Wednesday, 2011-10-12

*** primeministerp1 has quit IRC00:00
*** ohnoimdead has quit IRC00:08
*** hisaharu has quit IRC00:09
* Daviey raises apologies to ttx for missing the meeting00:11
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk00:18
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates00:22
*** nati2 has quit IRC00:24
*** donald650 has quit IRC00:27
*** Kiall has quit IRC00:30
*** rmk has left #openstack-meeting00:36
*** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting00:38
*** Kiall has joined #openstack-meeting00:38
*** somik has quit IRC00:46
*** martine has joined #openstack-meeting00:46
*** ziyadb has quit IRC00:48
*** adjohn has quit IRC00:53
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk01:20
*** dragondm has quit IRC01:35
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting01:51
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting01:56
*** medberry is now known as med_out01:57
*** chrisg1 has left #openstack-meeting01:58
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC02:13
*** martine has quit IRC02:31
*** shang has quit IRC02:32
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting02:34
*** nati2_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:45
*** nati2 has quit IRC02:46
*** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting02:47
*** nati2_ has quit IRC02:57
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting03:13
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:21
*** anotherjesse has quit IRC03:22
*** rkukura has quit IRC03:32
*** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting03:35
*** anotherjesse has quit IRC03:37
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting03:44
*** toluene has joined #openstack-meeting03:49
*** rkukura has quit IRC03:51
*** zul has quit IRC03:53
*** clayg has left #openstack-meeting03:59
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting04:03
*** hggdh has quit IRC04:05
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting04:08
*** reed has quit IRC04:23
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting04:28
*** littleidea has quit IRC04:59
*** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting05:21
*** danwent has left #openstack-meeting05:25
*** shang has quit IRC06:03
*** shang_ has quit IRC06:03
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting06:04
*** adjohn has quit IRC06:04
*** zns has quit IRC06:25
*** toluene has quit IRC06:30
*** joonwon has joined #openstack-meeting07:50
*** joonwon has quit IRC07:53
*** nati2 has quit IRC08:14
*** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting08:14
*** nati2 has quit IRC08:38
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting08:56
*** tsuzuki_ has joined #openstack-meeting08:57
*** ovidwu has quit IRC09:25
*** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting11:03
*** tsuzuki_ has quit IRC11:27
*** primeministerp1 has quit IRC11:53
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting12:02
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting12:03
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates13:11
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting13:12
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting13:13
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting13:15
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting13:25
*** rkukura has quit IRC13:28
*** martine has joined #openstack-meeting13:49
*** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting13:54
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
*** zns has quit IRC14:00
*** jsavak has quit IRC14:01
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting14:01
*** wwkeyboard has joined #openstack-meeting14:10
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting14:10
*** adrian17od has joined #openstack-meeting14:12
*** reed_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting14:49
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting14:55
*** zns has quit IRC14:57
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
*** adrian17od has quit IRC15:13
*** adrian17od has joined #openstack-meeting15:20
*** med_out is now known as medberry15:21
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting15:26
*** adrian17od has quit IRC15:32
*** deshantm_laptop has joined #openstack-meeting15:41
*** corrigac has joined #openstack-meeting15:47
*** ColinLyons has joined #openstack-meeting15:49
*** danwent has left #openstack-meeting15:49
*** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting15:53
*** mahmoh has joined #openstack-meeting15:54
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting16:02
jaypipesare we ready to start the QA meeting?16:04
jaypipesnati2: ?16:04
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting16:05
nati2oh we held QA meeting here?16:05
jaypipesnati2: yes16:05
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting16:05
nati2Ohw sorry!16:05
openstackMeeting started Wed Oct 12 16:05:27 2011 UTC.  The chair is jaypipes. Information about MeetBot at
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.16:05
jaypipes#info if you are not in the QA team and want to be, please join
jaypipes#topic Status on unit test analysis and bug feedback16:06
*** openstack changes topic to "Status on unit test analysis and bug feedback"16:06
*** gigig has joined #openstack-meeting16:06
*** venkater_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:06
jaypipesnati2: care to give a status? I notice a bunch of bugs from you and your teammates :)16:06
*** patelna_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:06
*** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting16:07
jaypipespatelna_: hi nayna16:07
patelna_hey Jay16:07
jaypipespatelna_: just started the meeting... current topic is status of unit test stuff. nati2 to provide status16:07
patelna_great...Nachi joining16:07
nati2Hi Jay , hold on please, I thought the meeting was on #openstack-qa  I'm redirecting guys who joined to #openstack-qa16:07
patelna_we're in the #openstack-QA channel16:07
jaypipespatelna_: ah, no, this channel :)16:08
jaypipespatelna_: this channel has the meetingbot and stuff...16:08
patelna_Got it!!!! thanks16:08
nati2yes, let's use this channel16:08
*** KumarKR has joined #openstack-meeting16:08
gigigHello Nayna and Jay16:08
jaypipesgigig: morning/afternoon :)16:09
*** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting16:09
nati2Hi gigi!16:09
patelna_Hey Gigigi16:09
gigighi nachi :)16:09
jaypipesALL: we just started the meeting... current topic is status of unit test stuff. nati2 to provide status16:09
nati2Nayna are you joining here?16:09
jaypipesnati2: patelna_ is nayna16:10
KumarKRhello folks16:10
patelna_I am16:10
mtaylorhey gigig. hey patelna_16:10
patelna_Hey Monty16:10
nati2hey monty16:10
gigighey monty16:10
mtaylorhey nati216:10
patelna_Nachi = Patelna = nayna16:10
patelna_let's go...16:10
patelna_please provide an update on Unit Test Coverage16:10
nati2OK My team start analyzing code and adding unit test on it16:11
nati2you can see coverage at
nati2But our stuff is not merged yet.16:11
nati2And also we added some blueprints and bugs16:12
nati2This buleprint is for exception and log handling16:12
nati2Based on this policy, We added some bugs Related bugs16:13
nati2sorry typo16:13
jaypipesnati2: where are the branches that are proposed to nova for the QA bug fixes and test cases? I don't see any here:,status:open+project:openstack/nova,n,z16:13
venkater_hey nati2 - I see results for Nova .. Is swift unit tests also run?16:13
nati2I think it is not created yet.16:13
nati2venkater_:  > Monty  Do you know about swift unit tests status?16:14
nati2See related bugs on
mtaylorswift unit tests are run as part of gating the swift trunk16:14
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk16:14
nati2We also add input value validation blueprints.
mtaylorand coverage job for swift is:
nati2And manager api policy
nati2thanks mtaylor16:15
nati2There are more 10 bugs reported in my lab (but it is Japanese now, I'll translate it today :) )16:16
nati2Would you please comment and question about blueprints and bugs ?16:16
jaypipesnati2: ok, good. yes, I'd like to see those blueprints containing more details...16:17
nati2It it all from me.16:17
nati2gotcha. I'll add examples and more details16:17
dwalleckHi, Daryl from Rack QE. The blueprint for API input validation sounds more like addition of input validation, not the testing of it. Is that correct?16:17
jaypipesnati2: well, not the exception blueprint :) that one is great!16:17
*** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
nati2gotcha : jaypipes16:17
jaypipesnati2: see dwalleck's ? above16:18
nati2dwalleck: I think it is in scope of QA16:18
dwallecknati2: In scope for us to add it? Or test it?16:18
nati2Because the code must support irregular case.16:18
nati2I suppose the scope of QA is not only test16:18
dwalleckTesting it certainly. I didn't know it would be our blueprints to actually add the validation16:18
nati2We should specify unclear specs also.16:19
patelnaQA scope is to consolidate and add tests as well16:19
wwkeyboardI would think the quality assurance team would tackle anything that helps assure the quality of the project16:19
nati2wwkeyboard: ++16:19
wwkeyboardinput validation and exception handling would be part of that.16:19
dwalleckOkay, just making sure16:19
*** KenWhite-RAX has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
wwkeyboardAs well as code quality and database design.16:20
patelnafor Diablo-4 QA is catching up with the coverage16:20
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
nati2Yes I agreee16:20
nati2Statement coverage is one of mesurement16:20
nati2Most important thing is to solve unclear specs16:21
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting16:21
gigighow are we measuring test coverage or rather tracking it16:21
nati2and specs are based on coding policies16:21
wwkeyboardnati2: I agree, thats why I fear coverage as a metric.16:21
dwalleckRight, I just didn't understand that it was the responsibility of the group was not just to test validation, but add to it and improve code quality16:21
nati2wwkeyboard: agreed16:21
nati2dwalleck: gotcha! thanks for your point. It make clear of the mission of this team :)16:22
jaypipesI would agree with above... checking the consistency of the spec vs. the actual behaviour is certainly in QA's purview16:22
gigigmtaylor: thanks :)16:22
mtaylor#info coverage is tracked per-build in jenkins16:22
wwkeyboardWhen filing these bugs are you making sure to inspect the supporting tests as well? The missing coverage may signal other insufficient tests.16:22
mtaylorooh! why is the nova coverage job failing...16:23
nati2There are some coding policies (pep8 etc), however I think coding policies should support irregular cases such as exceptions or irregular input value.16:23
nati2mtaylor: tanks16:23
*** rnirmal has quit IRC16:23
nati2wwkeyboard: Yes absolutly. Coverage is also important.16:23
wwkeyboardnati2: good, thank you16:24
nati2see we already added for that.
*** darraghb has quit IRC16:24
nati2Low coverage is one of kind of bugs16:24
KumarKRAgree, we need to verify a) are we building the right product and b) is the product built right? Wondering, if  we have product owners to particpate in checking consistency of specs.16:24
nati2At first, I think we should share what's our thought16:25
nati2So would you please share your teams plan as a blueprints and bugs16:25
nati2Blueprint is spec such as exception policies16:25
nati2BugReport is instance of it.16:26
jaypipesKumarKR: well, first things first, we need to identify places where the spec doesn't even exist ;)16:26
gigigjaypipes: applause16:26
KumarKRagree. i need to dive into this sooner :-)16:27
patelnatotally agree...we need dev to help us as well16:27
patelnawe should start with API coverage first16:27
jaypipesa good example of that is the Glance "spec" for the 1.0 API. It, well, leaves a lot to be desired...16:27
wwkeyboardWhat are we considering the 'spec'? The api spec?16:27
*** ColinLyons has quit IRC16:27
wwkeyboardOr the unit tests?16:27
jaypipeswwkeyboard: yes. anything here:
gigigjaypipes: can we talk about the api framework we will consolidate to since we have 7?16:28
nati2gigig:  7 ?16:28
jaypipeswwkeyboard: so, there are "approved" specs, like the 1.1 Compute API spec, "in progress" specs (like the Glance v1 API), and "proposed" specs, like the 2.0 Images API spec being developed.16:29
gigigjaypipes: there are a few out there nachi :)16:29
westmaasnati2: think she's talking about the tests in openstack-integration-tests16:29
wwkeyboardjaypipes: OK, do we want to try and include executable examples within those specs?16:29
jaypipesgigig: you're talking about the 7 *test* frameworks :)16:29
nati2westmaas: gotcha16:29
patelnaI think there are 2 separate tasks we need to start with (a) API full coverage/add Test Cases for gaps (b) Agree on API framework16:29
gigigjaypipes: Yes16:29
gigigwestmaas: ty gabe16:29
nati2patelna: agreed16:29
jaypipesgigig: yep, we'll get to that in a sec16:29
gigigjaypipes: cool16:29
jaypipesfirst things first though, I'd like to get some resolution on the following:16:30
venkater_idea: we can have blueprint review session . Either by email notification or phone call16:30
jaypipesIf nati2's team is doing these traceability matrices, is nati2's team also responsible for submitting bug reports from those and developing new tests cases or improving poor-=quality test cases?16:30
nati2Oh, I wanna make sure this. My team's primary focus is Diablo maintenance (backport). How about yours?16:30
jaypipesnati2: and Nova-only for your team... we should be specific.16:31
nati2jaypipes: Thanks yes16:31
jaypipesalright, then I propose the following:16:31
jaypipes#vote nati2 and team continue to do the unit test analysis, submitting of bug reports and additional unit tests.16:32
nati2jaypipes: Yes our team is responsible to add unit test (Sorry It may not all of modules)16:32
jaypipes#vote nati2 and team continue to do the unit test analysis, submitting of bug reports and additional unit tests for NOVA16:32
jaypipestype #agreed if that is good with you.16:32
patelnaWe should help Nachi16:32
patelnahe is the owner...but this is a big task16:33
jaypipespatelna: ok. can I count on you to arrange resources from HP where nati2 needs assistance?16:33
nati2Thanks. We may not support all modules (such as LDAP or something)16:33
jaypipespatelna: or perhaps around Glance and Keystone, since nati2's team is focued on Nova?16:33
jaypipesmore help the better IMHO16:33
nati2It sounds great16:33
gigigjaypipes: we can help here too16:34
patelnaRavi - can you take Glance16:34
nati2Or Middium or large tests16:34
patelnaKeystone - we can ask Kim to lead this16:34
venkater_Yes . Nayna16:34
jaypipes#action patelna to find resources to help small/unit test analysis and coverage for Keystone and Glance16:34
jaypipes#action jaypipes to assist patelna in getting resources familiar with Gerrit/Git reviewing and Launchpad16:35
jaypipesok. now, I think we can move on to discuss integration tests. OK with everyone?16:35
*** reed_ is now known as reed16:35
nati2Cool Jay+16:35
gigigpatelna: let me know if you need help on the last item16:35
gigigand yes lets move on16:35
patelnaYes ...will do16:35
jaypipes#topic Action items around unified integration test suite16:35
*** openstack changes topic to "Action items around unified integration test suite"16:35
westmaaswwkeyboard and I would like to propose a unified way to run the tests in openstack-integration-tests, I think we can get a bp in by tomorrow if that is acceptable.16:36
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting16:36
jaypipesSo, right now, the only test suite currently included in is Kong16:36
nati2Rohit is starting about analize 7 test frameworks. (Sorry he can not come here today)16:36
jaypipeswestmaas: yep, getting to that... one sec.16:36
* westmaas shushes16:36
nati2It sounds great to have a blueprint for that16:37
jaypipeswestmaas and I have been compiling info on the various suites:
nati2westmaas++ jaypipes++16:37
jaypipesclearly we have a lot of work ahead of us in bringing the "good stuff" from the non-Kong test suites into the main project16:37
dwalleckIs there a plan to come up with a universal design and architecture for testing? Or just to merge the tests together so they can run?16:37
venkater_Is there a notification if new blueprint is added to the docs/wiki?16:38
wwkeyboarddwalleck: We hope to come up with one.16:38
patelnawe need to decide on one framework16:38
jaypipeswestmaas: I'd like to propose that we have 1 person take the lead on developing the "unified test runner" and 1+ people taking the lead for each non-Kong test suite to bring it into the main project16:38
mtaylordwalleck: I would like universal design/architecture16:38
nati2I think test scenario is also important16:38
westmaasdwalleck: a plan for a plan :) think we need a tiny bit more analysis first.16:38
gigigpatelna: ++16:38
westmaasjaypipes: sounds good.16:38
jaypipesvenkater_: no, and that is really annoyinhgk I know.16:38
dwalleckBut before we start going forward with testing? It seems like coming with up with a design before going forward with development would be best16:38
wwkeyboardjaypipes: sounds good16:38
wwkeyboardI would add to that that we have someone in charge of looking for duplication & missing tests.16:39
jaypipesOK, now, is there anyone that would like to volunteer to be the LEAD for the unified test *runner*?16:39
mtaylorjaypipes: as long as when we say "test runner" we don't mean "re-write nose"16:39
dwalleckI just want to make sure whatever we built is maintainable and scalable16:39
westmaasI'm happy to lead that, if someone else wants it, no worries.16:39
dwalleckIs there a reason we can't just use nose?16:39
jaypipesmtaylor: no, we mean "take the best pieces of the existing things and make it a single way to run tests"16:39
dwalleckI would be also16:39
mtaylorjaypipes: just being clear16:39
nati2westmaas++    Rohit will help you :)16:40
jaypipesdwalleck: the big one is it is not multi-threaded/processed16:40
wwkeyboard+1 for westmaas16:40
jaypipesdwalleck: whereas DTest is.16:40
patelna+1 for westmass16:40
dwalleckjaypipes: Actually there is a multithreaded plugin for nose16:40
jaypipesdwalleck: hmm, great to know. :) Perhaps you can work with westmaas to come up with the best runner?16:41
westmaasdwalleck: I will work closely with you16:41
dwalleckSure, sounds good16:41
jaypipeswestmaas: seems like you are the lead for the test runner piece.16:41
jaypipes#action westmaas will lead the effort to create a singular best-practice test runner16:42
gigigshall we put a timeline on this since we need to get consolidated sooner than later?16:43
jaypipesAlright, now I believe that one of the first things we need to do (other than start work on the test runner) is to actually GET the other test suites into the openstack-integrated-tests project...16:43
westmaaswill ping the list with a bp that specifies requirements to look for input on those requirements within a day.16:43
gigigwestmaas: great16:43
jaypipesI can volunteer to do that drudge work...16:43
patelnaI add ask Donald Ngo from my team to be included in this group as well16:43
wwkeyboardjaypipes: the importing of the other tests?16:43
jaypipesdrudge work == copy-pasting the code from Backfire/Stacktester/Zodiac/Novasmoketests/etc into the openstack-integrated-tests project16:43
jaypipeswwkeyboard: yep16:43
gigigjaypipes: applause16:44
wwkeyboardif you do that I'll start looking for duplicates & missing tests16:44
jaypipesHOWEVER... doing so will be pointless if work continues in those other projects...16:44
dwalleckBut all these tests are so different in design. How is that going to work?16:44
wwkeyboardwestmaas suggested we really need to talk about directory structure as well.16:44
jaypipesdwalleck: some are different, but MANY are virtually identical :)16:44
wwkeyboardAnd I think we need to decide on a client(s) to access OS with16:44
westmaaswwkeyboard: I think rohit is also analyzing and looking for dupes16:45
*** reed has quit IRC16:45
patelnathe dir structure should follow the same code path/release/versioning16:45
dwalleckWell, it's more than directory structure. Some use novaclient, some directly call httplib, some have intermediate interfaces16:45
wwkeyboardwestmaas: I will ping him16:45
jaypipeswwkeyboard: the directory structure I proposed at the summit unconference was a directory named for each of the original test suites, so we can just bring them all into the project, then start the process of merging them into a /tests directory and a /runner directory,16:45
dwalleckWe really need to think about sustainability when doing this16:45
nati2wwkeyboard: yes rohit will help16:45
jaypipespatelna: could you elaborate on that suggestion?16:45
nati2dwalleck: sustainability?16:46
jaypipesdwalleck: we agreed at the summit that there is value in running BOTH httlib2 AND novaclient-based client tests16:46
patelnaso for diablo unit tests it should be checked in the same branch16:46
dwalleckIf we have several different architectures within the same suite, is will be painful to maintain16:46
jaypipespatelna: ah, I see now16:46
gigigagree with Patelna16:46
nati2dwalleck: I got it16:47
dwalleckBut novaclient tests should really be a different suite or at least sub-part, but seperate from other tests16:47
patelnafor essex we should have a place holder for test dir structure...16:47
wwkeyboarddwalleck: what do you mean by architectures?16:47
westmaasdwalleck: agreed.  at the conference we agreed there is value to each approach we just need a sane way to approach them and organize them.16:47
westmaasdwalleck: I'm slow, what you just said.16:47
dwalleckIf we continue just calling httplib2 directly from tests, that won't scale like we need it to16:47
gigigall i have to step away for a phone screen  -  *waves*16:48
dwalleckwwkeyboard: As in a design for the framework. For example, I made an intermediate layer between requests and the tests so that if the structure of requests changes, there's easy places to fix issues like that16:48
wwkeyboardMy fear with using a single client like novaclient is that a bug in the spec that is written into the API can be duplicated in the client.16:48
*** gigig has left #openstack-meeting16:48
patelnayes...even architecture framework + tests needs to be check'd into Git rightly16:48
wwkeyboarddwalleck: thats what I was calling the client, I agree with you16:48
jaypipesHey all, what do you all think of this?
jaypipeswhere the top directory structure is what we do initially, just to get stuff in there, and the bottom directory structure is the endgoal...16:49
nati2Ah,,  looks good to me.  Test must support multiple clients16:49
wwkeyboardI would rather the version be at the top level, it would make it easier to remove when we depreciate something.16:49
nati2So there are client directory16:49
jaypipeswwkeyboard: sure, that makes sense too.16:50
patelnathat is a gd idea16:50
nati2yes it is good idea16:50
jaypipespatelna: version at top level instead of under component?16:50
jaypipeswestmaas: thoughts?16:50
jaypipesdwalleck: thoughts?16:50 top level16:51
venkater_it looks good . client -> type of client. How about version? when we support multiple version?16:51
wwkeyboardThen when we move versions all we have to do is 'cp' the old version'16:51
wwkeyboardand a diff will tell you about what has changed.16:51
westmaasjaypipes: lets start there, and then see where we go.16:51
wwkeyboardBut that might be to primitive, idk16:51
nati2 :wwkeyboard it sounds cool16:51
dwalleckWell, my only concern is that I still see it broken down by original test project. Would it make more sense to break it down by something like novaclient tests and non-novaclient tests?16:51
westmaasdwalleck: that's the before16:52
jaypipesvenkater_: diffferenltly versioned clients could just be different python modules under /client/httplib2/ ...16:52
dwalleckAhh, I see now. Nevermind! :-)16:52
westmaaswe will get rid of those as they get merged in16:52
jaypipesdwalleck: :)16:52
jaypipeswell, as was mentioned, we can always change it later...16:52
jaypipesalrighty, then..16:52
*** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting16:52
jaypipes#action jaypipes to grab all other test suites code and put into openstack-integrated-tests project, each in its own subdirectory.16:53
*** littleidea has quit IRC16:53
patelnajaypipes ++16:53
jaypipesOK, those were the two big status things I wanted to chat about and get agreement on. Does anyone have any feedback from the summit or issues you'd like to discuss?16:54
westmaasjaypipes: stacktester is already merged in with kong in the repo, just fyi16:54
jaypipeswestmaas: ah, good to know. thx!16:54
jaypipes#topic Open Discussion16:54
*** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion"16:54
nati2I wanna discuss about diablo branches16:54
patelname 216:54
nati2Which branch I should request merge?16:54
jaypipesnati2: we need to create them first :)16:54
nati2And also I know about status of fixes team16:55
jaypipesnati2: I'll send an email to the PTLs about it.16:55
KenWhite-RAXSorry, I'm a little slow here, but basically all the different frameworks ( kong, backfire, etc) get checked in to one location then merged. THEN duplicate tests are removed and then we check code coverage?16:55
wwkeyboardKenWhite-RAX: The duplicates should be removed as they are merged.16:55
jaypipesKenWhite-RAX: code coverage is more unit tests... these are functional integration tests...16:55
patelnaDaviey -- what is his role for the maintenace branch?16:55
nati2jaypipes: Cool. However I suppose it is responsibility of fixes team.16:55
jaypipesnati2: well, that is true enough.16:56
jaypipesnati2: do we have that fixes team even created on Launchpad yet?16:56
KenWhite-RAXRight right sorry, mixing my apples and oranges16:56
nati2Muu I think fixes and qa team must be merged16:56
dwalleckYeah, I was curious about that. So why do we call it an integration suite instead of a functional suite? Just me being picky :)16:56
nati2mtaylor: How do you think about this?16:56
jaypipesnati2: no, I thought a decision was made that QA and fixes team are separate16:57
nati2jaypipes: gotcha16:57
nati2jaypipes: Then fixes team should have their launchpad16:57
jaypipesdwalleck: because it tests functional components of more components than just Nova... tests the integration of Keystone, Glance, Nova, etc16:57
mtayloryes. jeblair is working on the fixes team right now16:57
jaypipesdwalleck: but the distinction is a grey area to be sure :)16:57
venkater_Is Daviey in fixes team and maintains brach Diablo?16:58
nati2mtaylor: cool! Fixes have meetings?16:58
jaypipesmtaylor: I believe it was decided that the fixes team would be just a few people... basically some interested parties from the distros, the PTLs who vote on which bug fixes/backports to apply, and a couple others?16:58
mtaylornati2: not yet16:58
mtaylorjaypipes: yes. I actually think we were going to add Daviey, markmc and zul and let them take adding more people from there16:59
patelnawho will review the code for the fixes team we don't have regressions?16:59
jaypipespatelna: good question...17:00
jaypipespatelna: it may depend on the project.17:00
jaypipespatelna: for Glance, I think a few interested glance-core contribs will do reviews at least.17:00
patelnawe should formalize this...maybe the previous PL?17:00
zulmarkmc already started a write up17:00
patelnathanks ...Zul17:00
jaypipespatelna: well, i think it would be up to the project ;)17:01
mtayloractually, no17:01
nati2 Hi did you read mail about  [Openstack] [RFC] Stable branch? It sounds several guys do the same thing at different place.17:01
mtaylorwhat we talked about at ODS is that these teams would not really be as associated with the projects, as the projects are focused on forward dev17:01
patelnawe should involve the core developer17:01
mtaylormarkmc just sent a proposed policy ... but the thought was that this was a place for distros and integrators to collect their work and collaborate17:02
*** dprince has quit IRC17:02
mtaylorone of the reasons for the formation of the team was exactly that the core devs/ptls did _not_ want to maintain old releases moving forward, whereas the distros and integrators do17:02
westmaasmtaylor: who has core status on openstack-integration-tests?17:02
nati2mtaylor:  Aha This is from your team. I got it.17:02
westmaassorry if this is what is being discussed having a hard time following17:02
mtaylorwestmaas: it's not - we moved on to stable branch update process it seems17:03
mtaylorwestmaas: I'm not sure about who is core on openstack-integration-tests - lemme check17:03
mtaylorjeblair: ^^17:04
mtaylorjeblair: "<westmaas> mtaylor: who has core status on openstack-integration-tests?"17:05
jaypipesOK, well perhaps we'll shelf that... :)17:07
jaypipes#action jeblair to email ML about membership for integration tests17:07
jaypipesalrighty, anything else ayone wants to bring up?17:08
jeblairany chance we colud get this meeting listed on the openstack meetings ics calendar? :)17:08
jaypipes#action jaypipes to get this meeting listed on the openstack meetings ics calendar? :)17:08
patelnathat is a gd ask17:08
nati2It is useful17:09
jaypipesOK, I'll adjourn the meeting for this week, then. See you all on the mailing list and next week on IRC ;)17:09
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: | Minutes:"17:09
openstackMeeting ended Wed Oct 12 17:09:54 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at . (v 0.1.4)17:09
openstackMinutes (text):
nati2Thanks Jay!17:10
KumarKRThanks everyone!17:10
venkater_Thanks . Bye17:10
*** venkater_ has quit IRC17:11
*** dwalleck has left #openstack-meeting17:11
KumarKRfyi, i will be OOO for next two weeks and back in Nov 1st week.17:11
KumarKRtouch base with you all then. Bye17:11
nati2Enjoy OOO  :)17:11
*** patelna has quit IRC17:11
*** KumarKR has left #openstack-meeting17:12
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting17:13
*** mattray has quit IRC17:13
*** KenWhite-RAX has quit IRC17:14
*** KenWhite-RAX has joined #openstack-meeting17:16
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting17:19
*** patelna_ has quit IRC17:21
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting17:27
*** reed has joined #openstack-meeting17:28
*** deshantm_laptop has quit IRC17:29
*** deshantm_laptop has joined #openstack-meeting17:30
*** mahmoh has left #openstack-meeting17:30
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC17:42
*** Gordonz has quit IRC17:43
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting17:43
*** bengrue has quit IRC17:45
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting17:55
*** markmc has left #openstack-meeting18:11
*** medberry is now known as med_out18:13
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting18:14
*** jsavak has quit IRC18:16
*** jakedahn has quit IRC18:29
*** jaypipes has quit IRC18:31
*** deshantm_laptop has quit IRC18:31
*** joesavak has quit IRC18:41
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting18:41
*** hggdh has quit IRC18:43
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting18:45
*** littleidea has quit IRC18:47
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting18:55
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting18:58
*** reed has quit IRC19:00
*** dwalleck has quit IRC19:03
*** mdomsch has quit IRC19:05
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting19:06
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates19:19
*** dwalleck has quit IRC19:30
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting19:42
*** med_out is now known as medberry20:02
*** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting20:06
*** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting20:18
*** primeministerp1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:31
*** reed_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:50
*** markvoelker has quit IRC20:53
*** reed_ is now known as reed20:56
*** zns has quit IRC20:57
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting21:06
*** martine has quit IRC21:11
*** zns has quit IRC21:18
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting21:18
*** joesavak has quit IRC21:22
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC21:25
*** primeministerp1 has quit IRC21:30
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:32
*** zns1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:50
*** zns has quit IRC21:51
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting21:58
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting21:59
*** dwalleck has quit IRC22:00
*** vladimir3p_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:05
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC22:08
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates22:15
*** donaldngo_hp has joined #openstack-meeting22:20
*** donaldngo_hp has quit IRC22:22
*** donaldngo_hp has joined #openstack-meeting22:22
*** ohnoimdead has quit IRC22:28
*** littleidea has quit IRC22:33
*** zns1 has quit IRC22:34
*** HowardRoark has quit IRC22:45
*** mattray has quit IRC22:47
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk22:48
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates22:51
*** blamar has quit IRC22:55
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting23:07
*** medberry is now known as med_out23:16
*** HowardRoark has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** rnirmal has quit IRC23:23
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting23:30
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting23:40
*** wwkeyboard has left #openstack-meeting23:41

Generated by 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!