Tuesday, 2011-08-09

*** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting00:26
*** blamar__ is now known as cg0100:28
*** heckj has quit IRC00:36
*** martine_ has quit IRC00:46
*** dwcramer has quit IRC01:00
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting01:21
*** edconzel has quit IRC01:36
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting02:01
*** dwcramer has quit IRC02:38
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting02:51
*** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting03:06
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting03:09
*** glenc has quit IRC03:12
*** dwcramer has quit IRC03:14
*** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting03:19
*** glenc has quit IRC03:21
*** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting03:22
*** cg01 has quit IRC03:45
*** HowardRoark has quit IRC04:09
*** jakedahn has quit IRC04:34
*** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting05:01
*** tsuzuki has joined #openstack-meeting05:13
*** jakedahn has quit IRC05:14
*** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting07:18
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting08:14
*** med_out is now known as medberry08:38
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting08:53
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting10:58
*** tsuzuki has quit IRC12:07
*** stiekes has quit IRC13:58
*** stiekes has joined #openstack-meeting13:58
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting14:07
*** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:10
*** stiekes has quit IRC14:12
*** stiekes_ has quit IRC14:15
*** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:16
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting14:17
*** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting14:22
*** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
*** HowardRoark has quit IRC14:31
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting14:36
*** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting14:52
*** msinhore has quit IRC14:58
*** jkoelker has quit IRC15:02
*** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
*** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting15:11
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:13
*** HowardRoark has quit IRC15:14
*** heckj has quit IRC15:16
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:16
*** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting15:46
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting16:26
*** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting16:40
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting16:48
*** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting16:56
*** zul has quit IRC16:57
*** martine has joined #openstack-meeting17:16
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC17:23
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting17:29
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting17:36
*** darraghb has quit IRC17:36
*** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting18:26
*** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting18:32
*** nati has joined #openstack-meeting18:46
*** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting18:49
*** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:58
*** nati_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
mtaylorhey all - anybody wanna talk about CI19:03
nati_mtaylor: I`m SF now :D19:04
bengrueI'm here.19:05
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  9 19:05:30 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
mtaylorReal quick update on stuff from last week:19:06
mtaylorThe milestone proposed jobs were fixed and can run on the right build slaves now19:06
mtaylortarball_script.sh and ppa_script.sh were updated for the glance transition19:07
mtaylorand jaypipes and I did nothing on the glance upgrade path testing job19:07
mtaylor#action jaypipes design upgrade path jenkins job with mtaylor19:07
mtaylor#topic open discussion19:07
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"19:07
notmynamemtaylor: how goes gitweb/gitorious?19:07
mtayloron positive notes - glance migrated to git/gerrit19:08
mtaylornotmyname: we spun up a gitweb and I've been poking at gitorious19:08
notmynamecool. just curious to see the differences19:08
mtaylornotmyname: I think that gitorious could be a solution even using gitorious.org - but I think we could do some additional integration if we ran our own19:08
bengruewhy not github?19:08
bengrue(Did I miss something earlier?)19:09
mtaylornotmyname: I set up https://gitorious.org/openstack just to look at it19:09
bengruelack of collaboration tools?19:09
notmynamebengrue: with gerrit, we wouldn't use any github features19:09
mtaylorbengrue: longer ongoing discussion - but it has been put across that if we aren't using pull requests, then putting branches on github is confusing19:09
mtaylorwhich is, I think, correct19:10
*** nati has quit IRC19:10
mtaylornotmyname: the hosted gitorious.org does allow you to turn off merge requests ... so that's workable - however, I was going to spin up an instance locally and see what that looked like19:10
jeblairif we do use github, we might try to auto-respond to pull requests (either by converting them to gerrit changes, or closing them with a message pointing to gerrit)19:10
mtaylorcause if we're going to do that - perhaps having it at git.openstack.org might be preferrable19:11
mtaylorjeblair: is the gitweb thing from gerrit publicly accessible?19:11
mtaylornotmyname: also, it's notable that gerrit themselves don't use the bundled gitweb and instead use a gitweb running elsewhere that they mirror to19:11
bengrueThere are hooks we can fire in github upon pull request, right?19:11
jeblairit's only on a dev server, and it's mostly useful for viewing the state of the gerrit repo.  i think we should turn it on on the production server, because it's free.19:12
mtaylorbengrue: yes - there are hooks - but for what purpose are you suggesting?19:12
jeblairhowever, i don't think it's a good public entry point to viewing the repos.  for that, if we wanted to use gitweb, we should probably have a separate server19:12
jeblair(or a separate gitweb instance)19:13
jeblairlike: https://android.git.kernel.org/?p=tools/gerrit.git19:13
jeblairis separate from: https://review.source.android.com/#/q/status:open,n,z19:14
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting19:14
bengruemtayor: I was following up on jeblair's statement about auto-responding/converting-to-gerrit for clarification19:14
mtaylorbengrue: ah. cool.19:14
mtaylorbengrue: and yes19:14
mtaylorthat would likely be how we would go about such a thing ... however, I think the point made that it might just be eaiser for folks to grok if we weren't showing pull requests at all might make more sense19:15
*** edconzel has quit IRC19:15
notmynameunfotunately (for this use case), pull requests are so deeply integrated into github that hiding them would be unlikely19:17
notmynameso, if we can't use github's pull requests, issues, etc (/sad notmyname), then I think we should avoid the confusion19:18
mtaylornotmyname: any thoughts on hosted gitorious vs. us running one just on general principle?19:19
bengrueWhat's specifically the problem with pull requests?  openstack has too many?19:19
notmynamebut, I'd like to see the options before committing to one or the other (thanks to mtaylor and jeblair for the effort of looking in to it all)19:19
mtaylorbengrue: I just sent a follow up email to the openstack mailing list about that19:19
notmynamebengrue: "they" ;-) want gated trunks19:19
mtaylornotmyname: :)19:19
bengrueWho are "they"?19:19
mtaylorbengrue: you will find that we have a multitude of opinions and goals ;)19:20
bengrueWe are OpenLegion, for we are many.19:20
notmynamemtaylor: no opinions on hosted or self-hosted. however, we are hosting part of it and do have a large hosting company helping out openstack....19:20
mtaylorok - that may be the funniest thing I've heard in this context in months19:20
mtaylornotmyname: that was sort of my thought19:21
termiewe chatted a bit about this in the office yesterday19:21
mtaylornotmyname: once we crossed the line of "hosting some of it" ... hosting more of it isn't really much more of an imposition :)19:21
termiewe felt there were still useful things for using github as we do a lot of collab that is outside of just pushing code reviews19:21
mtaylortotally - and those things can still really be done no matter what19:21
termiesure, but github offers a useful multi-user environment19:22
mtaylorno - I meant github can still be used for those no matter what19:22
jeblairmtaylor: you mean, even if the "official" location is gitorious or gitweb?19:23
termiewe also brought up that a lot of people currenlty _are_ using github for issues19:23
mtayloryes they are ... although none of those issues are in the set of project tracked and officially planned for issues19:23
bengrueWe currently (at Piston) have an internal cron that polls launchpad every 20 minutes and shoves it into github.19:24
bengruenova and swift, at least.  not every project.19:24
notmynamebengrue: issues?19:24
notmynameor code?19:24
mtaylorthe main issue feature requirement that has been stated is the ability to attach an issue to more than one project and/or more than one release of a project19:25
bengruenone yet, we're just starting to use it... I'm sure there will be some.19:25
bengrueOh, code.19:25
mtaylorbut I'm actually interested in clarifying termie's point from earlier19:25
notmynamebengrue: the "unoficial" swift mirror is kept up to date (http://github.com/openstack/swift)19:25
bengruenotmyname: ah, nice.19:25
notmynamebengrue: i'd suggest keeping that repo as an upstream remote19:26
termiemy only point is that i don't think there is sufficient reason to self-host the git parts, i think we are actually getting stuff out of github even if not using it for official pull requests or issues19:26
*** stiekes_ has quit IRC19:26
mtaylortermie: are you saying you think that just continuing to mirror to github and telling people to use gerrit ...19:26
mtaylortermie: you answered even as I was asking19:26
notmynametermie: what about confusion of how to get stuff in to master?19:26
*** stiekes_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:26
termienotmyname: either automated thing telling people who send pull requests to master to use gerrit or get gerrit to bring them in19:27
notmynameI've only seen 1 issue come up on github for swift, and I hate having to tell that person "sorry, learn bzr/lp and resubmit"19:27
termienotmyname: pretty easy cronjob to write19:27
mtaylornotmyname: it's really only confusion the first time someone tries to submit ... and a github hook that gave someone to ping them19:27
termieyou can disable issues for the project19:27
bengrueAutomated messages explaining what to do when the "wrong" thing is done is a favorite method of mine.19:27
bengrueIt's passive education.19:27
notmynametermie: ya, actually it was a pull request19:27
mtaylorand easy to accomplish19:27
bengrueIt leads to immediate discoverability.19:27
termie(though obvs i still think we should ditch launchpad with haste on all possible fronts)19:28
notmynameif pull request hooks solve the problem, that may be sufficient19:28
bengrueI'm relatively new to openstack development myself, and I'd say there are some hard to discover things all over the project.  The clearer the feedback on bad actions, the easier it becomes to bootstrap into the project.19:29
mtaylorI would say a) auto responses to pull requests with links to gerrit instructions and b) look in to whether it makes physical sense to auto-create a gerrit request for them - yeah?19:29
mtaylor#info termie hates launchpad19:29
jeblairhere's a quick comparison of the things we've looked at:19:29
termiemtaylor: wouldn't want my position to be clouded19:29
jeblairgithub: unable to disable pull requests, so we would have to either attempt to automatically move them to gerrit or automatically close them with instructions pointing to gerrit.  does not support openid as a provider or consumer, so separate authn needed.19:29
mtaylortermie: nope. it's totally clear :)19:29
*** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting19:29
jeblairgitorious: can disable merge requests.  open source, so can develop enhancements as needed.  supports openid as a consumer, so can SSO with other tools in use (launchpad, jenkins, gerrit).19:29
jeblairgitweb: simple, read-only, no collaboration features.19:29
jeblairdoes that suggest anything we should explore further?19:30
notmynamejeblair: seems to imply that gitweb wouldn't be sufficient for replacing lp code hosting19:31
notmyname(although it is useful for other use cases)19:31
jeblairit gives us a place to point to and say "here's where you can browse the code".  i'd sort of characterize it as saying it's the way to go if the project as a whole wants to avoid endorsing a web-based method of collaboration during development.19:33
jaypipesnotmyname: thought we wanted to steer away from "us" vs. "them"?19:33
jeblairpeople will still use github certainly.  probably more so if we went with gitweb.  but the project would be out of the business of telling people how and why to use it.19:33
jeblairoh, and i'm assuming gerrit is performing code rewiew with all of those options, just to be clear.19:34
jeblair'review' even.19:34
notmynamejeblair: those reasons for gitweb seem to be great if each project is responsible for its own hosting, etc. but since openstack has chosen to do everything the same way, there is still a need for the collaborative tool, right?19:36
notmynameie, using gitweb doesn't meet the requirements (unless I'm missing something). it would have to be gitweb + something, right? is that something gerrit or would there still be a missing piece?19:37
termieso, another reason i'd like github: all of my teams other projects are already on there19:37
notmynametermie: in the same boat. all of the other cloud files stuff (swauth, slogging, language bindings) are all on github as well19:38
jeblairgitweb will "host code", and gerrit will handle code reviews and merging, so at a minimum, it seems to meet the requirements for "code hosting".  i think it's the collaborative aspect of github (and perhaps gitorious) that's appealing.19:38
jaypipesand how many people work on those projects? 3 or 4 maybe? we're talking about a different type of complexity here...19:39
mtaylorI agree with that.19:39
mtaylornot jaypipes, jeblair19:39
mtaylorI think we have two different things here:19:39
mtaylora) code review/queue management and19:39
mtaylorb) from where do people clone19:39
termiea) gerrit, b) github19:40
jaypipescool with me.19:40
bengrueanother reason I like github: it increases visibility into the community from the outside world.19:40
* mtaylor tends to agree with termie there19:40
notmynamemtaylor: termie: if the pull request confusion is addressed properly19:40
mtayloras long as the pull request auto-closing-with-instructions hook is acceptable to folks19:40
heckjmtaylor: I think it's a pretty good/reasonable solution19:41
jaypipesor GitHub becomes open source...19:41
termienotmyname: i think that is a pretty easy thing to solve19:41
bengrueI like the solution.19:41
mtaylornotmyname: yes. I would suggest we start with the auto-close hook, and then if it's an ongoing problem, investigate creating gerrit reviews19:41
jaypipesmtaylor: ++19:41
mtaylorok - so I'm going to consider this some sort of agreement :)19:41
* termie looks outside to check for flying pigs19:42
jeblairtermie pointed me to some code that can do a lot of the pull request work.  i'd be happy to do that.19:42
mtaylor#agreed continue to mirror gerrit projects to github and put in an auto-closing hook for pull requets19:42
mtaylor#action jeblair auto-closing pull request hook19:42
_0x44mtaylor: Instead of auto-closing-with-instructions, why don't you make a hook that auto-adds it as a request in gerrit?19:42
_0x44mtaylor: And have gerrit auto-close the pull-request after merge?19:43
termie_0x44: more complicated, stretch goal19:43
mtaylor_0x44: I would like to look in to that as step two ... I just think the instructions one could probably be done in a half an hour or so19:43
termie_0x44: the other option is a 4 line script and a cronjob19:43
jaypipes_0x44: I think he said above they'd try that at a later time.19:43
termiedon't worry guys, i'll try not to make this agreeing thing a habit19:43
jaypipeswe know. ;)19:44
_0x44termie: A 4 line script will be a "solution" that probably won't get fixed, though.19:44
mtaylorquick everybody ... vi or emacs?19:44
mtaylor_0x44: we keep todo lists and work on them19:44
_0x44vi, and bengrue is volunteering to write the second-round hook to auto-integrate gerrit and github.19:44
termiejeblair: BOOO19:44
mtaylorok- the world is ok again19:44
jeblairwe also keep scripts in git, and accept patches.19:45
mtaylorspeaking of ...19:45
_0x44bengrue: pipe up so they don't think I'm just volunteering you. :)19:45
mtayloranybody want to write better css for gerrit?19:45
bengrueyes, I can write the stretch goal script.19:45
notmyname_0x44: now he has to. aren'tyou his boss? ;-)19:46
bengrueAs long as I have an introduction to gerrit.19:46
_0x44notmyname: Yes ;)19:46
bengruejmckenty said lat week that I can use 4 hours a week on CI tasks for openstack.19:46
bengrueSo as I come up to speed that'll be more and more useful.19:46
notmynameyour 2% time?19:46
mtaylorbengrue: happy to have you help!19:47
bengrueI'm still in the learning phases of openstack development, but CI methodology is something I'm a bit more familiar with.19:47
_0x44notmyname: We don't work quite 168 hours a week, so it might be a bit more than 2%.19:47
bengrueGlad to help.19:47
mtaylorbengrue: be sure to bug jeblair or I if you grind to a halt anywhere19:47
bengrueha, good to know.19:47
bengrue(lunch has arrived at piston)19:48
mtaylorok - anybody got anything else?19:50
mtaylorgreat. thanks everybody ... and try not to have your day ruined by us agreeing on something19:52
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"19:52
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  9 19:52:12 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:52
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.html19:52
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.txt19:52
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-19.05.log.html19:52
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting19:52
*** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting19:52
*** jmckenty_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:54
*** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting19:58
*** dprince has quit IRC19:59
*** bengrue has quit IRC19:59
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  9 20:00:08 2011 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.20:00
termiejbryce: !20:00
jbrycetermie: !20:00
jbrycewhich ppb members do we have?20:00
vishychuck norris: !20:01
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates20:01
* jmckenty_ waves20:01
jmckenty_no ewan expected, right?20:02
vishywow good turnout20:02
jmckenty_he's in some weird time zone20:02
vishymissing ewan and purrier20:02
*** mgius has joined #openstack-meeting20:02
jbrycewell let's get started. agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB20:02
jbryce#topic previous action items20:03
*** openstack changes topic to "previous action items"20:03
jbrycejmckenty_: any update on FITS or academic cooperation?20:03
jmckenty_I have two of those20:03
jmckenty_FITS has a mailing list set up, and a reasonably representative set of members20:03
*** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
jmckenty_We haven't done a kickoff yet, was waiting to hear how things went with Dell first20:03
jmckenty_as it probably changes our mandate somewhat20:04
jmckenty_Academics, I've spoken with Stephen Spector and a few others directly (Qatar Foundation, etc), should have a proposal in shape in a few weeks, but I was thinking we should set aside a couple of blocks at the summit20:04
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
* jaypipes wonders if I missed some ML post on FITS...20:05
jmckenty_jaypipes: what, specifically?20:05
znsHi - is there a PPB mtg today?20:05
jbrycezns: yes. going on right now20:05
ttxzns: it's on20:05
jaypipeszns: you're in it :)20:05
*** anotherjesse has quit IRC20:05
jaypipesjmckenty_: about FITS. Were you going to introduce the concept on the ML and invite people to comment?20:06
znsCool. Multi-tasking.. :-)20:06
jmckenty_jaypipes: wasn't planning on it.20:06
jaypipesjmckenty_: any reason?20:06
jmckenty_not until we had a proposal20:06
jmckenty_I think it makes a very messy public discussion topic20:07
*** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting20:07
jmckenty_Would rather come to the community with two or three distinct proposals20:07
jaypipesjmckenty_: ah, ok. but after you have a proposal, you will, correct?20:07
jmckenty_and some background research that's well articulated20:07
jmckenty_current / correct20:07
jaypipes:) gotcha. ok, cool.20:07
jbryceother outstanding action item is the next item on the agenda20:08
jmckenty_project autonomy?20:08
jbryce#topic common project tooling/processes aka autonomy20:08
*** openstack changes topic to "common project tooling/processes aka autonomy"20:08
jbrycei plan on adding that to the existing project description page that already covered some of the project philosophy ideas20:08
ttxjbryce: I sent my comments to the thread20:09
ttxotherwise lgtm20:09
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting20:09
jbrycettx: i haven't been getting lp email today, but i just saw them on the web archive20:09
johnpuri am in basic agreement with ttx20:09
jbrycei'll add in a note about default 4-week milestone20:10
jmckenty_I'd rather hold off on approving that doc until we get a status update from the vetting process for github+gerritt20:10
jaypipesalready responded, lgtm..20:10
jmckenty_If we're going to have vetted options, we should have more than one, imo20:10
jaypipesmeaning, why does one affect the other?20:11
jmckenty_because a very large community contingent has asked for it20:11
ttxjmckenty_: some people are waiting for doc approval to vote, so it looks like a catch-2220:11
jaypipesso, you're fine with vetted options as long as they're the vetted options you approve of...20:11
jbrycejmckenty_: once approved, i will update this list20:11
jaypipesbut that's not what the vote is on. The vote is whether to have a set or a single vetted option.20:11
jbrycethe bottom section would change anytime we add new options or categories20:11
edaynotmyname: were there any specific things you were waiting on from project autonomy docs? I know you had been asking for it20:11
sorenI expected we'd discuss whether we'd have "one true set of tools" vs. "a set of vetted optoins" before we discussed a document that specifically speaks of "the vetted options".20:11
jmckenty_soren: we did that already20:11
jmckenty_and voted on it20:11
jmckenty_and then reviewed it20:12
ttxjmckenty_: not everyone is convinced of that.20:12
jmckenty_I can pull up the ppb meeting logs20:12
edayjmckenty_: it ended in a tie20:12
jaypipesno, we didn't.20:12
sorenSo why was the question raised again on the mailing list?20:12
jmckenty_really? I don't remember a tie20:12
edayjmckenty_: someone changed their vote, and we didn't have enough folks attending to break the tie20:12
sorenIf it's the meeting I remember, it ended up a tie as dendrobates changed his vote.20:12
jmckenty_ah, gotcha20:13
jbrycewe did discuss it in subsequent meetings20:13
notmynameeday: that's what I was waiting on :-)20:13
jmckenty_yes, but I was never clear about why we were discussing it again20:13
jmckenty_it's clear now20:13
jaypipesso, we ready to vote on it?20:13
jmckenty_we still don't have a set of options20:14
jbrycethe last discussion it seemed that most people were on the side of a vetted set of options (which could be a set of one)20:14
jmckenty_we have a single option20:14
jmckenty_in every case20:14
jmckenty_hence my feeling that voting is premature20:14
jbrycethe next step was to attempt to draft the summary of the discussion that went on over multiple weeks20:14
notmynamejmckenty_: are you ok with the idea of having a set of options?20:14
jbrycehence the document with the link20:14
jmckenty_notmyname: yes20:14
jbrycejmckenty_: the document includes existing approved options which is only one currently20:15
jmckenty_but I'm not okay with approving that as our official mechanism when there's only one option20:15
jbryceif we approved additional options they get added to the document20:15
notmynameso we can settle the single option/vetted list issue?20:15
jaypipesjmckenty_: the point is to vote on whether to have a single option or more than one, not whether LP or Gerrit/GitHub IS the single option or one of the options.20:15
ttx"a set of options" actually includes "only one option"20:15
sorenWhether we want a set of vetted options vs "one true set of options" is orthogonal to whatever the vetted options would be, hopefully.20:15
jmckenty_it's not semantics per se...20:15
jbrycejmckenty_: i'm totally fine with a set only have one element20:15
jmckenty_I'm not20:15
sorenThen what's the problem?20:16
jaypipesjmckenty_: you are if it's the option you prefer.20:16
jbryceso you want to always force multiple options to be available?20:16
sorenYou've clearly decided on what your vote is going to be.20:16
jmckenty_jaypipes: not true20:16
edayhow about "should we ever support more than one project hosting option?"20:16
jaypipeseday: right, that is the question.20:16
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
edayat least, until we vote on this again :/20:17
jbrycejmckenty_: i don't understand your issue. are you saying you want to require more than one option in every category?20:17
jmckenty_I'm just saying that voting to approve multiple options, when we don't have a SINGLE alternative,20:18
jmckenty_is a bunch of sycophantic posturing20:18
jaypipesjmckenty_: no, it's not.20:18
sorenIt's not at all.20:18
jbrycestep one is to approve a philosophy that allows for multiple options20:18
jbrycestep two is to add the addition options20:18
jaypipesjmckenty_: replace Launchpad with "BLAHBLAH". It doesn't matter what is on there to vote on whether ot have >1 option.20:18
* johnpur gets out his dictionary20:19
jbrycethis document attempted to capture the idea that there can be multiple options20:19
ttxjohnpur: give it to me when you're done20:19
mtaylorit's voting to allow approval of a second option without having to categorically remove the first option at the same time20:19
johnpurjmckenty_: thanks20:19
jbrycenext item on the agenda was to vote on if there's a second option in 2 of these categories20:19
johnpurmtaylor: +120:20
jmckenty_fine, I won't hold it up.20:20
jbryceso can we vote on this: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/ProjectToolingAndPractices20:20
sorenThat's the entire point. It speaks of "vetted options".20:21
sorenWhat if we don't want such a concept?20:21
jaypipesdon't we need to vote on >1 vs. 1 option?20:21
mtaylor(although me would like to put out there, as a person who supports a good amount of this - that he'd prefer long term to only be supporting a single infrastructure- but is fine with "set of vetted options"20:21
jmckenty_I had a minor observation on the autonomy point20:21
jbrycejaypipes: yes. that is what the document discusses20:21
jmckenty_just that, although swift works perfectly well standalone, nova depends on glance, and glance (at scale) depends on swift20:21
jbrycethe key point of the document being that for certain categories there are predefined default options that projects should choose from20:21
jaypipesjbryce: ah, so you're saying since the document says vetted options, we are voting up or down on that?20:21
jbrycejaypipes: correct20:22
jaypipesready when you are.20:22
jmckenty_+1 for vetted options20:22
johnpuris there a "preferred" designation on the betted options?20:22
jmckenty_johnpur: separate vote?20:22
jbrycethe bottom is just a catalog that we would update as things change20:22
sorenWhat if we reject this document?20:22
sorenWhat happens then?20:22
jbrycethen someone else gets to draft the next one. = )20:23
jbryceand go through 6 weeks of meeting logs to try to understand the discussion20:23
ttx+1 as vetted options is still very open-ended :)20:23
notmyname-1 for vetted options20:23
jaypipesttx: no, it's not... it's merely a vote on 1 or >1 option.20:23
jaypipes-1 on vetted options. +1 on singular option.20:24
johnpur+1 for vetted options20:24
ttxjaypipes: no, it's a vote on 1 or >=1.20:24
jaypipesttx: sure, yes.20:24
sorenThen I don't undertand what we're voting?20:24
sorenAt all.20:24
eday-1 for vetted (since we voted one project, we shouldn't split it)20:24
ttxsoren: we are voting on enforcing 1 optoin... or deciding to keep the option to have >=120:24
sorenI'd like to retract my vote on the grounds of not having the faintest idea what we're voting on.20:24
ttxshould it be ==1 or >=1 option.20:25
jbryceeday: to be precise we voted on one product made up of independent projects20:25
sorenThen ==120:25
jmckenty_fetch me... an HALIBUT!20:25
sorenThat's unambiguous.20:25
jaypipessoren: if you want no flexibility on whether an openstack project gets to choose from a list of vetted options, vote -1.20:25
sorenjaypipes: Thanks.20:26
soren(then why did people start saying "no" when someone tried to sum it up that way?)20:26
jaypipeswho's missing a vote?20:26
jaypipesjbryce: your vote?20:26
anotherjessewhat is the score?20:26
jbrycei have no idea20:26
jbrycetrying to scrollback and see where everyone ended up20:26
jmckenty_Vetted = jmckenty, jbryce, vishy, johnpur20:27
vishy6 -2 i think20:27
* ttx retracts to +0 if it's tied.20:27
jmckenty_oh, and ttx20:27
jmckenty_and mtaylor, or no?20:27
vishyk missed a few20:27
sorennotmyname: I'm kind of baffled here. You've spent the last 7 meetings talking about autonomy and letting people choose their own tools, but now you're voting against having options?20:27
* mtaylor doesn't get a vote20:27
ttxI don't really mind -- I expect that the PPB will only vet one option at a time anyway.20:27
* mtaylor just lurks and talks20:27
jmckenty_right, sorry20:27
jmckenty_the pluses confused me20:27
anotherjessenotmyname: yeah - reasoning?20:27
vishyso 1 option is -> ewan, soren, jaypipes, dendrobates, eday20:28
jmckenty_single option = eday, dendrobates, soren, jaypipes20:28
vishyso 5 -5 ?20:28
jmckenty_was that ewans?20:28
jmckenty_so we're deadlocked on ttx20:28
vishyi thought he said one option in his email20:28
jmckenty_yeah, he did20:29
jbrycewhere is ewan?20:29
vishyanotherjesse can tie break20:29
notmynamemy understanding of the original autonomy descision is that openstack is a single unit with cooperating components. I think my current vote goes along with that. I was never for a vetted set. I originally wanted no set approved or otherwise20:29
jmckenty_he doesn't want to teach his devs git and bzr20:29
sorenjbryce: Sleeping, probably. He's in India (where it's 2 AM).20:29
ttxnah, notmyname votes -120:29
ttxso -1 wins20:29
*** mauricioarango has joined #openstack-meeting20:29
jbryceso where did his vote come in?20:29
anotherjessenotmyname: k - I agree20:29
anotherjesseand vote with notmyname20:29
ttxjbryce: PPB ML post20:29
jmckenty_k, I'm happy20:29
vishyso single option wins 6 - 5?20:29
*** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting20:30
jmckenty_so we chuck that page, then20:30
jbryceanotherjesse: did you vote?20:30
jmckenty_he voted with notmyname20:30
anotherjesseyes same as notmyname - not sure if that is + or -20:30
notmynameI voted -120:30
notmynamefor single option20:31
jmckenty_who's missing?20:31
jmckenty_we have 12, right?20:31
jmckenty_oh, ttx20:31
jbryce#agreed VOTE: Not vetted set of options allowed. All projects must use same tooling. result 7 - 520:31
*** mdomsch has quit IRC20:31
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:31
jmckenty_jbryce: it's 6-520:31
jmckenty_with one abstention20:31
jbrycei thought ttx was abstaining if it was tied?20:32
jmckenty_oh, I see20:32
jbryce#topic GItHub + gerrit20:32
sorenjbryce: Hang on, hang on.20:32
*** openstack changes topic to "GItHub + gerrit"20:32
jbrycesoren: ok20:32
sorenjbryce: You said explicitly that voting against this only meant that we rejected that document. Not that any specific other options was then chosen.20:32
jaypipessoren: that's correct.20:33
jmckenty_um... no?20:33
jbrycejaypipes:soren: if you want no flexibility on whether an openstack project gets to choose from a list of vetted options, vote -1.20:33
jbryce[3:26pm]soren:jaypipes: Thanks.20:33
ttxjbryce let's quickvote on "single optoin everywhere" then20:33
* jmckenty_ is avoiding further ambiguity20:33
ttxI want a rule, whatever that ends up being.20:33
sorenjmckenty_: I asked what happened if we voted against it. The answer was htat someone would get th epleasure of coming up with a new document.20:33
jmckenty_that was in reference to a previously proposed vote, not the vote we ended up having, though20:34
jmckenty_we didn't vote on the doc20:34
jaypipessoren: right, and the change would be everywhere it says "vetted options" would be replaced with "a single option".20:34
jmckenty_we revoted on the ==1 or >120:34
jbrycei'm assuming the new document would represent the outcome of the vote20:34
soren...but I'm perfectly happy to *not* have someone do that. I just want us to actually be consistent in what we're saying we're voting on and then what we state for the record was decided.20:34
jbrycewhich is that we don't want to allow a vetted set of options20:34
jmckenty_so tooling is now by PPB decree, right?20:35
jbrycethat is what i understand it to mean20:36
ttxI think this was beaten to death, let's move on20:36
johnpurjmckenty_: no the *policy* for tooling is directed by the ppb20:36
edayjmckenty_: well, it has been since the vote a few weeks ago, now it's just only one option choosen by PPB, not many choosen by PPB20:36
johnpurthe actual tooling needs wider community input (ala the github thing)20:37
jbryceso on github, this is now an interesting situation20:37
jmckenty_can we get a status update?20:37
*** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting20:37
mtaylorwe've moved glance over to git/gerrit20:37
mtaylorwhich went much better than the keystone move :)20:37
mtaylorand then in the openstack-ci meeting earlier today, we got agreement from me, jay, notmyname AND termie that continuing to mirror to github and installing a hook that automatically closes pull requests submitted with instructions on submitting to gerrit was acceptable20:38
* jaypipes was amazed..20:38
* mtaylor believes that some pigs flew20:39
jmckenty_So I set up my own mirrors to Github last weekend20:39
jmckenty_because the openstack ones had bitrotted20:39
mtaylorin any case- that means that the overall system as put forward is the one we have now20:39
jmckenty_will that be part of the CI infrastructure going forward?20:39
notmynamejmckenty_: the swit one is kept up-to-date ;-)20:39
termiejmckenty_: they aren't bitrotted20:39
jmckenty_*how* up to date?20:39
mtaylorjmckenty_: well, once nova/swift are in gerrit, that will be done automatically on merge20:39
_0x44Piston is also volunteering to write the app that integrates gerrit+github pull-requests so the auto-closing can go away.20:39
notmynamejmckenty_: latest commit20:39
termiejmckenty_: nova is current as of yesterday most recently20:39
mtaylorjmckenty_: but to answer your question - yes, if we move forward with this setup, that will be part of CI infrastructure20:40
jmckenty_termie: I'm on a 20-minute task20:40
termiejmckenty_: nova is now 1 second old20:40
znsWould be great to get pull requests in. But does the vote on "one option" mean we only support LP or github now?20:40
notmynameof course, based on the last descision, either the other projects need to move to github+gerrit or glance/keystone need to move back20:40
sorenzns: That remains to be decided.20:40
znssoren: when/how will it be decided?20:41
sorenzns: Momentarily, I imagine.20:41
mtaylorI would put forward, that since we are in a transition period- as long as the decision has been made and plans are afoot, that immediate moving in either direction isn't required, no?20:41
jbrycezns: that's the current discussion20:41
sorenmtaylor: I would support that.20:41
jmckenty_I wouldn't20:41
jmckenty_I believe we made a previous decision to resolve this in time for Diablo summit20:42
mtayloras in - if the ppb votes yay in the next 5 minutes we don't have to IMMEDIATELY throw a switch - we just need to plan to throw the switch20:42
jmckenty_sorry, essex summit20:42
ttxjmckenty_: in time for essex summit sounds reasonable20:42
notmynamejmckenty_: +120:42
sorenjmckenty_: We have different ideas of what "immediate" means, apparently.20:42
ttxjmckenty_: nova is a bit late already, I'd hate to lose time in a transition before d4... and I'd hate to transition in the last weeks before release20:43
sorenThere's plenty of room for plenty of immediates before the Essex summit in my calendar.20:43
johnpurttx: are you nervous about the timing of all of this?20:43
jaypipesmtaylor: ++20:43
jbryceany other questions? ready to vote on approving github + gerrit as the source control system for all core openstack projects with a timeline of moving to it by essex design summit?20:43
ttxjohnpur: yes20:43
vishy_0x44: +100020:43
edayso, the proposal to vote on is: the official option is code=>GitHub, review=>Gerrit, bugs/blueprints/release stay on LP for now?20:43
mtaylorvishy: jeblair and I will work with Piston on that for sure20:43
johnpurthe most important votes are the ptls20:43
jmckenty_johnpur: what?20:43
jaypipeseday: yes.20:43
jbryceeday: correct20:44
znsmtaylor: ++20:44
jmckenty_the point of having a vote is that all votes are equakl20:44
johnpurthe ptls are on the hook to make sure their stuff and processes work after a move20:44
jmckenty_everyone is on that hook20:44
jmckenty_the ptl is holding the hook that's all20:44
johnpurnot discounting your opinion of course :)20:44
mtaylorsomething tells me /me will be on the hook if it fails ... :)20:44
sorenI'd say mtaylor and his posse is more on the hook in that respect than anyone else.20:44
jaypipesttx: moving Nova in the final "integrated milestone release" cycle might actually be better, since fewer features going in...20:45
ttxjaypipes: ...or just after release.20:45
jmckenty_we hashed this already20:45
vishyjaypipes, ttx: I've been thinking immediately after D4 myself20:45
jaypipesttx: when features are lined up to go in?20:45
sorenttx: As opposed to when we're trying to polish a release?20:45
ttxvishy: miletsone-proposed branch handling is not baked yet20:46
sorenjaypipes: As opposed to when we're trying to polish a release?20:46
jaypipesttx: having just gone through this with glance, I don't think it will be too bad to do Nova after d4, but that's vishy's decision...20:46
mtaylorttx: it can be20:46
mtaylorttx: we can set up some tests over to the side20:46
ttxanyway, that's out of scope20:46
jaypipessoren: meh, no good time, really. :(20:46
ttxI agree on "before essex summit"20:46
ttxdepending on how ready milestone-proposed is (glance will need it) maybe post-D4 is ok for Nova20:47
jbryce#info VOTE: GitHub for Source Control; Gerrit for merge; everything else stays the same. Goal of having all core projects moved before Essex design summit.20:47
edayAt one point (at diablo summit I think) we decided to have a community-wide survey once we had a git-based option. Should we still do this before having a PPB vote?20:47
edayI guess that is a no :)20:47
jmckenty_eday: if they riot, we'll revisit it?20:48
jmckenty_"I'm on the brute squad."... "You ARE the brute squad"20:48
jmckenty_anotherjesse: ?20:48
jmckenty_I think we can count ewan at +1 as well20:49
ttxjbryce: we might have time for the next topic, hurry up :)20:49
jmckenty_eday - vote?20:49
jaypipesdoes it matter? :)20:49
eday0, I'd rather have seen community survey feedback first20:49
jmckenty_I like to have the counts right :)20:49
jmckenty_fair enough20:49
jbryce#agreed GitHub for Source Control; Gerrit for merge; everything else stays the same. Goal of having all core projects moved before Essex design summit. 10 +, 2 abstain20:50
jmckenty_+0 or -0 ?20:50
jbryce#topic Deadline for Essex core projects applications20:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Deadline for Essex core projects applications"20:50
jbrycettx: this one yours?20:50
jaypipesI think ttx offered Setp 3rd?20:50
*** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting20:50
jmckenty_Sept 3rd seems reasonable20:50
jaypipesSept 3rd. Good with folks?20:50
jmckenty_Any feedback on the PTL voting mechanism?20:50
vishyer +120:50
ttxI'm fine with first PTL being not elected.20:51
johnpurvishy: now you are just confusing us20:51
jbryce#agreed September 3rd is the deadline for core project applications. 9 +, 3 abstain20:52
ttxthe idea is that they can participate in design summit org, as well as the newly-elected PTLs20:52
jaypipesthis has been the most productive PPB meeting in months. or ever.20:52
jbryce#topic open discussion20:52
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"20:52
*** zns has quit IRC20:52
jmckenty_jaypipes: the first few were good20:52
jbryceanyone have any random thoughts or observations?20:52
mtaylorquick question - should I submit openstack-ci to be a project? or are we fine with managing it how it is now?20:52
jbryceit helps to have a full contingent present20:52
jmckenty_mtaylor: I'd like to see it as a project20:52
sorenmtaylor: I woulnd't bother.20:52
ttxjaypipes: that's just because you won every vote.20:52
jaypipesjbryce: I have lots of random thoughts, but probably shouldn't say them.20:53
jmckenty_but I'm not fussy20:53
ttxmtaylor: it's not a code project.20:53
*** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
sorenmtaylor: It's not going to do releases, for instance. It seems pointless.20:53
ttxit's an infrastrtcture thing20:53
mtaylorit's not  - and I'm fine with it not being- I just wanted to make sure folks were happy20:53
jaypipesmtaylor: yeah, leaving it as-is is fine I think...20:53
ttxdo we expect core promotions for Essex ?20:54
ttxis one of the incubated projects considering filing for core ?20:54
jaypipesttx: thought you wanted to vote on Sept 3rd? :)20:54
jbrycettx: i'll check with keystone and dashboard and see if they want to try20:54
jmckenty_I think keystone should try for core20:55
jmckenty_anotherjesse: thoughts?20:55
ttxI'd rather have them present *before* Sep 3rd20:55
johnpurjbryce: those are the two i would think20:55
jaypipesttx: ah, yes.20:55
jbrycettx: I agree20:55
ttxotherwise it's a straight yes/no, no second chance.20:55
jmckenty_I'd rather see keystone go first, fwiw20:55
jmckenty_Since I'd love to see dashboard support keystone well before it goes in20:55
jbryceall right...last call20:56
anotherjessejmckenty_: I think keystone needs to go to core … but we need to get the extensions stuff done20:56
jmckenty_thanks jbryce20:56
jbrycethanks everyone20:56
johnpuri think the dashboard is somewhat inevitable, and they can work to improve keystone support over time20:56
jmckenty_hey, any dell update?20:56
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"20:56
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  9 20:56:54 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:56
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.html20:56
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.txt20:56
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-20.00.log.html20:57
jbrycejmckenty_: not from me20:57
*** mgius has quit IRC20:57
*** jmckenty_ has quit IRC20:57
*** mgius has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
*** mauricioarango has quit IRC20:58
*** shwetaap has quit IRC20:58
*** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting20:59
dabo \o21:00
ttxDaviey: I can almost feel you above me.21:00
*** katkee has left #openstack-meeting21:00
ttxvishy, notmyname: still around ?21:01
tr3buchetwhich one does not look like the rest21:01
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting21:01
jaypipestr3buchet: dabo, in more ways than one! :P21:02
daboI'm left-handed21:02
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  9 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 the OpenStack team meeting...21:02
ttxToday's agenda is at:21:02
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting21:02
ttx#topic Swift status21:03
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status"21:03
ttxnotmyname: o/21:03
notmynameswift status: fixing bugs, adding features21:03
ttxAny precision on 1.4.3 date yet ?21:04
*** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:04
notmynameno. whenever is convenient for you. whatever we get in by then will be our diablo release21:04
*** jsavak has quit IRC21:04
ttxnotmyname: ok, I'll think about it and propose something to you, then21:05
ttx#action ttx to look at best dates for final 1.4.321:05
ttxnotmyname: Other announcements/comments ?21:05
notmynamelooks like we'll be moving to github21:06
notmynameno date set yet21:06
notmynamebut before the summit21:06
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting21:06
mtaylornotmyname: let us know when you'd like to work on that21:07
ttxRaise your hand if you have questions on Swift...21:07
notmynamemtaylor: we've already got an up-to-date mirror on github21:07
*** masumotok has joined #openstack-meeting21:07
jk0s/moving to github/hosting code there but nothing else/21:07
notmynamemtaylor: so it should be easy21:07
ttxnotmyname: anything else ?21:07
mtaylornotmyname: yup. should be a piece of cake21:07
notmynamettx: nothing else, unless I can answer questions21:07
notmynamemtaylor: let me know when is good for you and I'll try to get it on the schedule here21:08
notmynamemtaylor: we can talk offline on when to do it21:08
ttxnotmyname: we should retrospectively have a BP for that feature you told me about21:08
ttxand target it to 1.4.321:08
mtaylornotmyname: ++21:09
ttxok then, moving to Glance in 10 sec.21:09
*** yogirackspace has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
ttx#topic Glance status21:09
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status"21:09
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
ttxjaypipes: yoy21:10
jaypipesWe're kicking ass and taking names in D4.21:10
jaypipesAny questions? :)21:10
ttxPlease remember that feature branches need to be merged by August 22 !21:10
ttxThat leaves only two weeks.21:10
jaypipesyup. we're good to go.21:10
ttxjaypipes: how is authentication going ?21:10
*** jbryce has quit IRC21:10
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
ttx(the bp)21:10
jaypipesttx: well. Vek is working on Shared image groups currently and the only thing left on the auth BP is a functional test case.21:11
jaypipesttx: that was blocked on the test-refactor BP, which is now in trunk.21:11
jaypipesttx: so, should be pretty good to go.21:11
ttxok, so should be in by next week ?21:11
ttxjaypipes: Anything else ?21:11
jaypipesttx: not really.21:11
ttxQuestions on Glance ?21:11
*** stiekes_ has quit IRC21:12
ttx#topic Nova status21:12
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status"21:12
ttxvishy: hey21:12
ttxLooking at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-4 -- looks better now21:13
vishymy main focus is on auth for the next couple of weeks21:13
vishyi got ec2 signature processing into keystone21:13
vishygoing to put some middlewares together and I think we can deprecate AuthManager21:14
ttxvishy: so finalize-nova-auth is in good shape ?21:14
ttx(Remember the deadline here is also August 22 !)21:14
*** shwetaap has quit IRC21:14
vishywe will need some migration scripts to move from old auth to new, but I think that we can hit those in the final integration21:14
ttxvishy: you mean post-d4 ?21:15
vishyso i think it is looking good21:15
vishyttx: aye, they will be external scripts that will migrate nova users and projects to keystone21:15
vishyfor people that are going to switch21:15
ttxvishy: would be great to have them early, so that we can get them into Ubuntu packaging without violating too many of their freezes21:15
ttxI'll discuss that wit hthem tomorrow.21:15
vishyttx: ok21:15
ttxDaviey: ^21:15
ttxI asked pvo about admin-account-actions, which is not picked up yet.21:16
DavieyThat sounds super!21:16
ttxvishy: Announcements, comments ?21:16
Davieyvishy: So this migrates cactus to d?  Or from pre keystone d to d trunk?21:17
vishyI'm going to be discussing the vsa code with zadara on thursday21:17
vishyDaviey: pre-keystone to keystone21:17
vishyDaviey: there shouldn't be any migration for c to d21:17
Davieyvishy: Does that include cactus upgardes?21:17
ttxvishy: any news from the configuration-drive side ?21:17
vishyDaviey: the cactus upgrades should be handled by nova-manage db sync21:18
vishyttx: no21:18
Davieygood cookies.21:18
vishysoren: still here?21:18
sorenI am, yes.21:18
ttxok, I'll ping 0x44 again21:18
vishysoren: just checking on the source group code, needed a trunk merge21:18
sorenvishy: Oh, again?21:18
sorenvishy: /me does so.21:18
vishyi'm also meeting with ntt guy who wrote block migration on thursday21:18
ttxQuestions for Nova PTL ?21:18
Davieyvishy: non-shared storage kvm migration?21:19
vishyI still haven't been able to get it working, so he is coming by the office to troubleshoot, so hopefully we will be able to approve that soon.21:19
vishyDaviey: correct, they have it working in their lab21:19
vishyDaviey: it requires changing libvirt.conf pretty significantly as well21:19
Davieyvishy: If a doc is written on that from your meeting with ntt - i'd appreciate that from my perspective.21:20
vishyDaviey: so if ubuntu wants it ootb, we might need to change the libvirt packaging a bit21:20
vishywill try and get everything nailed down this week on those fronts21:20
Davieyvishy: I don't think we do (personal perspective i would).21:20
vishyIf any one else has input on the vsa branch, give it now21:20
ttxvishy: anything else ?21:20
vishyI'm going to try and work out with them how they can implement there stuff with a little less coupling21:21
vishybut they have put a lot of work into it, so I'd like to get it in some form21:21
*** liemmn has quit IRC21:21
sorenvishy: I'd like to see what sort of changes are needed in libvirt.conf.21:21
sorenvishy: Where can I see this?21:21
vishysoren: I haven't gotten it working quite yet, but the main one is you have to enable tcp access21:22
vishyI should know more on thursday21:22
sorenOh, dear.21:22
vishyi misspoke21:23
vishyyou can do it with other types of connections21:23
*** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting21:23
vishybut you have to be able to remotely connect to libvirt on the target machine from the host machine21:23
sorenThat's required for live migration already, isn't it?21:23
vishyI think this is probably true for the live migration as well, although i didn't check21:23
*** bcwaldon has quit IRC21:23
sorenI can't quite see how that would work otherwise.21:24
ttxvishy: ok to move on to incubation news ?21:24
vishyyes, unfortunately getting libvirt to do that in ubuntu is a little painful21:24
vishyttx: yes21:24
ttx#topic Incubated projects news21:24
*** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news"21:24
vishysoren: particularly passing the -l parameter into libvirtd is tough21:24
sorenvishy: You don't need to.21:24
ttxdevcamcar, dolphm_: news from your side ?21:24
jaypipesyogirackspace, dolphm_: update on Keystone?21:25
devcamcar_hey hey21:25
devcamcar_so lots happening on the dashboard side21:25
dolphm_ttx, lots of improvements to our testing approach (thanks jay!), vastly improved coverage, and ec2 auth! (thanks vishy!)21:25
devcamcar_we've fully integrated keystone support21:25
ttxdevcamcar: did we get to the bottom of what's broken in Nova for you ?21:25
devcamcar_the gang at cisco is about to drop quantum support into dashboard as well21:25
* markvoelker w00ts21:26
jaypipesw00t. \o/21:26
*** cp16net has quit IRC21:26
devcamcar_we've been focused on stabilizing for d4 primarily with new architecture based on openstack api21:26
yogirackspacestarted implementing some of the blue prinst wud probably lock down the API this week21:26
* ttx would w00t if he knew what "quantum support in dashboard" actually means.21:26
danwentttx: soon you'll see :)21:27
vishydevcamcar_: sexy!21:27
markvoelkerttx: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumClientGUI21:27
mgiusttx: we are still having issues with trunk Nova.  it looks like a Project object is being passed to sqlalchemy rather than a projectId.  I haven't tracked down the root cause yet21:27
* ttx suspects it has rounded corners.21:27
vishydanwent: are we actually going to be able to beta quantum in time for diablo?21:27
danwentvishy: definitely21:27
danwentin fact, you can beta quantum right now21:27
*** rafadurancastane has joined #openstack-meeting21:27
danwentits mainly docs that are lagging... will send something out soon21:28
jaypipesdanwent: haven't seen a whole lot of updates to the ML about Quantum. Perhaps a post is in order :)21:28
danwentjaypipes:  sure, update sounds like a good idea21:28
jaypipesgood to hear about progress!21:28
danwentI'll send a general update along with some pointers to "nova-quantum.sh" script I created21:28
salv-orlandoSorry jay we have our own mailing list. Perhaps we could send an update at some point during this week21:28
* markvoelker thinks individuals interested in Quantum may also want to hang around after this meeting for the Netstack meeting...same channel!21:28
danwentbased on vish's famous nova.sh script21:29
ttxdanwent: scary.21:29
jaypipesmarkvoelker: same Bat-channel? :)21:29
danwentttx :)21:29
jaypipessalv-orlando: hey, no worries... just a suggestion, nothing more. :)21:29
ttxmgius: you can post a bug with the symptom -- analyzing root cause can come after21:30
mtaylormarkvoelker: speaking of - that email I sent a few days ago about migration ... might be more interesting to you guys now21:30
* jaypipes needs to send out an update on Glance too...21:30
salv-orlandojaypipes: or you can subscribe to the netstack mailing list :-)21:30
danwentmtaylor: there's actually an item on our agenda about that.21:30
ttxmgius: I want to make sure it doesn't slip under the radar21:30
mtaylordanwent: oh great- I'll stick around and chat then21:30
jaypipessalv-orlando: I will now that I know about it21:31
danwentI can bump it up the agenda so you don't have to stick around for the whole meeting21:31
markvoelkermtaylor: yep21:31
ttxdolphm_, devcamcar: anything else ?21:31
dolphm_ttx, not from me21:31
devcamcar_that's all for now21:31
ttxquestions for our baby projects ?21:32
ttx(I mean, other than the ones that were already asked)21:32
*** sk_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:32
ttx#topic Docs team meeting moved to Aug 1521:32
*** openstack changes topic to "Docs team meeting moved to Aug 15"21:32
ttxannegentle: that's yours ?21:32
annegentleYes, I was taken off guard due to Monday being the 1st so the 2nd Monday snuck up on me.21:33
annegentleI'll hold the meeting next week.21:33
annegentlenot a permanent move.21:33
ttxdid you update the calendar ?21:33
annegentleAny doc questions for me?21:33
annegentlettx: not sure how to edit the calendar, but I sure can.21:34
ttxannegentle: I gave you access to it... I can certainly edit it though21:34
annegentlettx: ok, will look for the access and update it.21:34
ttxannegentle: done21:34
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:34
annegentlettx: thanks.21:35
ttxannegentle: it's 20:00 UTC still ?21:35
annegentleyes, that's right.21:35
ttxok then it's up to date.21:35
ttx#topic Open discussion21:35
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:35
jk0*cough* https://github.com/blog/904-announcing-github-issues-for-iphone *cough*21:35
*** johnpur has quit IRC21:35
Vekdo you develop on an iphone, jk0?21:36
jk0Vek: yes21:36
ttxjk0: that explains /some/things.21:36
Vekcool; I've developed on an android ;)21:36
primeministerp1just an fyi, giving a discussion on cloud computing to some of our friends at the boston fbi cyber crime division tomorrow21:36
jk0ttx: :)21:36
ttxprimeministerp1: sounds scary.21:37
primeministerp1hey any time I can spread the word21:37
primeministerp1i'll take whomever i can get to listen21:37
ttxThe design summit is on Oct 3-5 in Boston -- book the date21:38
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Summit/Essex21:38
ttxprimeministerp1: not at your place though.21:38
primeministerp1i know21:38
primeministerp1that's ok21:38
ttxbut not very dar.21:38
ttxfar, even21:38
primeministerp1nope it's going to be fun21:38
primeministerp1hopefully going to present21:39
ttxdoesn't mean we can't individually pay you a visit21:39
primeministerp1there as well as at brainshare in slc the week after21:39
primeministerp1we can have you all come by21:39
* ttx smells a party cooking up21:39
primeministerp1the cbc is down the street21:39
primeministerp1"cambridge brewing company"21:40
ttxspectorclan: looks like we have a location for the developer party.21:40
Vekif we all came, wouldn't be about like sardines, given typical Boston living spaces?  :)21:40
uvirtbotVek: Error: "it" is not a valid command.21:40
primeministerp1in our space21:40
* Vek slaps uvirtbot21:40
primeministerp1we could probably jam 20 for a quick lab tour21:40
primeministerp1or more21:40
primeministerp1if we want to get friendly21:41
ttxok, anyone has anything more before we close ?21:41
primeministerp1but the overall msft space21:41
primeministerp1is big21:41
* Vek is tempted to organize an orange tour, but resists the temptation21:41
ttxalright then21:41
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"21:42
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  9 21:42:03 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:42
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.html21:42
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.txt21:42
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-21.02.log.html21:42
ttxThanks everyone !21:42
*** Vek has left #openstack-meeting21:42
danwentFYI: netstack meeting is at the top of the hour21:42
salv-orlandodanwent: it looks like it's a busy agenda tonight21:46
*** sk_ has quit IRC21:46
danwentyes, we'll have to try and keep design discussions to a minimum.... probably best targeted to the netstack list21:46
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting21:46
danwentdo you think we need much discussion on the API?21:46
danwentparticular the question of "state" being in 1.0 vs. not in?21:47
salv-orlandoI think we will just try and gather a decision about whether we want to have in 1.0 or not. If people say "yes, we want it" we will defer the discussion to the ML21:49
salv-orlandoI tried to anticipate most of what I had to say with an email I sent around today. By the way, thanks for filing the bugs for tracking progress on unit tests for client tools.21:50
danwentyeah, it was really funny because, I had the exact same thought about needing unit tests for cli/batch_config last night, when i discovered that batch_config.py had been busted.21:51
*** dabo has left #openstack-meeting21:52
salv-orlandoIf that can be of any consolation to you, I discovered it last night as well21:52
salv-orlandobut it was UK night... so I discovered it before you :)21:52
*** mgius has left #openstack-meeting21:56
*** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting21:58
*** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting21:58
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman21:59
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC21:59
*** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away22:00
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman22:00
danwenthello netstackers22:00
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:00
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting22:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Aug  9 22:01:43 2011 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.22:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.22:01
danwentAgenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings22:01
danwentbusy meeting, lots of topics, so if something gets too detailed, we'll probably have to pull it to the netstack list22:02
danwent#general status22:02
danwent#topic general status22:02
*** openstack changes topic to "general status"22:02
danwentwanted to touch on issue of moving to github/gerrit22:02
danwentrecent ppb meeting said that core projects are going to try and move before essex summit22:02
danwentof course, there's natural concern about it not wanting to disrupt diablo release22:03
danwentplan is to try and move after we close D-422:03
danwentany thoughts or concerns on this?22:03
salv-orlandobetter move now than later22:03
markvoelkermtaylor: around?22:03
mtaylormarkvoelker: hey22:04
danwentsalv: agreed... there will only be more code, more people, more merges, etc. in the future22:04
*** ying has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
markvoelkermtaylor: quick overview of what's necessary to get us moved perhaps?22:04
salv-orlandoI'd say after D-4 we start a "transition period". I think the official diablo release should still come from launchpad22:04
danwentsalv: yes22:04
mtaylormarkvoelker: it's not too terrible - we have scripts to sync your user account info with gerrit already22:04
SumitNaiksatamwhy not move after essex summit?22:05
danwentmtaylor: don't oversell :P22:05
mtaylormarkvoelker: the general steps are: 1) stop using the launchpad branches 2) let us do a few things (transitioning your branches) 3) start using gerrit22:05
*** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:05
danwentSumit: I think that is what it will amount too... anything targeted for Diablo will be fully launchpad22:05
SumitNaiksatamok good22:05
mtaylorso the main thing is just that you need to coordinate with jeblair and I22:05
danwentbut anything targeted for beyond diablo will end up in git/gerrit22:05
danwentdefinitely don't want disruption to mess with the release22:06
bhallmtaylor: are the karma points migrated too? :)22:06
danwentwe stay on launchpad for BP, bugs, right?22:06
salv-orlandothanks mtaylor. Does not sound too hard... do we have a tutorial for github/gerrit ? (we had one for bzr + launchpad)22:06
danwentas well as releases22:06
markvoelkermtaylor: Ok, sounds about like what I expected.  I have no problems with this (kinda looking forward to it even =p).22:06
mtaylorand gerrit has integration with lp bugs22:06
danwentso salv, bhall.... your karma is safe22:06
mtaylormarkvoelker: it'll be fun!22:06
mtaylorsalv-orlando: we do22:06
salv-orlandodanwent: you can buy a lot stuff on amazon with your karma points :-)22:07
mtaylorkey points to remember there are instaling the commit hook in each repo you clone22:07
salv-orlandomtaylor: thanks for the pointer22:07
mtaylorand setting up the review git alias22:07
mtaylorbut if you do all the steps on the wiki page, you should be set22:07
mtaylorwe're trying to keep that up to date as we migrate other people22:08
danwentgreat.  we can play around with it a bit before making the real jump22:08
danwentany other questions/thoughts on github/gerrit?22:08
mtayloralso - the biggest hurdle is a slight change in mentality from bzr ... where squashing multiple commits into one to submit is the best practice here22:08
mtaylorbut once you get used to that - it's pretty straight forward22:08
mtaylorthere's also command line access to gerrit- https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/cmd-index.html22:09
mtaylorfor your reading pleasure22:09
danwentok, thanks mtaylor... much appreciated22:09
markvoelkermtaylor: Great.  Ok, I know we have a crowded agenda tonight, so suggest we move on if no other major concerns?22:09
mtaylormy pleasure!22:09
danwent#topic melange22:09
*** openstack changes topic to "melange"22:09
danwentjust said hello a minute ago...22:10
troytomanwe are moving forward on integration22:10
troytoman(sorry, I have deployment going on with our UK service right now - little distracted.)22:10
danwentok, maybe send an email to the netstack list if you have any other info to share.22:11
danwentanything else on melange?22:11
troytomanwe have been working on validating our ability to meet Nova needs before we drop it into a folder22:11
troytomanso far, things look good22:11
danwent#topic donabe22:11
*** openstack changes topic to "donabe"22:11
danwentany updates?22:12
SumitNaiksatamafaik rick is on it22:12
danwentis rick online?  a couple people were asking about public code for this... I didn't really have an update for them.22:12
danwentOk, let's ping rick to get an update as well.22:13
SumitNaiksatamrick/debo have started a branch22:13
SumitNaiksatami dont have it here with me22:13
SumitNaiksatambut he had sent it out earlier22:13
SumitNaiksatami will ping him again22:13
danwentok, here's what I have: https://code.launchpad.net/~netstack-core/donabe/diablo22:13
danwentSumit: thanks!22:14
somiki saw the branch publicly but there was just framework stuff and some API22:14
salv-orlandoSumitNaiksatam: last time Rick was mentioning an API landing soon in that branch. Is this API there?22:14
somikbut no blueprints for the API yet22:14
danwentsalv: last I looked through the branch I didn't see it.22:14
danwentit would be great to have something concrete before the essex summit22:14
danwentok, anything else on donabe?22:15
danwent#topic quantum22:15
*** openstack changes topic to "quantum"22:15
danwentseveral people have been asking about incubation, now that dashboard and keystone are incubated.22:15
*** SumitNaiksatam_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:15
danwentI definitely think we're ready22:15
danwentas far as quantum is concerned... the stats and progress on the project has been really impressive.22:16
danwentI'd like to be incubated before the essex summit.22:16
danwentI'll be pushing on this in the next few weeks, will keep the list updated.22:16
salv-orlandodanwent: It would be great to see you incubated at the summit :-)22:16
danwentmore importantly, anyone who feels incubation is not the right thing to do?22:17
danwentand if so, why not?22:17
SumitNaiksatam_what's the other option?22:17
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC22:18
danwentlimbo... which is where we are not22:18
devcamcardanwent: I'd say based on the progress you guys have made, it may be the right time to propose for incubation22:18
SumitNaiksatam_+ incubation :-)22:18
danwenteveryone things we're an openstack project, we act like an openstack project, but we aren't actually an openstack project22:18
danwentthings -> thinks22:18
danwentOk, sounds pretty unamimous22:18
salv-orlandoIMHO incubation has only advantages, I don't see any cons22:18
danwentwe've done an incredible amount of work... definitely think it deserves official openstack incubation status.22:19
salv-orlandoif Quantum gets incubated does that imply we then shall run it only against Openstack? I don't think so...22:19
danwent#agreed #danwent, make progress on incubation status22:19
danwentsalv: definitely not22:19
somikI dont think thats a requirement, for e.g. swift can run against Nova or standalone serviing objects22:20
troytomansalv-orlando: no - just puts it on a course to be a core openstack project22:20
salv-orlandoso I'm 101% in favour of incubation22:20
danwentit does mean adherence to PPB guidelines, etc though.22:20
danwentbut that's already a core part of the project22:20
danwentD-4 milestone22:20
salv-orlandowe should also get one of us in Openstack PTL which is more than good22:20
somikI think that would come after incubation22:21
salv-orlandosomik: sure I was referring to dan mentioning "official openstack project"22:21
danwentthere's a lot of stuff there.  I'd like to identify anything that we consider "at risk" and make sure someone is on it.22:22
*** yogirackspace has left #openstack-meeting22:22
danwentI think ryu is out this week, but the nova vif-id stuff is going to be a bit tricky....22:22
danwentI think he already has a branch22:22
*** rafadurancastane has quit IRC22:23
SumitNaiksatam_is anyone reviewing our branch? :-)22:23
SumitNaiksatam_we got to add more stuff22:23
danwentif you're the assignee of a D-4 item, please let me know if you consider it at risk (just send an email)22:23
danwentSumit: we're definitely planning on reviewing (congrats on the branch)22:23
SumitNaiksatam_branch -> merge-prop22:23
danwentSumit: I would change the status to WIP if you want to make more changes22:23
SumitNaiksatam_ok, you mean on the BP?22:24
danwentto avoid people reviewing code if you plan on making additional changes.22:24
salv-orlandothe merge proposal22:24
SumitNaiksatam_oh let me clarify - the merge prop is good for review22:24
salv-orlandoSumitNaiksatam: BTW, that merge proposal does not target lp:quantum22:24
asomyaDan, is there more to the VIF-id's than just exposing them in the nova instance view builder?22:24
SumitNaiksatam_once merged, we need to add more after that22:24
danwentasomya: yes, it is also making sure it is passed to the vif-plugin, and making sure it is globally unique (sequential integers don't tend to be)22:25
*** creiht has left #openstack-meeting22:25
danwentSumit: that is fine22:25
SumitNaiksatam_salv: i am referring to: https://code.launchpad.net/~cisco-openstack/quantum/l2network-plugin/+merge/7080422:25
danwentIn fact, I'd encourage you to merge in multiple chunks, as long as they can be indepdentently verified22:25
salv-orlandoSumitNaiksatam_: If the current merge-prop is self contained  you can stack the other on top of it using the previous one as a pre-requisite22:26
danwentOk, officially moving to the "merges + reviews" section of the agenda22:26
markvoelkerdanwent: Looking at that list, CI still doesn't have an assignee...but I think heckj has it?22:26
danwentheckj, does that sound OK with you?22:26
salv-orlando4907 lines... it's going to take a while :-)22:26
danwent#action #danwent, find owner for CI blueprint, possibly heckj22:27
heckjuh, just a sec - reading back22:27
danwenton the topic of merges, congrats to Vinkesh, Santhosh and team on the extensions branch.22:27
heckjdanwent: yeah, good for me22:27
danwentheckj: thx22:27
danwentextensions branch is good to merge, once they clear out a couple merge conflicts.22:28
danwentthanks for all the reviews.22:28
carlpI guess I need to coordinate with mtaylor and heckj this week to get the Jenkins environment up22:28
mtaylorcarlp: yes! we shall make everything lovely22:28
asomyadanwent: ok, I managed to expose just the VIf id's with the nova network and fixed_ip details for the dashboard from nova and just pass the vif id to the quantum client to plug into a port. Should I commit this bit if it's useful?22:28
danwentcarlp: that would be great.  Shweta from cisco is also going to be getting involved22:29
danwentShweta, you here?22:29
danwentasomya: cool.  I think ryu has a branch as well.  please send an email to the netstack list with a pointer to the branch and we'll coordinate on that.22:29
* markvoelker calls over the cubical walls for shwetaap to wake up22:30
asomyadanwent: soudns good22:30
shwetaapdawent: I am here22:30
danwentno worries, just wanted to make sure they new to keep her in the loop22:30
danwentCC'ing the list will also be sufficient.22:30
markvoelkerdanwent: better, even. =)22:31
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting22:31
danwentbig focus of this week on merges will be getting the cisco plugin reviewed.22:31
salv-orlandoom review and merges. we have two fairly big merge-props22:31
salv-orlandotest-refactor: 896 lines, and l2network-plugin from Cisco: 5109 lines22:31
danwentand salv's API as well.22:31
*** Jamey_ has quit IRC22:32
danwenttest-refactor is just a lot of code moved around, review should be quite simple22:32
SumitNaiksatamon the cisco plugin - all the code is new, so it wont break anything :-)22:32
*** SumitNaiksatam_ has quit IRC22:32
salv-orlandoI moved api-alignment back to WIP, should be merge prop again next monday22:32
danwentwe'll talk more about the API later, but getting that code frozen ASAP will be important.22:32
danwentsalv: great, good to know.   we should also coordinate on changing the client code, as I believe there were some changes to API attributes, no?22:33
salv-orlandoI will volunteer for reviewing the Cisco plugin, should be able to get a review in by Thursday22:33
mtaylorheckj: I've added carlp to openstack-ci-admins so that he can be directly involved22:33
danwent#info extension code is reviewed and ready for merge22:33
SumitNaiksatamsalv: thanks!22:33
danwent#info major review this week are cisco plugin code22:34
danwent#info expect merge prop of API alignment next monday22:34
danwentok, let's move on to discussing API spec alignment22:34
salv-orlandoI've taken into account your feedback22:34
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting22:35
salv-orlandoand updated the spec accordingly. Most of the confusion was due to the concept of port state, and of a non-up-to-date section on "theory of operation"22:35
salv-orlandonow it should all be consistent. I saw a bit of email on the enum values for port states. Whether we choose "ACTIVE" or "UP" is more or less the same for me. Personally I'd have "UP" in the API, as it makes more sense in networking terms22:36
salv-orlandoApart from this, the merge prop will be delayed until next monday as I need to make sure the clients will not be broken22:36
*** zns1 has joined #openstack-meeting22:37
salv-orlandoI also want to make sure we kind of stop changing the API spec by the end of this week.22:37
somiksalv-orlando: I was reviewing gaps in our tests and had came across a test that enforces that quantum network names are unique, but reviewing API wiki, I dont see such agreement. I believe since we already have UUID assocaited with every quantum network, there should be no requriement to have redundant uniqueness of names either.22:37
danwentsalv: is plan to keep state in for v1.0, or shift it to v1.1?22:37
salv-orlandofor resource state, I still see too much noise on the mailing list to declare it could be in API 1.022:38
somikwe should finalize what we have as 1.022:38
salv-orlandoif anybody feels the need to have it in 1.0, please speak now.22:38
danwentI think  it will be very valuable, but we need to lock down the API and it still seems to need more discussion on the details.22:39
danwenti'm in favor of leaving it out for 1.022:39
salv-orlandosomik: about that test. You're right, but that constraint is actually in the db model. I did not want to mess with that code, but I too think we can remove this constraint.22:39
heckjmtaylor: sweet!22:39
*** mattray has quit IRC22:39
danwentsomik: please file a bug on this22:39
somiksalv : DB model != API :)22:39
somikdanwent: sure, will do.22:39
*** zns has quit IRC22:40
salv-orlandoI know that, but how can I possibly create two network with the same name, if then each plugin that uses that db model is going to raise an exception? :-)22:40
danwentsalv: what is the plan regarding the existing "state" field in the API?  keep it but define it as a logical-only "admin state"?  remove it?  something else?22:40
salv-orlandological-only administrative state.22:40
danwentsalv, somik: this is outdated code in the db, will remove22:41
salv-orlandoNo implications on operations you can perform22:41
danwentsalv: ok, makes sense22:41
salv-orlandoWill smooth this out (the db thing) in API alignment22:41
danwentsalv: anything else on API alignment?22:41
salv-orlandoSomik: if you file a bug, link lp:~salvatore-orlando/quantum/quantum-api-alignment to it22:41
salv-orlandoI guess that is all22:41
somiksalv-orlando: sounds good.22:42
salv-orlandofew bits left to smooth22:42
salv-orlandomake sure clients do not break22:42
salv-orlandoand status will NOT be part of API 1.022:42
salv-orlandothat's decided, unless you express your disagreeement now :-)22:42
danwentok, on to nova + quantum22:42
danwentalready talked about vif-id workasomya will send an email to the list,22:43
danwent#action asomya will send an email to the list about vif-id branch22:43
danwentlinuxnet_vif plug branch has two approves, one needs info22:43
danwentshould be merged soon.22:43
salv-orlandowhat about the admin API?22:44
danwentquantum manager:  I need to send out a link to this branch22:44
danwentsalv: yup, I was trying to whip of a first cut at the admin api, two goals:22:44
danwentcommunicate ownerhship of "interface-ids" from nova to quantum, so quantum can enforce that only the owner of an interface can plug that interface in.22:45
*** zns1 has left #openstack-meeting22:45
danwentthis will probably just be a simple call that includes the interface-id and the tenant-id22:45
*** rnirmal has quit IRC22:45
danwentwas also planning on trying to tackle a generic admin API for "interface bindings"....  though this requires some more thought/input22:46
danwentI ported the code over to use the new quantum client lib though, so adding these calls once we know what they want to look like should be simple.22:46
danwentcurrently we copy the client.py file over, but I'd like to have the packaging so we can just install a dependency, which is definitely the right way to go.22:47
salv-orlandodanwent: elaborate on generic admin API22:47
danwentsorry, the generic referred to "interface bindings".... i.e., an interface bindings API that could work with any plugin22:47
salv-orlandois that meant to be part of nova or quantm22:47
danwentsalv: same discussion we had on the launchpad merge prop....22:48
salv-orlandook, let's take it offline. move to next topic.22:48
danwent#action: #danwent, send out link to discussion on quantum admin APIs22:48
danwentOk, GUI work22:49
markvoelkerNew screenshots for anyone who hasn't seen 'em (great work here asomya!): http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumClientGUI22:49
danwentawesome screenshots uploaded to wiki page22:49
danwentanything else to report that wasn't already mentioned on the email list?22:49
asomyathanks guys.. Dashboard's done and ready all basic quantum operations are fully functional22:49
danwentcan't wait to try it out22:49
asomyajust working on a few enhancements like the breadcrumbs and instance details in the VIf column22:49
danwentplans for multi-nic support?22:49
somikthe GUI is coming along really great guys! Very good work!22:50
asomyait's totally agnostic to the instances.. just gets a list of VIF's from nova with the instance labels and prceeds to attach whatever VIF to any port22:50
danwentok, very cool22:50
danwentsalv: api auth, anything to add beyond your detail email to the list?22:51
markvoelkerAlso, there was some discussion on the ML with devcamcar regarding a possible better way to integrate with Dashboard rather than the top-level module route....haven't seen a reply lately though.22:51
salv-orlandojust that I'd like to hear your opinion22:51
markvoelkerdevcamcar: around?22:51
danwentsalv: sent some questions via email, but overall sounds great.22:51
*** anotherjesse has quit IRC22:52
salv-orlandoabout whether we should use keystone's middleware and talk to keystone people for issue, or develop our own middleware based on keystone one22:52
danwentmark: he's definitely interested in helping, so i suspect he'll respond soon22:52
danwentsalv: what's your expert opinion?22:52
markvoelkerdanwent: grand.22:52
*** shang has quit IRC22:53
salv-orlandoI think it will surely be quicker if we develop a middleware starting from keystone22:53
danwentbtw, is tyler around to talk about packaging?22:53
danwentsalv: makes sense.... probably the right place to start.22:53
salv-orlandobut it would be good to talk to Ziad & other folks at keystone as well.22:53
devcamcarmarkvoelker: pong22:53
markvoelkerdanwent: unfortunately not, but should have a bp out later this week I think.22:53
salv-orlandookay, move to packaging22:53
dolphm_salv-orlando, what are you looking for that keystone middleware doesn't currently provide?22:53
danwentmark: k, sounds good.22:53
devcamcarmarkvoelker: speak of the devil, I actually just hit send on a message about how best to integrate quantum and dashboard22:54
salv-orlandoit provides all that I need, the bit I don't really understand is why we have need an admin token rather than admin credentials22:54
markvoelkerdevcamcar: awesomesauce!  Reading...22:54
salv-orlandowhat if that token expires?22:54
danwent#action: #danwent send email to netstack list about where interface ownership should be enforced.22:54
dolphm_salv-orlando, reauthenticate with keystone and get a new admin token?22:55
danwent#topic open discussion22:55
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"22:55
salv-orlandodolphm_: sure. that is fine. The bit that puzzles me is that the admin token goes in the configuration file22:56
danwentplease continue to talk about keystone auth, as well as anything else (5 minutes left)22:56
asomyaA minor dashboard  thing I forgot.. quantum needs a setup script for the dashboard venv installer .. i've been using a private branch with the setup script.. i'll check the script in tomorrow to trunk22:56
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting22:56
dolphm_salv-orlando, which configuration file are you referring to??22:56
danwentasomya:  great.  are there any gotchas in setting up the dashboard with quantum?  definitely want to take a crack at that soon (as, I assume, will others)22:56
salv-orlandothe one for using auth_token.AuthProtocol as a middleware in your app pipeline22:56
asomyadanwent: it;s fully function here : https://github.com/CiscoSystems/dashboard-quantum-beta .. just that it should grab my private branch instead of trunk22:57
danwentasomya: sweet22:57
*** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting22:58
danwentok, will keep the logger running to capture the keystone discussion, but any other topics for opendiscussion?22:58
somikasomya: I am guessing once you have the setup script, we are good to grab and setup dashboard22:58
dolphm_salv-orlando, that's a good question that i can't answer (haven't looked at the middleware much) - can you open an issue on github.com/rackspace/keystone ?22:59
dolphm_salv-orlando, doesn't make sense to me either22:59
somikthat would be a great UI to showcase quantum and even test quantum22:59
asomyasomik: you're good to go now.. it graba a private quantum branch that has the setup script22:59
carlpmtaylor: when do you want to talk jenkins?  after this?22:59
salv-orlandodolphm_: sure. (I wanted to do that earlier today - too lazy to set up a github account)22:59
danwentok, going once.... twice....23:00
markvoelkerGeneral topic for disussion...23:00
danwentjust in time :)23:00
somikasomya: tahnks!23:00
markvoelkerI was at CloudCamp earlier this week and got lots of questions about OpenStack in general and Quantum in particular.  That's good. =)23:00
*** Tushar has quit IRC23:01
danwentvery cool23:01
markvoelkerHowever I noticed a few BP's were showing still in Unknown state that were actually in flight..mostly ours. =)  Some of them hadn't been moved to Approved because I'm not sure we'd agreed on what it takes to be approved?23:01
danwentmark: funny, this topic has actually come up recently in email to23:02
markvoelkerdanwent: exactly. =)  Partly why I thought I'd bring it up here too23:02
danwentmy take is that we're still a small group of devs.... there doesn't need to be an official "approval" process.23:02
*** msinhore has quit IRC23:02
danwentright now, if your code impacts someone else, you should be sure to bring it up in the IRC Meeting.23:02
markvoelkerdanwent: +1, great.  Just wanted to make sure we weren't stepping on any toes.23:03
salv-orlando IMHO the BP approval process should be something that will come in place with time.23:03
danwentonce we grow larger, this may have to change23:03
danwent#agreed  no official blueprint approval process for quantum.... feel free to move your own blueprint to approved, and be a nice community member and make sure you let people know if your changes affect code they care about23:03
salv-orlandotalking about quantum interest, my blog post has now 913 views, in 6 weeks23:04
danwentI'm super happy with the velocity we've been able to have with this project, see no reason to change.23:04
danwentsalv: great23:04
danwentok, we're 5 minutes over, anything else?23:05
salv-orlandojust goodnight from me...23:05
danwentgreat work folks, let's keep it up23:05
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/"23:05
openstackMeeting ended Tue Aug  9 23:05:22 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)23:05
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.html23:05
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.txt23:05
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-09-22.01.log.html23:05
*** ying has quit IRC23:05
danwenthave a good afternoon/evening23:05
*** markvoelker has left #openstack-meeting23:06
*** asomya has quit IRC23:06
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC23:06
somikhave a good one all!23:06
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting23:07
mtaylorcarlp: I've gotta run after this - can we talk tomorrow?23:07
carlpabsolutely, I think you have my numbers.  Gimme a call!23:07
carlpor email, whatever works best23:08
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:10
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:11
*** joearnold has quit IRC23:12
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:16
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:17
*** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away23:18
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:18
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:19
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:20
*** markvoelker has quit IRC23:21
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:34
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:36
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:38
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:39
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:40
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:41
*** cg01 has joined #openstack-meeting23:41
*** jkoelker has quit IRC23:42
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:42
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:44
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC23:45
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:46

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