Tuesday, 2011-02-08

*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting00:21
*** bcherian has quit IRC01:28
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk01:47
*** bcherian has joined #openstack-meeting01:49
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting02:13
*** bcherian has quit IRC02:14
*** bcherian has joined #openstack-meeting02:32
*** bcherian has quit IRC02:39
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:42
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting03:46
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates03:51
*** littleidea has quit IRC04:09
*** baldben has joined #openstack-meeting05:03
*** baldben has quit IRC05:33
*** baldben has joined #openstack-meeting05:34
*** adjohn has quit IRC06:08
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting06:10
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting07:21
*** adjohn has quit IRC07:58
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting08:11
*** littleidea has quit IRC08:27
*** adjohn has quit IRC12:15
*** westmaas has joined #openstack-meeting13:31
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk13:51
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates13:51
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting15:11
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk15:59
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates16:01
*** baldben has quit IRC16:17
*** westmaas has quit IRC16:33
*** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting16:51
*** littleidea has quit IRC16:53
*** troytoma_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:08
*** troytoma_ has quit IRC17:12
*** baldben has joined #openstack-meeting17:13
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk17:27
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates17:51
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk18:48
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates18:48
*** diegoparrilla_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:14
*** diegoparrilla_ is now known as diegoparrilla19:14
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk19:24
*** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting19:31
*** RichiH has joined #openstack-meeting19:32
*** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting19:33
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates19:45
*** Ryan_Lane has joined #openstack-meeting20:47
*** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting20:47
*** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting20:48
*** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:49
*** kpepple has joined #openstack-meeting20:51
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
*** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
*** westmaas has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
*** _cerberus_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
*** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting20:58
* ttx waves20:58
*** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting20:58
*** Ryan_Lane has quit IRC20:58
* creiht bows20:58
ttxsoren: your talk recruited several new IRC members21:00
ttxinluding one that does meeting clock.21:00
*** TheHutch has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
ttxok then, let's get started21:00
openstackMeeting started Tue Feb  8 21:00:54 2011 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.21:00
ttxWelcome to the first Cactus weekly OpenStack team meeting...21:01
sorenttx: I deliver.21:01
ttxToday's agenda is at:21:01
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings21:01
*** Tushar531 has joined #openstack-meeting21:01
ttxNo last-minute addition apparently21:01
ttxNo actions from last week meeting21:01
ttx#topic Nova Bexar post release issues21:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova Bexar post release issues"21:02
*** dubs has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
*** troytoma_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
ttxWe realized after release that the tarballs have (always) been missing some elements.21:02
ttx#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=bexar-post-release21:02
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
ttxThe released tarball is most notably missing some extra files and directories, and the translated strings.21:02
ttxWe should release a new tarball including the missing elements.21:02
*** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
*** Ryan_Lane has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
sorenI just want to be sure that we only have to that once.21:03
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting21:04
dendrobateshow can you be sure?21:04
sorenOnce is bad enough. If there's something people want in the tarball, it would be totally awesome if they would check that it was actually there. Just once. Ever.21:04
ttxOption A is to release a new tarball (nova-2011.1-full.tar.gz) on https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/2011.121:04
ttxOption B is to create a new milestone (2011.1.1) and release nova-2011.1.1.tar.gz there21:04
ttxThoughts ?21:04
ttxAdvantage of option A is that it makes it clear it's just missing files that were added, nothing else changed. Advantage of option B is that it clearly acknowledges the tarball fumble and encourages people to switch to the complete one.21:04
ttxdendrobates: you're for option B, right21:04
ttxAnyone from Nova core with an opinion on this ?21:04
sorenIt's not that hard. Clearly. It was noticed afterwards.21:04
ttxI've been working on the missing files, jaypipes is working on the missing translations21:05
RichiHmy outsider's view is that B is better as it will make people realize something changed21:05
dendrobatesthat is the most honest and least confusing thing to do, IMO21:05
ttxWe should also make sure that doesn't happen again. I mistakenly thought that our tarball generation included all files, and that translations were automatically merged, so I admit not having double-checked that.21:05
daboB seems much cleaner to me21:05
sorenI'm also in favour of B.21:05
RichiHsoren: the process creating the tarball could simply check against a file list21:05
ttxWhen we add a new file we need to make sure it's properly covered in setup.py or MANIFEST.in if needed.21:05
ttxsoren: you wanted to add a test to catch differences between branch and tarball ?21:06
sorenttx: Yeah.21:06
sorenit's mostly done.21:06
dendrobatesto be fair, ttx was very ill on release, and I hit my head and ended up in the hospital.  Last release I checked the file and the manifest21:06
ttxok, option B it is, then21:06
sorenIt'll shout and scream until someone fixes it or acknowledges the change.21:06
dendrobatessoren: :)21:06
ttxdendrobates: I wouldn't have checked that even if I was at 100% :)21:06
*** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting21:07
sorenRichiH: It doesn't help if noone bothers to make sure said file list is complete. The manifest basically is this file list.21:07
dendrobatesttx: I would have gone through it with you.21:07
ttxI wrongly assumed that the tarball generation was using bzr export21:07
ttxand not python setup.py sdist21:07
diegoparrillaA suggestion from an outsider: once a tarball is released any change can make confusion. It's better to create a 'maintenance' release21:07
creihtWhy is it that big of a deal to just make a bugfix release?21:07
dendrobatescreiht: I think that is the decision21:08
ttxcreiht: not a big deal. Option B it is21:08
ttxmoving on21:08
dendrobatescreiht: and I don;t know why some resist it21:08
* ttx shuts up now :)21:08
ttx#topic Current release stage: Development21:08
*** openstack changes topic to "Current release stage: Development"21:08
ttxWelcome to Cactus ! You can find the release schedule at:21:08
diegoparrillaOption B from my perspective21:08
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/CactusReleaseSchedule21:08
ttxThis is a short cycle with 7 weeks in the merge window.21:08
*** masumotok has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
ttx(no design summit)21:09
ttxFeel free to propose any branch for merging until BranchMergeProposalFreeze, currently set to March 17.21:09
ttxRemember the sooner branches are proposed, the better.21:09
dendrobatesany major changes should be proposed in the first 4 weeks21:09
sorenAlso remember that proposing a branch by MArch 17 doesn't mean it'll get merged. It means it'll get reviewed.21:09
ewanmellorWe've still got blueprints pending approval.  What's the status of those?21:10
*** devcamcar has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
ttxewanmellor: coming to it21:10
ttx#topic Cactus targets21:10
*** openstack changes topic to "Cactus targets"21:10
* ttx passes the mike to dendrobates21:10
*** dprince has quit IRC21:10
dendrobatesttx and I were suposed to review and approve all blueprints last week21:11
ttx... in Brussels21:11
dendrobatesbut illness and injury prevented that.21:11
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
*** murkk has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
dendrobatesso we started going through them today.21:11
dendrobateswe are first accepting them to the cactus release and then we will review the specs21:12
vishydo we have any plan for backporting fixes?21:12
ttxvishy: to Bexar ?21:12
dendrobatesdo not let spec approval delay your coding if your bp has been accepted21:12
dendrobatesvishy: we will be discussing that in the POC meeting21:13
devcamcari'm confused on whose job it is to approve blueprints21:13
ewanmellordendrobates: are you distinguishing between approval of the blueprint and approval of the spec?21:13
creihtUnfortunately there are no letters between B and C, so there can't be an intermediate release >:)21:13
devcamcarttx is a release manager, correct? it seems that if he is in charge of approving blueprints, then that bypasses all of the governance structures21:14
ttxdevcamcar: I'm not21:14
vishyttx: yes to Bexar, there is one pretty nasty bug which made it in21:14
ttxvishy: link?21:14
dendrobatesewanmellor: no, between acceptance into the release and bp approval21:14
devcamcarttx: thats what i thought, but dendrobates just said "member:ttx and I were suposed to review and approve all blueprints last week"21:14
devcamcarwhich is not clear21:15
dendrobatesttx helps me go through them21:15
sorendevcamcar: Just because we have a structure with various boards and whatnot doesn't mean that noone else can make a decision about anything at all. That would grind the project to a halt.21:15
dendrobatesand has to track them21:15
ttxdevcamcar: agreed. I think he meant he is accepting them whie I present the list to him21:15
devcamcarthanks, just wanted to clarify21:15
ewanmellordendrobates: So a blueprint can be "accepted into Cactus" but not actually approved as a specification?  What does that mean?21:15
devcamcarsoren: not what i was saying21:16
dendrobatesewanmellor: that means that we plan on the feature being included in Cactus, but...21:16
sorendevcamcar: ok21:16
devcamcarsoren: just wanted to clarify roles so i understand21:16
dendrobateswe have not completed a design review.21:16
ttxvishy: that's a good candidate indeed. Maybe we could squeeze it into a 2011.1.121:16
pvowith the short cycle, don't we run the risk of bp/specs not being approved?21:17
berendtvishy: i would suggest fixing bug 713430 in the maintenance release 2011.1.1 (plan b)21:17
pvoit doesn't leave us much time for alternate plans21:17
ewanmellordendrobates: OK, makes sense.21:17
dendrobatespvo:  I will finish this week21:17
pvowhen/where is the design review for cactus?21:17
dendrobatesbut that brings up another issue21:17
ttxvishy: we won't rush 2011.1.1, so there is time to consider it.21:17
dendrobateswe have more bp's proposed than we can accomplish in this short release21:18
dendrobatesespecially considering the focus on testing and stabilzation21:18
dendrobatesif it is not imperative for your feature to hit in Cactus, please withdraw it and repropose for diablo21:19
ttxdendrobates: you're talking about Nova, right21:20
ewanmellordendrobates: Would it help if people estimated their own blueprints for instability risk and likely branch proposal date?  We could put this in the Whiteboard.  Low risk branches that will be ready before BMPF would be preferred, obviously.21:20
dendrobatesewanmellor: yes that would be helpful21:20
ttxWe have 30 specs proposed In Cactus for Nova, against 33 actually implemented in Bexar21:20
ttxBexar had one more week21:20
ttx(and wasn't focused on stability)21:21
ttxThat said the "number" of specs is not the important factor21:21
ttxI'd rather keep two small self-contained features and drop one disruptive refactoring spec21:22
dendrobatestrue, we really want to improve the qa process during this release, my main fear is that if we accept too many features we will lose sight of that in the rush to push features21:22
sandywalsh_That should be a part of the BP ... how disruptive is it?21:22
dendrobatesduring this release, btw, 2 or more of our most productive devs will be focused on testing21:23
dendrobatesso we will get far fewer bps done.21:23
dendrobatesthat's enough from me21:24
westmaasare there many unassigned BPs or BPs assigned to those devs?21:24
ttxwestmaas: no21:24
ttxthere is no "unassigned BP" since you basically sign up for doing iy when you file it21:25
dendrobatesthough that does not always happen21:25
dendrobateswe have picked up orphaned bp's21:25
ttxeach group should just have a realistic look at what they can deliver in the timeframe we have... and withdraw what they can't do21:25
ttxand in parallel dendrobates can try to weed out the most disruptive stuff, for the sake of the stability of the release21:26
dendrobatesor what you can hold off merging until April21:26
ttxI don't really mind if some targeted stuff ends up not being delivered. That's overconfidence for the group that proposed it, but it doesn't derail the release21:27
ttxDisruptive changes that land late, on the other hand...21:27
ttxok, moving on in 10 seconds21:27
ttx#topic Documentation priorities for Cactus21:28
*** openstack changes topic to "Documentation priorities for Cactus"21:28
ttxannegentle: Floor is yours21:28
annegentleI've been getting mixed messages about the docs - either they're really crap or they're teh awesome :)21:29
annegentleI think this means that there are distinct audiences and there's wayy too much redundant info, plus sites are not laser targeted to DEV or USER21:29
annegentleI am also getting feedback requests for top priority: OpenStack API docs for Compute. Sound right?21:30
dendrobatesfrom who?21:30
annegentleSecondary items on the list include - reference info for flags, more images.21:30
*** pvo has quit IRC21:30
annegentledendrobates: today's twitter feed for #OpenStack21:30
annegentlehonestly, most of the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive21:31
annegentlebut I do know that we have a ways to go21:31
dendrobatesI just wondered if it's client devs21:31
dendrobatesI think you've done great21:31
annegentledendrobates: yeah I want to find out who is underserved.21:31
annegentleI still need a process for translating docs. Right now, the best I have is "use the wiki"21:31
ttxthat said I like jaypipes suggestion that a new feature should come with a doc patch21:32
annegentleI also wanted to check with this group on a priority to "eliminate redundancy"21:32
annegentlettx: agree with that one!21:32
dendrobatesredundancy causes problems when one place gets maintained and the other does not21:33
*** dprince has quit IRC21:33
annegentleHowever, the redundancy is something introduced by not using RST as source for docs.openstack.org. I'd like to use RST > DocBook but need some dev help to do so.21:33
annegentledendrobates: exactly. I now have 3 places to update multinode Nova install, for example.21:33
ttxannegentle: I think in some cases (install instructions) we'll need to make some opinated choices rather than present 4 alternate methods21:34
ttxand keep alternate methods for the wiki21:34
*** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting21:34
annegentleI believe my priorities for Cactus are 1) API doc 2) reference info 3) images but I need to move 4) collaboration and single-sourcing into a higher position.21:34
sorenWe could do a "Choose your own adventure" style install doc :)21:34
dendrobatesIt needs to be clear what is official documentation and what is not21:34
annegentleFor 4) collaboration and single sourcing I need specific help21:35
annegentleI don't have a "trunk" for official doc yet in the openstack-devel project21:35
annegentlefor example. That'll help me with collab and single-sourcing21:35
annegentlewhich will help with 1) API doc21:35
dendrobatesannegentle: do you want help setting that up?21:35
ewanmellorCould we not autogenerate an API doc from doc-comments?  It sounds like a waste of a skilled doc writer writing API definitions.21:36
annegentlettx: alternate methods on the wiki works for me21:36
sorenewanmellor: I believe that was the idea for API docs.21:36
ewanmellorsoren: OK, then the devs can do that, can't we?21:36
sorenewanmellor: I actually thought xtoddx had already looked into this.21:37
westmaasone of the devs here in blacksburg did some work on a sphinx plugin to autogenerate REST api docs with supporting URI examples, let me know if that could be useful21:37
devcamcarannegentle: we need some official documentation for glance as well21:37
sandywalsh_heh, the only page I use: http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServerDevelopment21:37
ttxsandywalsh_: that's because you're so narrow-minded :P21:37
annegentleewanmellor: yep, though there's 2 approaches I suppose - does the RST source already contain API docs? Is it possible to source all of it from RST?21:37
* sandywalsh_ nods21:37
alekibangoi agree its work for developers...   doc writer might have problem understanding the problem.. developer has needed knowledge21:38
annegentleAh yes, Glance is also a priority. I have 2 chapters written and just haven't included them in the builds until I get more end-user install info.21:38
RichiHttx: no feature without docs and no bugfix without unit test is always a good plan21:38
annegentleone idea Mike Mayo and Josh Kearney floated for API docs is to set up a web server you can send curl commands to21:38
annegentleyes on the "no feature with out docs" I'd go as far to say "no approval/merge without docs"21:39
*** pvo has quit IRC21:39
annegentle"feature" is hard to define21:39
ttxannegentle: that's how you enforce it, right :)21:39
annegentleok I can barely type fast enough to ensure I get priorities out to you all.21:39
RichiHannegentle: yah, better wording21:39
ttxannegentle: maybe summarize the plan on the ML for further discussion ?21:40
annegentleI do think I have a good idea that my next 7 weeks are going to be spent on reference docs - API and flags. Plus rounding out the Glance doc.21:40
annegentlettx: yep, will do. Thanks all for the input.21:40
ttxok, moving on then...21:41
ttx#topic Open discussion21:41
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:41
ttxI posted an ML thread about Bexar postmortem feedback, don't hesitate to answer, publicly or privately, I need your feedback :)21:41
dendrobatesmy feedback is that the Release manager should not get sick at release time21:42
ttx+1 on that21:42
ttxIt's been two weeks and I still can't breathe normally.21:42
alekibangothats hard to achive with certainty....    healthy food is best bet...21:42
ttxI think spectorclan is missing presentations for the OpenStack conference technical track, but he isn't around to ask for them21:43
RichiHsoren mentioned that OS has mainly been tested with triple copies of everything which makes playing with it on just a few boxes harder/impossible -- it would be nice if there was a test mode that supported, and is tested, with fewer copies21:43
creihtRichiH: are you talking about object storage?21:44
creihtif so -> http://swift.openstack.org/development_saio.html21:44
ewanmellorI have updated the network-service blueprint with some goals for NaaS for Diablo.  Don't hesitate to give me feedback on those. I'll be adding some more detailed design once I've got through the older specs and the feedback that I've received so far.21:44
creihtThat installs a dev cluster on one machine21:45
annegentlealso on Bexar postmortem, if you created a Blueprint, fill out the emailed survey about Blueprints from Stephen Spector.21:45
ttxok, on those good words, we'll close for today21:46
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"21:46
openstackMeeting ended Tue Feb  8 21:46:29 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:46
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-08-21.00.html21:46
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-08-21.00.txt21:46
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-08-21.00.log.html21:46
*** baldben has quit IRC21:46
ttxThanks everyone, feel free to continue the open discussion on #openstack.21:46
*** cynb has left #openstack-meeting21:46
*** kpepple has left #openstack-meeting21:46
*** ewanmellor has quit IRC21:47
*** berendt has left #openstack-meeting21:47
*** dubs has left #openstack-meeting21:48
RichiHcreiht: ta21:49
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting21:50
*** troytoma_ has quit IRC21:51
*** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting21:51
*** baldben has joined #openstack-meeting21:52
*** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting21:52
*** danwent has left #openstack-meeting21:52
*** dragondm has left #openstack-meeting21:53
*** comstud has left #openstack-meeting21:54
*** annegentle has left #openstack-meeting21:54
*** ttx has left #openstack-meeting21:55
*** TheHutch has left #openstack-meeting21:57
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:59
*** diegoparrilla has left #openstack-meeting22:02
*** sirp_ has left #openstack-meeting22:02
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates22:12
*** baldben has quit IRC22:17
*** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting22:18
*** Ryan_Lane has left #openstack-meeting22:31
*** baldben has joined #openstack-meeting22:38
*** evtoews has joined #openstack-meeting22:45
*** evtoews has left #openstack-meeting22:51
*** pvo has quit IRC22:57
*** dabo has left #openstack-meeting23:04
*** creiht has left #openstack-meeting23:24
*** masumotok has quit IRC23:32
*** johnpur has quit IRC23:57

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!