| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 00:28 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 00:38 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** ke4qqq has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** soren has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** dendro-afk has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** dendro-afk has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:53 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:53 | |
| *** soren has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:53 | |
| *** ke4qqq has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:53 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:03 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 01:07 | |
| *** dendrobates has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:07 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 01:13 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 01:32 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 01:42 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:44 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:55 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 02:09 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 02:33 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:43 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 03:11 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:32 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 04:07 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:47 | |
| *** nati_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:50 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 04:52 | |
| *** nati_ has quit IRC | 05:15 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:15 | |
| *** nati_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:20 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 05:20 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:01 | |
| *** nati_ has quit IRC | 07:40 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 08:02 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:38 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:07 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has quit IRC | 09:20 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:13 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 11:13 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:44 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 12:08 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:08 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 12:29 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:32 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:36 | |
| *** JuanPerez has left #openstack-meeting | 12:38 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 13:07 | |
| *** mancdaz has quit IRC | 13:18 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:40 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:50 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:03 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:20 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:25 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:36 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 14:39 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:45 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:53 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:01 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:02 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:08 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:15 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:20 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 15:23 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:23 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 15:23 | |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:37 | |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:50 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:18 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 16:29 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:33 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 16:37 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:03 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:20 | |
| *** jpipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:21 | |
| *** jpipes has quit IRC | 17:21 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 17:21 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:23 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:24 | |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:38 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 17:41 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:44 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** mxant has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** mxant has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| *** joearnol_ has quit IRC | 18:00 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 18:42 | |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:51 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:52 | |
| mtaylor | hey everybody | 19:00 |
|---|---|---|
| deshantm | hey mtaylor | 19:00 |
| mtaylor | hi deshantm | 19:00 |
| deshantm | I wanted to attend the meeting today, but I need to drop off in like 15 minutes | 19:00 |
| nati | hi mtaylor! | 19:01 |
| soren | o/ | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | ok | 19:01 |
| jeblair | hi | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | well - let's get this started then | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 16 19:01:54 2011 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:01 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | #topic Actions from last meeting | 19:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting" | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | #action jaypipes design upgrade path jenkins job with mtaylor | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | (that's my way of saying we still haven't done that) | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | jeblair did do an auto-closing pull request hook though | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: is that deployed now? | 19:03 |
| jeblair | i did... | 19:03 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| jeblair | here it is: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ci/blob/master/gerrit/close_pull_requests.py | 19:03 |
| jeblair | and yes, it's deployed. it should be running in production for keystone and glance | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | #link https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ci/blob/master/gerrit/close_pull_requests.py | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | sweet | 19:03 |
| jeblair | it runs out of cron every 5 mins | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | that's all from last week then | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | #topic Discuss automated testing and configuration coverage | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Discuss automated testing and configuration coverage" | 19:04 | |
| jeblair | someone last week volunteered to take that and see about adding support for creating gerrit changes | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-15-20.07.log.html | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | oh yeah - who was that | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | anybody remember? | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | heckj: was that you? | 19:04 |
| jeblair | 19:44:36 <_0x44> vi, and bengrue is volunteering to write the second-round hook to auto-integrate gerrit and github. | 19:05 |
| heckj | mtaylor: sorry, no | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | bengrue. that's him | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | #action bengrue write the second-round gerrit github hook | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | how's that? :) | 19:06 |
| jeblair | :) | 19:06 |
| jaypipes | oh, cool, I got an action item... | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | so - soren, jaypipes and deshantm: what are we supposed to pow-wow about? | 19:06 |
| jeblair | future bengrue, if you're reading this, let me know if you need anything. :) | 19:06 |
| soren | gimme a sec, catching up. | 19:06 |
| soren | caught up. | 19:07 |
| * jaypipes reading back.. | 19:07 | |
| deshantm | I think most of the things have been discussed. Xen.org/Citrix is here to help with automation/testing | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | sweet. we're in favor of that | 19:07 |
| deshantm | working thing into our workflow as needed | 19:07 |
| soren | mtaylor: Is that the action item from yesterday? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | yeah | 19:07 |
| soren | Ok. | 19:07 |
| jaypipes | deshantm: have you and mtaylor chatted about how to set up a jenkins slave? | 19:08 |
| deshantm | jaypipes: not yet | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | we theoretically have a citrix slave, actually :) | 19:08 |
| deshantm | we run jenkins at Citrix and Xen.org | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | although it's been offline for a bit | 19:08 |
| jaypipes | deshantm: yup, understood. we'd like to have our master jenkins box trigger builds on your local jenkins. | 19:08 |
| soren | mtaylor: I must admit, I'm not completely sure. I wasn't following the meeting, my name was just mentioned and I chimed in, but I didn't completely get the context. | 19:08 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| deshantm | I have limited experience, but have created a job successfully | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: just to be clear (and because people keep saying similar words) ... | 19:09 |
| deshantm | jaypipes that neat | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | deshantm: no worries, mtaylor can help explain that process. | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | we're actually NOT interested in having our master jenkins trigger jobs on other people's jenkins | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | because that doesn't work | 19:09 |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| jaypipes | Bus, meet mtaylor. :P | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | we're interested in having people provide jenkins slaves, and running jobs there | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: no? | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: no. it is not an option | 19:09 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: hmm, that's odd. I thought that was the whole purpose of having a slave builder? | 19:10 |
| deshantm | mtaylor and I can take the details of the discussion offline though | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: yes. a slave builder | 19:10 |
| soren | jaypipes: slave builders are "dumb". | 19:10 |
| deshantm | is there anything at a high level that we need to discuss though? | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: sorry, that's what I was referring to.. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: but a slave builder is not another jenkins ... it's a slave hanging off our our jenkins | 19:10 |
| deshantm | I'm dropping off in 5 | 19:10 |
| soren | jaypipes: They're not full Jenkins installs, just workers. | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: sorry, got my semantics wrong... | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | soren: got it. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: I figured - I just wanted to be clear here because some folks have been getting confused :) | 19:10 |
| jaypipes | mtaylor: appreciate that :) | 19:11 |
| * soren included | 19:11 | |
| soren | :) | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | deshantm: cool - well let's definitely talk offline about getting some useful jobs set up on your slave | 19:11 |
| * jaypipes replaces slave with builder in his mind... | 19:11 | |
| mtaylor | deshantm: I'm also working with alandman and primeminiterp from msft/novell with their slave | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | deshantm: so hopefully we can put together a generic/reusable process here | 19:11 |
| deshantm | ok sounds good. we may already be testing useful things that can help with automated testing for things like XenAPI support | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | I'd love that | 19:14 |
| deshantm | I'll have to check | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | #action dshantm and mtaylor will talk jenkins slaves | 19:14 |
| deshantm | the end goal is to fill in that hypervisor support matrix automagically | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | ooh - that _would_ be magical | 19:14 |
| soren | Yeah. I'm working on that, too. | 19:15 |
| soren | Differently, though. | 19:15 |
| deshantm | ok, i'm off | 19:15 |
| deshantm | thanks guys | 19:15 |
| deshantm | take care | 19:15 |
| jeblair | thanks! | 19:15 |
| soren | So, I have a stack of tests that exercise all the various things hypervisor drivers are supposed to do. | 19:15 |
| soren | (unit tests) | 19:15 |
| soren | Whenever a NotImplementedError is raised, I log that. | 19:16 |
| soren | ...so when this massive clean-up task is done, that should provide reliable information to fill in such a matrix. | 19:16 |
| soren | ...and then it's just a matter of extracting the info from these logs and turn it into beautiful html. | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | mmmm | 19:16 |
| * mtaylor thinks that sounds wonderful | 19:16 | |
| soren | It's coming along reasonably well. | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | soren: this may sound like an odd question, but ... | 19:17 |
| soren | Shoot. | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | soren: do you actually have information on installed cluster setup prereqs for running those tests? | 19:17 |
| soren | 19:15 < soren> (unit tests) | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | ah | 19:17 |
| soren | :) | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | sorry - missed that | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | I was about to get wet | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | and on that note ... | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | #topic Open Discussion | 19:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion" | 19:18 | |
| mtaylor | anybody gots anythings? | 19:18 |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:19 | |
| soren | I can go into a bit more detail about this stuff I'm doing if anyone wants it? | 19:19 |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:19 | |
| soren | ..but maybe it's more suitable for an ml post. | 19:19 |
| bengrue | (sorry about being late; this meeting is right at lunchtime here.) | 19:19 |
| bengrue | Anything new of note? | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | soren: I'm happy to listen - but also happy to read mailing list post | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: there's an action with your name on it :) | 19:20 |
| bengrue | oh? | 19:20 |
| bengrue | url? | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: jeblair made the auto-closing pull-request hook thing - so we made you an action for poking at the create-a-gerrit-review bit | 19:20 |
| bengrue | where is gerrit installed | 19:20 |
| bengrue | ? | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | it'll be in the meeting notes. gerrit is installed at review.openstack.org ... the hook is at https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ci/blob/master/gerrit/close_pull_requests.py | 19:21 |
| jeblair | we have a dev box: review-dev.openstack.org | 19:21 |
| bengrue | will I need an account on the dev box? | 19:21 |
| *** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:21 | |
| jeblair | nope | 19:21 |
| jeblair | you can do everything you need to externally | 19:22 |
| jeblair | its has a test project set up on it | 19:22 |
| bengrue | is the dev box auto-updated on push? | 19:22 |
| jeblair | that's linked to https://github.com/gtest-org/test | 19:22 |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 19:22 | |
| jeblair | so what you might do is send pull requests to that project, and then have your script check for them and create gerrit changes | 19:23 |
| jeblair | you can submit the changes as your own gerrit user (it syncs with launchpad same as production) | 19:23 |
| jeblair | and yes, both dev and production run the latest code out of the github repo | 19:24 |
| jeblair | so when you're done, and propose the change in gerrit, when it's approved, it'll go into production | 19:24 |
| bengrue | Okay. | 19:24 |
| jeblair | lemme know if you need anything | 19:24 |
| bengrue | Other than that, were any decisions made/discussed today? | 19:24 |
| bengrue | Sure thing. | 19:24 |
| mtaylor | not really | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: can you think of anything else we should talk with folks about? | 19:28 |
| jeblair | nope | 19:29 |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:30 | |
| bengrue | So, I have some general questions about CI workflow and openstack. | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | great! bring em on | 19:34 |
| *** hisaharu has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| bengrue | What tests are the set of acceptance tests for something to be put into trunk? | 19:34 |
| bengrue | acceptance tests being the set of tests that are required to be green. | 19:35 |
| mtaylor | currently, it's the unit tests in the tree | 19:35 |
| bengrue | Because I've been having issues with the smoketests on my dev box, and they seem to be the only ones that actually integrate various subsystems. | 19:36 |
| bengrue | I see. | 19:36 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: for glance, it is the set of unit and functional tests inside glance/tests/ | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | that is correct | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | we're currently working on getting smoketests added to the list of things that are acceptance tests | 19:36 |
| bengrue | So, are there any full integrstion tests between nova/glance/stance? | 19:36 |
| bengrue | ... | 19:36 |
| bengrue | swift. | 19:36 |
| bengrue | stance, wtf. | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | hehe. stance | 19:37 |
| *** hisaharu has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | bengrue: also currently in work | 19:38 |
| bengrue | Also, what's the level of code coverage? I've been removing whole functions from my dev and the unit tests have still been passing. | 19:38 |
| bengrue | Which has been frustrating, because I was removing the functions to see the set of tests that went red to learn about said functions. | 19:38 |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 19:39 | |
| mtaylor | bengrue: https://jenkins.openstack.org/view/Nova/job/nova-coverage/ | 19:39 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: where are you putting your code? | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | bengrue: is is also an open task to get the code coverage jobs to block coverage decreasing | 19:39 |
| bengrue | where am I putting my code? My code is currently local, I didn't commit this stuff. | 19:40 |
| dprince | I'm not the biggest fan of blocking commits if code coverage decreases. | 19:41 |
| bengrue | The one that comes to mind is the iscsi discovery code. I made it return at the top with a false to see what tests were covering it. | 19:41 |
| bengrue | (none were) | 19:41 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: ok. there are a number of projects on github that are trying to address integrated testing: https://github.com/cloudbuilders/kong and https://github.com/rackspace-titan/stacktester/ | 19:41 |
| bengrue | I'm not a fan of code coverage as a hard metric either, but I was surprised that such systems didnt seem to have tests at all, so I was hoping to get a high level picture of how safe I should feel because of the tests. | 19:42 |
| dprince | jaypipes: Smokestack runs stacktester now. | 19:42 |
| dprince | Also. Mtaylor. I can make nova-vpc run it too if your interested. | 19:42 |
| jaypipes | dprince: figured as much :) | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | dprince: please do | 19:42 |
| bengrue | I'm working at integrating kong with piston's workflow right now. | 19:42 |
| dprince | Will take a bit of work to make those tests pass for libvirt though. | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | dprince: blocking based on decreasing coverage was a request from NTT from last ODS | 19:42 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: could you elaborate on what Piston's workflow is? | 19:42 |
| dprince | Yeah. I was at that session during the conference. Just saying it worries me. | 19:43 |
| dprince | Seems like it motivates people to write tests for coverage which wouldn't always be good tests that we need. | 19:43 |
| bengrue | right now, jay, it's being invented! | 19:43 |
| jaypipes | dprince: soren is working on un-f-king the unit tests and removing the excessive use of stubs... | 19:44 |
| dprince | great! | 19:44 |
| dprince | Still. I hate to block a commit on code coverage as a metric. | 19:44 |
| jaypipes | bengrue: OK, well I want to make sure that we all work together and that all these new tests get brought under a single umbrella project that everyone can benefit from :) too little communication going on up until now, so there's a myriad projects duplicating efforts.. | 19:44 |
| heckj | jaypipes: a thousand flowers blooming? | 19:45 |
| bengrue | I can elaborate more in a few days; I'm currently working on a CI project internally so we can work on our proprietary stuff alongside the open stuff. | 19:45 |
| jaypipes | dprince: I sent an email to Gabe this morning about trying to get Kong and stacktester merged and everyone working on the same stuff. Sorry, didn't include you because it was more high-level discussion trying to get everyone on same page first... | 19:45 |
| jaypipes | heckj: indeed, my friend :) | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | wait - there are flowers? | 19:47 |
| dprince | jaypipes: Sure. As far as test suites go I'm Okay with there being multiple options out there. I sort of see them as weapons. If they work well at finding bugs people will use them. Right now I'm running 3 suites: Ruby Openstack Compute v1.0, Nova Smoke Tests, StackTester v1.1 | 19:48 |
| dprince | So essentially all 3 API/versions are getting some coverage on every commit and/or branch we run in SmokeStack. | 19:48 |
| dprince | Haven't heard of Kong but I'll take a look. | 19:48 |
| dprince | I appears to be 5 days old. (Initial release). | 19:50 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| soren | ?!? I thought we adjourned this meeting 20 minute ago? | 19:51 |
| soren | Doh. | 19:51 |
| mtaylor | soren: whatever gave you that idea? | 19:51 |
| dprince | Sorry. I was late. And people were still talking. So... | 19:51 |
| dprince | mtaylor: On another topic. The nova tarmac job is getting hung every couple days. | 19:53 |
| dprince | If I see its been running for more than 10 hours in the morning I kill it, a new one starts, and code gets merged again. | 19:53 |
| mtaylor | dprince: yeah - I've been seeing that. have I mentioned how much I can wait to move from tarmac to gerrit so that we can actually see _where_ it's getting hung? | 19:54 |
| mtaylor | s/can/can't/ | 19:54 |
| dprince | Sure. Just trying to keep things moving along until we make the switch. | 19:54 |
| soren | mtaylor: the 5 minutes of silence, perhaps? :) | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | dprince: thank you very much! if you kill the job, probably looking at the console output of the job for the last branch attempted to merge and setting that to work in progress with a note about hanging would prevent the re-hang (I would hope) | 19:55 |
| dprince | I've done that a couple times. Sometimes the branch it hangs on appears to already have merged though. Its wierd. | 19:56 |
| mtaylor | very weird | 19:56 |
| mtaylor | I will very much look forward to tracking that down better | 19:56 |
| dprince | Also. I've been gone.... Last week or a couple of weeks ago I saw you made a comment about the nova-vpc job being red a lot. The test_004_metadata test had some issues (I think those have been fixed now). | 19:57 |
| dprince | Anyway. The job is red today... because of another nova bug. So I think it is working pretty well. | 19:57 |
| dprince | The nova smoke tests still need a bit of tuning IMHO. | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:58 |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| ttx | 2min left | 19:58 |
| mtaylor | dprince: well, the question is - once we can do this (post gerrit) - do you think that nova-vpc is solid enough to add to the pre-merge blockers? | 19:58 |
| dprince | We may want to wait a bit longer for an instance to boot. Adding an option to increase the instance boot timeout would do the trick. But its getting to the point where I would consider gating commits on a job like this possible. | 19:58 |
| mtaylor | dprince: or do you think it shoudl stay post-merge | 19:59 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| dprince | Its close. | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | dprince: cool | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | well - we're at least 3 weeks out from being able to make that choice anyway - so sweet | 19:59 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| mtaylor | alright - I think we're out of time here | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | thanks everybody! | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 20:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 16 20:00:11 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-19.01.html | 20:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-19.01.txt | 20:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-19.01.log.html | 20:00 |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| johnpur | ol | 20:01 |
| jaypipes | dprince: sorry, got a phone clal.. | 20:01 |
| jaypipes | o/ | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | hey johnpur ... how're things? | 20:01 |
| johnpur | doing great, how are things going fo u? | 20:01 |
| dendrobates | o/ | 20:01 |
| johnpur | busy... | 20:01 |
| soren | /o/ | 20:01 |
| jaypipes | vishy, notmyname: PPB? | 20:02 |
| anotherjesse | busy... | 20:02 |
| * notmyname needs to step away for a few minutes. be back asap | 20:02 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 20:04 | |
| ttx | where is jbryce ? | 20:05 |
| johnpur | ttx: chasing his horses around? | 20:05 |
| jaypipes | hehe | 20:06 |
| ttx | I can relate to that. | 20:06 |
| *** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:07 | |
| jaypipes | Is Jarret Raim here by any chance? | 20:07 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:09 | |
| johnpur | jbryce!! | 20:10 |
| jbryce | sorry i'm late | 20:10 |
| vishy | aqui | 20:10 |
| jbryce | do we have a full crew? | 20:10 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| zns | here | 20:11 |
| notmyname | back | 20:11 |
| soren | vishy: *cough* "aquÃ" *cough* | 20:11 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:12 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 16 20:12:01 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:12 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:12 |
| jbryce | agenda - http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:12 |
| jbryce | is ziad present? | 20:12 |
| zns | Yes | 20:12 |
| zns | zns=ziad | 20:12 |
| jbryce | #topic Keystone review | 20:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone review" | 20:12 | |
| jbryce | ziad said he'd like to have keystone considered for promotion to core during this cycle | 20:13 |
| jbryce | this wiki page had some of the criteria we had previously laid out as the things we would want to evaluate new projects on: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Approved/NewProjectProcess | 20:13 |
| zns | Part of the exercise is to figure out what are the requirements for inclusion in core... | 20:13 |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:14 | |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| jbryce | zns: i think an update of how you feel the project is maturing from a development and deployment standpoint is a start | 20:14 |
| zns | Item #1. DONE. Code is out there. | 20:14 |
| zns | Item #2 is to gather feedback. | 20:15 |
| zns | I'd like your feedback. Status right now is... | 20:15 |
| zns | We're finalizing the API and aim to get a stable release out by Diablo. | 20:15 |
| zns | We have production deployments (although, I admit, I have not been part of setting them up!) | 20:15 |
| zns | Integration with other projects is moving along well (I'd say Swift integration is the toughest and still needs work). | 20:16 |
| jaypipes | zns: I've been impressed with Keystone devs learning the new Gerrit processes and working with Monty and Jim to integrate with the CI infrastructure. | 20:16 |
| notmyname | zns: I've been able to get it to work (however, the docs are completely wrong) | 20:16 |
| zns | We have interested parties outside Rackspace submitting code (LDAP backend is one example). | 20:17 |
| zns | notmyname: yes, docs are bahind. | 20:17 |
| jbryce | do people feel like finalizing the api is an important milestone for core promotion? | 20:17 |
| zns | behind | 20:17 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: I'm torn - since it is a high bar | 20:17 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| anotherjesse | but when we know that the api *WILL* change soon, it feels like it should be finalized before promotion | 20:18 |
| ttx | zns: when do you plan to move your issues to LP bugs ? | 20:18 |
| jaypipes | zns: one thing I'd like to see, though, is a little more restraint on +2'ing code reviews... it seems there is a bit of a "just wing it" thing going on there :) I think working with mtaylor to set up a param builder for Keystone would help to alleviate some of the issues. | 20:18 |
| zns | ttx: working with jay/monty and team on that. They have a script. We're ready to do that as soon as we get the api done (focusing on that this week). | 20:18 |
| * jaypipes doesn't think finalizing 2.0 API should be a requirement for core promotion... | 20:19 | |
| ttx | zns: cool | 20:19 |
| zns | jaypipes: agreed. | 20:19 |
| *** eday has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| jaypipes | zns: on the API front or the code review comment? :) | 20:19 |
| ttx | jaypipes: do we have Keystone ubuntu/debian packaging under control ? | 20:19 |
| notmyname | I don't think a final API is key. using the same processes as the other projects (like issues moving to LP) and establishing community involvement seem the important things top me | 20:19 |
| *** clayg has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| zns | In fairness, we need to get more aggressive on following the LP workflow (Blueprint, approval, code, etc…). | 20:19 |
| jaypipes | ttx: one sec, checking blueprint. | 20:20 |
| vishy | i am split as well. I think we need auth in core ASAP, but keystone is still highly volatile, and it might be sending a bad message to promote it right now. | 20:20 |
| *** letterj has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:20 | |
| zns | jaypipes: on the review part. | 20:20 |
| ttx | vishy: it will be promoted for the next release. | 20:20 |
| anotherjesse | jaypipes: as someone who helps with implementation, deployed it and consumed it - it is a *required* part of openstack | 20:20 |
| ttx | i.e. be in core for Essex | 20:20 |
| johnpur | agree that we need to have a core auth project | 20:20 |
| anotherjesse | jaypipes: but we need to get API settled ? | 20:20 |
| ttx | it won't be part of "Diablo". | 20:20 |
| ttx | so it needs to be stable in 6 months. Not now. | 20:21 |
| anotherjesse | jaypipes: i'm concerned if it isn't, once it becomes core does it become harder to settle? | 20:21 |
| mtaylor | ttx: I'm going to be attacking soren's keystone packaging work probably tomorrow (and zul's doing some work tonight_ so we should have it well under hand soon | 20:21 |
| jbryce | ttx: that is a good point. we are talking about it being a core project for essex in ~7 months | 20:21 |
| johnpur | there is a reality that core projects depend on it today and going forward | 20:21 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: the problem with that statement is that nova is removing its user system to REQUIRE keystone | 20:21 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: not sure. I don't feel that it becomes harder to settle, but that's an opinion, nothing more... | 20:21 |
| anotherjesse | this milestone | 20:21 |
| soren | anotherjesse: Wait, what? | 20:22 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: I think that's a mistake. | 20:22 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: I thought it was to be an option. | 20:22 |
| anotherjesse | it is what was discussed at the last summit | 20:22 |
| anotherjesse | and is what vishy has been talking about in blueprints, ... | 20:22 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: but that's not a big issue, is it? we all depend on other things (eg eventlet) that aren't in openstack core | 20:22 |
| zns | If it helps, the API and implementation will be done by Diablo. Our goal is to have no changes after diablo feature freeze (9/6) and, in fact, have the API locked down this week (we're a few days behind our self-set deadline of 8/14). | 20:22 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: I am talking to the statement that stabliity of keystone api isn't important | 20:22 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: it is very important | 20:23 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: indeed. but is it a requirement for core inclusion? | 20:23 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: I tend to think not | 20:23 |
| johnpur | what we need to do here is set a precedent/policy around the usage of keystone across projects. | 20:23 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: I wasn't sure | 20:23 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: yes, agreed with notmyname. I don't think anyone is saying it's not important... just that it's not a blocker for core promotion. | 20:23 |
| johnpur | i feel we are implicitly moving in the direction of "coreness" | 20:23 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: ya | 20:24 |
| notmyname | johnpur: there are some important discussions around how/if it is integrated | 20:24 |
| johnpur | shouldn't we make it official, and require the project follow the core project rules/guidelines? | 20:24 |
| *** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:24 | |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: even if it isn't core, if dash, glance, nova all integrate with it | 20:24 |
| anotherjesse | if in order to have a multi-tenant cloud you need keystone, then keystone is de-facto core ;) | 20:24 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| johnpur | anotherjesse: right | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | anotherjesse: glance integrates with it, but doesn't *require* it... | 20:25 |
| anotherjesse | jaypipes: right | 20:25 |
| notmyname | johnpur: same with swift | 20:25 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:25 | |
| ttx | anotherjesse: ...and it is my opinion it should be the same for nova | 20:25 |
| notmyname | err jaypipes: | 20:25 |
| johnpur | i guess dash isn't core, but it requires it i believe | 20:25 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: I got ya :) | 20:25 |
| ohnoimdead | johnpur: yeah, dash requires keystone currently | 20:25 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: without keystone or swauth (both external auth to swift) then swift accepts any query right? | 20:25 |
| ttx | dash requiring it is not an issue -- it's not in core | 20:26 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: yes, but we include a tempauth stub to do simple stuff | 20:26 |
| johnpur | for folks that rae integrating authn/authz systems it is pretty important to have a consistent framework to hang openstack off of | 20:26 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: which is saying that "an auth system" needs to be added - even if simple | 20:26 |
| ttx | vishy: do we *have to* rip out the current auth from nova ? | 20:26 |
| alekibango | hmm so if i understand it correctly, without auth it will be possible to anonymously upload whatever images into glance for next 6 months ? or i missed something... | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: and so that is what we have been talking about for nova | 20:27 |
| johnpur | ttx: separate discussion | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: remove auth from inside nova to being external | 20:27 |
| jbryce | so the questions that have been raised so far are around api stability, merge acceptance process, bug tracker and rate of change of the codebase. is there anything distinct for keystone specifically? | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | provided by a component | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: what is the level of stability that we require | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | I want it to be core | 20:27 |
| johnpur | anotherjesse +1 | 20:28 |
| anotherjesse | but I want it to have some level of stability by being in core | 20:28 |
| anotherjesse | currently the mutation rate is HIGH | 20:28 |
| creiht | Is there any level of scalability that is required (of any core project added)? | 20:28 |
| notmyname | jbryce: zns: how does it handle scale? that is one of the core openstack principles. (just making sure it's on the list too) | 20:28 |
| johnpur | notmyname: good q | 20:28 |
| jbryce | it will be core for the essex cycle, so not official until next april. so i would say a level of stability and a trajectory that we feel comfortable it can be solid and production ready, deployable, not out-of-control by the essex timeframe | 20:28 |
| ttx | jbryce: +1 | 20:29 |
| jbryce | it will be core for essex if approved now, i mean | 20:29 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: I may be wrong, but isn't nova's codebase pretty volatile too? (or at lest it used to be) | 20:29 |
| vishy | ttx: My plan is to rip out unused parts, to deprecate the core stuff in diablo, and pull it out in essex | 20:29 |
| zns | notmyname: we have not tested at scale. We support LDAP and MySQL as backends for more *scalable* deployment, but we still need to validate load-balancing multiple nodes. | 20:29 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: there is a difference between external volatility and internal | 20:29 |
| ttx | vishy: ok | 20:29 |
| vishy | ttx: so you should be able to configure nova to use old auth, but it will not be the default | 20:29 |
| johnpur | jbryce: by being a core component, what do we say is the "policy" around required use by core/inubated/associated projects? | 20:29 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: ok. that's true. but one leads to the other, no? | 20:29 |
| vishy | ttx: my plan is default: no multitenant auth | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: right - hence i was asking if the api settling down would be a good thing to happen first | 20:30 |
| jbryce | Integration Each project should use as many of the others' features as possible and provide the requested integration points | 20:30 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes | 20:30 |
| vishy | ttx: with options for keystone or old auth, with keystone heavily favored | 20:30 |
| anotherjesse | so - reason for this concenr: when keystone is added to core - other projects should work hard to make sure we all play well together | 20:30 |
| notmyname | nd if keystone isn't accepted today, it can still be accepted up to halfway throught he essex cycle, right? | 20:30 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: I think you need less mutation because of the integration with components, not because it will be in core for Essex | 20:30 |
| ttx | notmyname: no | 20:30 |
| ttx | notmyname: we need it in core before the design summit | 20:31 |
| notmyname | ttx: ah | 20:31 |
| anotherjesse | if the api is still in flux, then swift+nova+glance saying we all play with keystone | 20:31 |
| johnpur | ttx: agree | 20:31 |
| anotherjesse | will be complicated - since it changes daily due to being actively reworked | 20:31 |
| ttx | notmyname: so that we can have the PTL involved in prep and give it the place it deserves in the summit | 20:31 |
| vishy | can we reeval in a few weeks then? | 20:31 |
| ttx | vishy: deadline is Sep5 | 20:31 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: it sounds like zns is saying the api will be done very soon | 20:31 |
| ttx | (based on a recent PPB decision) | 20:31 |
| johnpur | vishy: what will you leatn in a couple of weeks? | 20:31 |
| johnpur | learn | 20:32 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: yes - they were locked in a room all day friday and are working on it | 20:32 |
| alekibango | vishy: +1 | 20:32 |
| jaypipes | sounds like fun | 20:32 |
| jbryce | we have 3 weeks basically to approve it | 20:32 |
| zns | johnpur: API stable. That's big for integration and *comfort* around integration. | 20:32 |
| anotherjesse | I'd rather that finish, not focus on integration into core (whatever that entails) | 20:32 |
| jbryce | so what if we defer for now and get another update next week | 20:32 |
| vishy | johnpur: I'm convinced it should go in, but I think it sends a better message to wait for stability before promoting | 20:32 |
| johnpur | zns: will it be done by then? | 20:32 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: ++ | 20:33 |
| alekibango | vishy: ++ | 20:33 |
| johnpur | vishy: i get it | 20:33 |
| johnpur | and agree | 20:33 |
| heckj | vishy++ | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | vishy: ++ | 20:33 |
| zns | johnpur: Sept5 or next week? Yes to Next week=API documented. Sept 5th implemented. | 20:33 |
| jbryce | johnpur: if not, we can defer until the week after. we have 3 weeks (minus a day) before the deadline. | 20:33 |
| jaypipes | remember, next week we have to review quantum for incubation... | 20:33 |
| johnpur | i am hearing that (assuming the right level of work) that Keysone will be core for Essex, just a matter of timing? | 20:34 |
| zns | vishy: I agree with the message to set the bar high. I would like to be clear on what the bar is so we can work towards that... | 20:34 |
| notmyname | johnpur: well, the timing is depending on the level of work :-) | 20:34 |
| johnpur | and we can have a lot of discussion at the DS :) | 20:34 |
| *** alandman has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:34 | |
| jbryce | zns: i think the main component is api definition stable. correct me if i'm wrong, anyone | 20:35 |
| johnpur | zns: who is giving input on the api dfn? | 20:35 |
| jbryce | so that integrating projects will not have to worry about a moving target and we are establishing a precedent of external stability before core promotion | 20:35 |
| zns | johnpur: many inputs from mailing list, blueprints, etc... | 20:35 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: correct | 20:36 |
| johnpur | zns: how are you arbitrating the inputs? | 20:36 |
| jbryce | i propose we defer decision on keystone promotion until next week. review again with the primary focus for the team to be api stability. thoughts? | 20:36 |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| jaypipes | jbryce: #agreed | 20:37 |
| zns | johnpur: right now, the bar has been easy given our first goal: support existing Nova, swift, Rackspace use cases. | 20:37 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: I think they are focusing on making the core api as small as possible, until friday core was 2 api calls | 20:37 |
| johnpur | ah, ok | 20:37 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: authenticate(user, pass, optional tenant) -> token, catalog | 20:38 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: validate(token) -> user/tenant/role info | 20:38 |
| johnpur | it is critical that not only are the api calls stable and defined, but that all of the concepts are consistent, right? tenancy, project, user, account, etc. | 20:38 |
| anotherjesse | there are extensions about how users/tenants/roles can be managemed | 20:38 |
| johnpur | across projects | 20:39 |
| vishy | * and get_tenants no? | 20:39 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: oh ya ;) | 20:39 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: ++ - it is critical that the concepts of tenant (projects in nova, accoutns at rax), user, roles | 20:39 |
| anotherjesse | and what the response from validate (the roles, ...) | 20:39 |
| johnpur | right | 20:39 |
| anotherjesse | zns: I think having a document with just core would be helpful to send to the list | 20:40 |
| anotherjesse | zns: the user/tenant management is extensions | 20:40 |
| zns | anotherjesse: working on that… will send out this week. | 20:40 |
| anotherjesse | zns: i wouldn't mind help etherpading the core doc | 20:40 |
| anotherjesse | if you have time | 20:40 |
| zns | anotherjesse: yes, non-core is either OS extensions or RAX extensions. | 20:40 |
| anotherjesse | moving to sidechannel | 20:40 |
| jbryce | ok. so, defer until next week? | 20:41 |
| ttx | jbryce: sure | 20:41 |
| anotherjesse | heh - ya - sorry | 20:41 |
| notmyname | jbryce: +1 | 20:41 |
| jbryce | #info defer promotion decision 1 week. keystone team to focus on external api stability and definition. | 20:41 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/OpenStack%20Security%20Group | 20:41 |
| jbryce | #topic security group proposal | 20:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "security group proposal" | 20:41 | |
| johnpur | anotherjesse, zns: let me know if there are discussions/etherpadding, etc. | 20:41 |
| jbryce | we've had a fair amount of discussion on this already on the mailing list | 20:42 |
| jbryce | how does everyone feel about the state of the proposal currently? | 20:42 |
| notmyname | jbryce: my thoughts are that this proposal seems...ponderous. a defined process to submit bugs and alert the right dev teams seems all we need | 20:42 |
| notmyname | I don't think there needs to be a separate group responsible for "Security". If we all arent' aware of it while we're writing/reviewing the code we're going to end up in a world of hurt. | 20:44 |
| ttx | I share Soren's concern on the group size | 20:44 |
| zns | johnpur: will do | 20:44 |
| johnpur | thx | 20:44 |
| notmyname | ttx: as do i | 20:44 |
| ttx | notmyname: yes -- we need nothing like something of the size of MSG | 20:44 |
| dendrobates | ttx: me too | 20:45 |
| soren | I'm thinking 2 people. Maybe 3. | 20:45 |
| jaypipes | I think having a group focused on testing OpenStack (the entire project, not just a subproject) for security vulnerabilities is a worthy goal. | 20:45 |
| ttx | I mean, I've yet to see a serious vulnerability that would have neede embargo. | 20:45 |
| johnpur | jbryce: i would like to see the proposal broken into 2 pieces: 1) process for setting up openstack working groups, and 2) the specific around a security wg | 20:45 |
| soren | jaypipes: That's not what this is, though. | 20:45 |
| notmyname | soren: agreed. and those people IMO really only need to be responsible for getting the bug reports to the right people | 20:45 |
| ttx | jaypipes: that's an auditor group -- that's different | 20:45 |
| soren | jaypipes: At least, that's not what I read into it all. | 20:45 |
| creiht | perhaps another way of stating notmyname's position (which I share) is it would be better to start small and expand as the need requires rather than create a huge bureaucracy to start with | 20:46 |
| jaypipes | creiht: ++ | 20:46 |
| ttx | creiht: +1 | 20:46 |
| johnpur | i think there are at least 2 working groups we could initiate, besides the security group | 20:46 |
| letterj | jaypipes: are any of the current tests focused on security? | 20:46 |
| termie | wgwg | 20:46 |
| vishy | I think there are six or seven working groups here :) | 20:47 |
| johnpur | termie: lol! | 20:47 |
| termie | seconded | 20:47 |
| anotherjesse | termie: pbb = wgwg | 20:47 |
| jaypipes | letterj: not that I know of.. what about for swift? | 20:47 |
| johnpur | my 2 are 1) legal and 2) strategy | 20:47 |
| notmyname | johnpur: that's getting a little off topic, isn't it? ;-) | 20:48 |
| notmyname | it's not like we have a lot of time here | 20:48 |
| letterj | jaypipes: Not specific security tests I know of not related to auth | 20:48 |
| ttx | letterj: I'm adding some security-related tests together with my new privsep stuff | 20:48 |
| anotherjesse | johnpur: both groups need to talked about but ping jbryce about those? | 20:48 |
| johnpur | notmyname: probably, but if we have a process to define the groups, then the security group is just one of some | 20:49 |
| johnpur | i'll table it now | 20:49 |
| jbryce | johnpur: we can follow up on it later | 20:49 |
| johnpur | jbryce: ok | 20:49 |
| jaypipes | all I was saying was that having a team looking at security testing/validation for openstack as a whole would be a laudable effort, nothing more. | 20:50 |
| jbryce | so on this it sounds like most people are in favor of a small group to start with to handle vulnerability identification and handoff | 20:50 |
| letterj | Is there a list floating around somewhere of what specific sercurity tests people have in mind? | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | and if Jarret is already offering to lead such an effort, that might be a good start... | 20:50 |
| jbryce | separate from that possible a testing/validation group for all of openstack | 20:50 |
| jaypipes | letterj: I'm thinking that an app security person like Jarret would probably have some ideas on that :) | 20:50 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I can work with Jarret. | 20:50 |
| johnpur | we need an escalation as well for when a problem is found inthe community, an escalation of a bug report | 20:51 |
| notmyname | johnpur: I think that's all that's needed now | 20:51 |
| letterj | jaypipes: What about a test enviornment? | 20:51 |
| johnpur | many folks are doing security, penetration, etc. testing | 20:51 |
| creiht | it just needs to be well defined, and published | 20:51 |
| creiht | I don't think most people know about the feature in launchpad | 20:51 |
| heckj | creiht: published ++ | 20:51 |
| letterj | jaypipes: I didn't know if a list of proposed tests or things to look for had been proposed | 20:52 |
| jaypipes | letterj: ya, no worries :) | 20:52 |
| ttx | creiht: yes + publish a couple individual email addresses with GPG keys, in case someone wants to send an encrypted report | 20:52 |
| *** jrouault has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| creiht | ttx: certainly, or at least publish those for all the PTLs and publish the fact that they are the main points of contact | 20:52 |
| ttx | that's all we urgently need. Doc on how to submit a security vulnerability | 20:52 |
| creiht | agreed | 20:53 |
| notmyname | ttx: ++ | 20:53 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| anotherjesse | ttx: I think there should be page on openstack.org and it linked at the footer of every community page | 20:53 |
| jbryce | so we are rejecting the larger proposal for now and setting up a small team to route reports, plus publishing the process for submitting security reports | 20:54 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: that's part of what Jarret proposes -- maybe we should skip the "security group" setup for now, and concentrate on doc ? | 20:54 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| creiht | If you have the security process well established, then it makes it easy for multiple groups to do their testing | 20:54 |
| johnpur | jbryce: having Jarret be a point of contact seems like a good thing... we can point people to him? | 20:54 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| letterj | Is there a blueprint started on security tests yet? | 20:55 |
| jbryce | we've got 4 minutes left so i'd like to get at least some resolution on this one before we run out of time | 20:56 |
| ttx | jbryce: i can take the action of discussing a bit more with Jarret and come up with a proposed security.openstack.org page contents. | 20:56 |
| jbryce | ttx: +1 | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | letterj: not that I know of. please feel free to create one. | 20:56 |
| jaypipes | letterj: in the openstack-ci project maybe? | 20:56 |
| jbryce | anyone opposed to ttx's proposal? | 20:57 |
| jaypipes | nope, sounds good to me. | 20:57 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:57 |
| notmyname | jbryce: +1 to rejecting the larger proposal and publishing the security reports process | 20:57 |
| jbryce | #action ttx to discuss more with jarret and come up with the content to publish a process for security reporting | 20:57 |
| *** letterj has left #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| jbryce | anything else? | 20:58 |
| jbryce | thanks everyone | 20:58 |
| jaypipes | ty jbryce | 20:58 |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:59 |
| notmyname | eday: good luck on your new stuff | 20:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 16 20:59:02 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-20.12.html | 20:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-20.12.txt | 20:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-20.12.log.html | 20:59 |
| ttx | Nova trunk is on fire. | 20:59 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| eday | notmyname: ty! | 20:59 |
| Vek | really? I thought the leafs would be more flammable </tounge-in-cheek> | 20:59 |
| ttx | vishy, notmyname, jaypipes: still around ? | 21:00 |
| notmyname | yes | 21:00 |
| vishy | yup | 21:00 |
| *** bsza has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** Cyns has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| *** jamesurquhart has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: of course :) | 21:01 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 16 21:01:34 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:01 |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly team meeting... | 21:01 |
| *** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| ttx | Today's agenda is at: | 21:01 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/TeamMeeting | 21:01 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:02 | |
| ttx | * ttx to look at best dates for final Swift 1.4.3 | 21:02 |
| ttx | done , we'll talk about it in next topic | 21:02 |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:02 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:02 |
| ttx | notmyname: Could you confirm the Swift plans for 1.4.3 ? | 21:02 |
| notmyname | swift 1.4.3 set for sept 7 and 9 | 21:02 |
| notmyname | branch on 9-7, final on 9-9 | 21:03 |
| ttx | notmyname: Does https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.3 miss already-implemented significant features ? | 21:03 |
| notmyname | checking... | 21:04 |
| ttx | ISTR you mentioned *several* cool features :) | 21:04 |
| notmyname | ISTR? | 21:04 |
| notmyname | is that french? | 21:04 |
| ttx | I seem to remember | 21:04 |
| notmyname | :-) | 21:04 |
| notmyname | I'll double check that everything is included there | 21:05 |
| ttx | 1.4.3 milestone page only shows "Catch more with quarantine code" so far | 21:05 |
| notmyname | most of our recent work has been in things like language bindings and slogging | 21:05 |
| ttx | #action notmyname to double check that everything is included in https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.3 | 21:05 |
| notmyname | (ecosystem projects) | 21:06 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:06 |
| notmyname | nothing springs to mind | 21:06 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have questions on Swift... | 21:06 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:07 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| jaypipes | https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-4 | 21:07 |
| ttx | Last feature branches for Diablo need to be merged by August 22 !! | 21:07 |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| jaypipes | http://wiki.openstack.org/GlanceFeatureMatrix | 21:07 |
| jaypipes | I've been putting together the above feature matrix to help folks understand what's in the different releases... | 21:07 |
| glenc | nice | 21:07 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I renamed the integrated-freeze milestone to diablo-rbp (release branch point) and adjusted the date, btw | 21:08 |
| ttx | so that it matches our recent release process decisions | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | Glance contribs are kicking ass in D4. Vek proposed for merging a control script into keystone which unblocks the remaining tasks for keystone-integration blueprint (functional tests) | 21:08 |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| jaypipes | ttx: no prob on freeze release | 21:08 |
| ttx | Are all the blueprints at https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/diablo-4 still on track ? | 21:08 |
| ttx | Or should we already defer some to Essex ? | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yep. | 21:08 |
| jaypipes | ttx: no, i'm confident for all of them. | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | in d4 | 21:09 |
| ttx | jaypipes: I heard that one before :) | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: yeah, yeah... | 21:09 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Other announcements/comments ? | 21:09 |
| jaypipes | ttx: nope | 21:09 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you have a question on Glance. | 21:10 |
| *** jrouault has quit IRC | 21:10 | |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:10 | |
| ttx | Ah, Nova... | 21:10 |
| vishy | oh, nova, we love you so much | 21:10 |
| vishy | :) | 21:10 |
| ttx | Last feature branches for Diablo also need to be merged by end of day, August 22 !! | 21:10 |
| ttx | That leaves very little time: "propose early, review often". | 21:10 |
| ttx | the new OpenStack motto. | 21:11 |
| soren | I like it. | 21:11 |
| ttx | vishy: admin-account-actions (Essential) was pushed post-diablo-4, which makes me a very sad bunny. | 21:11 |
| ttx | I don't really like the idea of an essential spec being pushed post-FeatureFreeze. | 21:11 |
| ttx | vishy: do we know the story there ? | 21:12 |
| vishy | hmm | 21:12 |
| vishy | no | 21:12 |
| vishy | i didn't know it got pushed | 21:12 |
| vishy | pvo: ? | 21:12 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/admin-account-actions -- for those following at home | 21:13 |
| ttx | westmaas: ? | 21:13 |
| soren | ttx: thanks for that :) | 21:13 |
| westmaas | there is some work on it from ozone this sprint | 21:13 |
| westmaas | _cerberus_: yes? | 21:13 |
| * _cerberus_ is looking | 21:14 | |
| _cerberus_ | Not on our end, actually | 21:14 |
| comstud | hmmm | 21:14 |
| ttx | i could use more detail on "some work" and "this sprint" | 21:14 |
| jk0 | this sprint is mostly keystone stuff | 21:14 |
| westmaas | working on it ttx, sorry | 21:14 |
| jk0 | I don't think any of us devs have looked at this BP yet | 21:15 |
| westmaas | actually is /hosts done already? | 21:15 |
| glenc | FYI, portions of this have been completed, but the /hosts stuff has not been worked on | 21:15 |
| westmaas | oh. | 21:15 |
| jk0 | oh, right, this is /hosts -- a lot of that is done and there are a couple things in this sprint being worked on | 21:15 |
| _cerberus_ | It's still up in the air, actually | 21:15 |
| westmaas | ttx perfectly clear now? | 21:16 |
| comstud | lol | 21:16 |
| _cerberus_ | ;-) | 21:16 |
| jk0 | it's on our radar | 21:16 |
| ttx | jk0: when does that sprint end ? Is "what is being worked on" sufficient to please whoever finds this "essential" ? | 21:16 |
| jk0 | ttx: we do two week sprints, just started yesterday | 21:16 |
| westmaas | ttx: a week from friday | 21:17 |
| comstud | ttx: I can't see any way that BP would be complete in time | 21:17 |
| _cerberus_ | +1 | 21:17 |
| ttx | conveniently non-aligned with our feature freeze :) | 21:17 |
| ttx | comstud: right, that's what I think too | 21:17 |
| ttx | comstud: question is, is it still "essential" to this release ? | 21:18 |
| ttx | comstud: as in "stop the press, everyone works on that instead" ? | 21:18 |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:18 | |
| ttx | comstud: given the level of engagement around it, I'd say, it's not essential | 21:18 |
| comstud | I don't feel that it is | 21:18 |
| ttx | vishy: opinion ? | 21:18 |
| vishy | seems more rs essential than os essential to me | 21:18 |
| glenc | IMHO it's essential for a service provider to deploy, but probably not for everyone | 21:18 |
| comstud | It's a rackspace requirement, and we can work | 21:18 |
| westmaas | my feeling is no | 21:18 |
| comstud | vishy: right | 21:19 |
| glenc | and our deadline is somewhat later | 21:19 |
| ttx | vishy: looks like reprioritization is in order, before deferring :) | 21:19 |
| vishy | agreed | 21:19 |
| glenc | vishy: can we sync? much of the stuff in that spec is completed, but the /hosts is not | 21:20 |
| ttx | #action vishy to reprioritize admin-account-actions which is likely to miss diablo | 21:20 |
| vishy | sure | 21:20 |
| vishy | we could split it into two blueprints | 21:20 |
| *** debo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:20 | |
| glenc | that's what I'm thinking | 21:20 |
| vishy | and mark one completed | 21:20 |
| vishy | and the other for essex? | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy: works for me | 21:20 |
| glenc | yup | 21:20 |
| ttx | vishy: there are also 4 new specs proposed to d4 (the four at the bottom with undefined prio) | 21:20 |
| vishy | glenc: you want to handle the rewrite? | 21:21 |
| vishy | ttx: looking | 21:21 |
| ttx | at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-4 | 21:21 |
| ttx | vif-driver-802-1qbh and scheduler-for-802-1qbh are from Cisco | 21:21 |
| glenc | I will | 21:21 |
| ttx | SumitNaiksatam: how close is this from being proposed ? | 21:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hi, there is a dependency issue | 21:21 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 21:21 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | the code relies on Quantum modules | 21:22 |
| ttx | SumitNaiksatam: ew | 21:22 |
| vishy | sumit: is it just a driver and scheduler? | 21:22 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | yes VIF driver and a scheduler, two modules | 21:22 |
| vishy | SumitNaiksatam: then they could live in the quantum source tree | 21:22 |
| vishy | and be loaded via a flag | 21:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok | 21:23 |
| ttx | vishy: +1 | 21:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i do already have flags | 21:23 |
| vishy | you don't need to have the code in nova for things like --scheduler_driver=xxx.xxxx | 21:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok | 21:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that sounds like a good solution | 21:23 |
| vishy | you could say --scheduler_driver=quantum.some.cool.Scheduler | 21:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yep, got it | 21:23 |
| ttx | vishy: hyper-v-update sounds pretty useful, could even be post-d4 from where I'm standing | 21:24 |
| vishy | ttx: agreed that sounds like bug fixes to me | 21:24 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:24 | |
| vishy | the security group one is a just an interesting feature, not a huge deal if it doesn't go in | 21:24 |
| vishy | so I will low it | 21:24 |
| ttx | right, low | 21:24 |
| *** RamD has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:25 | |
| ttx | vishy: there is "add diff disk support" in the hyperv stuff | 21:25 |
| ttx | but it sounds like feature catchup | 21:25 |
| ttx | vishy: medium ? | 21:25 |
| vishy | sure | 21:25 |
| vishy | target to freeze? | 21:25 |
| *** cbeck has quit IRC | 21:25 | |
| ttx | let it to d4, we'll postpone it if needed | 21:26 |
| vishy | k | 21:26 |
| ttx | vishy: how is finalize-nova-auth going ? | 21:26 |
| vishy | should i untarget the SumitNaiksatam ones? | 21:26 |
| vishy | good. | 21:26 |
| vishy | I think we have one more branch to go in | 21:26 |
| ttx | vishy: I think so yes. Will do if not done | 21:26 |
| vishy | I got buy-in from the rs deploy teams that it won't cause them issues to have no auth by default | 21:27 |
| vishy | and it doesn't sound like anyone is using the os_api auth and accounts | 21:27 |
| vishy | so those will go away | 21:27 |
| vishy | that is the api endpoints for controlling accounts and users | 21:27 |
| soren | How will this affect the EC2 API? If at all. | 21:27 |
| vishy | soren: I pushed an extension into keystone to allow it to auth ec2 creds | 21:28 |
| *** cbeck has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:28 | |
| vishy | soren: my thoughts are to basically do no auth checking by default. | 21:28 |
| soren | So every request will need to go through keystone? | 21:28 |
| vishy | if you want auth checking, you can a) install keystone or b) use the old pipeline, with users and projects in auth manager | 21:28 |
| soren | Ok. | 21:29 |
| ttx | danwent: what about linuxnet-vif-plugging and implement-network-api ? | 21:29 |
| vishy | does that work? | 21:29 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| danwent | linuxnet-vif-plugging is in review | 21:29 |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:29 | |
| dolphm_ | vishy, that's intuitive | 21:29 |
| danwent | I believe all concerns have been addressed, just waiting for final approval. | 21:29 |
| soren | vishy: b) is the status quo, right? | 21:29 |
| soren | vishy: Just same ol', same ol'? | 21:29 |
| soren | vishy: If yes, then yes :) | 21:30 |
| danwent | implementation of quantum network api needs to be merge propped in the next few days. | 21:30 |
| soren | I won't have to change anything. That's easy. | 21:30 |
| vishy | b) yes, I'm trying to take it away as the default though, because I want to remove the old auth manager completely in essex | 21:30 |
| ttx | danwent: indeed. | 21:30 |
| danwent | code is working, but will probably cut down on what I merge prop to reduce the scope of the review. just the core stuff. | 21:30 |
| ttx | ryu_ishimoto: How is nova-quantum-vifid going ? | 21:30 |
| danwent | he's ready to merge prop, I believe. | 21:31 |
| vishy | soren: maintaining two auth systems for people in production will be a pain, so I'm trying to encourage people not to deploy with the old stuff | 21:31 |
| soren | vishy: sure | 21:31 |
| ttx | danwent: the sooner the better | 21:31 |
| ryu_ishimoto | ttx: I've made some changes yesterday and preparing for merge prop right now | 21:31 |
| ttx | ryu_ishimoto: perfect ! | 21:31 |
| ryu_ishimoto | ttx: I willl make sure to do so before the end of the week | 21:31 |
| ttx | everyone else: if one spec assigned to you on https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/diablo-4 simply won't make it by Monday, please let me know ASAP. | 21:31 |
| danwent | ttx: this is our highest priority nova issue, so we'd like that prioritized. | 21:32 |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| danwent | if you have to cut some quantum stuff, the vif-id stuff should be the last thing cut | 21:32 |
| ttx | danwent: it's High priority, so theoretically gets priority in reviews. | 21:32 |
| danwent | ttx: thanks. | 21:32 |
| * ttx knows we won't have all 28 d4 BPs in | 21:32 | |
| *** rohit has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:33 | |
| *** rohit is now known as Guest90552 | 21:33 | |
| ttx | so vishy should get ready to be hit with networking code review :) | 21:33 |
| ttx | vishy: Announcements, comments ? | 21:33 |
| *** edgar_perdomo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:34 | |
| *** Guest90552 has quit IRC | 21:34 | |
| vishy | I hope everyone has lots of time for review this weekend | 21:34 |
| vishy | going to be a crunch :) | 21:34 |
| jk0 | speaking of that | 21:35 |
| ttx | vishy: Monday is OK too. | 21:35 |
| jk0 | we could use a few more nova core members | 21:35 |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:35 | |
| * jk0 looks at jkoelker | 21:35 | |
| *** rohita has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:35 | |
| comstud | heh | 21:35 |
| ttx | jk0: nominate, nominate ! | 21:35 |
| jk0 | :) | 21:35 |
| ttx | Questions for Nova PTL ? | 21:35 |
| clayg | vishy: vsa's branch? | 21:36 |
| comstud | vishy: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? | 21:37 |
| vishy | so I've been talking with vsa about their branch | 21:37 |
| vishy | trying to get them to back out a few changes | 21:37 |
| vishy | so it isn't so tightly coupled with nova | 21:37 |
| Vek | comstud: air speed != velocity | 21:38 |
| comstud | Vek: fail. | 21:38 |
| * jk0 flys the plane over Vek's head | 21:38 | |
| comstud | Yeah | 21:38 |
| vishy | I'm not totally convinced that vsa's are the way of the future, but I think it is reasonable to have it in experimentally if they can decouple it a bit more | 21:38 |
| Vek | heh. Velocity is a vector quantity; air speed is a scalar quantity :) | 21:38 |
| Vek | anyway... | 21:38 |
| vishy | so they are working on it now | 21:39 |
| ttx | vishy: ok | 21:39 |
| comstud | Vek: you fail. google the question to find the reference. | 21:39 |
| ttx | clayg: does that answer your question | 21:39 |
| ttx | ? | 21:39 |
| vishy | african, or american? | 21:39 |
| comstud | african or european | 21:39 |
| vishy | dang | 21:39 |
| creiht | vishy: any word on other volume changes? | 21:39 |
| clayg | ttx: i'm ok with that answer for now | 21:39 |
| vishy | memory is faulty | 21:39 |
| comstud | vishy: close enough :) | 21:39 |
| vishy | creiht: talked with piston today, we're going to try and finish up the branch for volume types at the openstack hack-up on thursday | 21:40 |
| creiht | cool | 21:40 |
| ttx | vishy: let me know when we can move to the next topic. | 21:40 |
| vishy | i think we're good | 21:41 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects news | 21:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects news" | 21:41 | |
| ttx | devcamcar, dolphm: o/ | 21:41 |
| ttx | News, questions on Keystone/Dashboard ? | 21:41 |
| ttx | ... | 21:42 |
| ttx | .. | 21:42 |
| ttx | . | 21:42 |
| Vek | . | 21:42 |
| ttx | #topic Documentation report | 21:42 |
| glenc | … | 21:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Documentation report" | 21:42 | |
| ttx | I received a postcard from annegentle: """Documentation report: | 21:43 |
| ttx | We're looking for a good week for a doc sprint after the August 22 freeze date - can be remote. | 21:43 |
| ttx | Please send suggestions and be on the look out for a doc sprint week announcement. | 21:43 |
| ttx | We'd like man pages for all services and CLI tools, XenServer deployment instructions (deshantm is working on those), zones "how-to", finalize flags docs, and review networking docs, adding HA info. | 21:43 |
| ttx | Also, the openstack-manuals project hopes to move to git before the Design Summit (by the end of September). | 21:43 |
| ttx | Full notes from the Doc Team meeting are at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-15-20.07.html """ | 21:44 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 21:44 | |
| zykes- | openstack-manuals is ? | 21:44 |
| ttx | No return address. | 21:44 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:44 | |
| ttx | openstack-manuals is the project maintaining the source to docs.openstack.org | 21:44 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:44 | |
| jk0 | o/ | 21:44 |
| jk0 | can we start shooting a quick notice to the ML when adding new deps to nova/glance/etc? | 21:45 |
| ttx | jk0: oh, that sounds like a great idea. | 21:45 |
| zykes- | ml ? | 21:45 |
| jk0 | mailing list | 21:45 |
| zykes- | ah | 21:45 |
| * Vek agrees | 21:45 | |
| Vek | tnstaafl | 21:46 |
| jaypipes | jk0: ++ | 21:46 |
| ttx | If we could avoid adding new dependencies late in the development cycle, that would be great too | 21:46 |
| dabo | ttx: my thoughts exactly | 21:46 |
| ttx | it puts a lot of pressure on our downstreams | 21:46 |
| ttx | For example, if you add a new dep now, Ubuntu needs to package it and push it to main -- after their FeatureFreeze | 21:47 |
| *** jamesurquhart has left #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| Vek | which reminds me, there's been a slight change to glance-registry.conf, so make sure you synchronize... | 21:47 |
| Vek | not a dep, per se, but in a similar category of breaking change. | 21:47 |
| jaypipes | Vek: we need to figure out a way of making changes like that in glance upgrades... | 21:47 |
| ttx | PTLs: so we /could/ use something like a DependencyFreeze | 21:47 |
| jaypipes | Vek: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+spec/glance-upgrade | 21:48 |
| Vek | ttx: would have to come after feature freeze, though... | 21:48 |
| ttx | Vek: not necessarily. Not all features add dependencies. | 21:48 |
| Vek | jaypipes: *nod* | 21:48 |
| ttx | sounds like a good design summit discussion. | 21:48 |
| * glenc thinks coconuts are not migratory | 21:49 | |
| Vek | ttx: true, but there's always the potential for it... | 21:49 |
| ttx | Design Summit is still planned for Oct 3-5 in Boston. Registration should open as soon as I get the time to learn Django, or find a victim to do it for me. | 21:50 |
| ttx | jk0: could you shoot an email to the ML saying that from now on, new deps should be announced (before they get merged) | 21:51 |
| ttx | ? | 21:51 |
| jk0 | you got it | 21:51 |
| ttx | #action jk0 to push new dep email policy to ML | 21:51 |
| * Vek will also send an email about his glance .conf change shortly | 21:51 | |
| ttx | Anything else ? | 21:51 |
| *** jlm^ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| ttx | ok then. | 21:52 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:52 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 16 21:52:35 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:52 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-21.01.html | 21:52 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-21.01.txt | 21:52 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-21.01.log.html | 21:52 |
| ttx | Thanks everyone. | 21:52 |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** johan_-_ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** Jamey_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| glenc | Thank you, ttx | 21:52 |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 21:53 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:56 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** comstud has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** eday has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| *** edgar_perdomo has left #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| *** jamesurquhart has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| danwent | hello netstackers | 22:00 |
| salv | hello! | 22:01 |
| jamesurquhart | hey | 22:01 |
| *** asomya has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| debo | howdy! | 22:01 |
| danwent | salv: I thought you were on vacation... or is this what you do on vacation :P | 22:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Greetings! | 22:01 |
| *** alandman has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| ryu_ishimoto | hello! | 22:01 |
| salv | I'm on vacation, actually | 22:01 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:01 | |
| hisaharu | hi. | 22:02 |
| salv | having this meeting with beer and ice cream | 22:02 |
| danwent | ok, so we have a lot of items to cover... let's get started. | 22:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: you did not spot the margarita in salv's hands! :-) | 22:02 |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Aug 16 22:02:15 2011 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:02 |
| *** dabo has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:02 |
| somik | salv: living the good life :) | 22:02 |
| danwent | Sumit: I thought he had that every meeting | 22:02 |
| danwent | #general topics | 22:02 |
| *** edgar_perdomo has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | #info please make sure you're signed the openstack CLA | 22:02 |
| danwent | if you're contributing code. need to sign both the individual and a corporate one. | 22:03 |
| danwent | Thanks to rick and mark for clearing this up on the ml | 22:03 |
| salv | if you have already contributed to nova/swift/glance, you should have already signed it. | 22:03 |
| danwent | any else general? | 22:03 |
| danwent | btw, forgot to send out the agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:03 |
| danwent | guess I was in a hurry to get started | 22:04 |
| danwent | #topic melange | 22:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "melange" | 22:04 | |
| danwent | Troy? | 22:04 |
| troytoman | we have been working on integration this week | 22:04 |
| *** ying has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:04 | |
| danwent | do we expect this to land in D4? | 22:04 |
| troytoman | just trying to make sure that Melange can service the IP needs for Nova | 22:04 |
| danwent | (in nova?) | 22:04 |
| troytoman | looks good so far | 22:04 |
| danwent | Ok, great. | 22:04 |
| troytoman | I think we'll merge prop the Melange folder late this week | 22:05 |
| troytoman | we want to at least propose it before the D4 deadline | 22:05 |
| danwent | Ok, cool. I am not sure we'll be able to integrate the quantum manager with melange in that time frame... that may have to wait. | 22:05 |
| troytoman | we actually got our first VMs up in a test environment with the integrated Quantum/Melange network manager | 22:05 |
| troytoman | but that code might not be done by D4 | 22:06 |
| danwent | troy: ah, you tweaked it yourself? great | 22:06 |
| zykes- | what's the deal with quantum / melange ? | 22:06 |
| zykes- | make sure ips' and so on arent taken 2 times ? | 22:06 |
| danwent | zykes: http://launchpad.net/quantum | 22:06 |
| danwent | zykes: http://launchpad.net/melange | 22:06 |
| troytoman | danwent: yes we have created a branch that integrates melange and are doing some testing with it | 22:06 |
| *** Cyns has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| danwent | troy: melange link isn't right... what am i missing? | 22:07 |
| troytoman | after the merge prop we are going to work on Notifications and Usage | 22:07 |
| *** edgar_perdomo has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| danwent | http://wiki.openstack.org/Melange | 22:07 |
| *** edgar_magana has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| danwent | troy: can you send out a pointer to the branch? | 22:08 |
| troytoman | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/melange-ipam | 22:08 |
| troytoman | try to do that by tomorrow | 22:08 |
| danwent | troy: thanks. | 22:08 |
| danwent | that's all for melange? | 22:08 |
| troytoman | i've added blueprints for notification and usage for both melange and quantum | 22:09 |
| troytoman | it that's it | 22:09 |
| danwent | #topic donabe | 22:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "donabe" | 22:09 | |
| danwent | we have an update this week! | 22:09 |
| danwent | debo? | 22:09 |
| debo | Hi | 22:09 |
| debo | I have put up a prelim | 22:09 |
| debo | version of hte API framework | 22:09 |
| debo | based on the glance code | 22:09 |
| debo | and we have simple CRUD boilerplate for nouns like tenants, network containers, | 22:10 |
| danwent | https://code.launchpad.net/~netstack-core/donabe/diablo | 22:10 |
| debo | thanks Dan | 22:10 |
| danwent | debo: great. | 22:10 |
| danwent | some kind of blueprint/write-up describing the API entities, etc. would be helpful for those just trying to get the big picture. | 22:11 |
| somik | debo: do we have some blueprint(design spec) that we can use as a starting point for reviews | 22:11 |
| debo | Rick and I felt that it would be good to start discussions and do some framework dev at the same time | 22:11 |
| danwent | I think Rick said that we'll get that soon. | 22:11 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:11 | |
| debo | Dan, I agree ... as I mentioned maybe by next week I should have a simple writeup | 22:11 |
| danwent | Great. ok, anything else on donabe? | 22:11 |
| debo | Nothing more ... please send me your comments about the framework if you have any | 22:12 |
| *** bsza has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| debo | glance vs something ..... | 22:12 |
| danwent | to the netstack list, i presume | 22:12 |
| danwent | #topic quantum | 22:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum" | 22:12 | |
| danwent | #info goal is to apply for incubation at next week's PPB meeting | 22:12 |
| danwent | here's a pointer to the proposed application: http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication/Quantum | 22:13 |
| danwent | definitely let me know if I'm missing anything or we think it is not representative | 22:13 |
| danwent | (I spent a lot of time googling linked in profiles :) ) | 22:13 |
| danwent | but I may have missed some people. | 22:13 |
| *** dcramer_ has quit IRC | 22:13 | |
| danwent | On the topic of reviews, we got the Cisco branch merged | 22:14 |
| debo | somik: Gimme a week .... Rick/Dan suggested I give a quick update 1 hr ago :) | 22:14 |
| danwent | congrats to the team on doubling the number of full-fledged plugins | 22:14 |
| danwent | at this rate, we'll have 2^32 plugins in no time | 22:14 |
| debo | in 32 weeks? | 22:14 |
| jamesurquhart | danwent: Ha! | 22:14 |
| danwent | :) | 22:14 |
| danwent | there are a few other misc reviews for quantum... free brownie points to whomever picks them up | 22:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks a ton guys for the great reviews | 22:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | on the cisco branch | 22:15 |
| RamD | Netstack team: Thanks a lot | 22:15 |
| danwent | also, I think there are some additional reviews coming down the pipe on the Cisco branch, correct? | 22:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Dan, Salv, Somik, much appreciated | 22:15 |
| RamD | sumit: :-) +1 | 22:15 |
| salv | you're welcome | 22:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: yes very much | 22:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | :-) | 22:16 |
| edgar_magana | yeah sumit: +1 thanks for the comments! | 22:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: we are fixing the merge in the prop today | 22:16 |
| danwent | Ok, on a related topic: ignoring changes to nova for a second, what issues targeted for the D4 milestone do we consider blockers? | 22:16 |
| salv | thanks! | 22:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | apologies! | 22:16 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/diablo-4 | 22:16 |
| danwent | We essentially have a week for D4 | 22:17 |
| rohita | yes dan..we proposed one today..but it seems we are out of sync with the trunk..hopefully we'll get it fixed..cc:salv | 22:17 |
| salv | nova integration can become a blockere for auth | 22:17 |
| danwent | after that we are in integration freeze, which means no major new changes. | 22:17 |
| danwent | salv: API v1.0 seems like a definitely must have | 22:17 |
| *** RamD_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:17 | |
| salv | danwent: therefore, for auth, verification of ownership for interface could be a non-major change | 22:18 |
| salv | on API: | 22:18 |
| danwent | are there any other definitely "must haves" for Quantum D4? | 22:18 |
| salv | changes are ready for merge propo | 22:18 |
| danwent | salv: great. we'll definitely want to give that review high priority. | 22:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: we have a bunch of things lined up, how do we got about those? | 22:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | these are specific to our plugin | 22:18 |
| salv | Would it be ok to merge prop it without unit tests for CLI? I was aiming at completing those tests first and then merge prop the API | 22:19 |
| danwent | Sumit: if they are ready to go, I would merge prop them. | 22:19 |
| danwent | salv: tests and minor tweaks can definitely come in during integration freeze, though if you have them ready, we can do it earlier. | 22:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: what about the ones which will be ready by in the next few days? | 22:19 |
| salv | okay, I'll merge prop tomorrow | 22:19 |
| danwent | Sounds like we'll have a lot of code to review in the next week or so. Let's make sure everyone is pitching in on reviews. | 22:19 |
| salv | Review days? | 22:20 |
| danwent | Even if you haven't reviewed before, now's a great time to start. | 22:20 |
| somik | salv: review sundays :) | 22:20 |
| *** RamD has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| danwent | salv: I was thinking the same thing... let's see if we think its needed. | 22:20 |
| salv | We probably need them. With a few reviews in the pipeline, some of them are already in starvation | 22:21 |
| danwent | we can perhaps have a review day after the deadline for getting nova changes in. | 22:21 |
| danwent | #action #salv, schedule a review day | 22:21 |
| danwent | this is the less fun side of being a "core dev"... but on the plus side you get to learn a lot about parts of the code base that may be new... a great way to get up to speed on the project. | 22:22 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else that is a must have for d-4 quantum? Then we'll talk about nova | 22:22 |
| salv | danwent: and what would the "fun side" be? | 22:22 |
| danwent | writing code :) | 22:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | what is the deadline for getting the merge prop in for D4 (for quantum)? | 22:23 |
| danwent | salv: you're attending the netstack meeting while on vacation.... you dont' seem like one to talk :P | 22:23 |
| salv | danwent: I may argue you don't have to be a core member for that. Anyway, I don't see any blocker on my side. | 22:23 |
| salv | SumitNaiksatam: We should release D-4 on wed 25 | 22:24 |
| danwent | salv: definitely. anyone can review. core devs SHOULD review though, its part of the responsibility. | 22:24 |
| troytoman | Deadline for D-4 is Monday (at least for Nova) | 22:24 |
| danwent | yes. generally, anything "big" should be in by friday. | 22:24 |
| danwent | by "in", i mean proposed | 22:25 |
| danwent | Somik can spend his sundays revewing code, right? | 22:25 |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| danwent | But if you consider something a "must have" please speak up now. | 22:25 |
| danwent | Ok, onto the topic of quantum related code in nova. | 22:26 |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 22:26 | |
| somik | danwent: yup uptil we get them merge propped by friday | 22:26 |
| salv | SumitNaiksatatam: how much stuff have you got lined up for merge prop? | 22:26 |
| danwent | the nova team is clearly really crunched for review cycles | 22:26 |
| somik | but that means I would need other dev to be responsive to my comments too :) | 22:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: lots, some of it is ready, some of it we need to work on some more | 22:27 |
| danwent | if there is a well-defined interface by which a "driver" can be loaded without being part of nova core, they are probably going to push for that. | 22:27 |
| danwent | hence the comments during the nova meeting today. The same logic could be applied to the Quantum Manager. | 22:27 |
| salv | SumitNaiksatam: In order to understand the review effort for D-4 we probably need something more quantitative than "lots" :-) | 22:27 |
| danwent | The linuxnet vifplugging is already reviewed, just needs to be approved. | 22:28 |
| salv | Trey approved it about one hour ago | 22:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: I believe RamD exchanged some emails on that, but we can go back to that thread and discuss | 22:28 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| danwent | ryu's work to expose vif-id doesn't have a pluggable interface, so that needs to go into nova core | 22:28 |
| danwent | salv: ah great.... i'm way behind on email :) | 22:28 |
| RamD_ | Salv: There are two main merge props. One queued today by Rohit A | 22:29 |
| salv | SumitNaiksatam: good, I'll check the email later on. I'm behind on my email as I'm official on holyday :) | 22:29 |
| danwent | Ryu: that will merge prop today/tomorrow? | 22:29 |
| RamD_ | One followed by Ying on API Extensions now that we have Extension framework merged | 22:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: no worries :-) | 22:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: on the vif-driver, vishy's suggestion to package the vif-driver within quantum should be fine, right? | 22:30 |
| salv | I think that plugins can be "free" from standar release cycle deadlines. But this is just my opinion. | 22:30 |
| danwent | Hopefully the cisco team can repay the favor with some other reviews during the D-4 crunch :) | 22:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | salv: +1 | 22:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: +1 | 22:30 |
| danwent | too many threads at once | 22:30 |
| salv | Hence, I'd gice the API ext work an higher priority | 22:30 |
| edgar_magana | Sure Dan count me in as reviewer | 22:30 |
| somik | salv: plugins are really not tied to quantum as we have a framework where you can plug something developed out of band | 22:31 |
| danwent | Ok, first: Sumit, yes, the vif-driver approach should be fine. | 22:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent: ok thanks! | 22:31 |
| salv | I'd also say that thanks to the interface, there's no chance a plugin can break Quantum :) | 22:31 |
| danwent | salv: yes... generally speaking I think that plugins don't necessarily have the same requirements compared to core code. | 22:31 |
| salv | Okay, so do we agree we will give priority to reviews pertaning core code? | 22:32 |
| danwent | but at the same time, an administrator picking up quantum will expect to be able to get a stable release of both core and plugin with major release. | 22:32 |
| somik | for that matter, I would say API extensibility framework has to be in core but extensions can be plugged-in out of band | 22:32 |
| danwent | salv: I think that's a good policy in general. | 22:32 |
| somik | and promoted to API or "required" extensions at a later date post review | 22:32 |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:33 | |
| danwent | That said, in the case of the Cisco extension I'd like to get that in for the diablo release | 22:33 |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| RamD_ | danwent: +1 stable...both core and all plugins for D4 | 22:33 |
| RamD_ | Cisco Extensions definitely for Diable :-) | 22:34 |
| salv | danwent: "diablo release" or D-4? | 22:34 |
| danwent | In theory someone could release and rev a plugin independent of the quantum core, but if the plugin is shipped with the main quantum distro, I'd like it to adhere to basic release policies. | 22:34 |
| salv | agrred | 22:34 |
| danwent | salv: D-4 is the last chance to get major changes in for diablo.... | 22:35 |
| danwent | the rest should just be integration.... | 22:35 |
| danwent | and testing... | 22:35 |
| danwent | and documentation :) | 22:35 |
| danwent | Ok, any other issues to discuss with quantum + nova? | 22:36 |
| salv | Were we discussing Quantum + nova? | 22:36 |
| danwent | was trying to.... though there were several conversations at once | 22:36 |
| danwent | salv: did you have anything else you wanted to discuss on that topic? There's a thread on the netstack list about the interface ownership communication between nova + quantum. | 22:37 |
| salv | Let's move to the remaining topics | 22:38 |
| danwent | dont' need to rehash that there though... please respond via email if you have thoughts. | 22:38 |
| danwent | ah, one other topic I had about nova + quantum... | 22:38 |
| danwent | is tyler here? | 22:38 |
| asomya | danwent: Don't think so | 22:39 |
| danwent | I was curious about the client packaging, and whether we could use that for the QuantumManager in nova, or whether we should keep with the current (ugly) approach of having a copy of the client lib in nova. | 22:39 |
| danwent | asomya: k, will try and sync via email. | 22:39 |
| danwent | Update on the GUI work? | 22:39 |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:39 | |
| asomya | A few changes.. I implemented all the changes suggested by Devin Carlen and rolled everything up into one django-openstack module | 22:40 |
| danwent | asomya: wow... very cool. | 22:40 |
| asomya | just waitin for the setup script to get merged into quantum so that I can update the pip requirements in the dashboard and push a dashboard merge request :) | 22:40 |
| danwent | yup, saw that. I reviewed... needs one more person to sign off. | 22:41 |
| danwent | anyone? | 22:41 |
| salv | asomya: API v1.0 merge prop will have an impact on the Quantum GUI as well. | 22:41 |
| asomya | salv: yes but that shouldn't require any major code changes.. just the way I read dicts returned | 22:41 |
| asomya | should be easy to refit | 22:41 |
| RamD_ | danwent: I'll review as well | 22:41 |
| *** nati has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| salv | asomya: very easy, I just wanted to give you the heads-up! | 22:42 |
| danwent | yet another reason to prioritize the API review once it is proposed. sounds good. | 22:42 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| asomya | salv: thanks for the heads up :) | 22:42 |
| *** nati has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| danwent | RamD: thx, that would be great. | 22:42 |
| salv | One more thing from me: can someone fix the pip-requires adding webtest, so we can have jenkins back? | 22:42 |
| danwent | Salv: heckjoe took care of that this morning | 22:42 |
| salv | danwent: I did not see that! See, after all I'm on vacation :) | 22:43 |
| danwent | salv: no worries :) | 22:43 |
| danwent | I'll have to track down the duplicate bug and close it, as he filed another bug on it. | 22:43 |
| danwent | Salv: on API auth. | 22:43 |
| salv | The good news | 22:44 |
| salv | I have a branch (the one attached to the auth blueprint) in which I have keystone integration for authentication and a very trivial | 22:44 |
| salv | authorization module which ensures a tenant operates only on his own networks, and hence ports | 22:44 |
| salv | The bad news | 22:44 |
| salv | We need to verify ownership for interfaces, and that depends on the nova integration work | 22:45 |
| danwent | yup. does it make sense to merge the first branch, then track the second independently, as it is dependent on the quantum manager? | 22:45 |
| danwent | or would you prefer to keep them coupled? | 22:45 |
| salv | danwent: that would be my plan as well (separate things) | 22:46 |
| danwent | Ok, great. | 22:46 |
| salv | I will merge prop the auth work as it is on thursay | 22:46 |
| danwent | sounds great. email thread on the netstack list is covering the remaining issue of how to report interface ownership to quantum. | 22:46 |
| danwent | Ok, sounds like tyler isn't here, so we'll try to sync up on packaging via the email list. | 22:46 |
| danwent | #action #danwent, email list about packaging | 22:47 |
| danwent | Any updates on the CI infrastructure? | 22:47 |
| danwent | or other testing issues? | 22:47 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:48 | |
| danwent | is everybody talked out? :) | 22:48 |
| salv | I'm here, but I don't have anything else on my plate | 22:49 |
| danwent | ok, sounds good. | 22:49 |
| *** debo has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| asomya | about the nova vif-exposure.. I can't find any threads on the netstack alias realted to this.. can someone forward me the discussion so I can make changes if required in the dashboard | 22:49 |
| danwent | asomya: ryu has a BP on this in nova, its liked from the BP in quantum | 22:49 |
| asomya | danwent: thanks | 22:50 |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/nova-quantum-vifid | 22:50 |
| *** cbeck has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
| danwent | if you have feedback, please provide it ASAP, as given the nova review crunch, he's hoping to merge prop this today/tomorrow | 22:50 |
| danwent | ok, sounds like we're all done. thanks folks. | 22:51 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:51 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Aug 16 22:51:11 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:51 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-22.02.html | 22:51 |
| salv | bye | 22:51 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-22.02.txt | 22:51 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-08-16-22.02.log.html | 22:51 |
| edgar_magana | Thank you all! | 22:51 |
| RamD_ | Thanks and bye | 22:51 |
| *** jlm^ has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** asomya has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| danwent | have a good rest of the vacation salv :) | 22:51 |
| *** cbeck has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:51 | |
| *** RamD_ has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| salv | thanks Dan | 22:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye | 22:51 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** ying has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| somik | have a good one all! | 22:52 |
| *** jamesurquhart has left #openstack-meeting | 22:52 | |
| *** rohita has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** debo_os has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:52 | |
| *** shwetaap has left #openstack-meeting | 22:52 | |
| *** ryu_ishimoto has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:57 | |
| *** somik has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** salv has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** Jamey_ has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** marktvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:03 | |
| *** debo_os_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:04 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** marktvoelker has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** debo_os has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** debo_os_ is now known as debo_os | 23:07 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:08 | |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:10 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:12 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ is now known as anotherjesse | 23:12 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 23:13 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** msinhore has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:13 | |
| *** zns has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** msinhore1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:33 | |
| *** msinhore has quit IRC | 23:33 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ is now known as anotherjesse | 23:41 | |
| *** joearnol_ has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 23:53 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!