Tuesday, 2011-08-02

*** adjohn has quit IRC00:01
*** _adjohn is now known as adjohn00:01
*** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting00:05
*** adjohn has quit IRC00:09
*** _adjohn is now known as adjohn00:09
*** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:11
*** medberry is now known as med_out00:13
*** martine_ has quit IRC00:27
*** heckj has quit IRC00:30
*** adjohn has quit IRC01:31
*** jakedahn has quit IRC01:46
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates02:40
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting02:42
*** adjohn has quit IRC02:47
*** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:56
*** martine_ has quit IRC04:03
*** msinhore has quit IRC04:09
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk04:12
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting06:57
*** adjohn has quit IRC07:37
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting08:11
*** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting09:11
*** alekibango has quit IRC09:14
*** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting09:15
*** throughnothing has quit IRC10:05
*** throughnothing has joined #openstack-meeting10:06
*** yamahata_ has quit IRC10:59
*** yamahata__ has quit IRC10:59
yamahata_dtno one there for glance discussion11:18
*** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:47
jaypipesyamahata_dt: still 8 minutes until meeting :)11:53
jaypipesyamahata_dt: こんばんは11:53
*** jeremyb has quit IRC12:02
*** jeremyb has joined #openstack-meeting12:02
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting12:22
yamahataare you still there?12:23
*** martine_ has quit IRC12:42
*** yamahata has quit IRC12:56
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates13:03
*** martine_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:21
*** zul has quit IRC13:38
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting13:40
*** zul has quit IRC13:42
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting13:43
*** zul has quit IRC13:54
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting14:02
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting14:08
*** yamahata has quit IRC14:09
*** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting14:20
*** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting14:28
*** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting14:44
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting15:05
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting15:07
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:09
*** toobulkeh has quit IRC15:10
*** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting15:13
*** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting15:33
*** toobulkeh has left #openstack-meeting15:35
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting15:47
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk15:54
*** mdomsch has quit IRC16:12
*** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting16:38
*** mattray1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:53
*** mattray has quit IRC16:57
*** mattray1 has quit IRC17:00
*** Tv_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:01
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting17:15
*** darraghb has quit IRC17:19
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting17:22
*** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting17:30
*** adjohn has quit IRC17:32
*** _adjohn is now known as adjohn17:32
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates17:47
*** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting18:08
*** glenc_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:10
*** glenc has quit IRC18:12
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting18:18
*** dprince has quit IRC18:23
*** Cyns has quit IRC18:27
*** toobulkeh has joined #openstack-meeting18:29
*** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting18:52
*** glenc_ has quit IRC18:54
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting18:55
mtaylorhey all ... anybody ready for a meeting?19:03
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  2 19:05:07 2011 UTC.  The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:05
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.19:05
mtaylor#topic actions from last meeting19:06
*** openstack changes topic to "actions from last meeting"19:06
mtaylorlookie there- we only had a few things from last time19:06
mtaylorupdate launchpad project page for openstack-ci to point to github: DONE19:06
mtaylormtaylor Optimize script to sync launchpad users/teams to gerrit users/groups19:07
mtaylorthis is effectively done - this should be rolled out today19:07
mtaylor(once it gets reviewed and merged, of course)19:07
mtaylormtaylor finish migrating jenkins jobs from running on master to running on slaves19:07
mtaylorthis 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 slaves19:08
ttxands I would do it again, anytime :P19:08
sorenIs there an agenda anywhere, btw?19:09
mtaylorBlueprints are up is probably a holdover from a previous version of the page ...19:10
mtaylor#topic Open discussion19:10
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"19:10
mtaylorwell - for whoever is interested - the git/gerrit transition is fully underway with keystone (after a few initial bumps in the road)19:11
mtaylorand we are going to get glance moved over on thursday19:11
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting19:12
mtaylorwhich should be slightly more telling from a process assessment perspective, as they are used to using the current process19:12
mtaylorsoren: do the tarball_script.sh and/or ppa_script.sh need changed for glance if it's in git and not bzr?19:13
sorenI think so, at least.19:13
sorenI 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
mtaylorgood point :)19:14
mtaylorwell, 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 repo19:15
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 transition19:16
* alekibango loves git19:17
mtaylorwell, hopefully alekibango will love gerrit as well19:17
alekibangowill try :)19:17
mtaylorwe 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 going19:20
mtayloranything else from anybody?19:22
jaypipesI do!19:26
jaypipesI was hoping to discuss how we continually test upgrade paths?19:27
mtayloryes. this will be MUCH easier once we have jclouds plugin finished19:28
mtaylorand/or once we have bare metal machines and magic install on them from termie19:28
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting19:28
mtaylor(actually, upgrade paths will probably be testable on cloud servers without using bare metal)19:28
jaypipesmtaylor: were you answering my question above?19:28
mtaylorjaypipes: yes19:28
jaypipesmtaylor: ah, sorry. yes, I think cloud servers would be easier...19:29
jaypipesmtaylor: but I'd like some help desigining the jenkins job for it, if that's ok?19:29
mtaylorjaypipes: totally19:29
mtaylorjaypipes: I think the main key is that that job wants a clean env to start with19:29
jaypipesmtaylor: ok, maybe next week we can flesh it out on an ehterpad or something.19:29
jaypipesmtaylor: right19:29
mtaylor#action jaypipes design upgrade path jenkins job with mtaylor19:30
jaypipesmtaylor: and then a registry database migrated to trunk, then upgrade, check registry db ok, run tests, etc19:30
mtayloryay! I finally have someone else who has a vested interest in getting jclouds jenkins plugin finished :)19:30
jaypipesmtaylor: can you gimme some more details on why jclouds is a critical thing there? just curious.19:30
mtaylorjaypipes: 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 job19:31
mtaylorjaypipes: we can obviously do this by hand and stuff19:31
jaypipesmtaylor: oh, nice. ok, that sounds perfect.19:31
mtaylorjaypipes: 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
jaypipesmtaylor: btw, you meet up with termie? he was looking for you earlier.19:32
mtaylorjaypipes: yup. we did some chatting19:32
*** adrian17od has joined #openstack-meeting19:36
*** edconzel has quit IRC19:37
mtaylorok. that seems to be about all we have for today19:45
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"19:45
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  2 19:45:17 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:45
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.html19:45
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.txt19:45
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-19.05.log.html19:45
*** Tv_ has quit IRC19:47
*** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting20:00
notmynamemeeting time?20:00
edayanything on the agenda?20:00
notmyname"previous action items"20:01
jbrycehi guys20:01
jbrycei am still running behind on my previous action item.20:01
jbryceanyone have anything they want to discuss that they didn't add to the agenda page?20:02
notmynamejbryce: are you still in the process of writing up your thoughts on the whole automony thing and sending it out?20:03
notmynamewhat about the TM stuff. is that for the PPB to take up?20:03
jbrycenotmyname: i am still in the process of writing that up, yes.20:03
sorennotmyname: TM?20:03
sorenOf course :)20:04
jbryceon 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 definition20:04
ewanmellorI've signed up with Josh to work on that.20:04
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  2 20:04:55 2011 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:04
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.20:04
jbrycewe can go ahead and give these updates on the record i suppose...20:05
jbryce#topic previous action items20:05
*** openstack changes topic to "previous action items"20:05
jbrycei 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
jbrycejosh 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 josh20:06
*** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
jbrycethe 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 med20:07
*** med is now known as medberry20:07
jbrycethey haven't really started much work on it yet, so again...now's the time to jump in if you have an opinion on it20:07
jbrycewhat comes out of that effort will almost certainly become part of the trademark use policy20:08
jbrycejaypipes: 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
notmynameso does that mean that trademark stuff is in our purview or does that belong to someone else?20:09
jaypipesjbryce: sure thing.20:09
jaypipesThe 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
jbrycenotmyname: trademark policy is not but we've been asked to help define technical standards around usage20:11
jaypipesWe'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
ttxjbryce, 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 it20:12
jaypipesttx: I think jbryce is working on finalizing that stuff. is that correct, jbryce?20:13
jbrycehave people reviewed the git+gerrit process enough to vote on it?20:13
ttxjaypipes: 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
ttxI'm ok with a derogation though.20:14
edaywell, 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
jaypipeseday: we've gotten feedback from keystone so far, and yes, Glance was meant as another test.20:15
mtaylorhowever - 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 test20:16
ttxeday: we could formally decide that Glance is the last field test, and exceptionally a core project.20:16
jaypipesmtaylor: yes, true.20:16
mtaylorwouldn'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 encountered20:16
*** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
edaybefore 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 glance20:17
mtaylorbut now I'm just babbling20:17
ttxmtaylor: we can indeed vote on "it's ok, if Glance transition works"20:17
jaypipesI think the issue is whether the Swift team is interested in using Gerrit.20:17
edayttx: do we really need to vote for that? :)20:17
jaypipesall other teams seem to have indicated they are on board with it.20:17
jaypipesnotmyname, creiht?20:18
mtaylornotmyname: you in bro?20:18
notmynameI agree with eday20:18
edaywould like to hear termie's feedback too20:18
jaypipesnotmyname: 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-meeting20:19
creihtI was mainly voicing my opinion as that seemed to be the opinion of many in the openstack community, not just those of the swift team20:20
jaypipesotherwise, we're just going to keep spinning our wheels and revisiting this same conversation every week :)20:20
edayhow 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
pvosome of guys may be interested…20:21
jbrycemtaylor: do you think you could do that?20:21
creihtif we are switching to git just because of the swift team, then that is fail20:21
jaypipescreiht: 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
edayi nominate termie for one of them, since he led the GH discussion at the last summit20:21
jaypipestr3buchet: you too, right?20:21
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting20:21
jbrycei think termie is a good choice20:21
jaypipespvo: if you, dabo and tr3buchet would give it a spin, that would be appreciated.20:22
notmynameI would suggest that there should be someone from each of the projects20:22
creihtjaypipes: I imagine if you ask, you will likely find people who will give you their opinion20:22
notmynamenova, swift, glance, dashboard20:22
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting20:22
*** Tv_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:22
mtayloryes. I think that opionions from folks are great20:22
tr3buchetjaypipes: i definitely +1 git if that's what you are asking20:22
pvojaypipes: docs on the wiki?20:22
jaypipestr3buchet: no, that's not what I'm asking.20:22
jaypipespvo: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow20:22
mtaylorHOWEVER, 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 iters20:22
pvojaypipes: right on. thanks.20:23
jaypipestr3buchet: 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-meeting20:23
termieeday, jbryce: yeah i suppose i could deal with that20:23
jbrycetermie: grazi20:23
tr3buchetjaypipes: oh i see. i'd love to20:23
termieeday, jbryce: would want somebody to shoot me the existing documentation about how they think i should use it20:23
jaypipestr3buchet: rock.20:23
jk0I can help too20:23
jaypipesnotmyname, creiht: please do so yourselves.20:23
jbrycetermie: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow20:23
pvotermie: http://wiki.openstack.org/GerritWorkflow20:23
jaypipesjk0: ty20:23
vishyi just did a push to keystone using it.  We'll see how the review process goes20:24
jaypipesvishy: long patch.. going through it now. :)20:24
mtaylorthere 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 soon20:24
vishyjaypipes: quite a bit of it is whitespace...they don't have pep8 barrier on apparently20:24
mtaylorvishy: nope. it's coming as soon as they can get their pep8 cleaned :)20:25
jaypipesvishy: they have a pylint barrier... not sure about pep8.20:25
creihtjaypipes: perhaps a mailing list email to solicit feedback is in order?20:26
jaypipescreiht: sure, I will do so.20:26
mtaylortermie, tr3buchet, notmyname, creiht, jk0: feel free to ping jeblair or myself as you start poking if you run in to issues20:26
tr3buchetsure thing20:27
jaypipesmtaylor, jeblair: I'll draft an email to th ML.20:27
jbryceso delay a vote until we get feedback from the group of testers20:27
mtaylorjeblair: watch out - the local git gods are about to start poking us :)20:28
jbrycecan we try to get feedback in the next week and vote at the next meeting?20:28
jaypipeswould be good to get past this...20:28
* mtaylor cowers appropriately20:28
jbrycejaypipes: amen20:28
jaypipesmtaylor and jeblair have done a lot of work on this that would go to waste.20:28
jbryceanyone have other topics?20:29
jaypipesnot from me.20:30
jbrycethanks everyone20:31
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"20:31
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  2 20:31:38 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:31
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.html20:31
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.txt20:31
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-20.04.log.html20:31
*** johan_-_ has left #openstack-meeting20:31
jaypipesjeblair: whatcha think about sleepsonthefloor's last comment on https://review.openstack.org/#change,122? What is the best practice or protocol there?20:33
jaypipesjeblair: sorry, I'll repost in #openstack-dev20:34
*** zns has left #openstack-meeting20:35
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting20:37
vishyjaypipes: 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 now20:38
jaypipesvishy: oh, I'm not disputing sleepsonthefloor20:38
jaypipesvishy: just wondering if/how we can merge sleepsonthefloor's changeset into Vek's right in the code review..20:39
*** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting20:39
jaypipesvishy: sorry, was confusing GH's fork-and-edit functionality with Gerrit's code review... losing my sanity today. :(20:44
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting20:44
* jk0 is really interested in seeing the new UI for gerret20:45
jk0the one now is... interesting20:45
creihtinteresting, is an interesting way to describe it :)20:46
jaypipesjk0: yeah. no rounded corners...20:48
jk0exactly. someone needs to make this web2.0 compliant20:48
_cerberus_needs moar dropshadow20:49
jk0maybe an 8-bit logo20:49
jaypipesyeah, definitely need to call up the UI experts at GitHub.20:49
*** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting20:50
*** adrian17od has quit IRC20:50
creihtThey must have hired the guys who designed the launchpad ui20:51
jaypipescreiht: heh, I think it might be worse.20:51
jk0haha, I agree with jay on this one20:52
jeblairgerrit 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
heckjnew, then it would be across multiple sites as well. This is all on one site...20:52
jaypipescreiht: and the guys who designed LP are actually listening here, and the Gerrit UI designers aren't. ;)20:53
creihtprogrammer 1: Hey, I don't like this tool20:53
jaypipesat least it's open source and modifiable. *cough* GitHub.20:53
creihtPointy hair dude: Ok, here's one you like less, so you will appreciate the current one20:53
jaypipescreiht: heh, nice. :)20:54
jk0I thought we were going to be using github for everything20:54
jk0did that change or was it ever the case?20:54
creihtjk0: bait and switch :)20:54
heckjto 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 process20:55
*** cynb has joined #openstack-meeting20:55
* creiht is just joking20:55
*** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting20:55
jk0I could have just heard/read things wrong20:55
* 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
jaypipescreiht: the gerrit interface vs MS Outlook Web Access. death match of the horrific UIs? ;)20:56
* jaypipes stabs OWA.20:56
heckjjaypipes: Oooh - that's cold20:56
jaypipesheckj: :)20:56
ttxjaypipes: I don't understand why you need it. I avoid it quite successfully.20:56
jaypipesttx: wish I could. tried numerous things...20:56
*** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
jaypipesquick, hide, it's Peter.20:57
creihtstep 1: match process to match current tool20:57
ttxjaypipes: I use Thunderbird, which is hardly "special".20:57
creihtstep 2: new tool doesn't work because it doesn't match the process20:57
creihtstep 3: ???20:57
jaypipescreiht: so you're saying we should abandon processes and just adapt the process to the tool?20:58
creihtyes that is exactly what I am saying ;P20:58
ttxjaypipes: only if the tool looks good.20:58
* jaypipes relishes these last two minutes b4 the meetings with creiht :)20:58
Vekall 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
jaypipesVek: the pitfalls of a nearly-constant-changing trunk.20:59
Vekyeah, no kidding.20:59
creihtVek: the conflict should show up in the diff in the review20:59
creihtor merge prop20:59
jaypipesttx: ok, let's go! :)21:00
*** Tushar269 has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
Vekcreiht: it did, it just threw me for a loop, because I knew it wasn't in my own code.21:00
ttxvishy, notmyname: still around ?21:00
*** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
creihtVek: yeah that can be confusing the first time it happens21:00
*** dtblomquist has joined #openstack-meeting21:01
Vekthere was no warning for me, either.21:01
Vekan 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
Vekand I still had no clue where it had come from.21:01
ttxwaiting a bit for vishy to joint21:01
ttxor join21:01
* Vek switches subjects21:02
ttxlet's start, he will catch up21:02
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  2 21:02:29 2011 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.21:02
ttxWelcome to our weekly OpenStack team meeting...21:02
ttxToday's agenda is at:21:02
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting21:02
notmynamewhen do we add incubated projects to the agenda?21:03
*** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
jaypipesnotmyname: sorry, that was my action item I think when ttx was away.21:03
vishyi'm here21:03
ttxnotmyname: ah. We can have an incubated news topic, after Nova21:03
jaypipesttx: my apologies.  dropped the ball on that one. I was supposed to make sure dash and keystone were updating on this meeting.21:03
*** salv has joined #openstack-meeting21:04
ttx#topic Postmortem feedback for 1.4.2/diablo-3 release21:04
*** openstack changes topic to "Postmortem feedback for 1.4.2/diablo-3 release"21:04
ttxLast week we released Swift 1.4.2 and the diablo-3 milestone for Glance/Nova21:04
ttxIt went well, though we had a bit of delay for diablo-3 to try to sneak some Glance bugfixes21:04
ttxAnything that went wrong from your perspective and that we need to fix ?21:04
jaypipesttx: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+spec/glance-upgrade21:05
jaypipesttx: we need to work on that one for next milestone release...21:05
ttxsounds like a good idea21:05
ttxjaypipes: we also need a bzr-tarball-delta job21:05
ttxthat would have caught the absence of glance-scrubber early21:06
ttxwe have a CI bug for that. mtaylor: do you prefer a Blueprint ?21:06
ttxanything else ?21:06
mtaylorttx: bug is fine21:07
ttx#topic Swift status21:07
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status"21:07
ttxnotmyname: o/21:07
ttxDo you have a timeframe for 1.4.3 already ?21:07
notmyname1.4.2 is done21:07
notmynameI was looking at 1.4.3 today21:07
mtaylorVek: sorry, reading scrollback - in the new world order, you will get an email21:07
ttxdiablo-4 is scheduled on August 25, in case you want to align :)21:07
notmynameI 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, etc21:08
notmynameI was thinking sometime around the first week of september, but I haven't settled on anything yet21:08
ttxyes, makes sense21:08
notmyname8-25 is a good date to know. I'll keep it in mind21:08
ttxnotmyname: Any features already planned for that version ?21:08
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
notmynamenothing 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 example21:09
ttxwould be a cool feature, indeed21:10
ttxnotmyname: Other announcements/comments ?21:10
notmynameI hope that scaling down swift deploys can be done in essex (deploy on <5 servers). we need community input there21:11
ttxyou need input before the design summit ?21:11
notmynameit's something that's needed, but not something current devs have a lot of insight to since we have existing, large clusters21:11
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:12
notmynamenothing needed before the design summit21:12
ttxRaise your hand if you have questions on Swift...21:12
notmynamealso, I guess PTL elections are coming soon, so get your commits in if you want to vote21:12
jaypipesnotmyname: I might have some input for you on that with FreeCloud... I'll ley you know.21:12
ttxnotmyname: I committed version changes, does that count ? :)21:13
heckjWhat's the status of keystone authN integration with Swift?21:13
notmynamettx: I think you're already there :-)21:13
notmynameheckj: great question! ask the keystone people :-)21:13
Vekheckj: there's a middleware checked in to keystone; that's about all I know.21:13
heckjnotmyname: swift is already to go once Keystone finishes something?21:13
notmynameheckj: as far as we know21:14
heckjnotmyname: cool, thanks21:14
ttx+#topic Glance status21:14
ttx#topic Glance status21:14
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status"21:14
ttxLooks good to me...21:14
jaypipesWe're kickin' ass on D4.21:14
*** edconzel has quit IRC21:15
ttxjaypipes: keystone integration blocks another diablo-4 spec, how far is it ?21:15
jaypipesthx to the Brians, Vek, s1rp, jkoelker, and johan21:15
*** stiekes has quit IRC21:15
jaypipesttx: Vek needs to complete a functional test with auth spun up.21:15
* Vek threw a glance_auth_token.py middleware into keystone21:16
*** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting21:16
ttxjaypipes: Announcements, comments ?21:16
jaypipesttx: 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
jaypipesttx: basically, what glance-control gives us in Glance (and swift-init in Swift)21:16
*** martine_ has quit IRC21:17
jaypipesttx: no announcements. currenlty a few outstanding packaging things mtaylor is working on. we're looking good to hit D4.21:17
ttxRaise your hand if you have a question on Glance.21:17
jaypipesttx: oh, and moving to Gerrit/GH on Thursday morning. That little thing. :)21:17
ttxbah! almost nothing.21:17
mtaylorpiece of cake21:18
ttx#topic Nova status21:18
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status"21:18
ttxvishy: yo!21:18
*** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:18
ttxLooking at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-421:18
ttxStill a bit work in progress, with some specs being added21:19
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting21:19
ttxlike the networking integration stuff that is being split into more trackable bits21:19
*** edconzel has quit IRC21:19
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting21:19
ttxvishy: I hope that we can get it into order by the end of the week ?21:19
danwentttx: just broke up the blueprints today21:20
ttxvishy, soren: I had one question already, about EC2 Id compatibility21:20
danwentshould be able to merge prop at least one of them in the next few days21:20
vishyblueprints should be prioritized properly in the next couple of days21:20
ttxvishy, soren: do we have a clear plan forward there ?21:20
ttxvishy, soren: it's marked essential, so I'm getting nervous21:20
ttxbecause from where I stand it's still very much under discussion.21:21
vishyI'm actually comfortable shipping without changes and saying that ec2_api is only supported in one zone configs21:21
sorenMe too.21:21
ttxvishy: ok, so we can at least downgrade to "High"21:21
sorenIt's not "essential" for sure.21:22
ttxsoren: ok, so we can at least downgrade to "Medium" :)21:22
*** stiekes has quit IRC21:22
* ttx sets to "High" to drop some pressure21:22
vishysoren: iirc you were opposed to the idea of a mapping layer at the top for ec2_ids21:22
vishysoren: although I still think it is the easiest way forward21:22
ttxdanwent: saw that, thanks.21:23
*** jakedahn_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:23
sorenvishy: I think that's a dreadful idea, yes.21:24
jaypipeswell, at least you don't feel that strongly, soren. :)21:24
vishycould also use someone for this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/aws-api-validation21:24
comstudI'm not sure I've seen a better idea.21:24
sorenvishy: ...but hardly anyone seems to care about the EC2 API, so there seems to be little chance of going any other route.21:24
ttxsoren: what would be an alternate solution ?21:25
tr3buchetjaypipes: nice one ;)21:25
vishyttx: we discussed it in great detail in the ml thread.21:25
sorenttx: Using an ID generation mechanism that doesn't require one of our API's to have its own mapping system.21:25
ttxsoren: which involves chaging the rest of Nova again. gotcha21:26
sorenttx: 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 IRC21:27
ttxsoren: wel, you can't be asked to implement a solution you find dreadful, so at the very least, that would need to be reassigned21:27
jaypipessoren, vishy: is this something that can be resolved in the next few days?21:27
*** iemmn has joined #openstack-meeting21:27
*** jakedahn has quit IRC21:27
*** jakedahn_ is now known as jakedahn21:27
*** iemmn has left #openstack-meeting21:28
comstudsoren: I agree with that train of thought, it just feels rather limiting given how ec2 instance ids are used.21:28
sorenttx: 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-meeting21:28
ttxsoren: fair enough21:28
jaypipessoren: there's more than you that care about the EC2 API, trust me. Lots of NTT folks do as well.21:28
sorenjaypipes: I doubt it. I've given up pursuing happiness on that particular endeavour.21:29
jaypipessoren: ok then. let's shelve this for offline.21:29
ttxok -- In all cases, the diablo-4 plan should result in a lot of branches landing.21:29
ttxWe need to propose early and review early, and merge what can be merged asap21:29
ttxFor example, comments on the last part of boot-from-volume have apparently been adressed:21:30
ttxblamar, devcamcar, other nova-core: please rereview it and get it off the table if it's ready.21:30
ttxvishy: more comments ?21:30
vishyjust main focus on early reviews would be great, since we're trying to get a lot of stuff in21:31
ttxQuestions for Nova PTL ?21:31
ttx#topic Post-D4 branch handling for Nova and Glance21:31
*** openstack changes topic to "Post-D4 branch handling for Nova and Glance"21:31
ttxjaypipes, vishy: I want to discuss how to handle the post-d4, feature-frozen pre-diablo-release timeframe21:32
ttxLike 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 created21:32
ttxWe use the last milestone branch as the 2011.3 release branch. Trunk development switches to Essex.21:32
ttxUnrestricted bugfixes land in release branch and get ported to trunk, until we switch to targeted bugfixes21:33
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 8th21:33
ttxso what lands in Diablo remains in pure nova-core control for two more weeks21:33
ttxAfter that date only targeted bugfixes are accepted, and trunk development switches to Essex21:34
ttxAdvantages of long one: diablo-4 contains all features and serves as beta. Trunk is always open(though switched to Essex early)21:34
ttxDrawbacks of long one: August 22 is early. 4 long weeks of tracking and proposing bugfixes to two parallel branches21:34
ttxAdvantages of short one: More team focus on bugfixes. "Only" two weeks of parallel branches21:34
jaypipesttx: I would prefer the shorter one for Glance.21:34
ttxDrawback of short one: Features are not very welcome in trunk for 2 weeks (soft feature freeze)21:35
ttxjaypipes: i also kinda prefer the short option21:35
jaypipesvishy: ?21:35
ttxbut it runs a bit counter to the "always open trunk" philosophy we decided at the design summit21:35
*** shwetaap has quit IRC21:35
ttxIf you both are comfortable with a soft feature freeze, then I'm ok too21:35
jaypipesttx: sure, but this is only once every 6 months...21:36
ttxand only two weeks.21:36
jaypipesttx: and the goal here is integration with other projects and bug fixing...21:36
jaypipesand testing21:36
vishyi've noticed that merging in fixes is a little painful because people don't often make them off of the release branch21:36
vishyso you have to rebase the changes and repropose them against the release branch, which also creates divergent history21:37
jaypipesvishy: and the long option would only make that process longer...21:37
vishyso not merging features into trunk for two weeks seems ok21:37
ttxOK, let's go with "short" and try to see how to we can simplify dual-proposal process21:37
vishyits not as if they can't still propose them for review to get eyes on them21:38
ttxvishy: right, at least postpone merging them for a couple weeks, until Essex opens.21:38
ttx#topic Incubated projects news21:38
*** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news"21:38
jaypipesdevcamcar: anything on dash you want to bring up?21:39
zykes-is quantum incubated yet ?21:39
jaypipeszykes-: nope.21:39
jaypipeszykes-: keystone and dashboard right now.21:39
* jaypipes searches for zns..21:39
ttxzykes-: not proposed yet.21:39
danwentzykes: you can stay in the room for the quantum discussion at the top of the hour21:40
zykes-danwent: ?21:40
ttxok, sounds like nobody is there from incubated projects21:40
* jaypipes asked dolphm to join us for a status update on keystone.21:41
Vekjaypipes is trying to get one21:41
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting21:41
jaypipesdolphm: welcome!21:41
ttxI'll make sure they get the news that they have a meeting topic now :) This was added a bit late.21:41
dolphmjaypipes: thank you21:41
jaypipesdolphm: wondering if you want to update the community on keystone? anything you want to say about progress made, etc?21:41
dolphmhmmm... i don't have too much to say...21:42
jaypipesdolphm: ok, no worries if you don't. just wanted to give you all an opportunity.21:42
jaypipesdolphm: is there anything that the community can assist you with? anything you want to bring up regarding Gerrit?21:43
dolphmi'm glad to be on gerrit / jenkins - that's pretty much the story of my week21:43
ttxdolphm: Does Keystone rock ?21:43
dolphmttx: yes, by default21:43
ttxok, that's the spirit !21:43
jaypipeslol :)21:43
jaypipesok, enough harrassing dolphm21:43
Vekit's a specially shaped rock, in fact.21:44
ttx#topic Open discussion21:44
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:44
primeministerp1hey all21:44
* ttx opens the bar21:44
creihtand one rock to bind them....21:44
primeministerp1brief note on hyper-v wins21:44
ttxprimeministerp1: I like wins.21:44
comstudttx: i have a nova scalability issue i'd like to point out21:44
ttxprimeministerp1: go first21:44
primeministerp1we'll be discussing the hyperv/openstack cloud in the interop lab at novell's brainshare in october21:44
Vekfor "sucks" report: trying to merge code that depends on features that have been added to something else.21:44
jaypipesprimeministerp1: ++ w00t.21:45
primeministerp1hopefully we'll also be discussing it during the upcoming openstack conf as well21:45
*** yogirackspace has joined #openstack-meeting21:45
ttxprimeministerp1: where/when is that exactly ?21:45
primeministerp1so the novell one21:45
primeministerp1is in Salt Lake City21:45
primeministerp1the week after the openstack conf in boston21:45
primeministerp1ideally we present the same material in both21:46
primeministerp1so not really sure what the venu will be like, but it's a good opportunity to spread the word21:46
ttxprimeministerp1: is that a brainstorming discussion, or a full-fledged presentation ?21:46
primeministerp1full fledged presentation21:47
ttxok, so more for the conference21:47
primeministerp1so I figure we can talk about the brief history21:47
ttxprimeministerp1: the CTP should go out any time now21:47
primeministerp1what we did21:47
*** ewanmellor has quit IRC21:47
ttxcomstud: ok, bad news now21:47
primeministerp1ttx: great i'm planning on emailing spectorclan tomorrow about it21:48
comstudok.. we have a bug: lp79777021:48
vishyVek: agreed, this is why I've been loathe to break out projects willy nilly21:48
comstudsocket closed errrors on high load21:48
ttxbug 79777021:48
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 797770 in nova "'Socket closed' during API stress test" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/79777021:48
ttxcomstud: bug which I'd like to see fixed before release, yes21:48
comstudwas talking with eday... we've determined that the mysql engine sqlalchemy is using by default uses the mysql C library21:48
comstudso it's using libc socket calls...21:49
comstudeventlet cannot wrap these.21:49
comstudthis means that any calls to mysql block until completed21:49
comstudso eventlet can't switch greenthreads and do other things while mysql queries are in progress21:49
ttxcomstud: your "by default" seems to imply there is a solution21:50
zykes-ttx: is there any like "events.openstack.org" ?21:50
comstudthere _is_ a 'pymysql' engine option for sqlalchemy...21:50
comstudit's a purely python module... but I'm not sure of it's stability21:50
ttxzykes-: hrm... maybe21:50
creihtcomstud: you could put the db operations in a thread pool21:50
comstudcreiht: Or that was my other suggestion :)21:50
creihtjust another option21:50
comstudassuming the C code will unlock the GIL21:50
comstudwhich I'm sure it probably does21:50
Tv_i've heard others use the thread pool trick21:50
creihtwe do that for the sqlite dp operations in swift21:51
Tv_i mean specifically to get around the gevent/eventlet issue21:51
comstudIn 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
comstudI just wanted to make ppl aware of this21:51
Vekwhat's keeping you from verifying it?21:51
comstudVek: time... ant tried, but got some weird exception21:52
ttxcomstud: thanks for the heads-up21:52
comstudI plan to look at it in the next couple of days21:52
ttxand for looking at that sort of bugs21:52
comstudif this doesn't solve it, it's possible we may want to think about threads.21:52
ttxzykes-: maybe http://openstack.org/community/events/21:53
creihtcomstud: http://eventlet.net/doc/modules/db_pool.html21:53
creihtabstracts some of that away, but not sure what would need to be done to make it work with sqla21:53
ttxanything else before we close ?21:53
comstudcreiht: will take a look21:53
annegentleI appreciate the Keystone guys keeping their doc updated in openstack-manuals!21:54
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC21:54
dolphmannegentle: have we been doing that?!21:54
Vekhaha :)21:54
ttxon that good note...21:55
dolphmi thought we just deleted all our documentation and moved on21:55
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"21:55
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  2 21:55:25 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:55
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.html21:55
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.txt21:55
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-21.02.log.html21:55
ttxThansk everyone !21:55
ttxThanks, even21:55
annegentledolphm: it's tucked safely in openstack-manuals in incubation :)21:55
*** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting21:55
dolphmannegentle: i have some updates then :)21:55
zykes-what's the next meeting ?21:55
*** comstud has left #openstack-meeting21:55
ttxThe Network dudes.21:56
markvoelkerzykes: netstack.  http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings21:56
annegentledolphm: cool! I'll merge 'em in whenever.21:56
* markvoelker likes ttx's description better21:56
*** Vek has left #openstack-meeting21:56
*** annegentle has left #openstack-meeting21:56
*** dabo has left #openstack-meeting21:57
*** dtblomquist has quit IRC21:58
*** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting21:58
*** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting21:59
danwentnetwork dudes unite :)22:00
salvhail you people of the network22:00
danwentsalv: you're one of us... what's with the "you people" :P22:01
salvright, I was thinking there was something wrong about my sentence...22:01
*** rnirmal has left #openstack-meeting22:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  2 22:01:59 2011 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.22:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.22:02
*** Cyns has quit IRC22:02
danwent#link Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings22:02
*** ying has joined #openstack-meeting22:02
danwent#topic netstack updates22:02
*** openstack changes topic to "netstack updates"22:02
*** EdgarPerdomo has joined #openstack-meeting22:02
danwentSeveral people have been asking about incubation.22:02
*** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting22:02
*** jmeredit has joined #openstack-meeting22:02
EdgarPerdomoHello All22:02
danwentnow that dashboard and keystone recently joined.22:02
danwentwe'll be working toward this in the next few weeks.22:03
danwentone other thing that I saw that was pretty cool:22:03
salvat this stage, my first concern is jenkins integration and the system testing infrastructure.22:03
zykes-working towards ?22:03
danwentour 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-meeting22:04
*** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
danwent135 commits by 16 people in the last month.... very impressive22:04
danwentgo team :)22:04
* markvoelker cheers22:04
danwentsalv:  agreed.  I actually think there's a bit of a chicken and egg here22:04
danwentbeing incubated may make it clear that we can use the standard openstack infrastructure.  either way, definitely want to work toward better system test and integration22:05
somiksalv: I think the incubation gives us access to those resources too22:05
salvdanwent: should we throw and decide between the chicken and the egg?22:05
danwentzykes: 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 infrastructure22:05
danwentsalv: carlp said he was playing with jenkins, said that having something setup in d-4 timeframe woudl be reasonable22:06
danwentanyone want to take on that blueprint?22:06
*** Cyns has quit IRC22:07
salvIs carlp here for an update?22:07
danwenthe's on the list, not sure if he's listening in22:07
pvodanwent: can we talk later about that blueprint?22:07
danwentpvo: sounds good.22:07
pvoI'm going to be looking at this very soon.22:07
*** RamD has joined #openstack-meeting22:07
markvoelkerdanwent, pvo: add me to the list please....may have some help there22:07
pvomarkvoelker: sure thing22:07
danwentwe'll use the netstack list, definitely22:07
*** edconzel has quit IRC22:08
*** edconzel_ is now known as edconzel22:08
markvoelkerawesomesauce then.22:08
danwentok, we're going with salvatore's reverse agenda....22:08
danwent#topic donabe status22:08
*** openstack changes topic to "donabe status"22:08
danwentanyone here for this?22:08
danwentor melange?  I believe troy is out.22:08
markvoelkerI believe James had to leave town unexpectedly....22:09
RamDnothing specific for this week22:09
danwentRamD: k, thanks.22:09
danwentOk, we'll just move on to quantum22:09
danwent#topic quantum status22:09
*** openstack changes topic to "quantum status"22:09
danwentwe're starting to target things for milestones now: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/diablo-422:09
danwentIf 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
RamDwe will add few more for 802.1bqh and nx-os related bps22:10
danwentRamD: fantastic22:10
danwentThanks to those folks doing all the reviews lately, we've been getting a lot of code merged22:10
danwentactive merge props are here: https://code.launchpad.net/quantum/+activereviews22:11
heckjre: 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 help22:11
*** edconzel has quit IRC22:11
salvdanwent: are we adopting the same approach as nova?22:11
danwentheckj, thanks.22:11
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting22:11
salvAll features in D-4, then testing and bug-fixes for diablo-release22:11
danwentheckj, can you email me so I can include you on the thread we have on that?22:11
danwentsalv: yes, I'd like to get any major features into D-422:12
danwentsalv: then focus on testing, packaging, and everyone's favorite: documentation :)22:12
salvk. 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
markvoelkersalv: +1, I was actually going to bring up Keystone integration22:12
*** yogirackspace has left #openstack-meeting22:12
RamDOn jenkins related requirement ...it would be great to track it in terms what are the requirements e.g. access to physical hw infra if any22:13
danwentI think we can target the basic keystone integration for D-4, inline with our previous discussion.22:13
salvTv_: 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
salvby "basic" we mean authentication only?22:14
danwent#action: danwent  start email thread with folks about CI/systemtest22:14
salvdanwent: sorry I missed your last line22:14
salvdanwent: agree on the target for authN/authZ in D-422:14
danwentsalv:  that seems pretty achievable in the short time period.  we already have a pretty full plate with all of the nova changes.22:14
danwentsalv: great22:15
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 model22:15
mtayloryes. quite willing to pull stuff in to CI22:15
mtaylordanwent: make sure I'm on that thread :)22:15
markvoelkerdanwent, 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
danwentOk, Salvatore, want to give a brief update on the API spec work ?22:15
salvmarkvoelker: we'll get to that later...22:16
danwentmtaylor: will do (thank god these meetings are archived :P)22:16
salvAPI Spec.22:16
salvMy goal is to "lock down" the specification by the end of the week, and label it "1.0".22:16
danwentmark: agreed, it is just a very simple authorization model22:16
salvI would like to know if there's anything you would like to change in the current spec.22:17
danwentmarkvoelker: what about the labels you mentioned?22:17
salvI'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
danwentdo you think that should be considered with the v1.0 API?22:17
mtaylordanwent: (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 now22:17
markvoelkerdanwent: 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
somiksalv: I have some feedback that I'll send it over email.22:18
danwentmtaylor: good to know.22:18
danwentmarkvoelker: k, sounds good.22:18
salvsomik: ok, thanks.22:18
salvDo you agree locking down the API spec during this week is a reasonable assumption?22:19
*** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting22:19
danwentunless a bigger discussion pops up on the list, I'd like to get this solid22:19
danwentit will help us write more and more tests, etc.22:19
somikit would be a good thing to look things down soon.22:19
markvoelkerSounds good to me.22:19
*** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting22:20
danwentLet's give a deadline for initial feedback.22:20
salvI don't think there will be a lot of discussion on operations, requests and responses22:20
danwentbut if there's an ongoing discussion, I don't want to kill it just because of a deadline.22:20
salvBut synchronous vs async behaviour probably needs to be discussed22:20
RamDwhat about sync vs async :-)22:20
salvShall we spend some time on this during the open discussion?22:21
danwentOk, how about if there is a topic you'd like to raise, do it by the end of the week on the mailing list22:21
salvdanwent: +122:21
danwentAt least by the end of the week we'll know everything where there is potential disagreement22:21
salv(end of the week meaning friday night PST - so I can fix stuff by next tuesday)22:21
heckjwhat'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 week22:22
salvheckj: I'm aiming at producing an RST document for quantum API by next tuesday22:22
* heckj hasn't trolled the branches to look22:22
danwentheckj:  some wiki pages, but not much.  Definitely part of the final diablo deliverable in my mind.22:23
danwent#action danwent create blueprints for docs22:23
danwentOk, anything else on API?22:24
salvSummarizin 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 2522:24
danwentsalv: sounds great22:24
danwentOk, 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
markvoelkerYes.  First: thanks to everyone for the reviews and getting that client merged.22:25
markvoelkerGUI-wise: working out a few kinks, but Arvind expects a good reviewable branch to land ~mid next week if not before.22:25
danwentmark: great.  I'll target that blueprint for D-422:26
*** jbryce has quit IRC22:26
markvoelkerSounds good22:26
danwentOk, on Nova work.22:26
danwentAs 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
danwentthese 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 IRC22:27
danwentthe 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
danwentif you're interested in contributing, please check out the blueprints and contact the authors22:29
salvexposing vif-ids, will also allow us to do the cross-service verification for authorizing quantum operations?22:29
danwentttx is STRONGLY encouraging early merges for anything going into nova for D-422:29
danwentsalv:  I actually put that in the quantum-manager blueprint, though if you have a different proposal that is fine.22:30
salvdanwent: I just wanted to make sure we are tracking this22:30
danwentsalv: cool.22:30
danwentanything else on nova?22:30
danwentOk, is Tyler here?22:31
markvoelkerNot, I think22:31
*** Cyns has quit IRC22:31
danwenthe mentioned that he will be taking a look at packaging for quantum, which is great.22:31
markvoelkerYes, 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 packaging22:32
salvon 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
danwentsalv: cool.  Is there a bp or bug?22:32
salvNot yet, we are still internally investigating the work required22:33
danwent#topic open discussion22:33
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"22:33
danwentsalv: k22:33
markvoelkerKeystone integration: anyone taking point on this?  If not I'll volunteer my team.22:33
*** medberry is now known as med_brb22:33
*** mattray has quit IRC22:34
salvmarkvoelker: I was looking after it. Happy to work with your team22:34
danwentmark: salv and I have talked a bit about it, but I have few dev cycles, so it would be great if you can help22:34
markvoelkerExcellent.  Salv, can you maybe send out a "where things stand" email so we can figure out how to attack this?22:34
salvmarkvoelker: 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
salvI'd love to have an attack strategy in the next couple of days22:35
danwentsalv: I will send some quick thoughts to the list, with some thoughts on the "simple" authn/authz22:36
danwentok, anything else folks?22:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"22:36
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  2 22:36:34 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)22:36
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.html22:36
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.txt22:36
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.01.log.html22:36
danwentOk, thanks team22:36
salvOps I wanted to chat about synchronous/aysnchronous model22:37
*** jmeredit has left #openstack-meeting22:37
*** Tushar269 has quit IRC22:37
salvAnybody willing to spend a few more minutes?22:37
SumitNaiksatamsalv: still here :-)22:37
danwentI'll start the logs again22:37
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  2 22:37:55 2011 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.22:37
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.22:37
salvthanks Dan!22:38
danwent#topic API sync vs. aysnc22:38
*** openstack changes topic to "API sync vs. aysnc"22:38
salvis RamD still here?22:38
danwentoh man, I really hope I didn't start up the meeting bot for nothing :P22:38
salvBasically we have two choices:22:38
RamDsorry back here22:39
salv1) the plugin defines the behaviour22:39
salv2) the API defines the behaviour22:39
RamDsalv: go ahead22:39
salvPros of approach #122:39
salvflexible and simple22:39
salvCons of approach #122:40
*** med_brb is now known as med22:40
*** med is now known as medberry22:40
salvPotential duplicated code among plugins (as pointed out by Sumit)22:40
salvPros of approach #222:40
salvReliable, well defined behaviour. Clients will be happy.22:40
salvCons fo approach #222:40
salvBurden on API layers, needs for changing plugin interface, potentially unnecessary if then the plugin implements the async behaviour as well.22:41
danwentsalv: by "the API defines the behavior", do you mean the API would return without making a call to the plugin?22:41
somiksalv: 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
danwentsalv: I suspect plugins that perform complex ops will implement their own degree of asyc as needed.22:42
salvdanwent: the API will call the plugin and return without waiting for it to complete the operation22:42
somiksalv: This is the stance we took on the DB model too, that we can leverage DB models by code sharing.22:42
salvI thought a bit about it and I'm leaning for approach #1 at the moment22:42
salvFrom the API perspective, what we should ensure is consistency towards API users.22:42
danwentI don't feel all that strongly here, other than I don't want something that makes writing a simple plugin complex.22:43
danwentsalv: consistency is important as well.22:43
RamDsalv: +1 on consitency22:43
RamD#2 will help us here, right?22:43
salvMy proposal is to leave the decision on sync/async behaviour to the plugin22:43
SumitNaiksatamapproach #2 guarantees consistency22:43
salvand modify the API such as it guarantees consistency at the same time22:43
somik+1 salv22:44
salvI think we can achieve it by stating that the API "does not guarantee" the completion of an operation when the response is returned22:44
RamDsalv: is that explained in the spec?22:44
somikwhat does consistency mean in terms of async vs. sync22:44
salvRamD: not yet, that why we are discussing it :)22:44
somikis there a specific use-case?22:44
SumitNaiksatamsomik: consistency of sync vs async behavior22:45
RamDI think that's the important thing...how does API can ensure consistency for a plug in behaviour not clear for me22:45
salvLet's look at consistency from the user perspective. The user does might not have any idea about the plugin.22:45
*** edconzel has quit IRC22:45
Tv_possible confusion in the air.. there's consistency "all apis look the same" and consistency "acid data integrity guarantees"22:46
somikuptil the client gets the response it wants, why does the client care22:46
Tv_i think the original meant #1, i fear some people are reading it as #222:46
somikTv_ I agree that we are after consistency #122:46
salvTv_: right. I'm talking of consistency as "api always look the same despite of what behaviour is actually being employed"22:46
RamDsolv: that's given, right? :-)22:47
RamDwe should not have # of APIs based on plugin one Quantum core API thats it.22:47
salvSo 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 asynchronous22:47
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-meeting22:47
salvAs long as the API faithfull tells what's happening.22:47
somiksalv: +122:48
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 openstack22:48
salvso we can add a "resource status" concept similar to what is done in nova22:48
salvTv_: exactly.22:48
RamDTv_ +122:48
salvthen, 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
salvI 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 phase22:50
Tv_let simple things be simple22:50
salvTv_: sure22:50
salvthat would not apply to GET operations, for instance.22:50
somikI think we should make things simple and add this complexity in E release if needed, after design summit22:50
danwenthaving it be a "status" on a resource can help things be simple22:50
salvthe status concept can easily be implemented within diablo timeframe22:51
danwentsimilar to salvatore's email22:51
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 up22:51
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 enough22:52
Tv_like, if you "create" something, and you're supposed to poll until it's ready before you use it elsewhere22:52
Tv_people will forget to poll22:52
somikTv_ 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
somikIf its needed by a plugin and the customer needs that plugin, they can still do the complicated plugin22:53
salvsomik: do you recommend we should leave things as they are for the diablo release?22:54
SumitNaiksatamsomik: my question as well22:54
*** EdgarPerdomo has quit IRC22:54
*** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting22:54
somikI think that would help us polish things out and let some end-customers try Quantum easily and then we can iterate22:54
RamDsomik: I think we are agreeing on the "status" level "async" for now..let's start with that.22:54
*** msinhore has quit IRC22:54
*** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting22:54
*** EdgarPerdomo has joined #openstack-meeting22:55
RamDlet me take a look at the spec as well and send in my comments22:55
somikRamD: that would be adding something to the API that's not agreed upon aka "feature creep" ;)22:55
RamDsomik:oops I thought we are converging :-)22:55
salvsomik: reasonable enough22:55
somikand the plugins can still implement async behavior, the API changes for async we can iterate on after we get some real feedback22:56
salvlet'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 IRC22:56
salvExample: an asynchronous plugin might do stuff with PHY switches, virtual switches, and other network appliances. When you create a network22:57
RamDsalv: I'm for the "resource status" based API behaviour22:57
SumitNaiksatamsomik: if left to the plugin to decide whether sync or async what behavior would the client expect?22:57
yingsomik: if we do async call without API change, how can user check whether it's done or not?22:58
salvyou 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
SumitNaiksatamclient has to be written with one or the other approach in mind22:58
RamDas a starter we leave that to "plugin" to support the behaviour and as we move forward we can consider on API layer in future22:58
salvying: that's my point as well. Client will think resource is ready, but it's still being provisioned22:58
*** msinhore has quit IRC22:58
somikthe plugin responds within a reasonable HTTP timeout.. the client doesn't care about the rest.22:59
RamDying: +122:59
salvsomik: you mean the plugin responds when the provisioning of the resource is complete?22:59
*** RamD has quit IRC23:00
salvRamD: bye23:00
danwentthe plugin does not necessarily need to do all of its work before returning.23:00
somiksalv:  thats one approach in the current framework23:00
danwentfor example, on a create network, it need only store the notion that the network exists.23:00
yingsomik: user needs to care, as after creating network, he will use it and need to make the provisioning is done23:01
salvbut isn't there a difference between a network that "exists" and a network that is "available"?23:01
SumitNaiksatamdanwent: that implies plugin its implementing async behavior23:01
danwentSumit: yup23:01
somikSumitNaiksatam: plugin abstracts the complexity and we expose a simpler model to user for now23:01
danwentmy guess is that most complex plugins will do that already.23:01
salvI 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
danwentsalv: agreed23:02
*** jkoelker has quit IRC23:02
SumitNaiksatamsalv: in that case framework should implement async behavior23:02
salvMy 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 used23:02
somiksalv: +123:02
yinggood to have that flexibility, but need a way to let user know it's sync or async api23:02
salvthink about a server in nova. You cannot suspend an instance if it is not running, can you?23:03
yingplus, for async api, needs a way to let user know whether the resource is ready23:03
danwentI would be in favor of exposing some kind of status, which in general indicates whether the plugin is "actively managing" the port.23:04
somikthats the plugin design issue, one way the plugin can do this is by handling asnc backend with a sync API, which is the current API23:04
danwentthis 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
salvying: for "async api" you mean the API layer uses something like a message queue to dispatch a call to the plugin?23:04
danwentnetworks 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 coffee23:05
somiksalv: that would definitely be out of scope for diablo ;)23:05
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting23:05
danwentok, sounds like there's enough discussion here that we should let salvatore get some sleep23:05
yingsalv: async api means async call, no matter we do it in api layer or plugin layer23:05
* salv had his coffee, now he feels like it's 9AM23:06
yingI just want to say, for async mechanism, we need a way to let user check whether it's done or not23:06
salvying: good, we're on the same page. Do you think the concept of "resource status" will be enough?23:06
yingsalv agree23:06
somikying: the current API is sync, but the plugin can handle async implementation, and we can still work with current sync api.23:06
yingsomik: we still need extend current api by having status checking, right?23:07
salvsomik: 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
danwentsalv: how about you send out a proposal for the resource status and people see if it handles their use cases?23:07
salvdanwent: will do (actually I think I already did it, but the proposal was not detailed enough probably)23:08
SumitNaiksatamdanwent: +1, salv: a high level example will help23:08
SumitNaiksatamtake create_network() for instance23:08
danwent#action salvatore to send out more detailed thoughts on resource status23:08
somikwe are over time limit, I dont want to hold people off for long, we can do email discussion, that would be better23:08
SumitNaiksatamthanks salv for shepherding this!23:09
danwentok, this is a great discussion :)23:09
danwentwe good to end the log?23:09
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"23:09
salvyes, close log23:09
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  2 23:09:57 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)23:10
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.html23:10
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.txt23:10
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-02-22.37.log.html23:10
SumitNaiksatamtake care, ciao!23:10
salvthanks guys, have a good one23:10
danwenttake care23:10
*** markvoelker has quit IRC23:10
somikhave a good one all!23:10
*** somik has quit IRC23:10
*** ying has quit IRC23:10
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC23:10
*** Tv_ has left #openstack-meeting23:11
*** shwetaap has quit IRC23:16
*** asomya has quit IRC23:17
*** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting23:17
*** adjohn has quit IRC23:17
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting23:17
*** ryu_ishimoto has quit IRC23:17
*** joearnold has quit IRC23:20
*** nati has quit IRC23:32
*** creiht has left #openstack-meeting23:46
*** EdgarPerdomo has quit IRC23:50
*** danwent has left #openstack-meeting23:50
*** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting23:54

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