| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 00:01 | |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:05 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 00:09 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 00:09 | |
| *** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:11 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 00:13 | |
| *** martine_ has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 00:30 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 01:31 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 01:46 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 02:40 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:42 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 02:47 | |
| *** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:56 | |
| *** martine_ has quit IRC | 04:03 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 04:09 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 04:12 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:57 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 07:37 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:11 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:11 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 09:14 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:15 | |
| *** throughnothing has quit IRC | 10:05 | |
| *** throughnothing has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:06 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 10:59 | |
| *** yamahata__ has quit IRC | 10:59 | |
| yamahata_dt | hello | 11:02 |
|---|---|---|
| yamahata_dt | no one there for glance discussion | 11:18 |
| *** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:47 | |
| jaypipes | yamahata_dt: still 8 minutes until meeting :) | 11:53 |
| jaypipes | yamahata_dt: こんばんは | 11:53 |
| *** jeremyb has quit IRC | 12:02 | |
| *** jeremyb has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:02 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:22 | |
| yamahata | are you still there? | 12:23 |
| *** martine_ has quit IRC | 12:42 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 12:56 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:03 | |
| *** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:21 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 13:38 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:40 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 13:42 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:43 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 13:54 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:02 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:08 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 14:09 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:20 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:28 | |
| *** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:44 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:59 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:05 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:07 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:09 | |
| *** toobulkeh has quit IRC | 15:10 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:13 | |
| *** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:33 | |
| *** toobulkeh has left #openstack-meeting | 15:35 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:47 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 15:54 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| *** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:38 | |
| *** mattray1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** mattray1 has quit IRC | 17:00 | |
| *** Tv_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:01 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:15 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:19 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:22 | |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:30 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 17:32 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 17:47 | |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:08 | |
| *** glenc_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:10 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 18:12 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:18 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 18:27 | |
| *** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:52 | |
| *** glenc_ has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:55 | |
| mtaylor | hey all ... anybody ready for a meeting? | 19:03 |
| jeblair | ayup | 19:03 |
| soren | o/ | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:05 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 2 19:05:07 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:05 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | #topic actions from last meeting | 19:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "actions from last meeting" | 19:06 | |
| mtaylor | lookie there- we only had a few things from last time | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | update launchpad project page for openstack-ci to point to github: DONE | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | mtaylor Optimize script to sync launchpad users/teams to gerrit users/groups | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | this is effectively done - this should be rolled out today | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | (once it gets reviewed and merged, of course) | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | mtaylor finish migrating jenkins jobs from running on master to running on slaves | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | this is also essentially done. there was a set of jobs that ttx put back on master during milestone release that should get fixed (there was a path issue) | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | #action mtaylor fix the milestone-proposed jenkins jobs to be able to run on the slaves | 19:08 |
| ttx | ands I would do it again, anytime :P | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | hehe | 19:09 |
| soren | Is there an agenda anywhere, btw? | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/CITeamMeeting | 19:09 |
| soren | ta | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | Blueprints are up is probably a holdover from a previous version of the page ... | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | s/probably// | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | #topic Open discussion | 19:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 19:10 | |
| mtaylor | well - for whoever is interested - the git/gerrit transition is fully underway with keystone (after a few initial bumps in the road) | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | and we are going to get glance moved over on thursday | 19:11 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:12 | |
| mtaylor | which should be slightly more telling from a process assessment perspective, as they are used to using the current process | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | soren: do the tarball_script.sh and/or ppa_script.sh need changed for glance if it's in git and not bzr? | 19:13 |
| soren | Yes. | 19:13 |
| soren | I think so, at least. | 19:13 |
| soren | I forget if I actually implemented support for git in there, but if I did, it's not tested. | 19:14 |
| soren | (since at the time there weren't any projects in git) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | good point :) | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | well, those are in openstack/openstack-ci on github and managed by gerrit now - and should get auto-updated on the slaves if you merge changes in to the repo | 19:15 |
| soren | Ok- | 19:15 |
| soren | s/-/./ | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | (I added some fun with bzr checkouts to handle the versions files with stuff running on slaves ... feel free to punch me in the face for any of that) | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | #action soren update tarball_script.sh and ppa_script.sh to work with git for glance transition | 19:16 |
| * alekibango loves git | 19:17 | |
| mtaylor | heh | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | well, hopefully alekibango will love gerrit as well | 19:17 |
| alekibango | will try :) | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | we should have some new baremetal boxes in the next week or two - and as soon as we do we'll work with termie to get some install and test stuff up and going | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | anything else from anybody? | 19:22 |
| soren | Nope. | 19:23 |
| jaypipes | I do! | 19:26 |
| jaypipes | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+spec/glance-upgrade | 19:27 |
| jaypipes | I was hoping to discuss how we continually test upgrade paths? | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | yes. this will be MUCH easier once we have jclouds plugin finished | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | and/or once we have bare metal machines and magic install on them from termie | 19:28 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:28 | |
| mtaylor | (actually, upgrade paths will probably be testable on cloud servers without using bare metal) | 19:28 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: were you answering my question above? | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: yes | 19:28 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ah, sorry. yes, I think cloud servers would be easier... | 19:29 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: but I'd like some help desigining the jenkins job for it, if that's ok? | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: totally | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: I think the main key is that that job wants a clean env to start with | 19:29 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: ok, maybe next week we can flesh it out on an ehterpad or something. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | yes | 19:29 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: right | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | #action jaypipes design upgrade path jenkins job with mtaylor | 19:30 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: and then a registry database migrated to trunk, then upgrade, check registry db ok, run tests, etc | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | yay! I finally have someone else who has a vested interest in getting jclouds jenkins plugin finished :) | 19:30 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: can you gimme some more details on why jclouds is a critical thing there? just curious. | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: that lets us tell jenkins that to run a job we want a particular kind of resource, and it jenkins will create it at the top of the job and then destroy it after the job | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: we can obviously do this by hand and stuff | 19:31 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: oh, nice. ok, that sounds perfect. | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: but given the plugin is at about 90% anyway and will allow us to describe the thing we _actually_ want the job to do, rather than the setup/teardown mechanics. :) | 19:32 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: btw, you meet up with termie? he was looking for you earlier. | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: yup. we did some chatting | 19:32 |
| jaypipes | coolio. | 19:32 |
| *** adrian17od has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:36 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | ok. that seems to be about all we have for today | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:45 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 2 19:45:17 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:45 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.html | 19:45 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.txt | 19:45 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.log.html | 19:45 |
| *** Tv_ has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| notmyname | meeting time? | 20:00 |
| eday | anything on the agenda? | 20:00 |
| notmyname | "previous action items" | 20:01 |
| jbryce | hi guys | 20:01 |
| jbryce | i am still running behind on my previous action item. | 20:01 |
| vishy | hihi | 20:02 |
| jbryce | anyone have anything they want to discuss that they didn't add to the agenda page? | 20:02 |
| notmyname | jbryce: are you still in the process of writing up your thoughts on the whole automony thing and sending it out? | 20:03 |
| notmyname | what about the TM stuff. is that for the PPB to take up? | 20:03 |
| jbryce | notmyname: i am still in the process of writing that up, yes. | 20:03 |
| soren | notmyname: TM? | 20:03 |
| eday | trademark | 20:04 |
| soren | Ah. | 20:04 |
| soren | Of course :) | 20:04 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:04 |
| jbryce | on the trademark stuff, josh sent a note out to a number of community members to get input on putting together a faithful implementation test suite definition | 20:04 |
| ewanmellor | I've signed up with Josh to work on that. | 20:04 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:04 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 2 20:04:55 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:04 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:04 |
| jbryce | we can go ahead and give these updates on the record i suppose... | 20:05 |
| jbryce | #topic previous action items | 20:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "previous action items" | 20:05 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:05 |
| dendrobates | o/ | 20:05 |
| jbryce | i am still trying to get project model thoughts together around autonomy, common tooling, process for vetting options. so i am running behind on that. | 20:05 |
| jbryce | josh mckenty has formed up a group that has agreed to work on putting together some specifications for a Faithful Implementation Test Suite (FITS). if any of you want to be involved, ping me or josh | 20:06 |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:06 | |
| jbryce | the goal is to have a spec and a testing mechanism within the next couple of months that can be run against an implementation to determine if it meets the minimum requirements to be called "openstack" | 20:07 |
| *** med_out is now known as med | 20:07 | |
| *** med is now known as medberry | 20:07 | |
| jbryce | they haven't really started much work on it yet, so again...now's the time to jump in if you have an opinion on it | 20:07 |
| jbryce | what comes out of that effort will almost certainly become part of the trademark use policy | 20:08 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: do you want to briefly fill people in on freecloud? it would probably be good for this group to have awareness of that as well. | 20:09 |
| notmyname | so does that mean that trademark stuff is in our purview or does that belong to someone else? | 20:09 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: sure thing. | 20:09 |
| jaypipes | The FreeCloud project has made some good progress. We've secured datacenter space, some hardware, and have a plan for an initial 2-zone implementation that will showcase two reference architectures, with more zones added in future buildouts. | 20:11 |
| jaypipes | http://wiki.openstack.org/FreeCloud | 20:11 |
| jbryce | notmyname: trademark policy is not but we've been asked to help define technical standards around usage | 20:11 |
| jaypipes | We're working with Cisco, Dell, HP, NTT Labs and Novell/MSFT right now. Others are more than welcome to email me and I can go into further detail on what the projet is about. Think: Eucalyptus community Cloud, but for different OpenStack reference architectures. | 20:12 |
| ttx | jbryce, jaypipes: could be good for PPB to formally accept to push git+gerrit in "almost accepted option" to justify pushing Glance (a core project) to using it | 20:12 |
| jaypipes | ttx: I think jbryce is working on finalizing that stuff. is that correct, jbryce? | 20:13 |
| jbryce | have people reviewed the git+gerrit process enough to vote on it? | 20:13 |
| ttx | jaypipes: ok. because I feel a bit uncomfortable pushing a core project to use it while we said the PPB voted on vetted options. | 20:13 |
| ttx | I'm ok with a derogation though. | 20:14 |
| eday | well, it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem. we don't have enough feedback to make such a vote, no? which was the point of moving glance? | 20:14 |
| jaypipes | eday: we've gotten feedback from keystone so far, and yes, Glance was meant as another test. | 20:15 |
| mtaylor | however - I sort of should point out that when we say "test" here - we really mean "test to make sure that nothing is catastrophically wrong" not - initial toe-in-the-water test | 20:16 |
| ttx | eday: we could formally decide that Glance is the last field test, and exceptionally a core project. | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: yes, true. | 20:16 |
| mtaylor | wouldn't be insane to provisionally vote on git/gerrit - or to vote on the direction with a caveat that it's possible that a technical showstopper might be encountered | 20:16 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:17 | |
| eday | before making a vote, I would love to see feedback from folks who were initially pushing for git, so we should encourage them to make a contribution and review on keystone or glance | 20:17 |
| mtaylor | but now I'm just babbling | 20:17 |
| ttx | mtaylor: we can indeed vote on "it's ok, if Glance transition works" | 20:17 |
| jaypipes | I think the issue is whether the Swift team is interested in using Gerrit. | 20:17 |
| eday | ttx: do we really need to vote for that? :) | 20:17 |
| jaypipes | all other teams seem to have indicated they are on board with it. | 20:17 |
| jaypipes | notmyname, creiht? | 20:18 |
| mtaylor | notmyname: you in bro? | 20:18 |
| notmyname | I agree with eday | 20:18 |
| eday | would like to hear termie's feedback too | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: well, I believe you and creiht were two of the folks intiially pushing for git, so I encourage both of you to make a contribution and review on keystone or glance. :) | 20:19 |
| *** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| creiht | I was mainly voicing my opinion as that seemed to be the opinion of many in the openstack community, not just those of the swift team | 20:20 |
| jaypipes | otherwise, we're just going to keep spinning our wheels and revisiting this same conversation every week :) | 20:20 |
| eday | how about an action item to pick 3 folks who were pushing for git, and to get a review of gh/gerrit process out of them? | 20:20 |
| pvo | some of guys may be interested… | 20:21 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: do you think you could do that? | 20:21 |
| creiht | if we are switching to git just because of the swift team, then that is fail | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | creiht: you and notmyname were two of the most vocal voices for git. I would hope you two would give the setup a spin? in addition, could you suggest other specific community members that would do so as weel that wanted to move so badly? | 20:21 |
| eday | i nominate termie for one of them, since he led the GH discussion at the last summit | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | tr3buchet: you too, right? | 20:21 |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:21 | |
| jbryce | i think termie is a good choice | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | pvo: if you, dabo and tr3buchet would give it a spin, that would be appreciated. | 20:22 |
| notmyname | I would suggest that there should be someone from each of the projects | 20:22 |
| creiht | jaypipes: I imagine if you ask, you will likely find people who will give you their opinion | 20:22 |
| notmyname | nova, swift, glance, dashboard | 20:22 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| *** Tv_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:22 | |
| mtaylor | yes. I think that opionions from folks are great | 20:22 |
| tr3buchet | jaypipes: i definitely +1 git if that's what you are asking | 20:22 |
| pvo | jaypipes: docs on the wiki? | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | tr3buchet: no, that's not what I'm asking. | 20:22 |
| jaypipes | pvo: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow | 20:22 |
| mtaylor | HOWEVER, I would caution (which is the reason we wanted to suck in people) ... you kind of actually have to use it for something real for a couple of iters | 20:22 |
| pvo | jaypipes: right on. thanks. | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | tr3buchet: I'm asking you to give the Gerrit/GH setup a spin by becoming a Keystone or Glance contirbutor and testing the code review proecess. | 20:23 |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:23 | |
| termie | eday, jbryce: yeah i suppose i could deal with that | 20:23 |
| jbryce | termie: grazi | 20:23 |
| tr3buchet | jaypipes: oh i see. i'd love to | 20:23 |
| termie | eday, jbryce: would want somebody to shoot me the existing documentation about how they think i should use it | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | tr3buchet: rock. | 20:23 |
| jk0 | I can help too | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | notmyname, creiht: please do so yourselves. | 20:23 |
| jbryce | termie: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow | 20:23 |
| pvo | termie: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | jk0: ty | 20:23 |
| vishy | i just did a push to keystone using it. We'll see how the review process goes | 20:24 |
| termie | coolness | 20:24 |
| jaypipes | vishy: long patch.. going through it now. :) | 20:24 |
| mtaylor | there is a UI crapiness atm ... just to be aware of - but it's been fixed by nokia so we should be able to roll it out soon | 20:24 |
| vishy | jaypipes: quite a bit of it is whitespace...they don't have pep8 barrier on apparently | 20:24 |
| mtaylor | vishy: nope. it's coming as soon as they can get their pep8 cleaned :) | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | vishy: they have a pylint barrier... not sure about pep8. | 20:25 |
| creiht | jaypipes: perhaps a mailing list email to solicit feedback is in order? | 20:26 |
| jaypipes | creiht: sure, I will do so. | 20:26 |
| mtaylor | termie, tr3buchet, notmyname, creiht, jk0: feel free to ping jeblair or myself as you start poking if you run in to issues | 20:26 |
| jeblair | o/ | 20:26 |
| tr3buchet | sure thing | 20:27 |
| jk0 | cool | 20:27 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor, jeblair: I'll draft an email to th ML. | 20:27 |
| jbryce | so delay a vote until we get feedback from the group of testers | 20:27 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: watch out - the local git gods are about to start poking us :) | 20:28 |
| jbryce | can we try to get feedback in the next week and vote at the next meeting? | 20:28 |
| termie | WHO DARES SPEAK OF ME | 20:28 |
| jaypipes | would be good to get past this... | 20:28 |
| * mtaylor cowers appropriately | 20:28 | |
| jbryce | jaypipes: amen | 20:28 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor and jeblair have done a lot of work on this that would go to waste. | 20:28 |
| jbryce | anyone have other topics? | 20:29 |
| jaypipes | not from me. | 20:30 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:30 |
| jbryce | thanks everyone | 20:31 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:31 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 2 20:31:38 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:31 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.html | 20:31 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.txt | 20:31 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.log.html | 20:31 |
| *** johan_-_ has left #openstack-meeting | 20:31 | |
| jaypipes | jeblair: whatcha think about sleepsonthefloor's last comment on https://review.openstack.org/#change,122? What is the best practice or protocol there? | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | jeblair: sorry, I'll repost in #openstack-dev | 20:34 |
| *** zns has left #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:37 | |
| vishy | jaypipes: yeah that is due to my big keystone refactor. You need to pass ids and is_admin (and roles preferrably) into the context when you create it now | 20:38 |
| jaypipes | vishy: oh, I'm not disputing sleepsonthefloor | 20:38 |
| jaypipes | vishy: just wondering if/how we can merge sleepsonthefloor's changeset into Vek's right in the code review.. | 20:39 |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:39 | |
| jaypipes | vishy: sorry, was confusing GH's fork-and-edit functionality with Gerrit's code review... losing my sanity today. :( | 20:44 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:44 | |
| vishy | :) | 20:44 |
| * jk0 is really interested in seeing the new UI for gerret | 20:45 | |
| jk0 | the one now is... interesting | 20:45 |
| creiht | interesting, is an interesting way to describe it :) | 20:46 |
| jk0 | :) | 20:47 |
| tr3buchet | ha | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | jk0: yeah. no rounded corners... | 20:48 |
| jk0 | exactly. someone needs to make this web2.0 compliant | 20:48 |
| jk0 | :) | 20:49 |
| _cerberus_ | needs moar dropshadow | 20:49 |
| jk0 | maybe an 8-bit logo | 20:49 |
| jaypipes | yeah, definitely need to call up the UI experts at GitHub. | 20:49 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| *** adrian17od has quit IRC | 20:50 | |
| creiht | They must have hired the guys who designed the launchpad ui | 20:51 |
| creiht | ;) | 20:51 |
| jaypipes | creiht: heh, I think it might be worse. | 20:51 |
| jk0 | haha, I agree with jay on this one | 20:52 |
| jeblair | gerrit is open source, and from what i've read, would appreciate ui patches. since we run our own server, we can apply those kinds of changes locally, and they would probably be well received upstream. ui designers welcome. :) | 20:52 |
| heckj | new, then it would be across multiple sites as well. This is all on one site... | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | creiht: and the guys who designed LP are actually listening here, and the Gerrit UI designers aren't. ;) | 20:53 |
| creiht | programmer 1: Hey, I don't like this tool | 20:53 |
| jaypipes | at least it's open source and modifiable. *cough* GitHub. | 20:53 |
| creiht | Pointy hair dude: Ok, here's one you like less, so you will appreciate the current one | 20:53 |
| jaypipes | creiht: heh, nice. :) | 20:54 |
| jk0 | I thought we were going to be using github for everything | 20:54 |
| jk0 | did that change or was it ever the case? | 20:54 |
| creiht | jk0: bait and switch :) | 20:54 |
| jaypipes | ugh. | 20:55 |
| heckj | to be fair, I think Github wouldn't put in anything that would allow us to have metadata on a pull request - kind of needed for our process | 20:55 |
| *** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| * creiht is just joking | 20:55 | |
| jk0 | :) | 20:55 |
| creiht | jeez | 20:55 |
| creiht | :) | 20:55 |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jk0 | I could have just heard/read things wrong | 20:55 |
| * heckj did find out there's a capacity of adding labels to merge requests - but it's API only, not in the UI. | 20:55 | |
| jaypipes | creiht: the gerrit interface vs MS Outlook Web Access. death match of the horrific UIs? ;) | 20:56 |
| * jaypipes stabs OWA. | 20:56 | |
| heckj | jaypipes: Oooh - that's cold | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | heckj: :) | 20:56 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I don't understand why you need it. I avoid it quite successfully. | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | ttx: wish I could. tried numerous things... | 20:56 |
| *** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| jaypipes | quick, hide, it's Peter. | 20:57 |
| creiht | step 1: match process to match current tool | 20:57 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I use Thunderbird, which is hardly "special". | 20:57 |
| primeministerp1 | hahaha | 20:57 |
| creiht | step 2: new tool doesn't work because it doesn't match the process | 20:57 |
| creiht | step 3: ??? | 20:57 |
| jaypipes | creiht: so you're saying we should abandon processes and just adapt the process to the tool? | 20:58 |
| creiht | yes that is exactly what I am saying ;P | 20:58 |
| ttx | jaypipes: only if the tool looks good. | 20:58 |
| * jaypipes relishes these last two minutes b4 the meetings with creiht :) | 20:58 | |
| Vek | all I know is, today, I pushed a merge up to launchpad, then someone told me there was a conflict *in* the merge-prop...which *didn't* show up on my copy. Turned out I hadn't merged the latest trunk. That was...rather disturbing... | 20:58 |
| jaypipes | Vek: the pitfalls of a nearly-constant-changing trunk. | 20:59 |
| Vek | yeah, no kidding. | 20:59 |
| creiht | Vek: the conflict should show up in the diff in the review | 20:59 |
| creiht | or merge prop | 20:59 |
| jaypipes | ttx: ok, let's go! :) | 21:00 |
| *** Tushar269 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| Vek | creiht: it did, it just threw me for a loop, because I knew it wasn't in my own code. | 21:00 |
| ttx | ... | 21:00 |
| ttx | vishy, notmyname: still around ? | 21:00 |
| notmyname | yes | 21:00 |
| *** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| creiht | Vek: yeah that can be confusing the first time it happens | 21:00 |
| *** dtblomquist has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| Vek | there was no warning for me, either. | 21:01 |
| Vek | an email telling me to merge trunk would have been nice; I wouldn't have noticed except for jk0 telling me, "you have a conflict" | 21:01 |
| Vek | and I still had no clue where it had come from. | 21:01 |
| ttx | waiting a bit for vishy to joint | 21:01 |
| ttx | or join | 21:01 |
| Vek | anyway... | 21:02 |
| * Vek switches subjects | 21:02 | |
| ttx | let's start, he will catch up | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 2 21:02:29 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:02 |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly OpenStack team meeting... | 21:02 |
| ttx | Today's agenda is at: | 21:02 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:02 |
| notmyname | when do we add incubated projects to the agenda? | 21:03 |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| jaypipes | notmyname: sorry, that was my action item I think when ttx was away. | 21:03 |
| vishy | i'm here | 21:03 |
| ttx | notmyname: ah. We can have an incubated news topic, after Nova | 21:03 |
| jaypipes | ttx: my apologies. dropped the ball on that one. I was supposed to make sure dash and keystone were updating on this meeting. | 21:03 |
| ttx | willdo | 21:04 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| ttx | #topic Postmortem feedback for 1.4.2/diablo-3 release | 21:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Postmortem feedback for 1.4.2/diablo-3 release" | 21:04 | |
| ttx | Last week we released Swift 1.4.2 and the diablo-3 milestone for Glance/Nova | 21:04 |
| ttx | It went well, though we had a bit of delay for diablo-3 to try to sneak some Glance bugfixes | 21:04 |
| ttx | Anything that went wrong from your perspective and that we need to fix ? | 21:04 |
| jaypipes | ttx: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+spec/glance-upgrade | 21:05 |
| jaypipes | ttx: we need to work on that one for next milestone release... | 21:05 |
| ttx | sounds like a good idea | 21:05 |
| ttx | jaypipes: we also need a bzr-tarball-delta job | 21:05 |
| ttx | that would have caught the absence of glance-scrubber early | 21:06 |
| jaypipes | yup. | 21:06 |
| ttx | we have a CI bug for that. mtaylor: do you prefer a Blueprint ? | 21:06 |
| ttx | anything else ? | 21:06 |
| mtaylor | ttx: bug is fine | 21:07 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:07 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:07 |
| ttx | Do you have a timeframe for 1.4.3 already ? | 21:07 |
| notmyname | 1.4.2 is done | 21:07 |
| notmyname | I was looking at 1.4.3 today | 21:07 |
| mtaylor | Vek: sorry, reading scrollback - in the new world order, you will get an email | 21:07 |
| ttx | diablo-4 is scheduled on August 25, in case you want to align :) | 21:07 |
| notmyname | I think we will have time for only one more release before diablo (the version that will be in diablo) and still have time for docs, etc | 21:08 |
| notmyname | I was thinking sometime around the first week of september, but I haven't settled on anything yet | 21:08 |
| ttx | yes, makes sense | 21:08 |
| notmyname | 8-25 is a good date to know. I'll keep it in mind | 21:08 |
| ttx | notmyname: Any features already planned for that version ? | 21:08 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| notmyname | nothing big. whatever we can get done. we've finished everything that was promised for diablo, so I expect 1.4.3 to simply be bug fixes and perhaps a few small things. we're investigating time-limited files, for example | 21:09 |
| ttx | would be a cool feature, indeed | 21:10 |
| notmyname | indeed | 21:10 |
| ttx | notmyname: Other announcements/comments ? | 21:10 |
| notmyname | ya | 21:10 |
| notmyname | I hope that scaling down swift deploys can be done in essex (deploy on <5 servers). we need community input there | 21:11 |
| ttx | you need input before the design summit ? | 21:11 |
| notmyname | it's something that's needed, but not something current devs have a lot of insight to since we have existing, large clusters | 21:11 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 21:12 | |
| notmyname | no | 21:12 |
| notmyname | nothing needed before the design summit | 21:12 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have questions on Swift... | 21:12 |
| notmyname | also, I guess PTL elections are coming soon, so get your commits in if you want to vote | 21:12 |
| heckj | 0/ | 21:12 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I might have some input for you on that with FreeCloud... I'll ley you know. | 21:12 |
| ttx | notmyname: I committed version changes, does that count ? :) | 21:13 |
| heckj | What's the status of keystone authN integration with Swift? | 21:13 |
| jaypipes | lol | 21:13 |
| notmyname | ttx: I think you're already there :-) | 21:13 |
| ttx | cool! | 21:13 |
| notmyname | heckj: great question! ask the keystone people :-) | 21:13 |
| Vek | heckj: there's a middleware checked in to keystone; that's about all I know. | 21:13 |
| heckj | notmyname: swift is already to go once Keystone finishes something? | 21:13 |
| notmyname | heckj: as far as we know | 21:14 |
| heckj | notmyname: cool, thanks | 21:14 |
| ttx | +#topic Glance status | 21:14 |
| ttx | ow | 21:14 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:14 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:14 | |
| jaypipes | https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-4 | 21:14 |
| ttx | Looks good to me... | 21:14 |
| jaypipes | We're kickin' ass on D4. | 21:14 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 21:15 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: keystone integration blocks another diablo-4 spec, how far is it ? | 21:15 |
| jaypipes | thx to the Brians, Vek, s1rp, jkoelker, and johan | 21:15 |
| *** stiekes has quit IRC | 21:15 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: Vek needs to complete a functional test with auth spun up. | 21:15 |
| * Vek threw a glance_auth_token.py middleware into keystone | 21:16 | |
| *** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:16 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: Announcements, comments ? | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | ttx: we need to have a common way of starting Keystone servers, daemonized when there could be other keystone servers runing on the box... | 21:16 |
| jaypipes | ttx: basically, what glance-control gives us in Glance (and swift-init in Swift) | 21:16 |
| *** martine_ has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: no announcements. currenlty a few outstanding packaging things mtaylor is working on. we're looking good to hit D4. | 21:17 |
| ttx | ok | 21:17 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have a question on Glance. | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | ttx: oh, and moving to Gerrit/GH on Thursday morning. That little thing. :) | 21:17 |
| ttx | bah! almost nothing. | 21:17 |
| jaypipes | heh | 21:18 |
| mtaylor | piece of cake | 21:18 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:18 | |
| ttx | vishy: yo! | 21:18 |
| vishy | heyo! | 21:18 |
| *** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:18 | |
| ttx | Looking at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-4 | 21:18 |
| ttx | Still a bit work in progress, with some specs being added | 21:19 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| ttx | like the networking integration stuff that is being split into more trackable bits | 21:19 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| ttx | vishy: I hope that we can get it into order by the end of the week ? | 21:19 |
| danwent | ttx: just broke up the blueprints today | 21:20 |
| vishy | yes | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy, soren: I had one question already, about EC2 Id compatibility | 21:20 |
| danwent | should be able to merge prop at least one of them in the next few days | 21:20 |
| vishy | blueprints should be prioritized properly in the next couple of days | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy, soren: do we have a clear plan forward there ? | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy, soren: it's marked essential, so I'm getting nervous | 21:20 |
| ttx | because from where I stand it's still very much under discussion. | 21:21 |
| vishy | I'm actually comfortable shipping without changes and saying that ec2_api is only supported in one zone configs | 21:21 |
| soren | Me too. | 21:21 |
| ttx | vishy: ok, so we can at least downgrade to "High" | 21:21 |
| soren | It's not "essential" for sure. | 21:22 |
| ttx | soren: ok, so we can at least downgrade to "Medium" :) | 21:22 |
| *** stiekes has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| * ttx sets to "High" to drop some pressure | 21:22 | |
| vishy | soren: iirc you were opposed to the idea of a mapping layer at the top for ec2_ids | 21:22 |
| vishy | soren: although I still think it is the easiest way forward | 21:22 |
| ttx | danwent: saw that, thanks. | 21:23 |
| *** jakedahn_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| soren | vishy: I think that's a dreadful idea, yes. | 21:24 |
| jaypipes | well, at least you don't feel that strongly, soren. :) | 21:24 |
| comstud | haha | 21:24 |
| vishy | could also use someone for this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/aws-api-validation | 21:24 |
| comstud | I'm not sure I've seen a better idea. | 21:24 |
| soren | vishy: ...but hardly anyone seems to care about the EC2 API, so there seems to be little chance of going any other route. | 21:24 |
| ttx | soren: what would be an alternate solution ? | 21:25 |
| tr3buchet | jaypipes: nice one ;) | 21:25 |
| vishy | ttx: we discussed it in great detail in the ml thread. | 21:25 |
| soren | ttx: Using an ID generation mechanism that doesn't require one of our API's to have its own mapping system. | 21:25 |
| ttx | soren: which involves chaging the rest of Nova again. gotcha | 21:26 |
| soren | ttx: I don't think I'm int he sort of mood where I can give an objective run-down of the options. | 21:26 |
| *** cp16net has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| ttx | soren: wel, you can't be asked to implement a solution you find dreadful, so at the very least, that would need to be reassigned | 21:27 |
| jaypipes | soren, vishy: is this something that can be resolved in the next few days? | 21:27 |
| *** iemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:27 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| *** jakedahn_ is now known as jakedahn | 21:27 | |
| *** iemmn has left #openstack-meeting | 21:28 | |
| comstud | soren: I agree with that train of thought, it just feels rather limiting given how ec2 instance ids are used. | 21:28 |
| soren | ttx: It does seem natural that the person who actually seems to care about the EC2 API actually makes sure it works. | 21:28 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:28 | |
| ttx | soren: fair enough | 21:28 |
| jaypipes | soren: there's more than you that care about the EC2 API, trust me. Lots of NTT folks do as well. | 21:28 |
| soren | jaypipes: I doubt it. I've given up pursuing happiness on that particular endeavour. | 21:29 |
| jaypipes | soren: ok then. let's shelve this for offline. | 21:29 |
| ttx | ok -- In all cases, the diablo-4 plan should result in a lot of branches landing. | 21:29 |
| ttx | We need to propose early and review early, and merge what can be merged asap | 21:29 |
| ttx | For example, comments on the last part of boot-from-volume have apparently been adressed: | 21:30 |
| ttx | https://code.launchpad.net/~yamahata/nova/boot-from-volume-2/+merge/68496 | 21:30 |
| ttx | blamar, devcamcar, other nova-core: please rereview it and get it off the table if it's ready. | 21:30 |
| ttx | vishy: more comments ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | just main focus on early reviews would be great, since we're trying to get a lot of stuff in | 21:31 |
| ttx | Questions for Nova PTL ? | 21:31 |
| ttx | #topic Post-D4 branch handling for Nova and Glance | 21:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Post-D4 branch handling for Nova and Glance" | 21:31 | |
| ttx | jaypipes, vishy: I want to discuss how to handle the post-d4, feature-frozen pre-diablo-release timeframe | 21:32 |
| ttx | Like I already told you in May, I think we have two options: | 21:32 |
| ttx | "Long" one: No more Diablo features after August 22, which is when the diablo-4 milestone branch needs to be created | 21:32 |
| ttx | We use the last milestone branch as the 2011.3 release branch. Trunk development switches to Essex. | 21:32 |
| ttx | Unrestricted bugfixes land in release branch and get ported to trunk, until we switch to targeted bugfixes | 21:33 |
| ttx | (after that only specific fixes land in release branch and get ported to trunk, others go directly/only to trunk). | 21:33 |
| ttx | "Short" one: Features should have landed by diablo-4, but 2011.3 release branch is only cut on September 8th | 21:33 |
| ttx | so what lands in Diablo remains in pure nova-core control for two more weeks | 21:33 |
| ttx | After that date only targeted bugfixes are accepted, and trunk development switches to Essex | 21:34 |
| ttx | Advantages of long one: diablo-4 contains all features and serves as beta. Trunk is always open(though switched to Essex early) | 21:34 |
| ttx | Drawbacks of long one: August 22 is early. 4 long weeks of tracking and proposing bugfixes to two parallel branches | 21:34 |
| ttx | Advantages of short one: More team focus on bugfixes. "Only" two weeks of parallel branches | 21:34 |
| jaypipes | ttx: I would prefer the shorter one for Glance. | 21:34 |
| ttx | Drawback of short one: Features are not very welcome in trunk for 2 weeks (soft feature freeze) | 21:35 |
| ttx | jaypipes: i also kinda prefer the short option | 21:35 |
| jaypipes | vishy: ? | 21:35 |
| vishy | short | 21:35 |
| ttx | but it runs a bit counter to the "always open trunk" philosophy we decided at the design summit | 21:35 |
| *** shwetaap has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| ttx | If you both are comfortable with a soft feature freeze, then I'm ok too | 21:35 |
| vishy | true | 21:35 |
| jaypipes | ttx: sure, but this is only once every 6 months... | 21:36 |
| ttx | and only two weeks. | 21:36 |
| jaypipes | ttx: and the goal here is integration with other projects and bug fixing... | 21:36 |
| jaypipes | and testing | 21:36 |
| vishy | i've noticed that merging in fixes is a little painful because people don't often make them off of the release branch | 21:36 |
| vishy | so you have to rebase the changes and repropose them against the release branch, which also creates divergent history | 21:37 |
| jaypipes | yep. | 21:37 |
| jaypipes | vishy: and the long option would only make that process longer... | 21:37 |
| vishy | right | 21:37 |
| vishy | so not merging features into trunk for two weeks seems ok | 21:37 |
| ttx | OK, let's go with "short" and try to see how to we can simplify dual-proposal process | 21:37 |
| vishy | its not as if they can't still propose them for review to get eyes on them | 21:38 |
| ttx | vishy: right, at least postpone merging them for a couple weeks, until Essex opens. | 21:38 |
| jaypipes | ya | 21:38 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects news | 21:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news" | 21:38 | |
| jaypipes | devcamcar: anything on dash you want to bring up? | 21:39 |
| zykes- | is quantum incubated yet ? | 21:39 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: nope. | 21:39 |
| jaypipes | zykes-: keystone and dashboard right now. | 21:39 |
| zykes- | ah | 21:39 |
| * jaypipes searches for zns.. | 21:39 | |
| ttx | zykes-: not proposed yet. | 21:39 |
| danwent | zykes: you can stay in the room for the quantum discussion at the top of the hour | 21:40 |
| zykes- | danwent: ? | 21:40 |
| zykes- | ah | 21:40 |
| ttx | ok, sounds like nobody is there from incubated projects | 21:40 |
| * jaypipes asked dolphm to join us for a status update on keystone. | 21:41 | |
| Vek | jaypipes is trying to get one | 21:41 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:41 | |
| jaypipes | dolphm: welcome! | 21:41 |
| ttx | I'll make sure they get the news that they have a meeting topic now :) This was added a bit late. | 21:41 |
| dolphm | jaypipes: thank you | 21:41 |
| jaypipes | dolphm: wondering if you want to update the community on keystone? anything you want to say about progress made, etc? | 21:41 |
| dolphm | hmmm... i don't have too much to say... | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | dolphm: ok, no worries if you don't. just wanted to give you all an opportunity. | 21:42 |
| jaypipes | dolphm: is there anything that the community can assist you with? anything you want to bring up regarding Gerrit? | 21:43 |
| dolphm | i'm glad to be on gerrit / jenkins - that's pretty much the story of my week | 21:43 |
| ttx | dolphm: Does Keystone rock ? | 21:43 |
| dolphm | ttx: yes, by default | 21:43 |
| ttx | ok, that's the spirit ! | 21:43 |
| jaypipes | lol :) | 21:43 |
| jaypipes | ok, enough harrassing dolphm | 21:43 |
| Vek | it's a specially shaped rock, in fact. | 21:44 |
| jaypipes | heh | 21:44 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:44 | |
| primeministerp1 | hey all | 21:44 |
| * ttx opens the bar | 21:44 | |
| creiht | and one rock to bind them.... | 21:44 |
| primeministerp1 | brief note on hyper-v wins | 21:44 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: I like wins. | 21:44 |
| comstud | ttx: i have a nova scalability issue i'd like to point out | 21:44 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: go first | 21:44 |
| primeministerp1 | we'll be discussing the hyperv/openstack cloud in the interop lab at novell's brainshare in october | 21:44 |
| Vek | for "sucks" report: trying to merge code that depends on features that have been added to something else. | 21:44 |
| jaypipes | primeministerp1: ++ w00t. | 21:45 |
| primeministerp1 | hopefully we'll also be discussing it during the upcoming openstack conf as well | 21:45 |
| *** yogirackspace has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| ttx | primeministerp1: where/when is that exactly ? | 21:45 |
| primeministerp1 | so the novell one | 21:45 |
| primeministerp1 | is in Salt Lake City | 21:45 |
| primeministerp1 | the week after the openstack conf in boston | 21:45 |
| primeministerp1 | ideally we present the same material in both | 21:46 |
| primeministerp1 | so not really sure what the venu will be like, but it's a good opportunity to spread the word | 21:46 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: is that a brainstorming discussion, or a full-fledged presentation ? | 21:46 |
| primeministerp1 | full fledged presentation | 21:47 |
| ttx | ok, so more for the conference | 21:47 |
| primeministerp1 | yes | 21:47 |
| primeministerp1 | so I figure we can talk about the brief history | 21:47 |
| ttx | primeministerp1: the CTP should go out any time now | 21:47 |
| primeministerp1 | what we did | 21:47 |
| primeministerp1 | etc | 21:47 |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| ttx | comstud: ok, bad news now | 21:47 |
| primeministerp1 | ttx: great i'm planning on emailing spectorclan tomorrow about it | 21:48 |
| comstud | ok.. we have a bug: lp797770 | 21:48 |
| vishy | Vek: agreed, this is why I've been loathe to break out projects willy nilly | 21:48 |
| comstud | socket closed errrors on high load | 21:48 |
| ttx | bug 797770 | 21:48 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 797770 in nova "'Socket closed' during API stress test" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/797770 | 21:48 |
| ttx | comstud: bug which I'd like to see fixed before release, yes | 21:48 |
| comstud | was talking with eday... we've determined that the mysql engine sqlalchemy is using by default uses the mysql C library | 21:48 |
| comstud | so it's using libc socket calls... | 21:49 |
| comstud | eventlet cannot wrap these. | 21:49 |
| comstud | this means that any calls to mysql block until completed | 21:49 |
| Vek | *cough* | 21:49 |
| ttx | *cough* | 21:49 |
| comstud | right | 21:49 |
| comstud | so eventlet can't switch greenthreads and do other things while mysql queries are in progress | 21:49 |
| ttx | comstud: your "by default" seems to imply there is a solution | 21:50 |
| zykes- | ttx: is there any like "events.openstack.org" ? | 21:50 |
| comstud | there _is_ a 'pymysql' engine option for sqlalchemy... | 21:50 |
| comstud | it's a purely python module... but I'm not sure of it's stability | 21:50 |
| ttx | zykes-: hrm... maybe | 21:50 |
| creiht | comstud: you could put the db operations in a thread pool | 21:50 |
| comstud | creiht: Or that was my other suggestion :) | 21:50 |
| creiht | just another option | 21:50 |
| comstud | assuming the C code will unlock the GIL | 21:50 |
| comstud | which I'm sure it probably does | 21:50 |
| Tv_ | i've heard others use the thread pool trick | 21:50 |
| creiht | we do that for the sqlite dp operations in swift | 21:51 |
| creiht | db | 21:51 |
| Tv_ | i mean specifically to get around the gevent/eventlet issue | 21:51 |
| comstud | In any case.. it's possible using 'mysql+pymysql://' for the engine will get around the current issue... but I've been unable to verify it so far. | 21:51 |
| comstud | I just wanted to make ppl aware of this | 21:51 |
| Vek | what's keeping you from verifying it? | 21:51 |
| comstud | Vek: time... ant tried, but got some weird exception | 21:52 |
| ttx | comstud: thanks for the heads-up | 21:52 |
| comstud | I plan to look at it in the next couple of days | 21:52 |
| Vek | 'k | 21:52 |
| ttx | and for looking at that sort of bugs | 21:52 |
| comstud | if this doesn't solve it, it's possible we may want to think about threads. | 21:52 |
| ttx | zykes-: maybe http://openstack.org/community/events/ | 21:53 |
| creiht | comstud: http://eventlet.net/doc/modules/db_pool.html | 21:53 |
| zykes- | 0ok | 21:53 |
| creiht | abstracts some of that away, but not sure what would need to be done to make it work with sqla | 21:53 |
| ttx | anything else before we close ? | 21:53 |
| comstud | creiht: will take a look | 21:53 |
| annegentle | I appreciate the Keystone guys keeping their doc updated in openstack-manuals! | 21:54 |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| dolphm | annegentle: have we been doing that?! | 21:54 |
| annegentle | :) | 21:54 |
| Vek | haha :) | 21:54 |
| creiht | lol | 21:55 |
| ttx | on that good note... | 21:55 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:55 |
| dolphm | i thought we just deleted all our documentation and moved on | 21:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:55 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 2 21:55:25 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:55 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.html | 21:55 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.txt | 21:55 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.log.html | 21:55 |
| ttx | Thansk everyone ! | 21:55 |
| ttx | Thanks, even | 21:55 |
| annegentle | dolphm: it's tucked safely in openstack-manuals in incubation :) | 21:55 |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| comstud | ty! | 21:55 |
| dolphm | annegentle: i have some updates then :) | 21:55 |
| zykes- | what's the next meeting ? | 21:55 |
| *** comstud has left #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| ttx | The Network dudes. | 21:56 |
| markvoelker | zykes: netstack. http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 21:56 |
| annegentle | dolphm: cool! I'll merge 'em in whenever. | 21:56 |
| * markvoelker likes ttx's description better | 21:56 | |
| danwent | +1 | 21:56 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** annegentle has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** dabo has left #openstack-meeting | 21:57 | |
| *** dtblomquist has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| *** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| danwent | network dudes unite :) | 22:00 |
| salv | hail you people of the network | 22:00 |
| somik | :o/ | 22:00 |
| danwent | salv: you're one of us... what's with the "you people" :P | 22:01 |
| salv | right, I was thinking there was something wrong about my sentence... | 22:01 |
| *** rnirmal has left #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 2 22:01:59 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:02 |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| danwent | #link Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:02 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | #topic netstack updates | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "netstack updates" | 22:02 | |
| *** EdgarPerdomo has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | Several people have been asking about incubation. | 22:02 |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** jmeredit has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| EdgarPerdomo | Hello All | 22:02 |
| danwent | now that dashboard and keystone recently joined. | 22:02 |
| danwent | we'll be working toward this in the next few weeks. | 22:03 |
| danwent | one other thing that I saw that was pretty cool: | 22:03 |
| salv | at this stage, my first concern is jenkins integration and the system testing infrastructure. | 22:03 |
| zykes- | working towards ? | 22:03 |
| danwent | our states on launchpad: quantum has 23 active branches owned by 9 people and 4 teams. There were 135 commits by 16 people in the last month. | 22:03 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| danwent | 135 commits by 16 people in the last month.... very impressive | 22:04 |
| danwent | go team :) | 22:04 |
| * markvoelker cheers | 22:04 | |
| danwent | salv: agreed. I actually think there's a bit of a chicken and egg here | 22:04 |
| danwent | being incubated may make it clear that we can use the standard openstack infrastructure. either way, definitely want to work toward better system test and integration | 22:05 |
| somik | salv: I think the incubation gives us access to those resources too | 22:05 |
| salv | danwent: should we throw and decide between the chicken and the egg? | 22:05 |
| danwent | zykes: I think we'll be working toward a proposal... I'm not sure how quickly such things move though. | 22:05 |
| * salv remember we talked about setting up our own jenkins infrastructure | 22:05 | |
| danwent | salv: carlp said he was playing with jenkins, said that having something setup in d-4 timeframe woudl be reasonable | 22:06 |
| danwent | anyone want to take on that blueprint? | 22:06 |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-system-test | 22:06 |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| salv | Is carlp here for an update? | 22:07 |
| danwent | he's on the list, not sure if he's listening in | 22:07 |
| pvo | danwent: can we talk later about that blueprint? | 22:07 |
| danwent | pvo: sounds good. | 22:07 |
| pvo | I'm going to be looking at this very soon. | 22:07 |
| *** RamD has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| markvoelker | danwent, pvo: add me to the list please....may have some help there | 22:07 |
| pvo | markvoelker: sure thing | 22:07 |
| danwent | we'll use the netstack list, definitely | 22:07 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** edconzel_ is now known as edconzel | 22:08 | |
| markvoelker | awesomesauce then. | 22:08 |
| danwent | ok, we're going with salvatore's reverse agenda.... | 22:08 |
| danwent | #topic donabe status | 22:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe status" | 22:08 | |
| danwent | anyone here for this? | 22:08 |
| danwent | or melange? I believe troy is out. | 22:08 |
| markvoelker | I believe James had to leave town unexpectedly.... | 22:09 |
| RamD | nothing specific for this week | 22:09 |
| danwent | RamD: k, thanks. | 22:09 |
| danwent | Ok, we'll just move on to quantum | 22:09 |
| danwent | #topic quantum status | 22:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum status" | 22:09 | |
| danwent | we're starting to target things for milestones now: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/diablo-4 | 22:09 |
| danwent | If you have something major that you expect to land in this window, please try and target it against the milestone so everyone knows it is coming. | 22:10 |
| RamD | we will add few more for 802.1bqh and nx-os related bps | 22:10 |
| danwent | RamD: fantastic | 22:10 |
| danwent | Thanks to those folks doing all the reviews lately, we've been getting a lot of code merged | 22:10 |
| danwent | active merge props are here: https://code.launchpad.net/quantum/+activereviews | 22:11 |
| heckj | re: CI infrastructure - monty and crew are pretty open to expanding Jenkins as needed for related projects - unless you have some specific hardware needs, it should be pretty doable there, and I'm sure they're willing to help | 22:11 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:11 | |
| salv | danwent: are we adopting the same approach as nova? | 22:11 |
| danwent | heckj, thanks. | 22:11 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:11 | |
| salv | All features in D-4, then testing and bug-fixes for diablo-release | 22:11 |
| danwent | heckj, can you email me so I can include you on the thread we have on that? | 22:11 |
| danwent | salv: yes, I'd like to get any major features into D-4 | 22:12 |
| danwent | salv: then focus on testing, packaging, and everyone's favorite: documentation :) | 22:12 |
| salv | k. So we should add authN/authZ, and I think we should agree in this meeting what we expect to deliver. | 22:12 |
| Tv_ | salv: i can sub in for carlp (sorry, was checking email) | 22:12 |
| markvoelker | salv: +1, I was actually going to bring up Keystone integration | 22:12 |
| *** yogirackspace has left #openstack-meeting | 22:12 | |
| RamD | On jenkins related requirement ...it would be great to track it in terms what are the requirements e.g. access to physical hw infra if any | 22:13 |
| danwent | I think we can target the basic keystone integration for D-4, inline with our previous discussion. | 22:13 |
| salv | Tv_: thanks. carlp said he was looking into CI testing for quantum. However pvo suggested to discuss this topic later on the meeting. | 22:13 |
| danwent | (i.e., not role-based access control, just basic protections so one tenant can't mess with another tenant's stuff) | 22:13 |
| salv | by "basic" we mean authentication only? | 22:14 |
| danwent | #action: danwent start email thread with folks about CI/systemtest | 22:14 |
| salv | danwent: sorry I missed your last line | 22:14 |
| salv | danwent: agree on the target for authN/authZ in D-4 | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv: that seems pretty achievable in the short time period. we already have a pretty full plate with all of the nova changes. | 22:14 |
| danwent | salv: great | 22:15 |
| Tv_ | salv: all i can really say with certainty is we want to do a *lot* more with openstack, it's just a question of time.. especially we're interested in the non-VLAN deployment model | 22:15 |
| mtaylor | yes. quite willing to pull stuff in to CI | 22:15 |
| mtaylor | danwent: make sure I'm on that thread :) | 22:15 |
| markvoelker | danwent, salv: well, one tenant not messing with another's stuff sort of implies some authz and authn, no? E.g. you have to authenticate to say who you are and then we have to say "you are not authorized to touch the other guy's stuff"? | 22:15 |
| danwent | Ok, Salvatore, want to give a brief update on the API spec work ? | 22:15 |
| salv | markvoelker: we'll get to that later... | 22:16 |
| danwent | mtaylor: will do (thank god these meetings are archived :P) | 22:16 |
| salv | API Spec. | 22:16 |
| salv | My goal is to "lock down" the specification by the end of the week, and label it "1.0". | 22:16 |
| danwent | mark: agreed, it is just a very simple authorization model | 22:16 |
| salv | I would like to know if there's anything you would like to change in the current spec. | 22:17 |
| danwent | markvoelker: what about the labels you mentioned? | 22:17 |
| salv | I've updated it to make it more compliant with OS API spec, and I'm working on the API code to make sure it faithfully does what the API says. | 22:17 |
| danwent | do you think that should be considered with the v1.0 API? | 22:17 |
| mtaylor | danwent: (actually, there is absolutely no need for carlp to set up his own jenkins ... we've got a team of us doing the openstack one :) ) (sorry - trolling through scrollback now) | 22:17 |
| * mtaylor shuts up now | 22:17 | |
| markvoelker | danwent: I want labels, but I'm thinking we may have bigger fish to fry for Diablo. Nice to have for D4 in my mind, but I'd rather work on keystone integration first. | 22:18 |
| somik | salv: I have some feedback that I'll send it over email. | 22:18 |
| danwent | mtaylor: good to know. | 22:18 |
| danwent | markvoelker: k, sounds good. | 22:18 |
| salv | somik: ok, thanks. | 22:18 |
| salv | Do you agree locking down the API spec during this week is a reasonable assumption? | 22:19 |
| danwent | +1 | 22:19 |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:19 | |
| danwent | unless a bigger discussion pops up on the list, I'd like to get this solid | 22:19 |
| danwent | it will help us write more and more tests, etc. | 22:19 |
| somik | it would be a good thing to look things down soon. | 22:19 |
| markvoelker | Sounds good to me. | 22:19 |
| markvoelker | Deadline? | 22:20 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:20 | |
| danwent | Let's give a deadline for initial feedback. | 22:20 |
| salv | I don't think there will be a lot of discussion on operations, requests and responses | 22:20 |
| danwent | but if there's an ongoing discussion, I don't want to kill it just because of a deadline. | 22:20 |
| salv | But synchronous vs async behaviour probably needs to be discussed | 22:20 |
| RamD | what about sync vs async :-) | 22:20 |
| danwent | :) | 22:20 |
| salv | Shall we spend some time on this during the open discussion? | 22:21 |
| danwent | Ok, how about if there is a topic you'd like to raise, do it by the end of the week on the mailing list | 22:21 |
| salv | danwent: +1 | 22:21 |
| heckj | 0/ | 22:21 |
| danwent | At least by the end of the week we'll know everything where there is potential disagreement | 22:21 |
| salv | (end of the week meaning friday night PST - so I can fix stuff by next tuesday) | 22:21 |
| heckj | what's the status of documentation for Quantum, Danube, and Melange? Is there anything in RST or docbook? | 22:22 |
| danwent | #info get all feedback on 1.0 API in by end of the week | 22:22 |
| salv | heckj: I'm aiming at producing an RST document for quantum API by next tuesday | 22:22 |
| * heckj hasn't trolled the branches to look | 22:22 | |
| danwent | heckj: some wiki pages, but not much. Definitely part of the final diablo deliverable in my mind. | 22:23 |
| danwent | #action danwent create blueprints for docs | 22:23 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else on API? | 22:24 |
| salv | Summarizin on API spec: deadline for feedback is august 5, spec lock down expect for tue aug 9, api-spec implementation to be totally aligned by aug 25 | 22:24 |
| danwent | salv: sounds great | 22:24 |
| heckj | +1 | 22:24 |
| danwent | Ok, markvoelker, any update on the GUI work? Congrats to tyler on getting the client lib work merged. | 22:25 |
| salv | (feedback received after Aug 5 will not be ignored, but will target next API version) | 22:25 |
| markvoelker | Yes. First: thanks to everyone for the reviews and getting that client merged. | 22:25 |
| markvoelker | GUI-wise: working out a few kinks, but Arvind expects a good reviewable branch to land ~mid next week if not before. | 22:25 |
| danwent | mark: great. I'll target that blueprint for D-4 | 22:26 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 22:26 | |
| markvoelker | Sounds good | 22:26 |
| danwent | Ok, on Nova work. | 22:26 |
| danwent | As you saw from the list of blueprints, I started creating "shadow" blueprints in quantum for work that is being done in nova that is important to quantum. | 22:27 |
| danwent | these blueprints are just links to nova blueprints, but they should increase people's ability to know what of all of the blueprints in nova are critical to quantum, who's working on them, etc. | 22:27 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| danwent | the main chunks of work and people working on them are: creating a quantum manager (me, brad), exposing vif-ids (ryu, troy), linuxnet-vifplugging (me), and melange integration (troy + team) | 22:28 |
| danwent | if you're interested in contributing, please check out the blueprints and contact the authors | 22:29 |
| salv | exposing vif-ids, will also allow us to do the cross-service verification for authorizing quantum operations? | 22:29 |
| danwent | ttx is STRONGLY encouraging early merges for anything going into nova for D-4 | 22:29 |
| danwent | salv: I actually put that in the quantum-manager blueprint, though if you have a different proposal that is fine. | 22:30 |
| salv | danwent: I just wanted to make sure we are tracking this | 22:30 |
| danwent | salv: cool. | 22:30 |
| danwent | anything else on nova? | 22:30 |
| danwent | Ok, is Tyler here? | 22:31 |
| markvoelker | Not, I think | 22:31 |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| danwent | he mentioned that he will be taking a look at packaging for quantum, which is great. | 22:31 |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-packaging | 22:31 |
| markvoelker | Yes, he has .debs worked up and is working on RPM's. | 22:31 |
| markvoelker | (for the client lib) | 22:32 |
| danwent | #info contact tyler if you're interested in quantum packaging | 22:32 |
| salv | on Nova I forgot to mention that we are starting to move toward ESX support for VIF-plugging. We first need to support multi-nic, and we will be addressing this shortly. | 22:32 |
| danwent | salv: cool. Is there a bp or bug? | 22:32 |
| salv | Not yet, we are still internally investigating the work required | 22:33 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:33 | |
| danwent | salv: k | 22:33 |
| markvoelker | Keystone integration: anyone taking point on this? If not I'll volunteer my team. | 22:33 |
| *** medberry is now known as med_brb | 22:33 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:34 | |
| salv | markvoelker: I was looking after it. Happy to work with your team | 22:34 |
| danwent | mark: salv and I have talked a bit about it, but I have few dev cycles, so it would be great if you can help | 22:34 |
| markvoelker | Excellent. Salv, can you maybe send out a "where things stand" email so we can figure out how to attack this? | 22:34 |
| salv | markvoelker: we can start from the meeting we had a few weeks ago. I think the minutes I sent on the ML list are a good idea of where we are at the moment. (Unfortunately). | 22:35 |
| salv | I'd love to have an attack strategy in the next couple of days | 22:35 |
| danwent | salv: I will send some quick thoughts to the list, with some thoughts on the "simple" authn/authz | 22:36 |
| danwent | ok, anything else folks? | 22:36 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:36 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 2 22:36:34 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:36 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.html | 22:36 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.txt | 22:36 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.log.html | 22:36 |
| danwent | Ok, thanks team | 22:36 |
| salv | Ops I wanted to chat about synchronous/aysnchronous model | 22:37 |
| *** jmeredit has left #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| *** Tushar269 has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| salv | Anybody willing to spend a few more minutes? | 22:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: still here :-) | 22:37 |
| danwent | I'll start the logs again | 22:37 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:37 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 2 22:37:55 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:37 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:37 |
| salv | thanks Dan! | 22:38 |
| danwent | #topic API sync vs. aysnc | 22:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "API sync vs. aysnc" | 22:38 | |
| salv | is RamD still here? | 22:38 |
| danwent | oh man, I really hope I didn't start up the meeting bot for nothing :P | 22:38 |
| salv | Basically we have two choices: | 22:38 |
| RamD | sorry back here | 22:39 |
| salv | 1) the plugin defines the behaviour | 22:39 |
| salv | 2) the API defines the behaviour | 22:39 |
| RamD | salv: go ahead | 22:39 |
| salv | Pros of approach #1 | 22:39 |
| salv | flexible and simple | 22:39 |
| salv | Cons of approach #1 | 22:40 |
| *** med_brb is now known as med | 22:40 | |
| *** med is now known as medberry | 22:40 | |
| salv | Potential duplicated code among plugins (as pointed out by Sumit) | 22:40 |
| salv | Pros of approach #2 | 22:40 |
| salv | Reliable, well defined behaviour. Clients will be happy. | 22:40 |
| salv | Cons fo approach #2 | 22:40 |
| salv | Burden on API layers, needs for changing plugin interface, potentially unnecessary if then the plugin implements the async behaviour as well. | 22:41 |
| danwent | salv: by "the API defines the behavior", do you mean the API would return without making a call to the plugin? | 22:41 |
| somik | salv: The code duplication issue can be solved with code-sharing. Once we have real customers, i.e. people deploying OpenStack complain about it, we can promote the behavior definition to the API. It seems good to keep our current approach flexible. | 22:41 |
| danwent | salv: I suspect plugins that perform complex ops will implement their own degree of asyc as needed. | 22:42 |
| salv | danwent: the API will call the plugin and return without waiting for it to complete the operation | 22:42 |
| somik | salv: This is the stance we took on the DB model too, that we can leverage DB models by code sharing. | 22:42 |
| salv | I thought a bit about it and I'm leaning for approach #1 at the moment | 22:42 |
| salv | From the API perspective, what we should ensure is consistency towards API users. | 22:42 |
| danwent | I don't feel all that strongly here, other than I don't want something that makes writing a simple plugin complex. | 22:43 |
| danwent | salv: consistency is important as well. | 22:43 |
| RamD | salv: +1 on consitency | 22:43 |
| RamD | #2 will help us here, right? | 22:43 |
| salv | My proposal is to leave the decision on sync/async behaviour to the plugin | 22:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | approach #2 guarantees consistency | 22:43 |
| salv | and modify the API such as it guarantees consistency at the same time | 22:43 |
| somik | +1 salv | 22:44 |
| salv | I think we can achieve it by stating that the API "does not guarantee" the completion of an operation when the response is returned | 22:44 |
| RamD | salv: is that explained in the spec? | 22:44 |
| somik | what does consistency mean in terms of async vs. sync | 22:44 |
| salv | RamD: not yet, that why we are discussing it :) | 22:44 |
| somik | is there a specific use-case? | 22:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | somik: consistency of sync vs async behavior | 22:45 |
| RamD | I think that's the important thing...how does API can ensure consistency for a plug in behaviour not clear for me | 22:45 |
| salv | Let's look at consistency from the user perspective. The user does might not have any idea about the plugin. | 22:45 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| Tv_ | possible confusion in the air.. there's consistency "all apis look the same" and consistency "acid data integrity guarantees" | 22:46 |
| somik | uptil the client gets the response it wants, why does the client care | 22:46 |
| Tv_ | i think the original meant #1, i fear some people are reading it as #2 | 22:46 |
| somik | Tv_ I agree that we are after consistency #1 | 22:46 |
| salv | Tv_: right. I'm talking of consistency as "api always look the same despite of what behaviour is actually being employed" | 22:46 |
| RamD | solv: that's given, right? :-) | 22:47 |
| RamD | we should not have # of APIs based on plugin one Quantum core API thats it. | 22:47 |
| salv | So in the same way in which the user is not bothered by the actual plugin Quantum uses, the user will not care at all whether it is synchronous or asynchronous | 22:47 |
| Tv_ | i think you should say something like "plugins are expected to respond in <1sec. any part of plugin api that can't consistently do this should be designed to be async, following the calling conventions of the blahblah openstack api" | 22:47 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:47 | |
| salv | As long as the API faithfull tells what's happening. | 22:47 |
| somik | salv: +1 | 22:48 |
| Tv_ | something like, you get handed back a token, you can poll the status with the token, whatever is used by e.g. vm creation and slow operations like that in openstack | 22:48 |
| salv | so we can add a "resource status" concept similar to what is done in nova | 22:48 |
| salv | Tv_: exactly. | 22:48 |
| RamD | Tv_ +1 | 22:48 |
| salv | then, if the plugin is sync, then the status will be immediately "available", otherwise it will be in "build" or "provisioning" for a while, but the user can check it with the token (or the resource id itself) | 22:49 |
| salv | I think this will give the API user the consistency it needs. | 22:50 |
| Tv_ | i'd hate to force all plugin ops to go through that extra token phase | 22:50 |
| Tv_ | let simple things be simple | 22:50 |
| salv | Tv_: sure | 22:50 |
| salv | that would not apply to GET operations, for instance. | 22:50 |
| somik | I think we should make things simple and add this complexity in E release if needed, after design summit | 22:50 |
| danwent | having it be a "status" on a resource can help things be simple | 22:50 |
| salv | the status concept can easily be implemented within diablo timeframe | 22:51 |
| danwent | similar to salvatore's email | 22:51 |
| Tv_ | oh here's one trap i've seen people stumble in; if you can use an async api as if it were sync, and it works if you're slow enough, people *will* screw it up | 22:51 |
| Tv_ | as in, "it worked when i typed it in the repl!" | 22:51 |
| Tv_ | so i prefer it when an async api looks different enough | 22:52 |
| Tv_ | like, if you "create" something, and you're supposed to poll until it's ready before you use it elsewhere | 22:52 |
| Tv_ | people will forget to poll | 22:52 |
| somik | Tv_ agreed, async clients are a lot more complicated therefore we dont want quantum clients to go through that complexity if its not needed. | 22:53 |
| somik | If its needed by a plugin and the customer needs that plugin, they can still do the complicated plugin | 22:53 |
| salv | somik: do you recommend we should leave things as they are for the diablo release? | 22:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | somik: my question as well | 22:54 |
| *** EdgarPerdomo has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:54 | |
| somik | I think that would help us polish things out and let some end-customers try Quantum easily and then we can iterate | 22:54 |
| RamD | somik: I think we are agreeing on the "status" level "async" for now..let's start with that. | 22:54 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:54 | |
| *** EdgarPerdomo has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:55 | |
| RamD | let me take a look at the spec as well and send in my comments | 22:55 |
| somik | RamD: that would be adding something to the API that's not agreed upon aka "feature creep" ;) | 22:55 |
| RamD | somik:oops I thought we are converging :-) | 22:55 |
| salv | somik: reasonable enough | 22:55 |
| somik | and the plugins can still implement async behavior, the API changes for async we can iterate on after we get some real feedback | 22:56 |
| salv | let's consider the scenario where the API stays as it is. There could be incosistencies. Let's see if those incosistencies are serious enough. | 22:56 |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| salv | Example: an asynchronous plugin might do stuff with PHY switches, virtual switches, and other network appliances. When you create a network | 22:57 |
| RamD | salv: I'm for the "resource status" based API behaviour | 22:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | somik: if left to the plugin to decide whether sync or async what behavior would the client expect? | 22:57 |
| ying | somik: if we do async call without API change, how can user check whether it's done or not? | 22:58 |
| salv | you can think your network is there, but actually the plugin is still provisioning it. The API client will try for instance to do a plug interface call and that will fail. | 22:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | client has to be written with one or the other approach in mind | 22:58 |
| RamD | as a starter we leave that to "plugin" to support the behaviour and as we move forward we can consider on API layer in future | 22:58 |
| salv | ying: that's my point as well. Client will think resource is ready, but it's still being provisioned | 22:58 |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| somik | the plugin responds within a reasonable HTTP timeout.. the client doesn't care about the rest. | 22:59 |
| RamD | ying: +1 | 22:59 |
| salv | somik: you mean the plugin responds when the provisioning of the resource is complete? | 22:59 |
| RamD | quit | 22:59 |
| *** RamD has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| salv | RamD: bye | 23:00 |
| danwent | the plugin does not necessarily need to do all of its work before returning. | 23:00 |
| somik | salv: thats one approach in the current framework | 23:00 |
| danwent | for example, on a create network, it need only store the notion that the network exists. | 23:00 |
| ying | somik: user needs to care, as after creating network, he will use it and need to make the provisioning is done | 23:01 |
| salv | but isn't there a difference between a network that "exists" and a network that is "available"? | 23:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: that implies plugin its implementing async behavior | 23:01 |
| danwent | Sumit: yup | 23:01 |
| somik | SumitNaiksatam: plugin abstracts the complexity and we expose a simpler model to user for now | 23:01 |
| danwent | my guess is that most complex plugins will do that already. | 23:01 |
| salv | I think plugin should not be forced to do either async or sync. They can do whatever the developers thinks it's better for them! :) | 23:02 |
| danwent | salv: agreed | 23:02 |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: in that case framework should implement async behavior | 23:02 |
| salv | My point actually is not about the plugins at all. My point is that there is a difference between a resource which exists and a resource which can be actually used | 23:02 |
| somik | salv: +1 | 23:02 |
| ying | good to have that flexibility, but need a way to let user know it's sync or async api | 23:02 |
| salv | think about a server in nova. You cannot suspend an instance if it is not running, can you? | 23:03 |
| ying | plus, for async api, needs a way to let user know whether the resource is ready | 23:03 |
| danwent | I would be in favor of exposing some kind of status, which in general indicates whether the plugin is "actively managing" the port. | 23:04 |
| somik | thats the plugin design issue, one way the plugin can do this is by handling asnc backend with a sync API, which is the current API | 23:04 |
| danwent | this status may be down because it hasn't been provisioned yet, or because a switch was down, or for a host of other reasons. | 23:04 |
| salv | ying: for "async api" you mean the API layer uses something like a message queue to dispatch a call to the plugin? | 23:04 |
| danwent | networks are pretty dynamic things, and in general we will need a way for someone to check if the logical model is currently correctly mapped to the real world. | 23:05 |
| * salv needs some more coffee | 23:05 | |
| somik | salv: that would definitely be out of scope for diablo ;) | 23:05 |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:05 | |
| danwent | ok, sounds like there's enough discussion here that we should let salvatore get some sleep | 23:05 |
| ying | salv: async api means async call, no matter we do it in api layer or plugin layer | 23:05 |
| * salv had his coffee, now he feels like it's 9AM | 23:06 | |
| ying | I just want to say, for async mechanism, we need a way to let user check whether it's done or not | 23:06 |
| salv | ying: good, we're on the same page. Do you think the concept of "resource status" will be enough? | 23:06 |
| ying | salv agree | 23:06 |
| somik | ying: the current API is sync, but the plugin can handle async implementation, and we can still work with current sync api. | 23:06 |
| ying | somik: we still need extend current api by having status checking, right? | 23:07 |
| salv | somik: agreed. But as ying says, we need a mechanism to check whether the operation has completed or not. Do you agree on that? | 23:07 |
| danwent | salv: how about you send out a proposal for the resource status and people see if it handles their use cases? | 23:07 |
| salv | danwent: will do (actually I think I already did it, but the proposal was not detailed enough probably) | 23:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: +1, salv: a high level example will help | 23:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | take create_network() for instance | 23:08 |
| ying | +1 | 23:08 |
| danwent | #action salvatore to send out more detailed thoughts on resource status | 23:08 |
| somik | we are over time limit, I dont want to hold people off for long, we can do email discussion, that would be better | 23:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | agree | 23:09 |
| ying | k | 23:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks salv for shepherding this! | 23:09 |
| danwent | ok, this is a great discussion :) | 23:09 |
| danwent | we good to end the log? | 23:09 |
| ying | yes;-) | 23:09 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 23:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 23:09 | |
| salv | yes, close log | 23:09 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 2 23:09:57 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 23:10 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.html | 23:10 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.txt | 23:10 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.log.html | 23:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | take care, ciao! | 23:10 |
| ying | bye | 23:10 |
| salv | thanks guys, have a good one | 23:10 |
| danwent | take care | 23:10 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| somik | have a good one all! | 23:10 |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** Tv_ has left #openstack-meeting | 23:11 | |
| *** shwetaap has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** asomya has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:17 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:17 | |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 23:46 | |
| *** EdgarPerdomo has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
| *** danwent has left #openstack-meeting | 23:50 | |
| *** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:54 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!