| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:01 | |
| *** markmcclain1 has quit IRC | 00:02 | |
| *** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:03 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 00:04 | |
| *** dconde has quit IRC | 00:12 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 00:13 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:23 | |
| *** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:24 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 00:24 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 00:28 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:55 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:02 | |
| *** seizadi1 has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:06 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 01:06 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 01:07 | |
| *** rudrarugge has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 01:18 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 01:18 | |
| *** alexsyip has quit IRC | 01:20 | |
| *** celttechie has quit IRC | 01:21 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:22 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 01:26 | |
| *** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:29 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:30 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** stanzgy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:32 | |
| *** markmcclain1 has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 01:38 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:40 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:41 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:46 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 01:46 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:47 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 01:49 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:51 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has quit IRC | 01:54 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 01:57 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:06 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has quit IRC | 02:09 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 02:09 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:10 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| *** celttechie has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:38 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 02:39 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:40 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 02:41 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:41 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:50 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 02:55 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:00 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 03:01 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:01 | |
| *** marun has quit IRC | 03:04 | |
| *** badveli has quit IRC | 03:10 | |
| *** vkmc has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:33 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 03:38 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:38 | |
| *** asahlin has quit IRC | 03:42 | |
| *** jpomero_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:47 | |
| *** erw_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:49 | |
| *** wendar_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:49 | |
| *** gugl2 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:50 | |
| *** mikal_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** jomara_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** edhall_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:52 | |
| *** ttx` has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:52 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** erw has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** jomara has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** mikal has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** rossella_s has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** mordred has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** wendar has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** ttx has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** sc68cal has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** gugl has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** edhall has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** sc68cal_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:52 | |
| *** erw_ is now known as erw | 03:53 | |
| *** rossella_s has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:53 | |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:53 | |
| *** rudrarugge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:56 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:58 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 04:10 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:14 | |
| *** rudrarugge has quit IRC | 04:35 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:57 | |
| *** mikal_ is now known as mikal | 04:58 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:18 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 05:23 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 05:24 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:31 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 05:35 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:35 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:38 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has quit IRC | 05:39 | |
| *** celttechie has quit IRC | 05:43 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:43 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 06:02 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 06:04 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:04 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 06:13 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 06:18 | |
| *** jamielennox is now known as jamielennox|away | 06:24 | |
| *** k4n0 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:30 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 06:51 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 06:54 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 06:54 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:56 | |
| *** jtomasek_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:01 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:13 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:19 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:28 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:31 | |
| *** pkoniszewski has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:32 | |
| *** ttx` is now known as ttx | 07:39 | |
| *** ttx has quit IRC | 07:40 | |
| *** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:40 | |
| *** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:46 | |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 07:46 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:46 | |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 08:00 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:00 | |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 08:04 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:05 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 08:06 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 08:17 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:17 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 08:22 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 08:26 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:28 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 08:47 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:06 | |
| *** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:10 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:12 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:16 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:18 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 09:24 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:30 | |
| *** SridharR_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:30 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 09:32 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 09:39 | |
| *** alexpilotti_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:53 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 09:55 | |
| *** alexpilotti_ is now known as alexpilotti | 09:55 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 09:57 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:59 | |
| *** jab has quit IRC | 09:59 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:59 | |
| *** jab is now known as bradjones | 10:03 | |
| *** SridharR_ has quit IRC | 10:06 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:06 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 10:10 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof | 10:10 | |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 10:10 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 10:11 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:11 | |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 10:14 | |
| *** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:37 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:43 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:48 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 10:53 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 10:55 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 11:09 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 11:17 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:17 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 11:22 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:33 | |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 11:34 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:36 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:43 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 11:48 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:48 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:49 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:51 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 11:53 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 11:55 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:55 | |
| *** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz | 12:12 | |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 12:14 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:15 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof | 12:15 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:15 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 12:16 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:20 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:24 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 12:26 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 12:28 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:29 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:33 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:35 | |
| *** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:50 | |
| *** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz | 12:56 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:03 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 13:06 | |
| *** jpomero_ has quit IRC | 13:08 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:08 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:18 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 13:19 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:19 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:20 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 13:21 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 13:23 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:24 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 13:26 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:26 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:30 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 13:33 | |
| *** ycombinator has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 13:35 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:36 | |
| *** bradjones has quit IRC | 13:38 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof | 13:40 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:42 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:50 | |
| *** thangp has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:51 | |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 13:57 | |
| *** xgerman has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:00 | |
| *** xgerman has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:00 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:03 | |
| *** jab has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:03 | |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:03 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 14:07 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 14:08 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:09 | |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:09 | |
| *** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:12 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:12 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:18 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:19 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 14:23 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:25 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 14:25 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:27 | |
| *** pkoniszewski has quit IRC | 14:31 | |
| *** devvesa has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:40 | |
| *** k4n0 has quit IRC | 14:45 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:47 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:50 | |
| *** matrohon has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:51 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:52 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 14:53 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:54 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:55 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:57 | |
| *** stanzgy has quit IRC | 14:58 | |
| *** mrsmith has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:58 | |
| *** hichihara has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:59 | |
| carl_baldwin | hi all | 14:59 |
|---|---|---|
| *** marun has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:00 | |
| yamamoto | hi | 15:00 |
| mrsmith | howdy | 15:00 |
| devvesa | hi | 15:00 |
| hichihara | hi | 15:00 |
| carl_baldwin | Swami, viveknarasimhan, armax, safchain, amuller, nextone92, devvesa | 15:00 |
| armax | carl_baldwin: hello | 15:00 |
| *** mestery is now known as mestery_afk | 15:01 | |
| carl_baldwin | #startmeeting neutron_l3 | 15:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Aug 14 15:01:16 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3' | 15:01 |
| carl_baldwin | #topic Announcements | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Announcements (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:01 | |
| carl_baldwin | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam | 15:01 |
| *** HenryG_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:01 | |
| carl_baldwin | Juno-3 is September 4th. FPF is the 21st. That is one week from today. | 15:02 |
| *** Rajeev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:02 | |
| *** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:02 | |
| carl_baldwin | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule | 15:02 |
| *** haleyb_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:03 | |
| carl_baldwin | #topic neutron-ovs-dvr | 15:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "neutron-ovs-dvr (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:03 | |
| carl_baldwin | Swami: Do you have a report? | 15:03 |
| Swami | carl_baldwin: yes | 15:03 |
| *** HenryG has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| *** marun has quit IRC | 15:04 | |
| Swami | We are progressing with the bug fix | 15:04 |
| *** amuller_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:04 | |
| Swami | There were couple of bugs that was added to the l3-dvr-backlog yesterday | 15:04 |
| *** marun has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:04 | |
| Swami | The migration patch for the DVR is almost done and we have post it yesterday | 15:05 |
| armax | Swami: I am getting confused by all the bugs reports about where and when the namespace get created | 15:05 |
| Swami | While we were testing the migration patch we were able to reproduce the "lock wait" issue that was reported by Armando on the DB. | 15:05 |
| armax | but that’s probably just me | 15:05 |
| *** marun has quit IRC | 15:05 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 15:06 | |
| *** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:06 | |
| Swami | armax: Yes I can explain. | 15:06 |
| armax | Swami: we can take this offline | 15:06 |
| *** HenryG_ has quit IRC | 15:06 | |
| mrsmith | armax: I agree - there are too many scheduling bugs being reported | 15:06 |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:06 | |
| armax | but it might make sense to have one umbrella bug | 15:06 |
| mrsmith | I want to take a look at some of the snat ones | 15:06 |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:06 | |
| Swami | armax: For snat scheduler is looking for a payload "gw_exists". | 15:07 |
| armax | that lists all the expected conditions and file patches that address the issues partially | 15:07 |
| * pcm_ sorry...I'm late | 15:07 | |
| *** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:07 | |
| Swami | But it has to come from three different scenarios. | 15:07 |
| armax | until we’re happy that all the conditions are met | 15:07 |
| *** tmazur has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| carl_baldwin | armax: I agree it makes sense to cull them together. | 15:07 |
| Swami | When an interface is added we are called notify_router_updated but only "subnet is passed as payload". | 15:07 |
| armax | I have seen these bug reports being filed over time and it’s confusing as to whether some are regressions, new bugs and whatnot | 15:07 |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:08 | |
| Swami | When we create a router with gateway we don't send any "notify_router_updated". | 15:08 |
| carl_baldwin | Does it make sense for one person, maybe mrsmith, to work on them as a single project with one patch? | 15:09 |
| Swami | I will go over the SNAT namespace issues with respect to the scheduler today and will consult with you armax and carl. | 15:09 |
| mrsmith | Swami: I will work with you as well | 15:09 |
| Swami | carl_baldwin: agreed | 15:09 |
| armax | Swami: thanks, my update is that we’re getting close to getting Tempest to be green across the board with DVR | 15:09 |
| *** pkoniszewski has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:09 | |
| Swami | I will work with mrsmith to resolve the scheduler issues. | 15:09 |
| armax | there are still a couple issues to iron out, like the DB lock timeout as swami mentioned | 15:10 |
| armax | but on a good day, we show DVR failing only on the firewally tests | 15:10 |
| armax | which is expected | 15:10 |
| mrsmith | nice | 15:10 |
| mrsmith | "firewally" | 15:10 |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 15:10 | |
| armax | we have persistent issues that are going to be addressed by this patch | 15:11 |
| armax | #link | 15:11 |
| armax | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113420/ | 15:11 |
| armax | #link: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113420/ | 15:11 |
| armax | I welcome tempest folks roaming in this room | 15:11 |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 15:11 | |
| armax | to nudge it in, if they are happy with it | 15:11 |
| carl_baldwin | The tempest test situation has improved a lot. That is good. Also the backlog has actually gone down since last week with some patches propsosed to close out others. | 15:11 |
| armax | this will unblock the two persistent faliures…I managed to run the tests successfully locally with that tempest patch | 15:11 |
| armax | so I am really looking forward to enabling non-voting DVR on every change… | 15:12 |
| armax | that most likely will happen post j3, but we’re getting pretty close | 15:12 |
| mrsmith | +1 | 15:12 |
| Rajeev | very cool. I will look at couple of reviews and work on enable_snat issue | 15:12 |
| carl_baldwin | armax: +1 | 15:12 |
| armax | nothing else from me on DVR…keep reviewing and keep up the good work! | 15:12 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 15:12 | |
| carl_baldwin | armax: Can we propose a patch to infra to enable it? | 15:12 |
| armax | carl_baldwin: yes we can, but it’s still early imo | 15:13 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:13 | |
| carl_baldwin | #action carl_baldwin will look for someone to nudge the tempest patch in. | 15:13 |
| armax | until we get rid of all the persistent failures there’s no point | 15:13 |
| armax | as the run will steal precious resources | 15:13 |
| armax | to more important job | 15:13 |
| armax | I’d say the cut-off is as soon as we get a full pass | 15:13 |
| armax | with the odd random failure | 15:14 |
| armax | thanks folks, mic back to you | 15:14 |
| carl_baldwin | armax: That sounds good. Thanks. | 15:14 |
| carl_baldwin | Anything else on DVR? | 15:14 |
| matrohon | I also that some of you are interested in enabling multinode in the gate | 15:14 |
| Swami | I think we covered most of the topics | 15:15 |
| armax | matrohon: yes | 15:15 |
| Rajeev | matrohon: absolutely | 15:15 |
| armax | matrohon: link: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/106043/ | 15:15 |
| matrohon | armax : fine do you have worked on it already? | 15:15 |
| armax | this is the patch that is addressing this | 15:15 |
| armax | as soon as it lands | 15:15 |
| *** Sudhakar has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:15 | |
| armax | we’ll whip something together to enable DVR | 15:15 |
| armax | and see what happens ;) | 15:15 |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 15:15 | |
| matrohon | thanks!! sounds great | 15:16 |
| carl_baldwin | armax: Thanks for the link. | 15:16 |
| armax | matrohon: what’s your actual name if you don’t mind me asking? | 15:16 |
| matrohon | armax : mathieu rohon :) | 15:16 |
| *** dkehnx has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| armax | gotcha | 15:17 |
| armax | I knew that was somewhat familiar | 15:17 |
| matrohon | we use to work on this item by the past | 15:17 |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| matrohon | but didn't found much time to continue | 15:17 |
| carl_baldwin | Anything else or time to move on? | 15:17 |
| matrohon | armax : this summarize our backlog : | 15:18 |
| Swami | please move on | 15:18 |
| matrohon | https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-infra@lists.openstack.org/msg01132.html | 15:18 |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:18 | |
| carl_baldwin | matrohon: Thanks, we’re looking forward to the multi-node capability. | 15:18 |
| carl_baldwin | #topic l3-high-availability | 15:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "l3-high-availability (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:19 | |
| *** haleyb_ has quit IRC | 15:19 | |
| carl_baldwin | safchain, amuller_: ping | 15:19 |
| armax | matrohon: thanks | 15:19 |
| amuller_ | Sylvain is on PTO, I've been pushing the agent patches | 15:19 |
| amuller_ | Sylvain left the 2 server-side patches in a good state before leaving | 15:19 |
| *** mestery_afk is now known as mestery | 15:19 | |
| amuller_ | I think that the code is at a state where it needs some attention from core | 15:19 |
| amuller_ | s | 15:19 |
| carl_baldwin | amuller_: I had a look through the list of patches recentlly. There are a number of them and it is difficult to know where to start. | 15:20 |
| carl_baldwin | However, I took a stab at organizing them and I think I’ve nearly got my head wrapped around it. | 15:20 |
| carl_baldwin | I will share what I have on the L3 team page today. | 15:21 |
| carl_baldwin | Hopefully, that will make reviewing a little less intimidating. ;) | 15:21 |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:21 | |
| amuller_ | There are 2 server side patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64553/, then https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66347/ | 15:21 |
| amuller_ | Armando did a few iterations on the first patch in the past | 15:22 |
| amuller_ | Then there's a chain of 4 patches in the agent side. There's no dependency between the agent and server side patches. | 15:22 |
| amuller_ | The 4 agent patches start from: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112140/ | 15:22 |
| armax | amuller_: I’ll have another pass soon | 15:22 |
| armax | amuller_: but things are looking up! | 15:22 |
| carl_baldwin | amuller_: Does that chain include your added tests? | 15:23 |
| amuller_ | I added a functional test for the l3 agent which is working for me locally but failing at the gate | 15:23 |
| amuller_ | yes Carl | 15:23 |
| *** thomasem_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:23 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:23 | |
| amuller_ | Maru should be helping out with the gate failure Soon (TM) | 15:23 |
| amuller_ | That's the only known issue at this point | 15:23 |
| amuller_ | Also I pushed CLI patches | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | for DVR and VRRP | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | today | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | and a devstack dependencies patch | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | That's it for l3 ha | 15:24 |
| carl_baldwin | There is also a devstack patch and maybe one or two more. Hence, my desire to wrap my head around how the patches are organized and share that knowledge. | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | right | 15:24 |
| amuller_ | That'd be helpful Carl | 15:25 |
| amuller_ | I should be done with a blog post over the weekend, about the feature... | 15:25 |
| amuller_ | How VRRP works, keepalived, how we use it | 15:25 |
| carl_baldwin | I think we may be up to 10 patches if I’m not mistaken. So, a map will be very useful. | 15:25 |
| amuller_ | it's aimed at reviewers, operators | 15:25 |
| carl_baldwin | #action carl_baldwin will publish a map for reviewers today. | 15:25 |
| carl_baldwin | ^ I will post a link to the ML. | 15:26 |
| *** Sudhakar has quit IRC | 15:26 | |
| amuller_ | Thank you :) | 15:26 |
| carl_baldwin | amuller_: if I recall, I saw a TODO to integrate with DVR in one of the patches but I can’t find it at the moment. | 15:26 |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 15:26 | |
| amuller_ | it's the first server side patch | 15:26 |
| amuller_ | it's working at the model level, everything is persisted correctly last I checked | 15:26 |
| amuller_ | but we haven't tested it out further than that | 15:27 |
| amuller_ | (As for how L3 HA interacts with DVR) | 15:27 |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:27 | |
| *** haleyb_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:27 | |
| carl_baldwin | amuller_: Is it the right time to start getting testers willing to test the two features together? | 15:27 |
| amuller_ | I think it is | 15:27 |
| *** Sudhakar has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:28 | |
| carl_baldwin | Has the DVR team looked at this? | 15:28 |
| mrsmith | not yet - sounds like we need to | 15:28 |
| mrsmith | I've looked at some of the patches | 15:29 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 15:29 | |
| carl_baldwin | mrsmith: Great, I’d like to see your feedback on them. | 15:29 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 15:29 | |
| carl_baldwin | I’ll see what I can do about testing DVR + L3 HA. | 15:30 |
| amuller_ | I think the work will mostly be about scheduling, so that when a router is created with both DVR and HA turned on, it needs to go as HA on the SNAT nodes, and as non-HA on the computes | 15:30 |
| *** carl_baldwin_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:32 | |
| carl_baldwin_ | Anything else on l3 ha? | 15:33 |
| Sudhakar | hi carl | 15:33 |
| Sudhakar | i have one quick question.. | 15:33 |
| amuller_ | there's a bit of a mess with the CLI patches but it can be worked out over Gerrit | 15:33 |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| amuller_ | Swami: ^ | 15:33 |
| Sudhakar | what are the implications this patch ..https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110893/ for L3 HA.. | 15:33 |
| Sudhakar | hi assaf.. | 15:34 |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:34 | |
| amuller_ | heya Sudhakar | 15:34 |
| Sudhakar | i guess you also have reviewed that patch.. | 15:34 |
| amuller_ | Kevin's patch is implementing what many deployments are doing out of band | 15:34 |
| Sudhakar | true... | 15:34 |
| amuller_ | It suffers from long failover times which is what L3 HA aims to solve | 15:35 |
| amuller_ | moving 10k routers from one node to another can take dozens of minutes | 15:35 |
| Sudhakar | or even more ;) | 15:35 |
| amuller_ | The L3 HA approach should be constant time, not linear with the amount of routers | 15:35 |
| amuller_ | As for the technical implications of Kevin's patch | 15:36 |
| armax | kevinbenton: you there? | 15:36 |
| kevinbenton | yes | 15:36 |
| amuller_ | I'll have to look into reschedule_router with the L3 HA scheduler changes. I'd expect it to see that it's already scheduled and that's it | 15:36 |
| amuller_ | so it won't actually do anything | 15:36 |
| armax | we’re talking about you | 15:36 |
| armax | or your patch, more precisely | 15:37 |
| Sudhakar | hi kevin | 15:37 |
| *** HenryG has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| kevinbenton | yes, i’m not sure how HA looks from a scheduling perspective | 15:37 |
| kevinbenton | is one router_id bound to many agents? | 15:37 |
| amuller_ | yes | 15:37 |
| amuller_ | L3 HA scheduler changes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66347/ | 15:38 |
| kevinbenton | i’ll have to look at this | 15:39 |
| amuller_ | unbinding the router might actually be an issue | 15:39 |
| amuller_ | reschedule_router should perhaps only be called for non-HA routers | 15:39 |
| kevinbenton | yeah | 15:39 |
| Sudhakar | non-HA and non-distributed as well.. | 15:40 |
| carl_baldwin | #action carl_baldwin to look in to organizing DVR + L3 HA testing. | 15:40 |
| *** carl_baldwin has quit IRC | 15:40 | |
| *** carl_baldwin_ is now known as carl_baldwin | 15:40 | |
| armax | this filtering can only be done after HA merges | 15:40 |
| amuller_ | Sudhakar: But if a distributed router was scheduled to an SNAT node you'd want to move it if the node is dead | 15:40 |
| amuller_ | but if the agent is down is on a compute node then nothing should be done | 15:41 |
| carl_baldwin | Sudhakar: amuller_: scheduling for a distributed router is really only about the snat component of the router. | 15:41 |
| Sudhakar | right..agreed | 15:41 |
| amuller_ | ok | 15:41 |
| carl_baldwin | I guess there is a different component to scheduling for compute nodes but it is orthogonal. | 15:42 |
| carl_baldwin | Anything else on l3 ha? | 15:43 |
| amuller_ | Not from me | 15:43 |
| Sudhakar | nope.. | 15:43 |
| carl_baldwin | #topic Reschedule routers from downed agents | 15:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Reschedule routers from downed agents (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:43 | |
| *** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:43 | |
| carl_baldwin | We’re kind of already on this topic. Anything more to discuss here? | 15:44 |
| carl_baldwin | kevinbenton: Sudhakar: Does either of you have anything? | 15:44 |
| kevinbenton | i just had a question about terminology | 15:45 |
| kevinbenton | armax had some concerns about mentioning the L3 agent being dead | 15:45 |
| armax | kevinbenton: only about the wording | 15:45 |
| kevinbenton | since the namespace may still be running or it may be disconnected | 15:45 |
| Sudhakar | also as discussed above.. we need to handle rescheduling the router considering L3 HA and DVR | 15:45 |
| Sudhakar | current reschedule_router doesnt have any checks and tries to unbind.. | 15:46 |
| kevinbenton | Sudhakar: i think we can fix this patch after the DVR code merges | 15:46 |
| kevinbenton | Sudhakar: it should be a single check for a flag, right? | 15:46 |
| amuller_ | pretty much | 15:46 |
| Sudhakar | kevinbenton: yes | 15:46 |
| *** amuller_ is now known as amuller | 15:47 | |
| kevinbenton | i can discuss the wording with armax in #openstack-neutron or on the patch. that’s all i have for now | 15:47 |
| armax | kevinbenton: thanks | 15:47 |
| Sudhakar | carl_baldwin: what about the concerns on moving the routers around at scale? | 15:48 |
| amuller | that's why you have L3 HA :) | 15:48 |
| amuller | I think we're facing a documentation challenge though | 15:49 |
| carl_baldwin | The concerns are still there. | 15:49 |
| amuller | there's 3 different features surrounding the same topics coming in, in the same release | 15:49 |
| carl_baldwin | amuller: Mentioned it can take dozens of minutes to move many routers. I’ve seen it take much longer. | 15:49 |
| Sudhakar | :) | 15:49 |
| *** pkoniszewski has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| carl_baldwin | what I’ve seen is that a momentary loss of connectivity or a spike in load on a network node can trigger a lot of disruption. | 15:50 |
| carl_baldwin | So I’m concerned about turning this on by default. | 15:51 |
| carl_baldwin | We’ve got one more topic so I think we’ll move on. | 15:51 |
| *** matrohon has quit IRC | 15:51 | |
| kevinbenton | carl_baldwin: my patch? this feature is off by default | 15:51 |
| carl_baldwin | kevinbenton: ok, I haven’t stopped by to look in a little while. | 15:51 |
| *** Longgeek has quit IRC | 15:52 | |
| Sudhakar | what about l3 HA .. is it also OFF by default? | 15:52 |
| amuller | like DVR the global conf is off by the default | 15:52 |
| amuller | and the admin can create DVR or HA routes explicitly | 15:52 |
| carl_baldwin | Sudhakar: Yes. I believe it is. | 15:52 |
| amuller | if the conf is turned on, all tenant routers will be HA | 15:52 |
| Sudhakar | ok..thanks.. | 15:52 |
| carl_baldwin | I think there is some potential to turning them on by default down the road. | 15:53 |
| amuller | sure | 15:53 |
| Sudhakar | if L3 HA is ON by default, rescheduling might not be required in the first place.. | 15:54 |
| amuller | We can consider that for the next release | 15:54 |
| carl_baldwin | #topic bgp-dynamic-routing | 15:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bgp-dynamic-routing (Meeting topic: neutron_l3)" | 15:54 | |
| carl_baldwin | I’d like to get a quick update on this. devvesa ping | 15:54 |
| devvesa | hi | 15:54 |
| devvesa | i've pushed a new patch today https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111324/ | 15:55 |
| devvesa | amuller asked me to split the previous one in several patches and i'm doing so... it makes sense | 15:55 |
| devvesa | I'll create new patches with this one as a dependency | 15:56 |
| devvesa | I have a question about this: if i have a bunch of dependent patches, when they do merge into upstream? until all of them has been approved? | 15:56 |
| carl_baldwin | devvesa: any patch that is approved as itself is not dependent on another patch will merge. | 15:57 |
| *** HenryG has quit IRC | 15:57 | |
| carl_baldwin | s/as/and/ | 15:57 |
| carl_baldwin | devvesa: Dependent patches have their own challenges. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or problems. | 15:58 |
| devvesa | uhm... this one has trivial functionality , just CRUD of routing peers. does is have sense as a single patch then? | 15:58 |
| devvesa | by itself, it is useless | 15:58 |
| amuller | I think that patches should be small and self contained. The communit's tendancy towards huge monolithic patches should be moved away from | 15:59 |
| amuller | if you can contain functionality in a patch, please do so | 15:59 |
| amuller | (IE split by functionality as you have done, and not by files or anything like that) | 16:00 |
| devvesa | ok then | 16:00 |
| *** pcm_ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:00 | |
| carl_baldwin | I don’t think a patch needs to fully implement a feature. But, a patch should be self-contained and make some meaningful and complete change to the code base. | 16:00 |
| carl_baldwin | … and it shouldn’t break any existing functionality or interfere. | 16:01 |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:01 | |
| carl_baldwin | I think we’re out of time. | 16:01 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| devvesa | then I think I've done it well | 16:01 |
| carl_baldwin | Thanks everyone. | 16:01 |
| devvesa | thanks carl | 16:01 |
| yamamoto | bye | 16:01 |
| devvesa | bye | 16:01 |
| carl_baldwin | #endmeeting | 16:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Aug 14 16:01:48 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_l3/2014/neutron_l3.2014-08-14-15.01.html | 16:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_l3/2014/neutron_l3.2014-08-14-15.01.txt | 16:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_l3/2014/neutron_l3.2014-08-14-15.01.log.html | 16:01 |
| *** hichihara has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 16:03 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:03 | |
| *** mrsmith has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** Rajeev has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** Swami has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:04 | |
| *** Sudhakar has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:05 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** amuller has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** amuller_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:09 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 16:10 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:12 | |
| *** matrohon has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:15 | |
| *** jab has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| *** thomasem_ has quit IRC | 16:27 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:30 | |
| *** alexsyip has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:32 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:33 | |
| *** jab has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** jab has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:33 | |
| *** devvesa has quit IRC | 16:34 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:36 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 16:43 | |
| *** alaski has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:46 | |
| *** KrishnaK_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:47 | |
| *** amuller_ has quit IRC | 16:49 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 16:50 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:50 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:53 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:54 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:02 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:02 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:03 | |
| *** thangp has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:05 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:08 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:10 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:12 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 17:13 | |
| *** haleyb_ has quit IRC | 17:18 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:19 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:24 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 17:25 | |
| *** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:29 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has quit IRC | 17:31 | |
| *** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:41 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 17:46 | |
| *** pino has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:48 | |
| *** pino has quit IRC | 17:48 | |
| *** pino has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:48 | |
| *** pino is now known as pino123 | 17:49 | |
| *** LouisF has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:49 | |
| *** regXboi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:50 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:52 | |
| *** pino123 is now known as pino | 17:53 | |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:53 | |
| *** ronakmshah has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:53 | |
| *** mscohen has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:55 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:56 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | hi all! | 17:59 |
| banix | hello | 17:59 |
| s3wong | hello | 17:59 |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 18:00 | |
| *** Sukhdev_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| * regXboi sitting on multiple meetings | 18:00 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:00 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| *** songole has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| *** jackmccann has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:01 | |
| *** hemanthravi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:01 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:01 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:02 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets get started | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting networking_policy | 18:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Aug 14 18:02:36 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy' | 18:02 |
| emagana | hi all! | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | agenda unchanged from the last meeting :-) | 18:02 |
| rkukura | hi | 18:03 |
| LouisF | hi | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Mailing list discussion on the path forward | 18:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Mailing list discussion on the path forward (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:03 | |
| ivar-lazzaro | hi | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think Stefano sent out an email yesterday saying that we are getting closer to making some progress here | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i dont have any more details than that | 18:04 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: link in agenda? | 18:04 |
| * s3wong holding his breath awaiting for a decision on GBP's fate (for Juno) | 18:04 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy | 18:04 |
| *** Qijing has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:04 | |
| banix | i meant for mailing thread | 18:04 |
| banix | making sure i am not missing it | 18:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/042963.html | 18:06 |
| banix | it says many in the GBP team are actively working …. | 18:06 |
| banix | who are those members? are they present here? | 18:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i believe he is referring to the mailing list discussions | 18:07 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: i see | 18:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: other than that stefano had reached out to mscohen, rkukura and myself | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: this was based on the action item he had mentioned in the Neutron IRC meeting on monday | 18:08 |
| *** matrohon has quit IRC | 18:08 | |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: how did that go? | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: to understand the history | 18:08 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: is there a rough idea on which direction we are going to go? | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | history of the development of GBP | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | he wanted to get up to speed | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: we gave the matter of fact information | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | based on whatever is already in the open and recorded | 18:09 |
| *** Youcef has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:09 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i am not sure | 18:09 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: OK | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i dont know if others are, i have not seen anything in the public mailing lists | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think different people are working on different proposals or ideas | 18:10 |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:10 | |
| hemanthravi | SumitNaiksatam, prasadv reached out to stefano and told him about the work we have been doing | 18:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hemanthravi: ok, thanks for the update, good to know | 18:11 |
| banix | What is the role of Stefano? Any particular reason why he is asked to do this? | 18:11 |
| s3wong | banix: I think he is on the OpenStack board? | 18:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i am not sure, you ahve to either check with him or the PTL | 18:12 |
| *** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:12 | |
| *** cathy_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:12 | |
| banix | s3wong: SumitNaiksatam ok thx | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: since he joined in the last neutron IRC meeting which is usually run by the PTL | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: perhaps these are all good questions to be posed to the ML | 18:13 |
| rkukura | http://www.openstack.org/foundation/staff | 18:13 |
| LouisF | will there be a final decsion on whether on gbp in juno? | 18:13 |
| ronakmshah | Ok. So we have 20 days. We have ~13 patches (neutron, heat, client, horizon) to merge. What is our team strategy here? | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ronakmshah: our team strategy is to stay on message | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: we are all hopeful | 18:14 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yeah will send a note asking for clarification and openness to the discussion (not suggesting it is not open; simply reiterating it.) | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: i am guessing you are in support of it being in Juno | 18:15 |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:15 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: very good | 18:15 |
| LouisF | SumitNaiksatam: indeed | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: good | 18:15 |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: Is there a timeline for the decision being made? | 18:15 |
| banix | from the Neutron weekly cll i thought it was clear thet it will *not* be in tree in Juno for sure | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: is taht your interpretation or you have knowledge about this? | 18:16 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: my interpretation | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: we hope its at the earliest | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: i am guessing you are also anxious as you are in support of this effort? | 18:17 |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: good | 18:17 |
| sarob | i lurking and can explain stefano | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: okay | 18:17 |
| banix | my understanding from the call; no knowledge beyond that | 18:17 |
| sarob | stefano is one of the openstack community managers | 18:17 |
| s3wong | banix: my interpretation of the call was that there is no conclusion - but time is against us... | 18:18 |
| sarob | and he works for the foundation | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: that was more of my feeling as well | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: based on the ML discussion as well as from the IRC meeting | 18:18 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | sarob: thanks for that input | 18:18 |
| ronakmshah | :( | 18:18 |
| sarob | sure | 18:18 |
| banix | sarob: i see; thx for the info | 18:18 |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:19 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok, onto more technical things? ;-) | 18:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so while on the ML thread | 18:19 |
| *** sandr8_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:19 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think most people agreed to the policy-target terminology (in lieu of endpoint) | 18:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but towards the end there was also a suggestion for “policy-endpoint" | 18:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | want to make sure that its duly noted as well | 18:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | also we have not discussed “policy-target” as a candidate specifically in this meeting forum | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any thoughts? | 18:21 |
| LouisF | +1 | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | should we go with “policy-target” and “policy-group”? | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: +1 for which one? | 18:22 |
| LouisF | policy-group containing policy-targets | 18:22 |
| regXboi | +1 for policy-target/policy-group | 18:22 |
| hemanthravi | +1 for policy-target, policy-group | 18:22 |
| banix | dont like policy-target particularly but any of the suggestions is ok | 18:22 |
| ivar-lazzaro | policy-endpoint sure sounds fine but I'd avoid the 'endpoint' word | 18:23 |
| s3wong | contract is still contract, right? :-) | 18:23 |
| ivar-lazzaro | so +1 policy-target and policy-group | 18:23 |
| regXboi | ivar-lazzaro: exactly | 18:23 |
| *** Qijing has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: regXboi hemanthravi ivar-lazzaro: thanks | 18:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: so you dont like policy-target but you are not opposed? | 18:23 |
| LouisF | target-group/target-member? | 18:23 |
| *** jtomasek_ has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: correct; no problem with having it | 18:23 |
| s3wong | LouisF: that way, we all work for Target instead of Walmart :-) | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: i think it might be better to have “policy” in there somewhere :-) | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: lol | 18:24 |
| cathy_ | s3wong: lol | 18:24 |
| LouisF | SumitNaiksatam: ok fine | 18:24 |
| rkukura | As long as it has a usable acronym, I’m OK | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: no, just thinking loud | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | rkukura: there you go! :-) | 18:24 |
| cathy_ | policy-group could mislead people to think it is a group of policy? | 18:25 |
| *** sandr8 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:25 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: so policy-target-group, then? | 18:25 |
| s3wong | rkukura: PT and PTG --- not as catchy as EP and EPG... | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: that i agree | 18:25 |
| *** sandr8_ has quit IRC | 18:25 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i had gotten used to EP and EPG! :-( | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so per cathy_’s reservation, what do people think of ‘policy-target-group’? | 18:26 |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: that is a little too long, or not | 18:26 |
| emagana | cathy_ point is very interesting, I like policy-target-group little long thou | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we already had end-point-group | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if you break it that way | 18:27 |
| banix | honestly, I think the main reason to change the name is to not have to discuss changing the name. | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so i guess policy-target-group might be a few more characters | 18:27 |
| s3wong | the CLI would be neutron-policy-target-group-create ... | 18:27 |
| regXboi | s3wong: ouch | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: or we could make it neutron-ptg-create | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: but valid point to consider from a usability perspective | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: you were saying something? | 18:28 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| cathy_ | I think louis's suggestion has merit. since it is clear that policy is appled, do we still need policy in the tagret-group | 18:28 |
| *** terryw has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:28 | |
| regXboi | SumitNaiksatam: if we do that, consistency requires ptg-list, ptg-show, ptg-update and ptg-delete and I can just hear somebody complaining about using an abbrev | 18:28 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: I think banix 's point is we are discussing name change such that we don't have to have long discussion on name change | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: :-) | 18:29 |
| regXboi | cathy_: if we don't say policy, somebody will inevitably complain that we are too general | 18:29 |
| regXboi | so let's not open that can of worms again | 18:29 |
| cathy_ | regXboi: ok, | 18:29 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yeah what s3wong said | 18:29 |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:29 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: banix: sorry i still did not get it (yeah, i am dense), but anyway | 18:30 |
| ronakmshah | policy-point and policy-group | 18:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we proabably dont want to revisit this again | 18:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | name change that is | 18:30 |
| ronakmshah | +1 | 18:30 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: so we conform to Jay Pipes' request for name change to avoid name changing being a gating factor on discussing GBP | 18:30 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: i think the names are good as they are; not convinced we have to change them but changing them will make it possible to move on ... | 18:30 |
| songole | CLI would be grouppolicy-policy-target-group-create | 18:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so lets spend a few more minutes if we have to, and get done with it | 18:30 |
| songole | very confusing | 18:30 |
| LouisF | +1 | 18:31 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: and at the end we still spent tons of time discussing name changes. I think that was the point :-) | 18:31 |
| cathy_ | confusing | 18:31 |
| ronakmshah | CLI should be grouppolicy-policy-point-create | 18:31 |
| ronakmshah | grouppolicy-policy-group-create | 18:31 |
| regXboi | I'm going to argue against policy-point | 18:31 |
| jaypipes | Why not: neutron group-policy-target create | 18:31 |
| ronakmshah | That as is is long enough | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i fully agree, i did not see any problems with the names or overlaps (but it came up at a time when lots of things were being thrown at this, and we did not want it to be a roadblock) | 18:31 |
| regXboi | because it's *not* clear | 18:31 |
| banix | ronakmshah: that’s correct | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: yeah | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: that works for the “policy-target" | 18:32 |
| regXboi | jaypipes: +1 for the thing that replaces endpoints (sorry about that :) ) | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: we were discussing what to call the group | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: so we have could either call it “policy-group” | 18:33 |
| LouisF | group synonyms: bag, sack, bucket... | 18:33 |
| jaypipes | SumitNaiksatam: neutron policy-group-create | 18:33 |
| cathy_ | byw, do we still distinguish source and destination? | 18:33 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| jaypipes | SumitNaiksatam: neutron policy-target create | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: but then people said that “policy-group” implies a group of policies | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: and not group of policy-targets | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: so the suggestion was to use ‘policy-target-group' | 18:34 |
| jaypipes | SumitNaiksatam: a policy-target is just one component of a policy group, yes? | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: but then it becomes too long :-) | 18:34 |
| *** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:34 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: exactly | 18:34 |
| regXboi | jaypipes: not quite... | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: or in other words, policy-group is a collection of policy-targets | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: ^^^? | 18:34 |
| * regXboi can hear the complaining now | 18:35 | |
| jaypipes | SumitNaiksatam: so I recommend: neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> for the policy-target creation | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: yeah, i think we kind of agreed on that | 18:35 |
| jaypipes | SumitNaiksatam: and neutron policy-group create <GROUP_NAME> for the policy-group creation | 18:35 |
| ronakmshah | Fine. +1 | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: but the suggestion is that “policy-group” sounds like a collection of policies | 18:35 |
| jaypipes | that's pithy enough, yes? | 18:35 |
| ronakmshah | EPG -> Policy-group | 18:36 |
| ronakmshah | EP - > Policy-target | 18:36 |
| jaypipes | right. | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: whereas its actually a collection of ‘policy-targets' | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: am i representing your point correctly? | 18:36 |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes, it is just my concern how some people might interprete it | 18:36 |
| banix | i think Cathy_ i right in pointing out policy-group is confusing | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if everybody agrees that ‘policy-group’ is not misleading, we can move forward with that | 18:37 |
| banix | is right | 18:37 |
| LouisF | my 2 cents is for neutron target-group create <GROUP_NAME> | 18:37 |
| *** chuckC has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | if not, then we have to chose the longer terminilogy “policy-target-group" | 18:38 |
| jaypipes | LouisF: that works too. | 18:38 |
| banix | i think it is confusing; will have to pay the price later on | 18:38 |
| cathy_ | I like Louis's sugggestion | 18:38 |
| ronakmshah | My only concern with PT is that when you attach a VM to that one will have to say “attach this VM to this policy-target” | 18:38 |
| s3wong | banix: agreed, I am definitely not a fan of policy-group, especially we prefix that with group-policy | 18:38 |
| s3wong | sounds silly... | 18:38 |
| jaypipes | the problem is that then you have policy-target instead of just target. :) | 18:38 |
| ronakmshah | policy-point fits well for me in that regard | 18:38 |
| ronakmshah | VM is a policy-target vs VM is a policy-point | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: perhaps someone else might complain with overloading of the target terminology, not sure | 18:39 |
| regXboi | policy-point is too close to policy enforcement point for my taste | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are 40 mins into the meeting :-) | 18:40 |
| jaypipes | neutron policy-target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> | 18:40 |
| regXboi | jaypipes: :-) | 18:40 |
| cathy_ | how about "target replacing "endpt" and "target group" replacing "endpt group" | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: what about jaypipes suggetstion above? | 18:41 |
| jaypipes | neutron target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: he has spelt it out | 18:41 |
| jaypipes | cathy_: yes? | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jaypipes: i prefer the former | 18:41 |
| cathy_ | that is good | 18:41 |
| jaypipes | either one is cool with me. | 18:41 |
| LouisF | +1 | 18:41 |
| regXboi | sorry - we need to say policy somewhere | 18:41 |
| cathy_ | jaypipes: I like it | 18:41 |
| ronakmshah | Policy is a MUST | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: +1 | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay, so we agree policy-target and policy-target-group? :-) | 18:42 |
| rkukura | cathy_: I strongly prefer acronyms over “squashed” words | 18:42 |
| emagana | I think how long the name is should not matter as long as it is clear, for instance we have in Neutron: security-group-rule-create | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | emagana: kind of agree | 18:42 |
| regXboi | emagana: +1 | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | rkukura: agree | 18:42 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: +1 | 18:42 |
| cathy_ | rkukura: agree, it is just for easy typing | 18:42 |
| cathy_ | not suggesting using sqaushed words | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | going once | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | policy-target and policy-target-group | 18:43 |
| regXboi | "bang that gavel!" | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok no disagreements | 18:43 |
| banix | sounds good | 18:43 |
| cathy_ | OK with me | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #agreed endpoint will be changed to policy-target and endpointgroup will be changed to policy-target-group | 18:44 |
| LouisF | and sold to the gentleman in the green fedora... | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: there ^^^ | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: lol | 18:44 |
| regXboi | :-) | 18:44 |
| cathy_ | LouisF: LOL | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: didnt realize that regXboi was wearing the green fedora | 18:44 |
| * regXboi didnt realize it either ;) | 18:44 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: or may be it was jaypipes! :-) | 18:44 |
| jaypipes | :) | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | actually it was jaypipes :-) | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok moving on then? | 18:45 |
| banix | yes pls | 18:45 |
| * jaypipes dons green fedora | 18:45 | |
| * SumitNaiksatam hands over the policy-target plaque to jaypipes :-) | 18:46 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Patches in review | 18:46 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Patches in review (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:46 | |
| songole | SumitNaiksatam: are we going to drop grouppolicy prefix in CLI? | 18:46 |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 18:46 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | songole: good point | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #undo | 18:46 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x1e94b90> | 18:46 |
| regXboi | can we? I'd sure like to | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets take the CLI patch first since songole has been working furiously on that | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic CLI | 18:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "CLI (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:47 | |
| songole | if we don't, CLI command would be grouppolicy-policy-target-create | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so per jaypipes’ suggestion above its not required | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | is everyone fine with: | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | neutron policy-target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> | 18:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ? | 18:48 |
| rkukura | neutron l3-policy-create … | 18:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any issues with not having grouppolicy as prefix? | 18:48 |
| * regXboi goes and looks | 18:48 | |
| songole | neutron contract-create .. | 18:48 |
| LouisF | yes | 18:48 |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:48 | |
| banix | yeah may be an issue | 18:49 |
| regXboi | I'm worried about the l3policy and l2policy coming back to us | 18:49 |
| hemanthravi | earlier there was an issue with action-create....too generic without prefix | 18:49 |
| songole | they need to have some prefix | 18:49 |
| songole | gbp-l3policy-create? | 18:49 |
| rkukura | could we just add a policy- prefix to the ones that don’t already mention policy? | 18:49 |
| banix | or just gp-* | 18:49 |
| regXboi | banix or songole: +1 | 18:49 |
| rkukura | banix: +1 | 18:49 |
| regXboi | I'm ok with an abbrev there | 18:50 |
| regXboi | and gp-policy-target-create and gp-policy-target-group-create aren't *too* bad | 18:50 |
| rkukura | applied consistently? i.e. gp-policy-target-create …? | 18:50 |
| ronakmshah | Will it be acceptable? Cores? | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | gp/gbp - nice, i like that | 18:50 |
| regXboi | rkukura: yes, applied consistently (whatever it is) | 18:50 |
| songole | regXboi: +1 | 18:50 |
| cathy_ | I might miss some discussion. WHy do we have l2policy and l3 policy. What is their replationship to contract? There could be policies other than L2 and L3. | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: we had a long discussion about what to call those as well :-) | 18:51 |
| s3wong | cathy_: they were originally named l2-context and l3-context | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: so in this case they are l2/3 policies | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so should we go with the “gp-“ prefix for all group-based policy CLI? | 18:52 |
| *** ronakmshah has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:52 | |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: s3wong I think I need to catch up on these discussions later | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: sure | 18:52 |
| songole | going by the above argument, isn't it actually contract-target? | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: if there are other policies that need to be added, we can surely augment the model | 18:52 |
| regXboi | SumitNaiksatam: +1 on the gp idea (though I'd like some cores to comment :) ) | 18:52 |
| emagana | SumitNaiksatam: gp- sounds like a very good option! | 18:52 |
| emagana | +1 | 18:52 |
| cathy_ | SumitNaiksatam: thanks. we can discuss that after all these are settled. | 18:53 |
| rkukura | I’m a core and am on record as not being anti-acronym (aa) | 18:53 |
| *** mscohen has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| regXboi | rkukura: danke | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: emagana cathy_: thanks | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #agreed All Group-based policy CLI to be prefixed with “gp-“ | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | songole: any more CLI update? | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | songole: or anything blocking you? | 18:54 |
| LouisF | gp-target-group-create? | 18:55 |
| songole | no. working on unit tests | 18:55 |
| LouisF | since the gp- sets the context? | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: the gavel has been struck :-P | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: i do agree there is some redundancy | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | LouisF: but probably not the best place to optimize? | 18:56 |
| LouisF | SumitNaiksatam: okey doke | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | songole: ok thanks for the upates | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are 4 mins away from the end of the meeting | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Vendor drivers | 18:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Vendor drivers (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:57 | |
| regXboi | ...the joys of naming... | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i might be putting the cart before the horse here | 18:57 |
| *** annegentle_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:57 | |
| banix | i saw a driver from One Convergence. right? | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but hemanthravi i think you or your teammate posted a patch for the one convergence driver? | 18:57 |
| hemanthravi | yes | 18:57 |
| banix | cool | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hemanthravi: okay, just wanted everyone else to know | 18:58 |
| hemanthravi | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113649/ | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in case the team wants to exchanve notes | 18:58 |
| sarob | i'd like to squeeze in a minute to discuss the proposed policy summit in september | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113649/ | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hemanthravi: thanks | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sarob: sure | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Open Discussion | 18:58 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion (Meeting topic: networking_policy)" | 18:58 | |
| sarob | thx | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sarob: go ahead | 18:58 |
| sarob | #link https://www.eventbrite.com/e/openstack-policy-summit-tickets-12642081807 | 18:58 |
| *** terryw has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| sarob | id like to get the congress and GBP teams together 18-19 sept | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sarob: thanks for that information | 18:59 |
| sarob | and a few of the other project cores as well | 18:59 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| s3wong | sarob: yes, that would be good | 18:59 |
| sarob | SumitNaiksatam: i could use your input on the etherpad | 18:59 |
| *** fabiog_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:59 | |
| sarob | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-midcycle-policy-summit | 19:00 |
| cathy_ | sarob: thanks for the info. I am interested in joining the discussion | 19:00 |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:00 | |
| sarob | we can have some remote as well | 19:00 |
| sarob | if you can not join us in Palo Alto | 19:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok anything else? | 19:00 |
| sarob | all are welcome to update the etherpad | 19:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are at the hour | 19:00 |
| sarob | nope thx | 19:00 |
| s3wong | sarob: my understanding it would either be in Yahoo (sunnyvale) or vmware (palo alto) | 19:00 |
| sarob | vmware | 19:01 |
| cathy_ | sarob: where in Palo Alto? | 19:01 |
| sarob | its set | 19:01 |
| s3wong | so local for most of us (except regXboi and banix) | 19:01 |
| rkukura | and me | 19:01 |
| s3wong | and rkukura (sorry :-) ) | 19:01 |
| sarob | 3401 hillview ave | 19:01 |
| sarob | we have a room for 25-30 | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | all right, thanks all! | 19:01 |
| sarob | thx | 19:01 |
| regXboi | a hangout/webex/irc channel would be good for those that will be remote... | 19:02 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:02 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are over the time | 19:02 |
| sarob | roger that | 19:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 19:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 19:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Aug 14 19:02:12 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-08-14-18.02.html | 19:02 |
| rkukura | by | 19:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-08-14-18.02.txt | 19:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-08-14-18.02.log.html | 19:02 |
| rkukura | bye | 19:02 |
| regXboi | moo | 19:02 |
| ttx | OK, let's see... who is here for the TC meeting ? | 19:02 |
| russellb | o/ | 19:02 |
| banix | bye all | 19:02 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 19:02 |
| emagana | Thanks for the info sarob.. Will be there! | 19:02 |
| *** regXboi has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:02 | |
| emagana | ciao all | 19:02 |
| annegentle_ | o/ | 19:02 |
| dhellmann | ttx: markmcclain should be here soon | 19:02 |
| devananda | o/ | 19:02 |
| ttx | markmc, mikal, mordred, devananda, vishy, markmcclain, jeblair, jaypipes, sdague : around ? | 19:02 |
| vishy | o/ | 19:03 |
| *** songole has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:03 | |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:03 |
| mikal | Hi | 19:03 |
| russellb | quorum! | 19:03 |
| ttx | yep | 19:03 |
| ttx | #startmeeting tc | 19:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Aug 14 19:03:39 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 19:03 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 19:03 |
| ttx | This is an exceptional meeting to discuss the need for general changes in the Kilo release contents | 19:03 |
| markmcclain | o/ | 19:04 |
| annegentle_ | is it really about kilo, or longer term? | 19:04 |
| ttx | The thread on the ML mentions two ideas in particular which I would like to explore (feel free to suggest others) | 19:04 |
| mordred | o/ | 19:04 |
| annegentle_ | (strategic or tactical ourselves?) | 19:04 |
| ttx | annegentle_: well, longer term. But we need to discuss it now for Kilo | 19:04 |
| russellb | I think it's important we discuss specific suggestions here. | 19:04 |
| ttx | One idea is to freeze/reduce graduation to integrated release status (and potentially more incubation) until we get our shit together on the existing projects | 19:04 |
| ttx | Or as mordred said, "how do we scale our resources" | 19:04 |
| mordred | wait - no | 19:04 |
| russellb | how do we know when we have succesfully got "our shit together" ? | 19:05 |
| mordred | I disagree with that suggestion, please don't associate me with it | 19:05 |
| ttx | heh ok | 19:05 |
| ttx | The second is the idea that some projects are off-track and should be stopped. | 19:05 |
| ttx | or, as mordred said, "how do we ship good things" | 19:05 |
| ttx | :P | 19:05 |
| mordred | yes. associate me with that one | 19:05 |
| ttx | The deadline is that we need to come up with the projects that will be part of Kilo by September 16 | 19:05 |
| *** cathy_ has quit IRC | 19:05 | |
| ttx | And it's difficult to consider those graduation reviews until we made our minds on those questions | 19:05 |
| mikal | What drives that deadline? | 19:05 |
| ttx | We also have one incubation and one program request in progress, and our decision here affects the decision there as well | 19:05 |
| dhellmann | summit planning? | 19:05 |
| russellb | summit planning and elections | 19:06 |
| mikal | Ok | 19:06 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:06 | |
| ttx | and PTl election deadlines as set by our charter | 19:06 |
| *** mscohen has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:06 | |
| *** pino has quit IRC | 19:06 | |
| ttx | so. maybe mordred can statr wit hthe idea he likes to be associated with | 19:06 |
| mordred | so - re: the first one, I disagree beacuse I think it's based on an assumption that a large part of our shared resources scaling problems are tied to increase in projects | 19:06 |
| mordred | oh, was already typing the second thing | 19:06 |
| mordred | what we've seen is the opposite, really, trove and savana do not cause many problems at all | 19:07 |
| *** mjturek1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:07 | |
| mordred | whereas nova and neutron are hard and takea lot of time | 19:07 |
| annegentle_ | not really a measure for share resource like docs | 19:07 |
| mordred | so - while I appreciate that we should figure out cross-project scaling concerns | 19:07 |
| ttx | mordred: so you think it's not the nmber of things, it's the nature of htings ? | 19:07 |
| mordred | possibly | 19:07 |
| mordred | but I don't think there is a direct correlation | 19:07 |
| annegentle_ | mordred: that's a decent framing but tough to measure | 19:07 |
| mordred | or that freezing somethign will necessarily solve something | 19:07 |
| mordred | so "Freeze" seem like solving a problem by inventing policy | 19:08 |
| devananda | mordred: i think the scaling of test resources is a direct correlation. as these projects add more tests, we'll see an amplification of any existing instabilities | 19:08 |
| mordred | and I think we have too much policy | 19:08 |
| mordred | and we should just be making decisions based on sanity | 19:08 |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| mordred | devananda: we ahve never experienced this being a problem ever | 19:08 |
| jeblair | i think broadly speaking i'd agree with that. adding new projects certainly can strain resources, but it does not always do so, depending on the nature of the project, and the nature of what it brings to the table | 19:08 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 19:08 |
| devananda | mordred: trove and sahara don't actually have a significant test suite in tempest yet | 19:08 |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:08 | |
| mordred | savanna is a great example... it came with a person who became infra-core for instance | 19:08 |
| mordred | sahara | 19:09 |
| mordred | dammit | 19:09 |
| mikal | So you don't find infra spending a lot of time hand holding new projects? | 19:09 |
| mordred | mikal: not really | 19:09 |
| mikal | I think that's what some people are worried about, the high infra workload | 19:09 |
| devananda | mordred: huh. except ironic. I feel like every time we ask infra for resources, there's push back. | 19:09 |
| mikal | But if its not new projects causing that, we're solving the wrong thing | 19:09 |
| dhellmann | the oslo team has set up many new repos and test jobs this cycle | 19:09 |
| ttx | so what would you consider as off-track projects ? projects that reinvent something rather than purely integrate 3rd party solutions ? and therefore bring specific complexity to the table? | 19:09 |
| mordred | devananda: you are a special bunny, because your requirements are very hard | 19:09 |
| ttx | mordred: ^ | 19:09 |
| mordred | ttx: well, can we get to some closure on this topic? this is just my opinion so far | 19:09 |
| devananda | mordred: I don't think I'm that special, but thank you | 19:10 |
| russellb | if new projects *were* causing strain, i'd rather raise the bar on what cross-project assistance they bring | 19:10 |
| jeblair | i think what's true is that we don't have a lot of time to spend doing all the work ourselves anymore, but i also think that's less of an expectation now | 19:10 |
| russellb | rather than slow them down | 19:10 |
| mordred | devananda: we may not be giving you response times on requests that feel good, but I do not feel that your existence drains me | 19:10 |
| *** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:10 | |
| jeblair | now we mostly try to work on setting new patterns so that projects can adopt them widely | 19:10 |
| mordred | yah | 19:11 |
| russellb | jeblair: i think you guys do an awesome job of it too :) | 19:11 |
| ttx | mordred: it's definitely true that the projects which reinvent something (Marconi, Heat, Ceilometer) rather than just integrating/provisioning existing solutions are up against additional complexity | 19:11 |
| devananda | mordred: ok, so which projects ARE a drain on you? I'm guessing, since it's not new ones, that you refer to nova and neutron here | 19:11 |
| devananda | mordred: but I don't know if that's actually what you mean | 19:11 |
| dhellmann | ttx: the issues with ceilometer right now aren't related to reinventing anything, afaik | 19:11 |
| annegentle_ | for docs, we have strain, but we've purposely held some projects at bay, timing wise, but also, the projects have to bring their own docs resources | 19:11 |
| ttx | My belief was that they would overcome that complexity -- but maybe they were a bad idea to being with | 19:12 |
| mordred | devananda: yah. nova and neutron and gate breakages are the toughest issue | 19:12 |
| mordred | sometimes it's cinder that breaks the gate, one time it was swift | 19:12 |
| mordred | but that's the stressful and burn-out inducing stuff | 19:12 |
| devananda | ttx: ok - so it sounds like infra's concern is around stability in the "major" projects | 19:12 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: +1 | 19:13 |
| mordred | which leads to ... | 19:13 |
| mordred | what I REALLY am concerned about is the quality of our code | 19:13 |
| devananda | mordred: that | 19:13 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ceilometer was rearchitected several times over because it reinvents how to store metrics -- they may be on a good trail with time series now, but the fact is they had to rewrite themselves a number of times | 19:13 |
| mordred | and that we ship good stuff that solves needed problems | 19:13 |
| markmcclain | mordred: ++ | 19:13 |
| annegentle_ | mordred: but your concern with quality has nothing to do with more and more scope? they seem related... | 19:13 |
| mordred | there's a proxy battle I want to mention first - or maybe proxy battle is the wrong word ... | 19:13 |
| dhellmann | ttx: no, there were schema changes, that's no the same thing. right *now* there is a rearchitecture going on for future improvements, but that's new this cycle | 19:14 |
| mikal | mordred: I certainly owrry that nva has way too many open bugs, but we haven't found a way to get people to work on that yet | 19:14 |
| jeblair | annegentle_: i think they are related, just not _directly_ related | 19:14 |
| mordred | which is that I don't personally like telling my friends that I don't think their stuff is good | 19:14 |
| ttx | mordred: how do you propose we solve that ? | 19:14 |
| mordred | and I don't think any of us do | 19:14 |
| annegentle_ | jeblair: correlated perhaps | 19:14 |
| mordred | and I like all of you people | 19:14 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:14 | |
| jeblair | i like you too | 19:14 |
| russellb | group irc hug. | 19:14 |
| mordred | so it's hard for me to say to flavio that I think marconi is a bad architecture and a bad idea, even though as a TC member I should be doing that | 19:14 |
| devananda | mordred: do you see any relationship between "making the code we ship better" (ie, nova, neutron) and "adding, or not adding,, more projects to the fold" ? | 19:15 |
| annegentle_ | I don't think WE are judge and jury for quality necessarily, the tests and users are... but we're (TC) a governance bottle neck | 19:15 |
| mordred | devananda: I don't, because the crossover isn't that great - so not adding designate will not shift any resources to improving nova | 19:15 |
| dhellmann | right | 19:15 |
| mordred | annegentle_: I think I would like to change that | 19:15 |
| devananda | mordred: ok. so we're havign two conversations in parallel -again- :( | 19:15 |
| mordred | devananda: yeah. I blame ttx | 19:16 |
| devananda | heh | 19:16 |
| annegentle_ | mordred: I realize that, but your increase in scope of OpenStack governance is what's tough. | 19:16 |
| * ttx looks the other way | 19:16 | |
| mordred | he wouldn't let me finish topic one | 19:16 |
| mordred | annegentle_: indeed. and that is an excellent | 19:16 |
| mordred | point | 19:16 |
| mordred | it's entirely possible that the shared resource that doesn't scale is our ability to properly judge good software that we're shipping | 19:16 |
| * ttx lets mordred finish his point | 19:16 | |
| mordred | ttx: oh, cat's out of the bag at this point | 19:17 |
| annegentle_ | heh | 19:17 |
| mordred | but, in my view, there are general views on things that it seems most people agree with but we haven't figured out how to express | 19:17 |
| *** mscohen has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| mordred | the topic of how we might decide such things in the future notwithstanding | 19:17 |
| mordred | jogo straw man to the | 19:18 |
| mordred | gah | 19:18 |
| mordred | jogo's straw man to the mailing list is a good example of this - although I dont' necessarily agree with all of it | 19:18 |
| ttx | mordred: one problem is.. we tend to judge quality at graduation time, not incubation time -- and after having forced people to jum through hoops for one or two incubation cycle, just saying, sorry, not good enough, is tough | 19:18 |
| russellb | so i think i heard that adding new projects isn't the big concern ... but the important issue is doubling down on quality, and dealing with projects we don't think are working out? | 19:18 |
| dhellmann | I think some of jogo's assumptions are faulty. | 19:18 |
| mordred | russellb: that's _my_ concern | 19:19 |
| ttx | russellb: ++ | 19:19 |
| mikal | I think its certainly true that there are projects I have concerns with, and I am sure most other TC members have concerns about something too (not nessesarily the same project as me) | 19:19 |
| russellb | OK. | 19:19 |
| dhellmann | ttx: didn't we decide to be lenient on incubation to grant "credibility" to attract contributors? maybe we should revisit that | 19:19 |
| annegentle_ | I think that incubation should be the inclusive time, let many many many similar projects be incubated. then we hold the line at integrated so we don't pay so much "integration tax" in cross-project resources. | 19:19 |
| russellb | so, let's see if we can be concrete here ... | 19:19 |
| russellb | are there projects we need to have a future conversation about? | 19:19 |
| devananda | I have the impression that, at this point, everyone agrees the TC has a responsibility to ensure that we're shipping good quality software | 19:20 |
| russellb | some increased quality expectations for all projects? | 19:20 |
| jeblair | russellb: ++. i'd clarify that i think we should be very selective about new projects, just not say we're going to stop altogether. | 19:20 |
| mordred | dhellmann: yeah, I think we focused a LOT early on on ensuring that we grow our community | 19:20 |
| devananda | annegentle_: erm, no? I am pretty sure that should happen on stackforge | 19:20 |
| mordred | I don't think that's actually a problem we need to actively attack now | 19:20 |
| mikal | russellb: future conversation about if they're off track? | 19:20 |
| russellb | jeblair: sure, i think that's always the case, and that we need to continue to refine our documentation expectations | 19:20 |
| devananda | annegentle_: the point of incubation is to /start/ the process of integrating things and pick one taht other projects should integrate with | 19:20 |
| annegentle_ | devananda: ah yes incubation means past stackforge, right? | 19:20 |
| russellb | mikal: yeah. | 19:20 |
| devananda | annegentle_: right | 19:20 |
| mikal | I'm not sure the concerns about projects are always about quality | 19:20 |
| ttx | annegentle_: currently-incubating projects have gone through a lot to alig to our graduation requirements, so we'll have to be strong to tell them... you ticked all the boxes but we just realized this was a bad idea to begin with | 19:20 |
| vishy | so perhaps this doesn’t solve the actual scaling problem, but I wouldn’t mind making the integrated release only about infrastructure projects | 19:20 |
| mikal | Perhaps they're sometimes about overall direction for example | 19:20 |
| devananda | vishy: ++ | 19:21 |
| annegentle_ | but yes, we're still not seeing that lots of incubation is problematic, but that certain projects and cross-projects are problematic? | 19:21 |
| vishy | i.e. anything that is best deployed on top of iaas doesn’t belong in the integrated release | 19:21 |
| mordred | vishy: I have a similarly but slightly different take - mainly because "infrastructure" is a bit vague | 19:21 |
| mikal | vishy: we'll never force you to ship my blog hosting software that way! | 19:21 |
| vishy | and we just do IaaS really well | 19:21 |
| annegentle_ | vishy: yep that's what I'm voicing as well | 19:21 |
| mordred | vishy: I think I'd like to see us stop implemeting things that are data plane services | 19:21 |
| devananda | openstack's mission sattement says "massively scalable" - any project applying for incubation that can not already demonstrate that it is "massively scalable" | 19:22 |
| devananda | shouldn't be incubated, IMO | 19:22 |
| mordred | with the notable exception of swift, because that's a thing that seems to need to exist in clouds | 19:22 |
| vishy | my sniff test is that if I would be totally happy deploying something on top of nova for production use it doesn’t belong | 19:22 |
| mestery | ttx: I have experience with that conversation | 19:22 |
| devananda | as taht is the inflection point when we begin devotign cross-project resources to it | 19:22 |
| mordred | vishy: well, thing is - it's actually rEALLY nice to not have to run mysql inside of nova | 19:22 |
| devananda | and incubation is a "blessing" of a project in the eyes of the community | 19:22 |
| annegentle_ | is there a non-integrated place for non-iaas, non-massive now? | 19:22 |
| annegentle_ | (I think there's not) | 19:22 |
| vishy | mordred: for performance reasons? | 19:22 |
| mordred | vishy: a shared ops team can handle 10000 mysql databases well better tahn I can handle one (well, not me, I'm an expert and all) | 19:23 |
| mordred | vishy: for performance, and also for operational complexity reasons | 19:23 |
| mordred | but I think I'd call mysql "infrastructure" | 19:23 |
| vishy | mordred: but we don’t have anything like that | 19:23 |
| russellb | trove? | 19:23 |
| mordred | I _could_ run it in nova, but I'd rather not worry about any of the details and just get a mysql from my cloud | 19:23 |
| vishy | mordred: if you are referring to trove, it doesn’t pass my smell test | 19:23 |
| vishy | mordred: i think you are missing my point | 19:23 |
| vishy | i’m speaking as a deployer | 19:24 |
| mordred | vishy: quite possibly :) | 19:24 |
| vishy | if i go to deploy trove | 19:24 |
| mordred | vishy: ah, I'm not | 19:24 |
| mordred | I'm speaking as a cloud end user | 19:24 |
| mordred | I do not deploy clouds | 19:24 |
| mordred | I use them | 19:24 |
| vishy | i’m happy to deploy it on IaaS | 19:24 |
| jeblair | i made the same assumption as mordred | 19:24 |
| devananda | IaaS vs PaaS ? :) | 19:24 |
| mordred | no | 19:24 |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| mordred | those terms are meaningless | 19:24 |
| russellb | so you're saying sure, Trove should exist, but not in OpenStack proper? | 19:24 |
| mordred | theya re marketing jargon that is not usefuk | 19:24 |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:24 | |
| vishy | it is in cloud “user-space” as i think of it | 19:24 |
| vishy | I still think it is super useful | 19:24 |
| mordred | I'm saying that trove is more useful to me in a cloud than swift is | 19:25 |
| vishy | I just don’t think it needs to be in the integrated release | 19:25 |
| russellb | i think if something is useful, we should do our best to foster it | 19:25 |
| vishy | cuz our scope is getting totally out of control | 19:25 |
| mordred | as an end user | 19:25 |
| russellb | and that thus far has been to bring it in to the release | 19:25 |
| jeblair | vishy: i think there's the rub -- it is useful, and standardizing on it is useful, but it's hard to do that if it's not in openstack | 19:25 |
| russellb | jeblair: ++ | 19:25 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: +1 | 19:25 |
| mordred | ++ | 19:25 |
| markmcclain | jeblair: +1 | 19:25 |
| vishy | russellb: we can’t do everything though | 19:25 |
| devananda | russellb: foster - yes. include in the integrated release - maybe not. | 19:25 |
| russellb | we're clearly not doing everything :) | 19:25 |
| russellb | include in the release is the only thing we have, really | 19:26 |
| devananda | I think there ought to be a place for trove, sahara, and other things that naturally fit "on top of" openstack from a deployer's POV | 19:26 |
| russellb | I feel like this discussion is all over the map | 19:26 |
| mordred | +10000 | 19:26 |
| vishy | that’s a problem though. I don’t think docker will ever be part of openstack but it is rapid ly becoming a standard for building applications | 19:26 |
| russellb | i'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish or answer right now | 19:26 |
| devananda | ++ | 19:26 |
| markmcclain | russellb: +1 | 19:26 |
| devananda | mordred: at this point i've lost track of your original point | 19:26 |
| vishy | devananda: ++ | 19:27 |
| mordred | my point is that we're shipping crappy software in places | 19:27 |
| mordred | and I want to stop | 19:27 |
| russellb | agreed? | 19:27 |
| russellb | heh | 19:27 |
| mordred | and I don't want to do that by defining more policy | 19:27 |
| russellb | any suggestions? | 19:27 |
| mordred | (which is why I'm pushing back on vishy's point) | 19:27 |
| dhellmann | do we need better developers instead of fewer? | 19:27 |
| vishy | mordred so how do we force non-crappy software? | 19:27 |
| annegentle_ | "all" we have to do is get to vishy's scope, which is where I'm at too | 19:27 |
| mordred | vishy: I think we need to be willing to take specific stands on specific issues rather than making policy to back us up | 19:28 |
| russellb | i think it's clear everyone *wants* that, and is trying | 19:28 |
| mordred | so | 19:28 |
| mordred | for instance | 19:28 |
| vishy | annegentle_: well imo they are different concerns | 19:28 |
| devananda | mordred: your point though is about the crappiness of major projects (noav, neutron, cinder, swift are the only four you mentioned breakages of) | 19:28 |
| *** cdent_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:28 | |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: well, I'd argue that some of the in-scope software isn't great, either, so I'm not sure that solves it. | 19:28 |
| vishy | annegentle_: there was a time when nova would fit into the “crappy” category imo | 19:28 |
| devananda | mordred: and you haven't addressed the wealth of recent project additions / applications | 19:28 |
| mordred | I think we should reject marconi, and I think we should deintegrate ceilometer, even though I like dhellmann, and I think most of us agree with that already so we should say it | 19:28 |
| annegentle_ | heh vishy yeah I get that | 19:28 |
| dhellmann | I do not at all agree with that. | 19:28 |
| markmcclain | I think part of the problem with the large projects is the we've set the system up for folks to land their code in master at cost (including quality) | 19:28 |
| russellb | mordred: if that's the core, we need to get to it and discuss that | 19:28 |
| mordred | and I thnik we should be willing to be harsh, but individually harsh, on new suggestions | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | mordred: the problems in ceilometer are being fixed this cycle | 19:29 |
| mikal | The TC has also had some success at identifying specific bits of "crappy" and pushing on them to get fixed. nova-network / neutron for example. | 19:29 |
| mordred | dhellmann: that the new time-series effort is being spun up on the side indicates to me that they are not | 19:29 |
| russellb | mikal: right, i feel like that has been going well | 19:29 |
| mestery | markmcclain: ++ | 19:29 |
| vishy | if we are airing out things that shouldn’t be in, I’d point to sahara as well | 19:29 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| *** cdent_ is now known as cdent | 19:29 | |
| mikal | So we could start identifying hero projects that affect quality and push on them harder | 19:29 |
| mordred | dhellmann: since one of the problems is blatantly ignoring existing good software in the space | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | mordred: I'll be happy to fill you in on how wrong you are when you have time | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | no, it is not being ignored | 19:29 |
| mordred | dhellmann: ok! | 19:29 |
| ttx | so there is the IaaS view, the IaaS+ view that doesn't include data plane except swift | 19:29 |
| ttx | and the current stuiation which is mostly: if you reached the bar of quality and can pretend to be IaaS+ you're in | 19:29 |
| ttx | quality being solely defines by our graduation criteria | 19:29 |
| * ttx is having network issues | 19:29 | |
| dhellmann | there is a driver API in place | 19:29 |
| mikal | Although, if we're going to list things we should discuss as possibly dropping, I'm going to win friends and say that I think tripleo is concerning | 19:30 |
| russellb | i think it's fine if we want to discuss specific projects, but this meeting isn't that time | 19:30 |
| mikal | russellb: I agree, but felt left out | 19:30 |
| russellb | folks need time to go off and write up good detail on concerns, and be able to prepare a response | 19:30 |
| *** dconde has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| mordred | mikal: right. and my main point is that rather than defining IaaS or IaaS+ or whatever, we shoudl just bring those things up directly | 19:30 |
| markmcclain | russellb: +1 let's put down the torches and pitchforks | 19:31 |
| ttx | ok, I think I caght up, sorry network lag | 19:31 |
| dhellmann | russellb: +1 | 19:31 |
| russellb | markmcclain: exactly | 19:31 |
| mordred | russellb: ++ | 19:31 |
| mikal | So, backing up a bit | 19:31 |
| * russellb puts up a "no pitchforks or torches" sign at the door | 19:31 | |
| mikal | We think we have quality issues | 19:31 |
| mikal | We had some success with pushing on the nova-netowrk / neutron thing | 19:31 |
| mikal | Do we think that's a thing we could do more for other quality issues we see? | 19:31 |
| ttx | mordred: ok, so let's discuss the forst patr -- we should not approve Maconi. Why ? because it's data plane? Or because writing a queue is hard ? Or because writing a queue in Python is stupid ? | 19:31 |
| russellb | mikal: i think so | 19:31 |
| ttx | first part* | 19:31 |
| russellb | mikal: and i think that's perfectly in scope for the role we (TC) should play | 19:32 |
| mikal | russellb: because that's a very tangible, positive thing we could do | 19:32 |
| russellb | mikal: ++ | 19:32 |
| mordred | ttx: in my POV, all of the above, but that's just me | 19:32 |
| devananda | mikal: yes. I think the TC has a responsibility to ensure the quality of the code we're shipping | 19:32 |
| mikal | russellb: and which the board aint going to do for us -- we're the global oversight of quality as best as I can tell | 19:32 |
| devananda | mikal: whether that is done by "strongly encouraging" projects to clean up | 19:32 |
| mordred | ttx: I REALLY want to try to scale back places where we've NIH'd things | 19:32 |
| dhellmann | ttx: or because there are community issues around working with the team, which seems key to fixing some of the other issues | 19:32 |
| markmcclain | would it help to have an arch/code subset of TC that does a deep dive? if so we should apply retro all project like we did w/ grad requirements | 19:32 |
| devananda | mikal: or by rejecting / not accepting projects of dubios quality | 19:32 |
| russellb | mikal: absolutely, technical concerns are our domain. | 19:32 |
| mikal | Well... | 19:32 |
| mikal | We really only have one lever -- whether or not something is integrated / incubated | 19:33 |
| devananda | yep | 19:33 |
| mikal | I feel like we effectively said "fix this our you're out" with the networking thing | 19:33 |
| ttx | mordred: we have to decide in it's the addition of those issues that make us reject, or if it's one in particular | 19:33 |
| mordred | mikal: we could write a level factory ... | 19:33 |
| mikal | Which is a very very big stick, but hurtful to use | 19:33 |
| mordred | mikal: ++ | 19:33 |
| dhellmann | mikal: yes, pushing for change is a better first step than delisting projects | 19:33 |
| mikal | But we could experiment | 19:33 |
| mikal | What's the next most broken thing in openstack quality wise? | 19:33 |
| devananda | dhellmann: but pushing for change is only possible if we raise that threat | 19:33 |
| dhellmann | devananda: no, that's not true | 19:34 |
| devananda | dhellmann: i dont know of another way the TC can compel developers. what am i missing? | 19:34 |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:34 | |
| dhellmann | devananda: some teams do not shy away from saying that their code is broken (see ceilometer) while others do (see neutron) | 19:34 |
| mikal | Well... elephant in the room | 19:34 |
| mikal | We represent senior devs at a large portion of the openstack companies | 19:34 |
| mikal | Can you really not ring people's bosses and tell them to take a problem seriously? | 19:34 |
| markmcclain | dhellmann: I've think we've acknowledge there are some broken bits | 19:34 |
| mikal | Cause I would | 19:34 |
| dhellmann | markmcclain: true, it took a while to get some vendors on board with that, though | 19:35 |
| mikal | Let me pick on another example for a second | 19:35 |
| markmcclain | that's the issue is that we've stacked the incentives for vendors to push new code | 19:35 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: but the carrot is such a juicy carrot (being incubated) | 19:35 |
| mikal | Nova is sad that cvells is unfinished | 19:35 |
| mestery | dhellmann: Some still aren't on board, but we're doing our best. | 19:35 |
| mikal | cells even | 19:35 |
| mikal | So, we're going to push on that to get it fixed | 19:35 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: while "document cells" is not that juicy | 19:35 |
| dhellmann | markmcclain, mestery : yep, it has gotten better this cycle. My point is that some teams needed less incentive, that's all. | 19:35 |
| mikal | The lever we have is removing the code | 19:35 |
| mestery | dhellmann: Understood | 19:36 |
| mikal | The TC could be stepping in an publicly identifying cells completeness as an issue of concern if we wanted | 19:36 |
| mikal | Which would help drive resources to the problem | 19:36 |
| markmcclain | so on the neutron front we've been working up a plan to incubate features long before we merge them for integrated release | 19:36 |
| russellb | having 2 majorly different ways nova works is indeed sucky. | 19:36 |
| ttx | mikal: sure | 19:36 |
| dhellmann | mikal: do you need that "cover" for us to do that, or is the problem being addressed? | 19:36 |
| mikal | dhellmann: its not a perfect example | 19:36 |
| mikal | dhellmann: what I am trying to say is if the TC had identified that problem, not the nova-core team | 19:37 |
| dhellmann | mikal: ok, fair enough, if you were having trouble I would agree that the TC could back you | 19:37 |
| dhellmann | sure | 19:37 |
| mikal | Then the TC could have gone to the PTL and ask what cover was needed | 19:37 |
| mikal | "We've noticed that XXX is a big crap. What do we need to do to help you fix that?" | 19:37 |
| dhellmann | that's a much saner proposal than kicking the whole project out | 19:37 |
| jeblair | mikal: the board of directors is pretty much constantly saying "where can we put resources to make things better". perhaps the tc giving them that feedback would be useful. | 19:37 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 19:37 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: ++ | 19:37 |
| russellb | so is this discussion about what we can do with existing projects other than kick them out? trying to make sure we're still on topic.. | 19:37 |
| devananda | jeblair: ++ | 19:38 |
| mordred | russellb: I think it has become that - which I actually think is kinda nice | 19:38 |
| mikal | russellb: I think its about working out how we identify quality issues, and then how we get them fixed | 19:38 |
| ttx | mordred: I still want to understand if it's the addition of issues that would make us reject marconi, or a specific one that we would, starting from now, consider as inadmissible | 19:38 |
| russellb | cool, yeah. | 19:38 |
| annegentle_ | to me, it's stop hiring coders and hire doc writers though... so many ways to solve the "what do we throw resources at" when you look at cross-project needs | 19:38 |
| mikal | russellb: the kicking out being the nuclear case | 19:38 |
| devananda | so we've gone from talking about marconi and ceilometer to cells | 19:38 |
| mikal | annegentle_: so that's anotehr good example | 19:38 |
| devananda | mikal: has that approach worked for marconi? | 19:38 |
| mordred | devananda: I think it might be the same thing | 19:38 |
| mikal | annegentle_: should the TC be pushing on PTLs to not merge undocumented features? | 19:38 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: thing is, some things can't be fully documented until they're in production | 19:39 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: but yes | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | mikal, annegentle_ : +1 | 19:39 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: we don't even have that hard of minimum requirements for docs | 19:39 |
| mikal | annegentle_: so we kind of do that with docimpact (well, try) | 19:39 |
| mikal | annegentle_: do we have data on the number of open docimpact bugs | 19:39 |
| mikal | ? | 19:39 |
| mikal | Or is the problem more systemic than that? | 19:39 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: yes, we have systems in place, but if "high availability" is for example the biggest need from the board, then that's docs more than features | 19:40 |
| mikal | Ahhh, I get you | 19:40 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: it's that it's not a one-to-one code-to-doc mapping | 19:40 |
| dhellmann | devananda: if a collaborative approach doesn't work with a team, that means there are other issues, and I think then it's appropriate to take the extreme measures you're proposing. but we should not reach for the eject button as a first step | 19:40 |
| annegentle_ | mikal: right | 19:40 |
| mordred | dhellmann: ++ | 19:40 |
| devananda | dhellmann: i definitely agree it's not the first step, and don't think it's been used that way | 19:40 |
| ttx | What I'd like out of this meeting is -- do we do any change for Kilo. | 19:40 |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:40 | |
| mordred | I think a more and better feedback cycle is good | 19:41 |
| annegentle_ | I guess another way to look at it is: if we're using 800 servers for infra, and that's quota-limited, then does it make sense to limit what we integrate for other quota-limiting reasons? | 19:41 |
| russellb | ttx: ++ | 19:41 |
| mikal | So... As a concrete proposal. Why don't we identify the three most important quality problems we see in openstack and would like fixed in kilo? | 19:41 |
| devananda | mordred: and more willingness on our part to tell projects "we have serious doubt about your code" | 19:41 |
| mordred | ttx: it sounds like I'm hearing "no, we should be more active in telling people how they suck and give the a chance to fix it" | 19:41 |
| devananda | when, in fact, we do | 19:41 |
| mordred | devananda: ++ | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | devananda: it is coming across right now that it is the only step people want to use | 19:41 |
| russellb | mikal: yes, something like the round of what we just did, but focused on quality issues | 19:41 |
| devananda | which also means | 19:41 |
| mordred | like, to be VERY direct about it | 19:41 |
| ttx | Do we make a decision that woul affec tthe current incubation/graduation | 19:41 |
| devananda | we need to make time to seriously look into projects | 19:41 |
| mordred | because it doesn't help anyone not being very direct | 19:41 |
| russellb | mikal: though that's not so different from what we did ... quality was included | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | mikal: ++ | 19:41 |
| devananda | before graduation | 19:41 |
| devananda | and I would say, even before incubation | 19:41 |
| annegentle_ | I have to raise another cross project concern very relevant to neutron/kilo | 19:41 |
| mikal | russellb: yes, but a small list for the first go at it to keep the experiement conteolled | 19:41 |
| * mikal can't type at 5am it seems | 19:42 | |
| mordred | mikal: ++ | 19:42 |
| russellb | mikal: understandable | 19:42 |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:42 | |
| markmc | sorry, got the time wrong | 19:42 |
| * markmc looks at eavesdrop | 19:42 | |
| mikal | Its cool | 19:42 |
| mikal | This is important | 19:42 |
| mikal | Oh, I see, ignore me | 19:42 |
| markmcclain | mikal: yeah that follows what I suggested earlier | 19:42 |
| ttx | mordred: I'm fine with that (being very direct). But that means we still apply the same rules for Kilo incubation/integration, right? | 19:42 |
| devananda | dhellmann: i think, for some projects, after a few cycles of not making headway / seeing what appear to be the same problems, folks feel like that is the only resort left | 19:42 |
| jeblair | ttx: our incubation rules are a minimum guideline; i never thought the understanding was if you check the boxes, you're in | 19:43 |
| dhellmann | devananda: yep, but I disagree that that applies to some of the projects that were proposed to be kicked out | 19:43 |
| ttx | mordred: also it seems a bit far away from "data plane is a bad idea" | 19:43 |
| mordred | ttx: yes - except I think ultimately, for my money, we need to be willing to go past the rules a little bit when we're looking at things | 19:43 |
| ttx | jeblair: ++ | 19:43 |
| mordred | ttx: we may get tehre - "data plane is a bad idea" is just another arbitrary policy | 19:43 |
| ttx | mordred: the requirements ALWAYS were the consensual and predictable rules | 19:43 |
| ttx | not a set of checkboxes | 19:44 |
| markmcclain | jeblair: right but that message isn't universally understood in the community | 19:44 |
| ttx | that communicates minimal expectations, not ALL of them | 19:44 |
| ttx | otherwise we don't need to vote | 19:44 |
| mordred | yes. but to markmcclain's point, that consistently gets missed in this community | 19:44 |
| ttx | It's still OK to say "NO, just because" | 19:44 |
| mordred | yes | 19:44 |
| devananda | dhellmann: fair. I think we should have a discussion about each project | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | blueprint approval is another case where a minimal policy isn't understood to be reversable | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | devananda: ++ | 19:45 |
| ttx | It will piss off people, but we are all adults | 19:45 |
| *** mscohen has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:45 | |
| ttx | the TC can also get its share of hate mail, like pTLs! | 19:45 |
| devananda | ttx: is it ok to just say no? I think there's a sense of "well, if they check all the boxes, we have to accept them" | 19:45 |
| mordred | ttx: perhaps we should be clear that we're willing to piss people off | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | ttx: we need to make sure it's not a constantly moving target, too, though | 19:45 |
| mordred | devananda: I think we need to make it clear to people that it's ok | 19:45 |
| ttx | devananda: definitely not imho | 19:45 |
| * reed fills in a request for asbestos suits | 19:45 | |
| russellb | mordred: if there's consensus that it's for the best for openstack, sure | 19:45 |
| mordred | for us to just make a judgement call | 19:45 |
| devananda | ttx: and so people are looking for a policy to uphold, rather than have to make a decision, because not everyone has the time to invest in learning/assessing a project for themselves | 19:45 |
| annegentle_ | reed: I'm allergic | 19:46 |
| annegentle_ | here's the thing though. | 19:46 |
| russellb | we should probably make sure some subset is doing a deep dive on *every* project we look at ... | 19:46 |
| ttx | devananda: I think it will be hard to come back to a project today and tell them the whole idea was bad to begin with. | 19:46 |
| russellb | instead of assuming it happens | 19:46 |
| devananda | it turns out, diggign into a project that you didn't write and haven't deployed, deeply enough to decide "this is good" or "this is bad" is not often possible | 19:46 |
| devananda | and I think the only way we can do that | 19:46 |
| markmcclain | russellb: +1 | 19:46 |
| ttx | because we incubated them on the premise that they were interesting | 19:46 |
| jeblair | russellb: ++; also, i don't think it has to just be the tc | 19:47 |
| devananda | is get feedback from major operators (ie, our employers) about what works | 19:47 |
| devananda | and what doesn't | 19:47 |
| russellb | jeblair: true | 19:47 |
| russellb | but we need to be more clear that it's happening | 19:47 |
| devananda | which is why, on the ML, I suggested we set the bar to integration to be "is in production at scale" | 19:47 |
| annegentle_ | for docs, I still document horizon, even though it's not IaaS. If I freed up those doc resources, would neutron be better documented? I'm not picking on those projects but just pointing out the priorities we're forcing by not narrowing scope. | 19:47 |
| jeblair | some folks who are not in the tc have provided some really good feedback on new projects, and i appreciate that very much | 19:47 |
| russellb | jeblair: ++ | 19:47 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: ++ | 19:47 |
| markmcclain | jeblair: ++ | 19:47 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 19:47 |
| devananda | jeblair: yes. I think we need that feedback. | 19:47 |
| dhellmann | devananda: ++ on getting feedback from operators | 19:48 |
| devananda | jeblair: I dont think we can make decisions without it, in fact | 19:48 |
| mordred | well, I think we _can_ | 19:48 |
| annegentle_ | heh | 19:48 |
| mordred | I think we can make negative decisions without it | 19:48 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: maybe we should have the board talk to companies to hire more writers to work with your team? | 19:48 |
| mordred | positive decisions are harder to make without it | 19:48 |
| devananda | sorry. i mean not well informed ones :) | 19:48 |
| *** LouisF has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| mordred | devananda: I can make a decision that something is a bad idea with an operator | 19:48 |
| mordred | but blessing a thing without some proof points is much harder | 19:48 |
| devananda | right | 19:49 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: yes, board members are quite willing, but it's still the scope problem and ratio of coders-who-dont-document | 19:49 |
| ttx | Do we also agree that we can't remove from the integrated release wihtout some form of failure to meet some conditions we've set? | 19:49 |
| russellb | ttx: ++ | 19:49 |
| mordred | ttx: ++ | 19:49 |
| annegentle_ | ttx: wait, parsing double negative. | 19:49 |
| jeblair | ttx: i don't agree with that :) | 19:49 |
| annegentle_ | ttx: we have integrated and core projects that are not iaas | 19:49 |
| devananda | ttx: can you offer a strawman of such a failure of such a condition? | 19:49 |
| ttx | jeblair: we can still have unreasonable conditions :) | 19:49 |
| * devananda returns to formulating thoughts before typing quickly | 19:49 | |
| dhellmann | I think we could remove them, but I think it would be a terrible idea to do it. | 19:49 |
| ttx | devananda: sure | 19:50 |
| russellb | devananda: IMO, failure to fill major gaps identified in project review | 19:50 |
| jeblair | ttx: i think we can be arbitrary and capricous -- however, i think the suggested approach of trying to focus on specific quality issues with specific projects is the approach we should take. | 19:50 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 19:50 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: ++ | 19:50 |
| mordred | yes. that | 19:50 |
| russellb | we review a project, identify gaps, expect a plan to fix it ... if that doesn't happen, removal seems like a reasonable thing to consider at that point | 19:50 |
| mordred | can and should are good words | 19:50 |
| devananda | russellb: is "not usable at a scale > 100 nodes" a sufficient gap? | 19:50 |
| ttx | devananda: mordred was mentoining deintegrating ceilometer. I don't think we can do it wthout ceilometer failing to meet the goals of a corrective action plan | 19:50 |
| annegentle_ | Here's what's happening now though... couple of examples. Ceilometer is highly concerned at the docs teams reviews, thinking WE will prevent them from graduating. | 19:50 |
| dhellmann | and, frankly, those quality issues should not just apply to code, but how well the team is actually integrated with the rest of the project | 19:50 |
| mordred | ttx: I think we CAN | 19:50 |
| annegentle_ | Same for neutron. As if the docs team is preventing them from graduating. | 19:51 |
| mordred | ttx: I think it's clear we SHOULD try to do somethign else | 19:51 |
| annegentle_ | THIS is what concerns me. | 19:51 |
| annegentle_ | the docs team cannot be responsible for a team's pass or fail. | 19:51 |
| annegentle_ | it's the team's responsibility | 19:51 |
| russellb | annegentle_: ++ | 19:51 |
| ttx | mordred: ok | 19:51 |
| mordred | annegentle_: ++ | 19:51 |
| ttx | sure we CAN anything | 19:51 |
| markmcclain | annegentle_:+1 | 19:51 |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:51 | |
| dhellmann | all of the cross project teams have what amounts to a pocket veto of any initiative of another team, though | 19:52 |
| russellb | ttx: agree with your earlier comment about corrective action plan, that's the sane approach to these things IMO | 19:52 |
| ttx | My point is, we SHOULD keep ceilometer in Kilo because they didn't fail at any challenge we communicated to them | 19:52 |
| mordred | ttx: I think we need to make it very clear that we CAN ... it's important because one day we may actually need to do it, and I don't think we want to spend a ton of time talking about whether we followed our own process first if we do | 19:52 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: true, quality standards and so on | 19:52 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: well, if I write bad docs that's my fault, but if you don't have enough resources to review what I write is that my fault? yours? someone else's? (I don't think it's yours) | 19:52 |
| mordred | dhellmann: that pocket veto is not nearly as strong as you might think ... I've tried and failed to use it several times | 19:53 |
| * dhellmann looks longingly at his cross-project testing patch to ifnra | 19:53 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: reviews are also the team's responsibility especially for technical (cross project teams can't know everything about every project, unpossible) | 19:53 |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:53 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: that applies for infra and test too as far as I can tell | 19:54 |
| markmc | there's a sense of urgency here that I understand for evaluating graduation request | 19:54 |
| annegentle_ | ttx: can you list again the requests coming in? | 19:54 |
| ttx | mordred: ack | 19:54 |
| ttx | OK, time check, 7 min left | 19:54 |
| ttx | do we need an extra exceptional meeting before condering incubations/graduations | 19:54 |
| ttx | or does this clarify what we SHOULD and SHOULD NOT do ? | 19:54 |
| markmc | not quite clear where it's coming from on the potential for de-integration | 19:54 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: I can't +2 anything in infra or docs, though. I can review changes, but I can't actually move the work forward without help. | 19:54 |
| devananda | annegentle_: we've had several patches languish in -infra for month(s) with +1's from ironic cores | 19:54 |
| russellb | markmc: ++ | 19:54 |
| devananda | annegentle_: so i dont entirely agree there | 19:54 |
| russellb | maybe the urgency on that part wasn't intentional? | 19:54 |
| markmc | like, I do think we should always be open to de-integration discussions | 19:54 |
| ttx | OK so.. incubation: Manila. New program: rally. Graduation: Ironic, Marconi, Barbican (Designate is a bit young) | 19:54 |
| markmc | feel the way was always open | 19:55 |
| devananda | mordred: so as much as new projects aren't breakign the gate, they are bottlenecked on -infra to progress, eg. with test harnesses in devstack/tempest/config | 19:55 |
| mordred | yup | 19:55 |
| markmcclain | I don't think incubation in general should be held up | 19:55 |
| mordred | I feel like that provides a natural and non-policy based gating function | 19:55 |
| jeblair | devananda: i don't want to ignore you if you have an issue to raise, but i think pursuing that discussion right now would be a distraction. can we resume that in -infra after this meeting? | 19:55 |
| markmcclain | ttx: for graduation should we get a subset of folks to dive through the programs that want to graduate? | 19:56 |
| markmc | has this discussion radically changed how we'll approach the graduation discussions? | 19:56 |
| ttx | markmcclain: we should still only incubate stuff we think is a good idea | 19:56 |
| markmcclain | ttx: yes | 19:56 |
| devananda | jeblair: sure. i dont mean to bring it up - merely responding to annegentle_'s comment and an earlier one from mordred. | 19:56 |
| ttx | not just the ones tha thave a devstack job | 19:56 |
| russellb | markmc: radically? no, not for me | 19:56 |
| annegentle_ | devananda: dhellmann: that's why the scope and priorities matter so, so much to us. | 19:56 |
| russellb | not sure it's changed it at all for me | 19:56 |
| ttx | markmc: I would say no | 19:56 |
| markmc | we should always be open to evolving our requirements, but is there something more going on this time around ... ? | 19:56 |
| markmc | ok | 19:56 |
| mordred | devananda: I have no idea how he does it, but SergeyLukjanov joining and taking an active part in infra for non-sahara things was kinda huge ... and tips some scales in his favor in terms of making sure sahara is taken care of | 19:57 |
| russellb | care even more about quality before graduation? | 19:57 |
| russellb | is that the concrete thing? | 19:57 |
| devananda | russellb: i would hope so, yes | 19:57 |
| ttx | markmc: I think it's clearer that the requirements are just the minimal checkboxes the project has to tick, but it still needs to convince enough TC memebrs that it's good | 19:57 |
| mordred | if more projects wound up providing an infra person who did more than just care about that project, it would be AMAZING | 19:57 |
| devananda | russellb: though i have always cared about that | 19:57 |
| markmc | russellb, I think that's just a sign that we're learning | 19:57 |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| annegentle_ | devananda: dhellmann: we are a quota-limited gate and there are even more docs reviewers than infra | 19:57 |
| russellb | markmc: agreed | 19:57 |
| ttx | I always thought like that, so it doesn't change my approach | 19:57 |
| jeblair | have a little more confidence that saying no is 'okay' :) | 19:57 |
| jeblair | mordred: ++ | 19:57 |
| russellb | i hope we learn and refine our expectations every cycle | 19:57 |
| markmc | ttx, yeah, same | 19:57 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: "quota-limited"? | 19:57 |
| ttx | but yeah, it's OK to say no | 19:58 |
| devananda | russellb: do we have any more concrete means to guage the technical fitness of incubating projects, though? | 19:58 |
| dhellmann | mordred: ++ to projects providing contributors to the cross-project teams | 19:58 |
| ttx | we definitely said NO a lot more in the past | 19:58 |
| mordred | also, we've in this meeting tested vocally the idea of ejecting somethign and it seems that folks generally feel we should engage with the projects before doing so | 19:58 |
| devananda | russellb: I think I'd like to see that. and I think I've proposed one, but it hasn't gotten much traction | 19:58 |
| dhellmann | mordred: ++ | 19:58 |
| markmc | I don't think the conversation has made me necessarily more inclined to say no to any of these projects than I was before, though | 19:58 |
| markmc | trying to figure out what the conclusion here is | 19:59 |
| dhellmann | devananda: link? | 19:59 |
| ttx | mordred: yes, but I think the "no data plane" idea sets a hard limit | 19:59 |
| markmc | doesn't help that I suck and missed most of it :( | 19:59 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: as in, you have a quota of this many doc changes can get in | 19:59 |
| mordred | ttx: I'm not sure we agreed to that | 19:59 |
| russellb | i don't know the conclusion either FWIW | 19:59 |
| mordred | ttx: nor did it seem to resonate with anyone | 19:59 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: you limit how many changes a person can make? | 19:59 |
| ttx | mordred: should that be a guideline of yours, or try to be a common rule ? | 19:59 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: we do, because we have few reviewers | 19:59 |
| jeblair | mordred: i'd agree with that assesment; but i think the points that you made around that will influence my thinking about marconi | 19:59 |
| *** Sukhdev_ has quit IRC | 20:00 | |
| russellb | the question at the beginning was, what should we do about upcoming graduation requests? | 20:00 |
| mordred | ttx: it will be a guideline of mine ... but I will try for it to not be an arbitrary one | 20:00 |
| russellb | anyone have a summary of changes to that? | 20:00 |
| russellb | if any? | 20:00 |
| dhellmann | annegentle_: ok, it seems like there may be better ways to deal with that but I don't have the full background | 20:00 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: ok, sure | 20:00 |
| russellb | we're about out of time here | 20:00 |
| ttx | mordred: it's easier to not incubate data plane things than to reject their graduation. | 20:00 |
| mordred | russellb: I believe we have none, other than an assertion that it's ok for us to say no just because | 20:00 |
| mordred | ttx: that is true | 20:00 |
| ttx | which is why I'd like us to explore it as a "integrated release" rule | 20:00 |
| russellb | mordred: ok, sure, fine with me. :) | 20:01 |
| jeblair | one other thing from ttx's original email that we haven't fully explored: we _do_ need more overall project focused infra/qa/docs people | 20:01 |
| mordred | ttx: I'm just very wary of more explicit rules | 20:01 |
| mordred | jeblair: ++ | 20:01 |
| russellb | any team waiting for this room? we're over time | 20:01 |
| devananda | dhellmann: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/042962.html | 20:01 |
| jeblair | i've tried to not focus on that because i think the urgency around this issue is the integration questions | 20:01 |
| jeblair | and i don't think they are strictyl correlated. but it's still an issue we should work on | 20:01 |
| markmc | ttx, fwiw, I don't know what "no data plane" means, doesn't immediately resonate - maybe as a I catch up with the backlog it will become clear | 20:01 |
| ttx | russellb: normally no | 20:01 |
| ttx | OK, so .. no need for a meeting on Monday? | 20:02 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: you should really consider requiring liaisons; it has done wonders for oslo (though not perfect) | 20:02 |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:02 | |
| jeblair | dhellmann: yeah, i've been mulling that around since your post | 20:02 |
| annegentle_ | dhellmann: oh yes, I was going to reply to your ML post that we do teh same in docs with varying success | 20:02 |
| annegentle_ | liaisons | 20:02 |
| dhellmann | jeblair: I'd be happy to chat if you'd like | 20:02 |
| annegentle_ | and, having an infra-focused docs contributor has done WONDERS | 20:02 |
| devananda | +1 to all the major cross project efforts requiring a liasion | 20:02 |
| jeblair | dhellmann: thanks | 20:02 |
| ttx | I think we generally need more people that care about the project as a whole but who live at project-level. | 20:02 |
| jeblair | annegentle_: yes indeed! | 20:02 |
| annegentle_ | :) | 20:03 |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| ttx | Those people take on security bugs, take on gate issues, take on project management... | 20:03 |
| dhellmann | ttx: yes, but that can be tough to balance | 20:03 |
| devananda | and I'd set that bar at incubation. if you aren't ready to contribute to infra and oslo, the team isn't diverse enough to incubate yet | 20:03 |
| ttx | take on liaisons | 20:03 |
| dhellmann | devananda: I think you're on to something there. | 20:03 |
| annegentle_ | I sense there could be a metric of "most cross-project drag" for all programs | 20:03 |
| russellb | ttx: we do need more ... we're burning out the ones we have | 20:03 |
| ttx | russellb: ++ | 20:03 |
| annegentle_ | neutron would be high. Barbican, who knows? How would we know? | 20:03 |
| annegentle_ | sorry, I know we're over time. | 20:04 |
| ttx | basically I think we ave enough people on the vulnerability management team... but not enough people htat would work on a security patch | 20:04 |
| ttx | yep sorry | 20:04 |
| ttx | OK, so .. no need for a meeting on Monday? | 20:04 |
| devananda | dhellmann: you mean re: liasons, or the email/link i posted? | 20:04 |
| russellb | no meeting is fine with me | 20:04 |
| ttx | back to our regular schedlue on Tuesday ? | 20:04 |
| dhellmann | devananda: liaisons (I'll read the email after) | 20:04 |
| jeblair | ttx: agree no monday meeting is necessary | 20:04 |
| russellb | let's take ideas to the list if any more come up | 20:04 |
| annegentle_ | ttx: if we've concluded we're staying the course, then no need for a meeting | 20:05 |
| ttx | satying on course and it's ok to say NO | 20:05 |
| annegentle_ | I'll post an idea about "cross project drag" to the ML | 20:05 |
| annegentle_ | there's got to be some measure | 20:05 |
| ttx | OK thanks everyone | 20:05 |
| devananda | ttx: regular meeting on tuesday? if so, I wont plan on attending as I'll be somewhere on the road at that point | 20:05 |
| ttx | devananda: sure. You may want to give proxies in case things come to a vote | 20:05 |
| devananda | ack | 20:05 |
| ttx | We'll probably do Rall ynew program | 20:06 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 20:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 20:06 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Aug 14 20:06:06 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:06 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-08-14-19.03.html | 20:06 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-08-14-19.03.txt | 20:06 |
| russellb | thanks all | 20:06 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-08-14-19.03.log.html | 20:06 |
| dhellmann | thanks, this was good! | 20:06 |
| devananda | ttx: can I vote on rally now? :) | 20:06 |
| ttx | devananda: you can vote on the review yes | 20:06 |
| russellb | devananda: and as your reason, say "just because" | 20:06 |
| russellb | we said that was OK | 20:06 |
| devananda | heh | 20:07 |
| jaypipes | dammit, I missed the TC meeting.. :( | 20:08 |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| annegentle_ | jaypipes: nooo | 20:09 |
| mikal | jaypipes: heh | 20:13 |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 20:16 | |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 20:18 | |
| *** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:23 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:24 | |
| *** mjturek1 has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:25 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:26 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 20:27 | |
| *** eglynn has quit IRC | 20:27 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 20:28 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:28 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** igordcard has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:30 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:31 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| *** pkoniszewski has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:33 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:33 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:34 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:35 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:37 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:37 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:39 | |
| *** pkoniszewski has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:40 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:42 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:44 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:46 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:48 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:49 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 20:49 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:51 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:53 | |
| *** thomasem has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:55 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 20:55 | |
| *** s3wong_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:56 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 20:56 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:56 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:57 | |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:58 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 20:59 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:00 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:02 | |
| *** SridharR_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:02 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:04 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:06 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 21:06 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:07 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:09 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:11 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:13 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:14 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:14 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:16 | |
| *** hemanthravi has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:18 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:20 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:20 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:21 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:22 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:23 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:24 | |
| *** cjellick_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:24 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:26 | |
| *** dconde has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:27 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:29 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:31 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:33 | |
| *** SridharR_ has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:34 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:34 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:34 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** SridharR_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:35 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:36 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:38 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:40 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:41 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:42 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:43 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:43 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:44 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:45 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:47 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:49 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:50 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:52 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:54 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 21:56 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:56 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:58 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:59 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:01 | |
| *** SridharR_ has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:02 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:03 | |
| *** cjellick_ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** SridharR_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:04 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:04 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:05 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| *** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:07 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:08 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:10 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:11 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:12 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:14 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:16 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:17 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:19 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:21 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:23 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:23 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:24 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:25 | |
| *** markmc has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:25 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:27 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:28 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:29 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:30 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:31 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:32 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:34 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:35 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| *** jgrimm has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:37 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:39 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:39 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:41 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:43 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:45 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| *** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:46 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:46 | |
| *** mscohen has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| *** mscohen has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:47 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:48 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:50 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:52 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:52 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:54 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:55 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:57 | |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:57 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:59 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:01 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:01 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:03 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:04 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:06 | |
| *** KrishnaK_ has quit IRC | 23:08 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:08 | |
| *** chuckC has quit IRC | 23:08 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:08 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:10 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:12 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** fabiog_ has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:13 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:15 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:15 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:16 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:17 | |
| *** stanzgy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:17 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:19 | |
| *** vkmc has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:21 | |
| *** s3wong_ has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:22 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:24 | |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** rudrarugge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:24 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:24 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:26 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:26 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:26 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:28 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:30 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** mscohen has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** jamielennox|away is now known as jamielennox | 23:31 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:31 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:33 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:33 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:35 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:37 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:37 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:37 | |
| *** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:38 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:39 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:40 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:42 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:44 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:45 | |
| *** yamamot__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:46 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:46 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:46 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:46 | |
| *** yamamot__ has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:48 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:49 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:49 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** dconde has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:51 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:51 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:53 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:53 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:55 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:55 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:57 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 23:57 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:58 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 23:58 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:58 | |
| *** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:59 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!