounds important, but the blueprint is a bit dry :) | 21:39 |
| ttx | ok... | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | but we don't have a deeper integration between showing or hiding features | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | for example, the launch instance workflow | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | if quantum is enabled it needs to present different options to the end user | 21:39 |
| devcamcar | and so the quantum within horizon has to be able to dynamically modify the workflow | 21:40 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| devcamcar | once we have this in place we can start having horizon pick and choose what to show in a much more elegant way | 21:40 |
| ttx | devcamcar: so it's not really a user-facing feature, it's more on the developer/deployer/customizer side ? | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | yes | 21:40 |
| ttx | ok, thx | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | user facing changes will mostly land as of folsom-2 | 21:40 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:40 |
| devcamcar | nope | 21:40 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:40 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 21:41 | |
| *** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea | 21:41 | |
| ttx | #topic Other Team reports | 21:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports" | 21:41 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:41 | |
| ttx | annegentle, jaypipes, mtaylor: ? | 21:41 |
| annegentle | I've created four blueprints for openstack-manuals and have identified resources for all but one - a "try-it-out" mechanism for TryStack.org. | 21:42 |
| annegentle | I believe someone with big javascript chops could take it on, probably use https://github.com/ging/horizon-js. | 21:42 |
| annegentle | #info Docs seeking javascript gurus to implement "try-it-out" for TryStack.org - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/api-try-it-out | 21:42 |
| ttx | annegentle: I see 6 blueprints on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals | 21:42 |
| ttx | you should be able to set the series goal to folsom to further limit the view | 21:43 |
| annegentle | ttx: ah, I need to follow up with lloydde about his. | 21:43 |
| ttx | those are folsom-wide goals, right ? | 21:43 |
| annegentle | ttx: yep. | 21:44 |
| ttx | annegentle: anything else ? | 21:44 |
| annegentle | ttx: that's all for this week. Next week we do have a Doc team meeting. | 21:44 |
| ttx | On the I18N side, there is a thread going on the ML right now... | 21:44 |
| ttx | I'd like the PTLs to chime in and say how much I18N they are ready to support | 21:45 |
| * ttx fetches link | 21:45 | |
| ttx | hrm | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | ttx: horizon is fully prepared, as far as i know | 21:45 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 21:46 | |
| ttx | horizon is a bit of a special case, since it's very user-facing | 21:46 |
| ttx | there are 3 optoins | 21:46 |
| ttx | 1. Horizon being I18N as the user-friendly web interface to OpenStack | 21:47 |
| ttx | 2. All API-user-facing messages should be fully I18N | 21:47 |
| ttx | 3. Everything (including log messages) should be I18N, introduce error codes to enable cross-language searching | 21:47 |
| ttx | all have horizon I18Ned :) | 21:47 |
| annegentle | ttx: 3. includes some user docs? | 21:47 |
| vishy | personally i think 3 is best based on feedback from eastern users | 21:48 |
| ttx | Before someone decides we'll pursue (3) I'd like to make sure all the PTLs agree that they can support that level | 21:48 |
| ttx | since I think "openstack" should be consistently I18Ned | 21:48 |
| mtaylor | ttx: I put the folsom todo list up ... | 21:48 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| mtaylor | ttx: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+milestone/folsom | 21:48 |
| mtaylor | fwiw | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | ttx: good thing it works in horizon then :) | 21:49 |
| notmyname | I think we have "support" in swift, but it's in quotes because I don't think anyone has actually tried it | 21:49 |
| ttx | so heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: please comment on the "i18n of log message" thread | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | ttx: will check it out | 21:49 |
| ttx | if for some reason the list of options should be reduced, better know it soon | 21:49 |
| ttx | before anyone gets too excited | 21:50 |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? | 21:50 |
| egallen | I've prepared the french translation for horizon web interface, I put it today on my github. | 21:50 |
| ttx | vishy: about feedback from Eastern users, some of them voiced their support for option 1 (the China user group man did) | 21:51 |
| ttx | vishy: so it's not necessarily a "Asia vs. the world" issue | 21:51 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| ttx | it's about reasonable expectations vs. effort involved, I think | 21:52 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:52 | |
| ttx | On the bug triaging front, we'll probably open up the bug triagers team. Currently those are restricted teams | 21:52 |
| ttx | but I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost, so I'll propose something on the ML soon about it | 21:53 |
| ttx | that's all I had | 21:53 |
| ttx | Anything else, anyone ? | 21:53 |
| ttx | oubiwann: how is the new dev ML coming up ? | 21:53 |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| oubiwann | ttx: I need jeblair's help with exim as the next step | 21:54 |
| oubiwann | now that he's back from vaca, we should be golden :-) | 21:54 |
| ttx | oubiwann: are you set on the prefixes ? | 21:54 |
| ttx | oubiwann: should we open the discussion on those a bit more publicly ? | 21:54 |
| ttx | (I mean, it's an etherpad, but not everybody knows about it yet) | 21:55 |
| oubiwann | yeah, there are some more than need to be added, but those are on the subteam page and I'll make sure I look at that and your etherpad notes before updating the mail list description | 21:55 |
| oubiwann | right | 21:55 |
| oubiwann | yeah, I can send out an email | 21:55 |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| ttx | oubiwann: feel free to extend the discussion on those. I'd prefer them to be set in stone before we even open | 21:55 |
| oubiwann | okay | 21:55 |
| ttx | so that we can set the house rules quite clearly | 21:55 |
| ttx | ok, so unless someone has something to add.. | 21:56 |
| oubiwann | to be clear for everyone else, ttx means "extend the discussions in a public forum" before we "open up the mail lists (put them live)" | 21:56 |
| ttx | indeed | 21:56 |
| oubiwann | :-) | 21:56 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 21:56 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 21:56:57 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:56 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.html | 21:56 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.txt | 21:57 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.log.html | 21:57 |
| ttx | thanks everyone | 21:57 |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 21:57 | |
| *** User has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 21:59 | |
| danwent | ok... | 22:00 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 8 22:00:20 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 22:00 |
| danwent | who's here? | 22:00 |
| edgarmagana | I am here | 22:00 |
| danwent | jkoelker: ping? | 22:00 |
| edgarmagana | I missed it last time... did not want to happend again :-) | 22:00 |
| garyk | gary's here | 22:01 |
| rkukura | me | 22:01 |
| danwent | edgarmagana: much appreciated :) | 22:01 |
| s0mik | Hello folks | 22:01 |
| _cerberus_ | dietz is here | 22:01 |
| *** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | Hello! | 22:01 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: ah, good. I forgot your handle had an underscore, so tab wasn't finding you :) | 22:01 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| jkoelker | hi | 22:01 |
| danwent | http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:01 |
| markvoelker | o/ | 22:01 |
| _cerberus_ | danwent: totally on purpose | 22:01 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: very smart :) | 22:02 |
| *** markvoelker1 has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| danwent | Ok, so first topic is reviews. Summary: we've got a lot of them. | 22:02 |
| danwent | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/quantum,n,z | 22:02 |
| danwent | and more importantly, the reviewing workload is being handled by a very small portion of the community | 22:02 |
| danwent | special thanks to the many new people who have stepped up. | 22:03 |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 22:03 | |
| danwent | later on we'll be talking a bit about core-dev status, both promoting new folks and looking at cleaning up the list for people who are no longer participating | 22:03 |
| *** milner_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| danwent | I'm not aware of any reviews that require special attention, but I wanted to give people a chance to call anything out. | 22:04 |
| *** milner has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| danwent | Ok... | 22:04 |
| danwent | So we have 2 weeks until we branch for F-1. That's not a lot of time. | 22:04 |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 22:05 | |
| danwent | We've made a lot of progress on the codebase in the past few weeks, but we're still cutting it somewhat close for two of our high priority issues. | 22:05 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-1 | 22:05 |
| danwent | particularly the quantum + melange API changes (and backend implementation). | 22:06 |
| danwent | jkoelker: I believe you've been making progress on this behind the scenes, care to report? | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | si | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-v2-api | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | that's our etherpad for the API | 22:06 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| jkoelker | and http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-v2-melange-integration | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | if for the Database schema to support that api | 22:06 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| _cerberus_ | Also, somewhat tangential, but http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-authnz | 22:07 |
| _cerberus_ | Since there's really no auth today | 22:07 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: yup, that's the second bp I wanted to talk about :) | 22:07 |
| danwent | can we link those etherpads from the BP in launchpad, so all of this can be found from the main quantum page? | 22:08 |
| jkoelker | they are | 22:08 |
| jkoelker | just updated it a bit ago | 22:08 |
| danwent | ah, perfect :) | 22:08 |
| danwent | I see, its on the whiteboard (I was looking at the spec link) | 22:08 |
| *** milner_ has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| * jkoelker sucks at launchpad | 22:08 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** milner has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| danwent | hehe, in many circles, that's a badge of honor :P | 22:08 |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 22:09 | |
| jkoelker | BP updated, now with proper fields ;) | 22:09 |
| danwent | ok and _cerberus_ , does that BP include updating the client_lib? | 22:09 |
| danwent | to "speak keystone"? | 22:09 |
| danwent | i forget if we decided to separate that out. | 22:10 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:10 | |
| _cerberus_ | danwent: that's the intent, yes | 22:10 |
| _cerberus_ | We've got Vek looking at that on our end | 22:10 |
| _cerberus_ | (who isn't in the room atm) | 22:10 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: ok, thanks. and I assume tr3buchet's work to redo the quantum + nova integration will start using the real client, not one pasted into nova, so we should be able to leverage that work there as well. | 22:11 |
| danwent | ok… so I will definitely make sure I get thoughts on the etherpad here, as this is the big think ttx will be me up on if we aren't to the implementing phase by next tuesday :) | 22:11 |
| danwent | are there any other BPs we need to discuss for F-1 at this point? most of the other stuff seems to be humming along, with a lot in code-review already. | 22:12 |
| danwent | ok, getting the API squared away in F-1 will be really important, as there are a bunch of things in F-2 that depend on it. | 22:13 |
| danwent | Alright, the last topic I wanted to bring up was membership in the quantum core dev team. | 22:13 |
| _cerberus_ | Not it | 22:13 |
| danwent | :) | 22:14 |
| danwent | vish sent an email to the main nova list about doing a "spring cleaning" on the nova core team. | 22:14 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:14 | |
| danwent | when quantum started, we actually let anyone who volunteered be a core dev, with the idea that we'd do a spring cleaning at some point too. | 22:15 |
| danwent | now that we're core, it seems like a good thing to do. | 22:15 |
| danwent | note, the goal here is not to force anyone out, just to make sure the team membership is an accurate representation of who's doing work. | 22:15 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core/+members#active | 22:15 |
| danwent | if you look at the list, there are some people that I suspect have never done a single quantum review :) | 22:16 |
| edgarmagana | dan: Ying could be removed | 22:16 |
| danwent | my thinking is that I'll just email people who haven't been involved, and ask them if they plan on continueing to be involved to the degree that they should be considered core. | 22:16 |
| danwent | edgarmagana: good to know, thanks. | 22:16 |
| danwent | we as a community can decide exactly what level of engagement that means, and how we decide on it. | 22:17 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 22:17 | |
| danwent | but my rough feeling is that a "core" dev should be doing 2-3 hours of reviews a week on average. I'm happy to hear input from others though, as raw hours of reviews are not the only way people can contribute (answering email on the list, etc. is also important, as are other community tasks) | 22:18 |
| danwent | what do other people thinks? | 22:18 |
| * jkoelker crickets | 22:18 | |
| * markvoelker is ok with this plan | 22:19 | |
| garyk | i am pretty new to this - i feel that sometimes it takes quite a while to get a review. | 22:19 |
| mnewby | hard to measure | 22:19 |
| edgarmagana | danwent: what about also asking to be attending this meeting as well | 22:19 |
| jkoelker | +1 to dan's suggestion | 22:19 |
| danwent | edgarmagana: agreed, i think reasonable attendence should be an expectation | 22:19 |
| cdub | i think that core is about review, not just community involvment | 22:19 |
| danwent | garyk: yes, reviews are taking too long now. | 22:19 |
| danwent | cdub: that's actually a good point to discuss. | 22:19 |
| cdub | somebody who's great at answering list questions != someone who is also therefore implicitly trusted to have good judgement on code reviews | 22:19 |
| cdub | but it's definitely a very useful community contribution | 22:20 |
| danwent | cdub: definitely agree, but at the same time, we want to encourage developers to be helping the community in many ways | 22:20 |
| mnewby | danwent: encourage, yes. not sure how being part of core encourages that though. | 22:20 |
| cdub | honorary plaque? /me ducks | 22:20 |
| danwent | cdub: so i agree that it can't be a reason to promote someone to core (that should be based purely on review + code skills) | 22:20 |
| danwent | cdub: :) | 22:20 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| danwent | cdub: ok, i'd be fine if we don't consider that in the criteria, though I'd love to have some way to encourage people to do such thankless tasks | 22:21 |
| cdub | shameless beer bribery | 22:21 |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| danwent | cdub: if you're paying…. | 22:21 |
| garyk | :) | 22:22 |
| cdub | free as in... | 22:22 |
| cdub | damn, doesn't work that | 22:22 |
| cdub | way | 22:22 |
| mnewby | ensuring that reviews are processed in a timely fashion requires core devs that are diligent at monitoring gerrit emails and performing the reviews that appear | 22:22 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| cdub | perhaps soemthing on the list that highlights people's activity | 22:22 |
| jkoelker | perhaps doing a review day once a week that rotates would help | 22:22 |
| danwent | ok, so I think its fair to say that review skills + familarity with code are primary criteria, as well as attendence of team meetings (not mandatory, but they should make an effort to attend) | 22:22 |
| mnewby | hmmm | 22:22 |
| mnewby | cdub: i like that idea. | 22:23 |
| med_ | meritocracy by making merit more obvious. | 22:23 |
| mnewby | tracking who is reviewing could be a good way of reminding people who haven't been participating as much that they could be doing more | 22:23 |
| s0mik | I think something akin to Nova Review days would also help spread the load.. | 22:23 |
| danwent | med_: highlighting who is doing the reviews (perhaps based on lines of code reveiwed) would be nice | 22:23 |
| _cerberus_ | s0mik: or just do them on the same day | 22:24 |
| danwent | my concern with reviews days is that it can lead to people leaving reviews hanging until review day... | 22:24 |
| danwent | i'm curious to hear experience from people on Nova wrt review days | 22:24 |
| danwent | did they work? | 22:24 |
| s0mik | Nova reviews days has an assignee everyday | 22:24 |
| danwent | s0mik: ah, i see, its not a team day, its a set of devs assigned to review that day? | 22:25 |
| s0mik | its akin to review "guru", on a particular day of the month, certain person is responsible to at least doing initial revies | 22:25 |
| danwent | I think something like that could work, once we have more core devs participating… | 22:25 |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| danwent | The second half of this discussion is how do we start promoting the people who have been reviewing, but aren't yet core. | 22:26 |
| _cerberus_ | danwent: I will say that, as a Nova core, I'm much more likely to review on that day versus others | 22:26 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: ok, and how frequently do you have them? | 22:26 |
| danwent | you personally | 22:26 |
| _cerberus_ | Every 2 weeksish | 22:26 |
| markvoelker | Note also that the review days schema requires a bit of maintenance (http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack@lists.launchpad.net/msg11233.html) | 22:26 |
| danwent | markvoelker: yeah, saw that as well, which is why i'm a bit suspicous that it has been working | 22:27 |
| s0mik | quantum being a smaller project, would require a little more commitment with the limited set of cores we have.. | 22:27 |
| danwent | Ok. right now I feel like everyone would have a review day twice a week. | 22:27 |
| danwent | my main goal is first to get existing core devs reviewing more, and to add more deserving peopel to the core team. | 22:28 |
| _cerberus_ | There are other problems with the nova review days that are difficult to address | 22:28 |
| _cerberus_ | the minimum number sets a bar you have to meet | 22:28 |
| _cerberus_ | Instead of necessarily wanting to review | 22:28 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| danwent | do people think instituting review days at this point would get more people reviewing? | 22:28 |
| cdub | question is what is the barrier? | 22:29 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: I also don't like just measuring # of reviews… as then people avoid large reviews. | 22:29 |
| s0mik | danwent: I think at the minimum, review days will ensure that reviews don't go unnoticed for long | 22:29 |
| _cerberus_ | danwent: and that's the other primary issue | 22:29 |
| cdub | is it time commitment? focus? tools? lack of expertise? | 22:29 |
| danwent | cdub: my sense if that there are only a handful of peopel regularly checking | 22:30 |
| cdub | (it's why i don't like gerrit, but that's just me :) | 22:30 |
| danwent | and that the total number of changes are more than they can handle | 22:30 |
| danwent | cdub: you can get notifications via email | 22:30 |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| danwent | that is what I meant by checking. | 22:30 |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:30 | |
| danwent | perhaps we should say that all core devs need to be signed up to get those notifications? they can always ignore then, but its a good reminder | 22:31 |
| mnewby | cdub: why don' tyou like gerrit? | 22:31 |
| danwent | oh boy.... | 22:31 |
| cdub | because of the review process (i'm crusty here, sorry) | 22:31 |
| *** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting | 22:31 | |
| cdub | but i think it obscures the process over a old-school mail list mechanism | 22:31 |
| mnewby | cdub: obscures it how? | 22:32 |
| cdub | one advantage of having the reivews in your face is that you see and watch other reivews even if you don't participate | 22:32 |
| danwent | unless you're signed up for a review, you don't get further notifications on that review. | 22:32 |
| cdub | mnewby: it's another tool that you have to go fish for | 22:32 |
| cdub | things to review | 22:32 |
| mnewby | cdub: and there is no advantage to using a web tool vs a mailing list for review? | 22:32 |
| cdub | mnewby: to me? no. but i'm happy to consider myself the minority there ;) | 22:33 |
| danwent | cdub: are there practical things we can do here? | 22:33 |
| cdub | danwent: it's why i asked what you (collective) think the barriers are | 22:33 |
| s0mik | can we have quantum-core as a reviewer and make gerrit send out a quantum review to the entire core list? | 22:33 |
| danwent | s0mik: i already get emails for each new review | 22:33 |
| rkukura | danwent: how do we turn on email notifications? | 22:34 |
| cdub | if it's just people aren't spending time...well, email, gerrit, anything won't fix that | 22:34 |
| danwent | and was proposing that all core devs must do the same | 22:34 |
| mnewby | s0mik: each developer can sign up for notifications in gerrit | 22:34 |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 22:34 | |
| danwent | rkukura: in gerrit | 22:34 |
| mnewby | preferences -> watched projects | 22:34 |
| danwent | #todo #danwent, send out instructions on enabling email notification in gerrit | 22:34 |
| rkukura | danwent: I'd have done it long ago if it was intuitive | 22:34 |
| danwent | mnewby: you win :) | 22:34 |
| _cerberus_ | cdub: no matter what, I think it all comes back to time | 22:34 |
| cdub | i signed up a few months back and got none, annoying | 22:34 |
| mnewby | oops. Settings -> Watched Projects | 22:34 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: I tend to agree. we need more people reviewing regularly. | 22:35 |
| s0mik | I guess thats why liked review board ;) | 22:35 |
| cdub | _cerberus_: that's what it typically is ;) | 22:35 |
| mnewby | Ah… I think I have an idea. | 22:35 |
| mnewby | We haven't been using groups. | 22:35 |
| mnewby | We should document that for any new quantum review, the only reviewer to add is 'quantum-core'. | 22:36 |
| mnewby | Heck, maybe we can get it set by default. | 22:36 |
| cdub | mnewby: what would that do? send notification to all core devs? | 22:36 |
| mnewby | Then there won't be a need for developers to individually configure themselves to receive notifications. | 22:36 |
| mnewby | cdub: yes | 22:36 |
| s0mik | mnewby: the concept of groups is what I was referring to earlier.. I think that would be great to have by default | 22:37 |
| mnewby | s0mik: let's ask openstack-ci. | 22:37 |
| danwent | mnewby: if you want to explore that, I'm for it. I would prefer that it is automatic. Otherwise, I think we should just have core devs sign up to "watch". That's pretty straightforward in my opinion | 22:37 |
| danwent | ok, so we've agreed that core devs will get lots more notifications for reviews. | 22:38 |
| garyk | when does one assign a reviewer and when does one hope it will be picked up? | 22:38 |
| mnewby | danwent: I'm on it. Will make for more awareness of reviews, at least. | 22:38 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 22:38 | |
| danwent | I beleive we're also ok with a "spring cleaning", as no one will be forced out (they can always say that they will start reviewing…) | 22:38 |
| mnewby | garyk: Hopefully we can have all core reviewers assigned. | 22:38 |
| danwent | my final area that I want to explore is the bar at which new people should become core. | 22:38 |
| danwent | we have some new people who aren't core, but none the less are doing a lot of very useful reviews | 22:39 |
| garyk | i can use a drink at a bar now | 22:39 |
| danwent | yong and garyk come to mind | 22:39 |
| danwent | how important is it that people have been contributing code to the project for a while, vs. simply having been proved a reliable reviewer of code? | 22:40 |
| garyk | i think it is too soon for me. i need some more time to be more familiar with things | 22:40 |
| mnewby | danwent: important. reviewing can be just vetting python without any idea of implicit design considerations. | 22:40 |
| s0mik | I like the process of lazy voting where a core or the member self nominates after having achieved enough expertise.. | 22:40 |
| cdub | reviewing is a distinct skill from code contributions (not mutially exclusive or anything like that) | 22:40 |
| mnewby | s0mik: +1 | 22:40 |
| danwent | cdub: I agree tha reviewing is a distinct set, but there's something to be set for "context" while reviewing | 22:41 |
| danwent | s0mik: I agree, but I want to make sure people understand the bar, so they understand when they are ready to promote themselves. Otherwise people may wait too long. | 22:41 |
| danwent | people tend to be overly conservative with self-promotion, as they don't want to get shot down. | 22:42 |
| cdub | yeah, i think people demonstrating competent review skills w/out many contributions should be considered, that's waht i mean | 22:42 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| garyk | cdub: +1 | 22:44 |
| danwent | Ok, so I don't think there should be any official bar in terms of code contributions, but the person should feel confident that they have a "big picture" understanding of quantum architecture. | 22:44 |
| edgarmagana | danwent: +1 | 22:44 |
| mnewby | A simple vote on the ml should suffice, so that if anybody has any concerns they can be addressed. | 22:44 |
| cdub | danwent: yeah, can we help with that? | 22:44 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| s0mik | I agree with mnewby if there are concerns it can be handled by ML, a litmus test for core is very hard.. | 22:45 |
| danwent | Ok, so I think we're roughly on the same page here. The quantum community is growing and changing quickly, which is a good think, so its important that we discuss how to handle this growth. | 22:46 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:46 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| danwent | s0mik: I agree. I more want people to know the criteria by which they will be judged in such a vote. Otherwise, they are unlikely to promote themselves. | 22:46 |
| *** gabrielhurley has left #openstack-meeting | 22:47 | |
| danwent | Ok, any other comments on core status? | 22:47 |
| danwent | do people think targeting 2-3 hrs per week for a core-dev review time (on average) is reasonable? | 22:47 |
| danwent | to high / to low? | 22:48 |
| danwent | too tired to answer? | 22:48 |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| rkukura | danwent: sounds about right | 22:48 |
| edgarmagana | lol! | 22:48 |
| garyk | i was hoping for 2-3 hours a day :) | 22:48 |
| edgarmagana | danwent: sounds good! | 22:49 |
| cdub | hmm, seems reasonable-ish (i'd of thought for more, but considering overall lack of reviews, it's realistic) | 22:49 |
| danwent | garyk: I should be clear.. that is for the low bar of being a core dev | 22:49 |
| med_ | On average garyk, you can offset some benchsitters. | 22:49 |
| cdub | lol | 22:49 |
| danwent | yes, many of us obviously spend a lot more time than that, but this is the low bar, below which you should probably be asked to be removed from the core team. | 22:49 |
| danwent | Ok, any other items for Open Discussion? | 22:50 |
| danwent | ok, thanks folks! | 22:50 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:50 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 8 22:50:37 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:50 |
| edgarmagana | ciao | 22:50 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.html | 22:50 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.txt | 22:50 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.log.html | 22:50 |
| garyk | thanks - goodnight | 22:50 |
| markvoelker | 'night folks | 22:51 |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 22:51 | |
| cdub | garyk: g'night, thanks for staying up late! | 22:52 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** ewindisch has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 23:00 | |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:05 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 23:15 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:18 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:22 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:25 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:25 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** anderstj_ has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 23:36 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:39 | |
| *** egallen has quit IRC | 23:46 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:52 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 23:55 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:57 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!