| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:03 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 00:30 | |
| *** westmaas1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:01 | |
| *** westmaas1 has quit IRC | 01:02 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:03 | |
| *** anticw has quit IRC | 01:19 | |
| *** anticw has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:19 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 02:01 | |
| *** med_out is now known as med | 04:36 | |
| *** med is now known as medberru | 04:36 | |
| *** medberru is now known as medberry | 04:36 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 06:36 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 09:06 | |
| *** anticw has quit IRC | 09:55 | |
| *** anticw has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:57 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 10:09 | |
| *** GasbaKid has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:03 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 12:16 | |
| *** rackerhacker has quit IRC | 12:26 | |
| *** rackerhacker has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:33 | |
| *** GasbaKid has quit IRC | 12:47 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:55 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 13:06 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:28 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:36 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:46 | |
| *** blamar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:23 | |
| *** blamar_ is now known as blamar | 14:23 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:31 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:42 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:47 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 15:56 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:22 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 16:41 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 16:46 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:57 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 18:17 | |
| *** dprince_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:30 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:49 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:56 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| *** dprince_ has quit IRC | 19:18 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:18 | |
| *** eday has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:12 | |
| *** bcwaldon_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:29 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:41 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:46 | |
| *** johan___ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:46 | |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:46 | |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:47 | |
| *** comstud has left #openstack-meeting | 20:47 | |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| *** User has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| *** User has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| *** pquerna has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| *** jwilmes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| *** spectorclan_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| *** exlt has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 20:59 | |
| *** markwash_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| glenc | o/ | 21:00 |
|---|---|---|
| *** mattt has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 21:00 |
| *** dsockwell has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| * creiht bows | 21:00 | |
| ttx | o/ | 21:00 |
| * exlt lurks.. | 21:00 | |
| vishy | o\ | 21:00 |
| dsockwell | yeah i'm just going to listen in as well | 21:00 |
| ttx | Greetings from Budapest ! | 21:00 |
| vishy | ^^ my arm is broken | 21:00 |
| uvirtbot | vishy: Error: "^" is not a valid command. | 21:00 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| spectorclan_ | here | 21:01 |
| ttx | I'm not completely sober so please let me know if I don't make sense :) | 21:01 |
| * jaypipes curties. | 21:01 | |
| jaypipes | or curtsies. joke fail. | 21:01 |
| * dsockwell slaughters a goat | 21:01 | |
| jaypipes | lol | 21:01 |
| dabo | \o | 21:01 |
| ttx | ok, let's get started ! | 21:01 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 10 21:01:56 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:01 |
| ttx | Welcome everyone to our weekly OpenStack team meeting... | 21:02 |
| ttx | Agenda: | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | 21:02 |
| *** jeffkramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | * KnightHacker, zns to get the nobottle branch merged asap | 21:03 |
| ttx | any news on that front ? | 21:03 |
| jaypipes | ttx: I'm subscribed to the GitHub repo and there's been no progress on nobottle. | 21:04 |
| ttx | hmm. I guess we should carry on then | 21:04 |
| jaypipes | ttx: we had a 2 hour sprint planning with the Keystone team last wednesday and they are still assigning roles, responsibility etc | 21:04 |
| ttx | #action KnightHacker, zns to get the nobottle branch merged asap | 21:04 |
| ttx | * antonym to raise a thread about IRC separation on the ML | 21:04 |
| ttx | I've seen that raised, did we reach a conclusion on that thread yet ? | 21:05 |
| eday | yeah, there was a decision email at the end, I think | 21:05 |
| *** blamar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| pvo | the thread was to keep them the same for now? | 21:05 |
| eday | adding -dev | 21:05 |
| ttx | between vacation and UDS I'll admit not having followed every thread lately | 21:05 |
| soren | *cough* slacker *cough* | 21:06 |
| * soren is no better, though. :) | 21:06 | |
| ttx | soren: so you finally finished that beer, I see | 21:06 |
| kpepple | i thought we agreed to add -dev also | 21:06 |
| soren | ttx: I have no idea what you're talking about. | 21:06 |
| eday | kpepple: yup | 21:06 |
| soren | :p | 21:06 |
| ttx | ok, anyone disagreeing on that ? | 21:06 |
| ttx | I don't really care either way. | 21:07 |
| eday | should probably join it :) | 21:07 |
| soren | The idea of making the split a per-topic one was dropped? | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | I believe so. | 21:07 |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| soren | ok | 21:07 |
| eday | soren: correct | 21:07 |
| ttx | #action antonym to make agreed channel split happen | 21:07 |
| ttx | #topic General release status | 21:08 |
| eday | channel is there, everyone join and lets close the action item :) | 21:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "General release status" | 21:08 | |
| ttx | eday: he needs to post an email to officialize it on the ML | 21:08 |
| pvo | seconded | 21:08 |
| antonym | ttx: will do, it's pretty much done | 21:08 |
| ttx | Under the new release management rules, we are in open development stage, so the coordinated release requirements at this point are quite basic | 21:09 |
| ttx | Once the Diablo plans are mostly finalized, I'll switch to tracking mode | 21:09 |
| ttx | The idea being to track what features land and give the PTLs an idea of how well their plan is actually executed | 21:09 |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| ttx | Starting next week I'll also have a deeper look into how I could adapt the release status page to the new world order | 21:10 |
| ttx | Questions before we switch to per-project status ? | 21:10 |
| ttx | ok then | 21:11 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:11 | |
| ttx | The Diablo plan is at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/diablo | 21:11 |
| vishy | I've been going through the blueprints and prioritizing and targetting | 21:11 |
| ttx | vishy: I'd say it's still being worked on ? | 21:11 |
| vishy | I think I've got all of the major ones targetted | 21:11 |
| ttx | I admit that I haven't had a chance to look into it that much... | 21:12 |
| vishy | i need to find some people to assign a couple of the essential ones to | 21:12 |
| ttx | yes, I'd prefer if all the >Low actually have assignees | 21:12 |
| vishy | but it is going well (slower than i expected, there were/are a whole bunch of obsolete/hanging bps | 21:12 |
| ttx | vishy: targeting to diablo should give you a good list at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/diablo | 21:13 |
| ttx | without needing to deprecate all the old stuff | 21:13 |
| ttx | though cleaning up cannot hurt :) | 21:13 |
| ttx | The first milestone, diablo-1, is scheduled for June 2 | 21:14 |
| ttx | That means cutting the milestone release branch in 3 weeks. | 21:14 |
| ttx | Looking at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-1 we have 19 blueprints targeted... | 21:14 |
| ttx | ...which sounds a bit optimistic to me, but we'll see :) | 21:15 |
| dabo | The distributed scheduler merge prop should be landing in about 2 weeks. It will be a fairly large and disruptive change, so will that interfere with diablo-1? | 21:15 |
| vishy | ttx: yes I may be moving a few of those | 21:15 |
| *** grapex has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| ttx | dabo: I don't think so, it's good if it actually lands in an early milestone... | 21:15 |
| vishy | I'd like to get distributed scheduler and multinic in asap | 21:15 |
| johnpur | vishy: agree, do it asap | 21:16 |
| ttx | +1 | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | vishy: FYI, Glance's diablo-2 milestone is where I'm targeting keystone integration, if you want to align on that... | 21:16 |
| dabo | cool - I'll keep everyone informed as to its progress | 21:16 |
| vishy | jaypipes: cool, I think we're trying to get super ghetto version in in diablo-1, but our complete integration won't be until diablo-4 | 21:16 |
| vishy | we're going to go through a few iterations... | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | vishy: yup, cool. | 21:17 |
| ttx | vishy: anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:17 |
| westmaas | what should we do if we think things will move from milestone 1 to 2? | 21:17 |
| westmaas | announce in these meetings, update the bp? both? | 21:18 |
| jaypipes | westmaas: both. | 21:18 |
| jaypipes | westmaas: and if it involves other teams, post something to the ML. | 21:18 |
| westmaas | alrighty | 21:18 |
| johnpur | notmyname: is swift aligning around keystone integration at the end of june? | 21:18 |
| notmyname | if you would like us to :-) | 21:19 |
| vishy | ttx: nope | 21:19 |
| ttx | johnpur: maybe we can talk about that when we switch topic to swift | 21:19 |
| jaypipes | westmaas: at least, that's what I'll be doing ;) | 21:19 |
| johnpur | ttx: ok | 21:19 |
| ttx | Other questions for the Nova PTL ? | 21:19 |
| westmaas | jaypipes: just looking for someone to copy :) | 21:19 |
| jaypipes | :) | 21:19 |
| jaypipes | ttx: I do, actually | 21:19 |
| ttx | fire. | 21:20 |
| jaypipes | ttx, vishy: so, although I didn't get through a whole lot of reviews in my review day yesterday, I did notice a HUGE number of pending merge requests... perhaps we can send an email to the ML targeting a number of the high priority ones to review? | 21:20 |
| vishy | jaypipes: good idea | 21:20 |
| jaypipes | vishy: something like ttx's freeze emails. | 21:21 |
| jaypipes | vishy: in particular, I note that the NTT volume branch blueprints are in needs code review status... | 21:21 |
| jaypipes | vishy: ec2 volume stuff... | 21:22 |
| _0x44 | Are all of those merge requests still expecting to be merged? When I did my review day I saw quite a few that seemed abandoned pre-summit waiting for summit decisions but were never updated. | 21:22 |
| ttx | yes and due to TZ differences the comment.fix iterations take a bit longer with japanese branch merge proposals | 21:22 |
| vishy | ok I'll take a look at the merge list and fire out an email with important ones? | 21:22 |
| vishy | and request that people update their branches or put them to wip if they aren't ready | 21:23 |
| ttx | _0x44: the abandoned ones should no longer be in "needs review" status | 21:23 |
| jaypipes | _0x44: it's a shared responsibility of the reviewer and PTL to follow up with folks about stagnating merge proposals...and get stuff into Work in Progress if it is being updated. | 21:23 |
| pvo | vishy: that would help. Quite a few branches are a couple of weeks old | 21:23 |
| jaypipes | vishy: yep, that sounds good. lemme know if you want assistance at all. | 21:24 |
| ttx | ideally the branch review listing page would match the priorities | 21:24 |
| ttx | haven't updated it though | 21:24 |
| comstud | i made a merge prop today for a bugfix that's kinda important to get in for xenserver | 21:24 |
| comstud | not sure the bug was prioritized, however | 21:25 |
| ttx | will have a fresh look at it next week so that it's useful again | 21:25 |
| jaypipes | I'd like to see https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/771512 prioritized to Critical... | 21:25 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 771512 in nova "Timeout from API with 50 Simultaneous Builds" [High,Triaged] | 21:25 |
| antonym | jaypipes: +1 | 21:25 |
| jaypipes | anyone know the folks at Linden and might be able to raise a fire? | 21:26 |
| ttx | jaypipes: any reason why you can't do that yourself ? | 21:26 |
| comstud | jay: that's going in progress after this meeting | 21:26 |
| ttx | (raising to critical) | 21:26 |
| comstud | (771512) | 21:26 |
| jaypipes | the reason I'd like to set it to Critical is because once mtaylor gets going with CI, that bug will cause major havoc. | 21:26 |
| pvo | jaypipes: its causing havoc for our testing now. | 21:26 |
| jaypipes | pvo: well, yes, I know :) | 21:26 |
| comstud | it's next on my list | 21:26 |
| antonym | yep :) | 21:26 |
| pvo | ;p | 21:26 |
| mtaylor | that's fine - cause all the havoc you want :) | 21:26 |
| * comstud steals it right now | 21:26 | |
| jaypipes | ok, super :) | 21:27 |
| ttx | mtaylor: o/ | 21:27 |
| ttx | ok, can we switch to glance status now ? | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | I'm ready. | 21:27 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:28 | |
| ttx | The Glance Diablo plans are at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/diablo | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | Here's the milestone we are focused on: https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-1 | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | For the next 3 weeks, we are focusing on API improvements that will make glenc happy :) | 21:28 |
| ttx | sounds god to me | 21:28 |
| ttx | good even | 21:28 |
| glenc | :D happy glenc is happy | 21:28 |
| ttx | jaypipes: other announcements, comments ? | 21:29 |
| jaypipes | I've already talked with soren about coordination for packaging, but vishy, we need to discuss affects on nova integration | 21:29 |
| jaypipes | vishy: mostly around the upgrade path for existing nova/glance installations. We can take it offline later on. | 21:29 |
| vishy | ok | 21:29 |
| ttx | Any question for Jay ? | 21:30 |
| jaypipes | vishy: and if you have a chance, pls take a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/glance/api-version/+merge/60130 | 21:30 |
| jaypipes | ttx: good to move on I think. | 21:31 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:31 | |
| ttx | notmyname: did you have time to sort out your versioning scheme and milestone plan ? | 21:31 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: you are scheduled out only to diablo-2? | 21:31 |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:31 | |
| notmyname | not yet, but there won't be much change from our current 1.X.Y | 21:31 |
| ttx | ok, was wondering: | 21:32 |
| ttx | We currently have a 1.4 "series", with no blueprints attached. | 21:32 |
| ttx | We could have a "diablo" series instead, with milestones that happen to have whatever version number you want... | 21:32 |
| *** midodan has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| jaypipes | johnpur: stuff to be discussed with usharesoft going into d3 and beyond... more to come. | 21:32 |
| johnpur | ttx: we talked about syncing version nomenclature? | 21:32 |
| ttx | though that doesn't make a lot of sense branch-wise, I guess | 21:33 |
| *** devcamca- has left #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| notmyname | the blueprints https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift are what we have | 21:33 |
| notmyname | but no, they aren't targeted to a diablo release | 21:33 |
| ttx | johnpur: not yet... so far Swift wanted their own versioning | 21:33 |
| *** devcamca- has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| johnpur | jaypipes: cool. was wondering about the image conversion stuff that isn't showing up. | 21:33 |
| ttx | notmyname: right, I'm trying to get a "diablo" picture | 21:33 |
| ttx | and "1.4" might just not be synonymous | 21:34 |
| ttx | since you might decide other values for "X" above... IIUC | 21:34 |
| notmyname | we've been doing some internal planning here, but there isn't anything for "diablo" yet | 21:34 |
| notmyname | and agreed about 1.4 not necessarily == 1.4 | 21:34 |
| ttx | notmyname: ok, I guess we'll wait a bit more then :) | 21:34 |
| johnpur | notmyname, ttx: can we talk about getting a common version scheme? maybe outside of this meeting... it is a pain to do queries against non-normalized version strings. | 21:35 |
| ttx | johnpur: we need to have a way to query what falls into the "diablo" timeframe and will become part of openstack 2011.3 | 21:35 |
| johnpur | notmyname: what is your plan to support keystone? | 21:35 |
| johnpur | ttx: yes! | 21:35 |
| ttx | johnpur: that might not imply forcing Swift to adopt the same version numbers for milestones | 21:36 |
| notmyname | johnpur: yes, all that's needed to do is some wsgi middleware | 21:36 |
| ttx | johnpur: agreed that we can discuss that offline | 21:36 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I think johnpur was asking about a general timeframe :) | 21:36 |
| johnpur | jaypipes: :) | 21:37 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: nova is trying for end of this month, glance is trying for end of july to integrate with keystone, as an FYI. | 21:37 |
| notmyname | we don't know what needs to be done yet. we can be done when we see what keystone requires | 21:37 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: sorry, I meant end of june, not july... | 21:37 |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| *** pino_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| jaypipes | notmyname: ok, however I think some things will come down to what *you* require from keystone, which is why communication with the keystone folks will be important. just a though, not trying to harrass you :) | 21:39 |
| notmyname | gholt and ziad have been talking about it | 21:39 |
| ttx | notmyname: any other announcements or comments ? | 21:39 |
| jaypipes | ok, coolio. | 21:39 |
| notmyname | ttx: nope | 21:39 |
| ttx | Questions for the Swift team ? | 21:39 |
| ttx | ok then... | 21:40 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:40 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:40 | |
| ttx | In case you missed the press, news from UDS here is that Ubuntu Server is switching their default solution for Ubuntu Cloud Infrastructure from Eucalyptus to OpenStack. | 21:40 |
| pvo | nice | 21:40 |
| notmyname | yay | 21:40 |
| spectorclan_ | congrats! | 21:40 |
| glenc | sweet | 21:41 |
| vishy | \o/ | 21:41 |
| ttx | Not really a surpise, but still, good news | 21:41 |
| jaypipes | hmm, I guess we should fix that 50 concurrent clients bug then ;P | 21:41 |
| pvo | ha. nah. | 21:41 |
| jaypipes | :) | 21:41 |
| soren | jaypipes: I'm quite close on that, by the way. | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | soren: pls communicate with comstud :) | 21:42 |
| soren | jaypipes: Oh, he's working on it, too? | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | soren: yep | 21:42 |
| soren | I mean *I'm* commenting on the bug and stuff. :) | 21:42 |
| soren | comstud: Well if you've got it, fine. I'll just stop playing around. | 21:44 |
| antonym | soren: yeah, saw the of the updates on the bug report | 21:44 |
| vishy | first person to patch eventlet wins | 21:44 |
| comstud | yeah, i just read all of the notes | 21:44 |
| vishy | gogogogo | 21:44 |
| comstud | I didn't realize it had been triaged so much | 21:44 |
| comstud | I don't care who does it as long it gets addressed RSN | 21:44 |
| comstud | i can take a look at patching eventlet | 21:45 |
| soren | I have a pathc that fixes it for us, but not generally, so I'm not really happy with it. | 21:45 |
| comstud | ahh | 21:45 |
| * vishy wants to see that patch | 21:45 | |
| comstud | yeah | 21:45 |
| comstud | me too | 21:45 |
| antonym | me too | 21:45 |
| johnpur | redbo is an eventlet expert too | 21:45 |
| antonym | i can give it a whirl in our environment | 21:45 |
| jaypipes | vishy, notmyname: we still on to discuss commonalities in a few minutes on this channel? | 21:45 |
| soren | It fixes it in the case whee we never really block for the full socket connect timeout at time, but that's not good enough for upstreaming. | 21:45 |
| ttx | something else someone wants to mention before we close the meeting ? | 21:45 |
| vishy | jaypipes: yes | 21:45 |
| ttx | the PTLs need the room :) | 21:45 |
| antonym | i mainly just want to get past 50 builds so i can get some other bugs to come crawling out :D | 21:46 |
| jaypipes | ttx: others are welcome to linger as far as I'm concerned. | 21:46 |
| ttx | oh right, just need to formally pass the bucket | 21:46 |
| ttx | so let's just do it... now | 21:47 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:47 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 10 21:47:38 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:47 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-10-21.01.html | 21:47 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-10-21.01.txt | 21:47 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-10-21.01.log.html | 21:47 |
| ttx | Thanks everyone ! | 21:47 |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| *** dabo has left #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| *** pquerna has left #openstack-meeting | 21:48 | |
| vishy | notmyname: here? | 21:48 |
| comstud | soren: i'm not at all attached to the bug, if you want to continue rolling with it. otherwise, if it frees you up, i can take it. i'd love to see your patch, though | 21:48 |
| notmyname | always | 21:48 |
| *** spectorclan_ has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| jaypipes | ok, so we're supposed to discuss areas of code that should move to a common library. | 21:49 |
| vishy | so I think there are two broad topics | 21:49 |
| jaypipes | vishy, notmyname: how would you like to handle this? should we simply propose pieces/parts of code that are good candidates? | 21:49 |
| vishy | 1) Can we create a common "service starter kit"? A bunch of groups are requesting it. | 21:50 |
| jaypipes | vishy: like a skeleton project? | 21:50 |
| vishy | 2) How can we make the projects as similar as possible for users and administrators | 21:50 |
| vishy | I think those things are driving the integration discussion. | 21:51 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I would definitely support making a skeleton project. that actually would be a good way to find: a) common utility code to go into the openstack-common library and b) best practice things in test cases, etc | 21:51 |
| notmyname | I think that (2) is key. and implies enough of (1) that it doesn't need to happen | 21:51 |
| notmyname | although I'm willing to be convinced, I don't see the benefit in a skeleton project | 21:52 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: well, I think a skeleton project is really useful for new projects to start from... | 21:52 |
| vishy | notmyname: i don't quite understand that... | 21:52 |
| vishy | notmyname: all the projects do logging/wsgi/eventlet/rest apis/etc... | 21:53 |
| notmyname | guidelines to do (2) is good | 21:53 |
| notmyname | like we discussed earlier | 21:53 |
| notmyname | common ways to start daemons, etc | 21:53 |
| vishy | it might be nice to have a place to start so a new project doesn't have to re-invent the wheel | 21:53 |
| soren | comstud: As I said, it's a dirty hack. It doesn't *really * solve the problem, and I didn't keep it, so I'd have to reproduce it. I'd rather spend my time actually fixing the problem rather than making my way back to a half-arsed solution to it. | 21:53 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: right, but a skeleton project has all those things "in place". The code becomes the best practice "document" | 21:54 |
| jaypipes | soren: heya, sorry, could you move that thread to openstack-dev? :) | 21:54 |
| soren | jaypipes: :p | 21:54 |
| jaypipes | soren: thx man | 21:54 |
| vishy | all of the other projects are going to copy one of the projects anyway | 21:55 |
| *** johan___ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| jaypipes | vishy: right. | 21:55 |
| vishy | so it might be nice if they had a "best" starting point | 21:55 |
| notmyname | things that join openstack should be established projects anyway | 21:55 |
| jaypipes | vishy: it would have been very useful for keystone to have a skeleton project. | 21:56 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: how so? | 21:56 |
| notmyname | ideas don't join openstack. code does | 21:56 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: for instance, the volume, lbaas and network projects... | 21:56 |
| jaypipes | those are all ideas, not code. | 21:56 |
| vishy | keystone, reddwarf, and quantum have all requested such a skeleton | 21:56 |
| eday | jaypipes: he's talking about ppb approval, not new things destined for OS | 21:56 |
| notmyname | vishy: guidelines for how this works are good | 21:57 |
| eday | notmyname: I can't remember, were you around for the PPB meeting last week? | 21:58 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I think we are saying that creating a skeleton project *is* the guideline... | 21:58 |
| notmyname | eday: no, but I read over the logs | 21:58 |
| markwash_ | (not a PTL) how changeable would a skeleton project be in case we found a better way to do one of the "common" things in the future | 21:59 |
| vishy | well we can at least make some progress on the guidelines | 21:59 |
| *** ryu_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| eday | notmyname: ok. a lot of this is due to the "integation" part of it, it seems the PPB mostly wants highly integrated projects for approval, so it's not going to be a random existing project joining | 21:59 |
| vishy | then someone can create a skeleton based on the guidelines | 21:59 |
| jaypipes | markwash_: it would be an evolving set of best practices common to all openstack projects. | 21:59 |
| danwent | quick note to anyone joining and looking for the networking discussion, meeting has been moved to tomorrow at the same time due to a conflict on the channel | 21:59 |
| jaypipes | eday, notmyname: we're not talking about PPB stuff here... | 22:00 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| eday | well, hopefully 90% of the 'skeleton' project would be in common libs being used by other projects too | 22:00 |
| vishy | eday: agreed | 22:00 |
| vishy | so we have one proposal that was made so far: daemonization | 22:00 |
| eday | jaypipes: wanted to be sure there was understanding of motives/goals first | 22:00 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| vishy | next on my list would be configuration (especially for logging) | 22:01 |
| jaypipes | eday: totally agreed. but what a skeleton project does is prevent people from, say, copying Glance (or Swift, or Nova, etc) when creating their new endpoint project, and instead, the copy the skeleton project. | 22:01 |
| eday | jaypipes: I understand, and not saying it shouldn't exist at all :) | 22:01 |
| jaypipes | vishy: Gflags will be the big issue in that regard I'm afraid. | 22:01 |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| vishy | jaypipes: i understand that, but I think we can at least define a common logging.conf file and have each project parse it appropriately | 22:02 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I'm definitely cool with that. | 22:02 |
| creiht | isn't that already solved in python? | 22:02 |
| vishy | creiht: not really | 22:03 |
| jaypipes | creiht: yes, but the different projects have, for instance, different defaults for how they handle logging (syslog vs file, format of log records, etc) | 22:03 |
| creiht | http://docs.python.org/dev/library/logging.config.html | 22:03 |
| eday | vishy: how so? logging.config seems sufficient | 22:03 |
| *** grapex has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| vishy | eday: seems a bit low-level to me | 22:04 |
| jaypipes | creiht: currently, each project sets up its logging with different routines. In glance, it's in glance.common.config. In swift, it's in swift.common.utils, in nova, it's in nova.logging. Would be good to have standardized routines in a common library for initializing/setting up logging. | 22:05 |
| creiht | jaypipes: I'm not against that, I'm just saying why not use what is already built into python for that? | 22:05 |
| creiht | the swift team has already talked about doing that internally | 22:05 |
| jaypipes | creiht: *sigh*. I'm not suggesting otherwise :)( | 22:05 |
| vishy | creiht: I suppose if we supply a really good default file it might work | 22:05 |
| jaypipes | creiht: I'm saying instead of code doing: | 22:06 |
| jaypipes | from swift.common.utils import setup_logging | 22:06 |
| jaypipes | you'd do from openstack.common import logging | 22:06 |
| jaypipes | or something like that... | 22:06 |
| creiht | jaypipes: why even do that if you can do | 22:06 |
| creiht | from logging.config import... | 22:06 |
| creiht | :) | 22:06 |
| notmyname | so the concern is the import line? I thought the concern was the backend of how loggis is used | 22:06 |
| vishy | jaypipes: i don't know if we're really going to get that far that way | 22:07 |
| vishy | jaypipes: i expect every project will have custom logging handlers etc to inject extra information | 22:07 |
| jaypipes | creiht, notmyname: omg. it's not about the import line. it's about the set of code lines that establishes logging functionality. | 22:07 |
| jaypipes | for instance, in Glance, we have a --log-config option, that enables logging to be overridden with a logging.config file... | 22:08 |
| creiht | all I said was, I'm not against having a more common logging setup, all I suggested was to use what is already available in python | 22:08 |
| vishy | i'm more concerned about the command line options for telling it to syslog vs file log, verbosity, etc... | 22:08 |
| jaypipes | would be great if ALL projects had a --log-config option, and that it was handled the same for all projects... | 22:08 |
| jaypipes | vishy: that's what I'm talking about as well! | 22:08 |
| *** letterj has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| creiht | or a standard python logging config that could be configured in a config file? :) | 22:09 |
| vishy | creiht: sure, as long as it easy to make these switches | 22:09 |
| jaypipes | creiht: sorry, could you elaborate on what you mean by that? | 22:09 |
| creiht | all I'm trying to say is python already seems to have a set of best practices for this, so why not just use that | 22:10 |
| eday | jaypipes: don't bother with command line args, as you convinced me to do in burrow. burrow.conf can just include a common logging.conf | 22:10 |
| eday | much easier, btw :) | 22:10 |
| jaypipes | eday: that's how glance works, too... | 22:10 |
| jaypipes | creiht: nobody is arguing to use anything other than standard python stuff... I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up? | 22:11 |
| creiht | jaypipes: because you keep asking me to? :) | 22:12 |
| * creiht goes back into hiding | 22:12 | |
| jaypipes | this is so very frustrating. | 22:12 |
| *** letterj has left #openstack-meeting | 22:13 | |
| *** jdurgin has left #openstack-meeting | 22:13 | |
| vishy | so jaypipes, can you do what you are doing with your log config file using a logging.config file? | 22:14 |
| jaypipes | vishy: yes. | 22:14 |
| vishy | I assume we can in nova, but it might require some refactoring | 22:14 |
| eday | so, ConfigParser files is primary config mechanism, optionally can support command line options to inject values into ConfigParser, and logging.config for logging formats? seems like we're in agreement :) | 22:14 |
| creiht | so maybe a better question is, if we rely on the python best practices for logging configuration, what questions are left to answer? | 22:14 |
| jaypipes | vishy: you can either do --log-config=PATH on the command line, or you can put a log_config=PATH in the config files. | 22:15 |
| vishy | sounds fine | 22:15 |
| jaypipes | creiht: defaults. | 22:15 |
| vishy | so that takes care of daemonization and logging | 22:15 |
| vishy | are there any other big pain points for people using all of the projects together? | 22:16 |
| jaypipes | creiht: for instance, glance defaults to file, swift defaults to syslog. | 22:16 |
| eday | vishy: I think config too. everything but Nova uses ConfigParser, so we just need to convert nova away from gflags | 22:16 |
| termie | everything but nova is much simpler than nova | 22:16 |
| vishy | eday: that sounds painful :) | 22:16 |
| creiht | I would argue is that nova is only more complicated because it uses gflags :) | 22:17 |
| termie | creiht: lulz | 22:17 |
| eday | vishy: not saying it isn't painful, but needed if we want this level of openstack integration :) | 22:17 |
| vishy | a lot of the stuff we are using flags for needs to move in general | 22:17 |
| termie | for the record it is much easier to convert things to gflags than vice-versa | 22:17 |
| jaypipes | lol | 22:17 |
| termie | gflags offers more features | 22:18 |
| jaypipes | beg to differ on that one. :) | 22:18 |
| comstud | and termie will arm wrestle anyone who thinks overwise. | 22:18 |
| comstud | otherwise | 22:18 |
| creiht | I think it has more to do with philosophy | 22:18 |
| jaypipes | yep | 22:18 |
| termie | creiht: /etc/object-server/1.conf? | 22:18 |
| vishy | termie: I don't think the main issue is with the feature set, it is that most people don't seem to like it... | 22:18 |
| creiht | swift is everything is in a config file, command line options only when absolutely neccesary | 22:18 |
| creiht | termie: that is just a workaround for the saio | 22:19 |
| termie | creiht: in about 20 config files | 22:19 |
| eday | creiht: doing the same with burrow | 22:19 |
| creiht | nova is everything in command line options | 22:19 |
| jaypipes | let's please not do the gflags vs. optparse/ConfigParser right now... | 22:20 |
| vishy | creiht: that isn't exactly true, everything can be specified on the command line | 22:20 |
| jaypipes | I'm too tired to care :) | 22:20 |
| *** grapex has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:20 | |
| vishy | jaypipes: is there anything else? | 22:20 |
| creiht | termie: there is one config file per service (proxy, object, container, etc.) not unreasonable since those are most likely on different servers | 22:20 |
| jaypipes | vishy: yes, actually :) | 22:20 |
| eday | vishy: are you opposed to moving to configparser for nova? | 22:20 |
| jaypipes | vishy: there's a bunch of stuff that's duplicated in the various "utils.py" files that exist in all the projects. | 22:20 |
| creiht | I would also argue that ops people like config files more, and makes for better deployment | 22:21 |
| jaypipes | vishy: there's also best practices in regards to running tests, etc... | 22:21 |
| jaypipes | vishy: but we could leave those for another day. | 22:21 |
| termie | creiht: flagfiles work the same way as a config file but they don't require weird workarounds to support multiple processes | 22:22 |
| termie | creiht: but we were asked to table the debate a bit, so perhaps we should rest? | 22:22 |
| vishy | eday: I'm not opposed to it, I just think it is a big change that we can't make right now... | 22:22 |
| creiht | I could care less actually :) | 22:22 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I would agree with you. | 22:22 |
| vishy | jaypipes: testing++ | 22:22 |
| vishy | jaypipes: titan team is putting together some documentation and examples for unittests | 22:23 |
| jaypipes | creiht: hmm, I thought you *couldn't* care less ;) | 22:23 |
| eday | vishy: will it ever be easier? | 22:23 |
| creiht | that's the problem with a lot of the common stuff, is that it isn't so much about features but philosophy | 22:23 |
| jaypipes | vishy: k, that's good to hear. | 22:23 |
| vishy | eday: yes, after NaaS and BSaaS | 22:23 |
| vishy | jaypipes: i think with those examples and maybe some stuff from you on how you're doing functional testing | 22:24 |
| vishy | we are pretty good there | 22:24 |
| jaypipes | vishy: ok | 22:24 |
| vishy | utils stuff I don't see as a huge issue. | 22:24 |
| jaypipes | vishy: k. | 22:24 |
| jaypipes | then it sounds like other than config/logging stuff, there's really no impetus to do a common library, since there's little agreement on philosophy. | 22:25 |
| *** grapex has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| vishy | i mean if someone wants to go through them all and pull out common stuff, i wouldn't be opposed...I just don't think that part is a huge priority | 22:25 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I never said this stuff was a priority, just something we could work towards :) | 22:25 |
| creiht | and I still think that if something is important enough to pull out to be in common, that maybe we should evaluate if it would be better pull it out as a library instead | 22:26 |
| creiht | there is cohesion around dameons, why not use that as a proof of concept first, and see where it goes from there? | 22:26 |
| creiht | weather daemon stuff is in its own lib, or in openstack.common, start with something and see how it goes? | 22:27 |
| jaypipes | creiht: there's no disagreement on that. that's happening. | 22:27 |
| vishy | creiht: that seems fine | 22:28 |
| jaypipes | creiht: re: pulling daemon stuff out into a separate non-openstack-common lib. | 22:28 |
| vishy | i just was hoping we could get something for these other projects to start with | 22:28 |
| vishy | so logging config, we can all add a blueprint for that? | 22:29 |
| creiht | It seems pretty sad to me that if someone is seriously trying to start such a project, they need that much hand holding to start | 22:29 |
| vishy | (those that don't have it yet) | 22:29 |
| *** blamar_ has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| vishy | and we tell other groups to just use glance as a base? | 22:32 |
| vishy | and pick and choose from other projects as needed? | 22:32 |
| creiht | It seems like they should be able to figure that out for themselves? | 22:34 |
| jaypipes | creiht: you're not being particularly helpful here... | 22:34 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I still think a skeleton project would be useful, especially for some of these teams on projects that are used to Java, non-Python programming. | 22:35 |
| vishy | jaypipes: i agree | 22:35 |
| vishy | jaypipes: but who has time to make one? | 22:35 |
| jaypipes | creiht: nobody is *forcing* people to do this... we're just trying to lower the barrier. | 22:35 |
| jaypipes | vishy: I can do it. | 22:36 |
| * termie is | 22:36 | |
| jaypipes | termie: forcing people? :) | 22:36 |
| vishy | jaypipes: if you want to put something together that would be cool | 22:36 |
| termie | termie is can make time | 22:36 |
| creiht | right, because what we need to do to enable the development of scalable distributed systems is lower the barrier to entry | 22:36 |
| creiht | ;) | 22:36 |
| vishy | termie can do one too and they can fight to the death robowars style | 22:36 |
| creiht | sorry if I am a bit opinionated about that | 22:36 |
| termie | vishy: works for me | 22:36 |
| jaypipes | I'm really not interested in fighting :) | 22:36 |
| termie | jaypipes: "collaborating" equal but separate | 22:37 |
| vishy | your skeletons will fight to the death | 22:37 |
| jaypipes | hehe, ok no worries. | 22:37 |
| vishy | maybe you guys will accidentally agree on a bunch of stuff | 22:37 |
| eday | haha | 22:37 |
| jaypipes | vishy: termie agrees with people? ;P | 22:37 |
| vishy | and gflags vs config parsing can be a plugin :) | 22:37 |
| termie | i agree with eople who agree with me | 22:38 |
| jaypipes | lol | 22:38 |
| jaypipes | termie: :) | 22:38 |
| vishy | haha | 22:38 |
| vishy | reminds me of a friend who said: "I thought she had really good opinions. She basically agreed with everything I said." | 22:38 |
| termie | vishy: was i that friend? | 22:39 |
| termie | vishy: 'cause i've said that | 22:39 |
| notmyname | so as not to drag this out too much, what needs to be done? | 22:39 |
| vishy | termie: haha no, that was my friend jon. It was extra funny because he didn't really realize what he was saying | 22:39 |
| vishy | notmyname: sounds like 3 actions | 22:39 |
| termie | vishy: ah | 22:39 |
| vishy | 1: all projects support logging.config | 22:39 |
| *** grapex has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:40 | |
| vishy | 2: jay to do daemon library breakout and we integrate with projects | 22:40 |
| vishy | 3: termie and jay to make skele-projects | 22:40 |
| vishy | did i miss anything? | 22:40 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: so you don't have to do anything. bonus. | 22:40 |
| eday | (future) kill-gflags :) | 22:40 |
| vishy | (we pushed the gflags discussion to later) | 22:40 |
| vishy | :) | 22:40 |
| termie | p.s. broke out our gflags improvements and pinged the gflags team about them: http://github.com/termie/hflags | 22:40 |
| creiht | that seems to be a recurring theme :) | 22:40 |
| *** katkee has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| vishy | so done for today? | 22:42 |
| notmyname | I don't have anything else | 22:43 |
| *** jeffkramer has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| vishy | cool, thanks guys. I'll draft an email to the list saying what was decided | 22:44 |
| *** markwash_ has left #openstack-meeting | 22:45 | |
| * alekibango is here late... +1 for unity on logging.config | 22:48 | |
| *** eday has left #openstack-meeting | 22:49 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:54 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** midodan has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:26 | |
| carlp | Hey mattray | 23:26 |
| mattray | carlp: howdy | 23:26 |
| *** grapex has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 23:37 | |
| *** ryu_ has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** pino_ has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** _0x44 has left #openstack-meeting | 23:44 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:53 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!