| *** openstack has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:52 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 16:52 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 16:52 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:56 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 16:58 | |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:59 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:59 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:59 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:00 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** vish1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:19 | |
| *** mtaylor_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:21 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** vishy has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** mtaylor has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** aslp has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** apontes has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:25 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 17:29 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:32 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** vincentricci has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:34 | |
| *** aclark_ has quit IRC | 17:37 | |
| *** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:39 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:39 | |
| *** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| *** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:41 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 17:42 | |
| *** jog0_ is now known as jog0 | 17:42 | |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:43 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 17:48 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:49 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:57 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:57 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:59 | |
| ayoung | Anyone here for Keystone? | 18:00 |
|---|---|---|
| gyee | here | 18:01 |
| mtaylor_ | o/ | 18:01 |
| *** mtaylor_ is now known as mtaylor | 18:01 | |
| ayoung | what is o/ | 18:01 |
| *** mtaylor has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** mtaylor has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| mtaylor | ayoung: it's a hand raised | 18:01 |
| ayoung | suspected that | 18:01 |
| mtaylor | the o is a head, and the / is an arm | 18:01 |
| mtaylor | :) | 18:01 |
| gyee | \o for left-handed | 18:02 |
| gyee | ? | 18:02 |
| ayoung | mtaylor, so no ziad, joe....? | 18:02 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| mtaylor | gyee: :) | 18:02 |
| zns | #startmeeting Keystone Team Meeting | 18:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jan 31 18:02:45 2012 UTC. The chair is zns. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 18:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:02 | |
| zns | Hi - anyone here for the Keystone meeting? | 18:02 |
| mtaylor | o/ | 18:03 |
| gyee | \0 | 18:03 |
| gyee | \o | 18:03 |
| mtaylor | gyee: is a cyclops | 18:03 |
| zns | Cool! Hi. | 18:03 |
| ayoung | \o/ | 18:03 |
| zns | #topic status update | 18:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "status update (Meeting topic: Keystone Team Meeting)" | 18:03 | |
| zns | Has everyone seen & read the ksl announcement? | 18:03 |
| gyee | zns: I am pretty deep into the keystone domains blueprint | 18:04 |
| zns | The branch is now available in the repo. It's called "redux" | 18:04 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| zns | gyee: cool. Have you had a chance to post any part of it? Or the contracts? | 18:04 |
| gyee | I sent out the wadl and xsd, not sure if you guys have a chance to review it yet | 18:05 |
| ayoung | zns, what is the timeline for changing over to Keystone? | 18:05 |
| ayoung | Light | 18:05 |
| zns | gyee: by email or in a review? | 18:05 |
| gyee | zns, by email | 18:05 |
| zns | ayoung: E4 if we can get the gaps filled. | 18:05 |
| zns | gyee: I'll go back and review... | 18:05 |
| gyee | what does KSL mean for blueprints that are currently in-flight? | 18:06 |
| gyee | will the existing branch be deprecated at some point? when? | 18:06 |
| * mtaylor thinks that in-flight blueprints should probably be developed on top of the redux branch at this point, no? | 18:07 | |
| zns | gyee: E3 was the cut-off fir any new features. So, ostensibly, there are no new features in flight. Until KSL gets merged in, the current master branch is the supported branch. Blueprints and bugs against that should continue ahead. | 18:07 |
| * mtaylor takes back what he said | 18:07 | |
| gyee | :) | 18:07 |
| gyee | what about the F branch? | 18:08 |
| gyee | so F is the master or a separate one? | 18:08 |
| mtaylor | F will be the master once E is cut | 18:08 |
| mtaylor | scuse me | 18:08 |
| *** apevec has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:08 | |
| mtaylor | master will be F once E is cut | 18:08 |
| ayoung | I'm guessing that we will want a branch off of redux for Fremont/Folsom/Francisco | 18:08 |
| gyee | so I can't checkin new features till E5's done" | 18:08 |
| gyee | ? | 18:08 |
| zns | mtaylor: I don't disagree with what you said, but KSL is not ready yet. So testing might be a challenge. BUt I do agree that new work shoud focus on KSL. | 18:09 |
| gyee | we decided on Folsom already right? | 18:09 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:09 | |
| mtaylor | yes. we did decide on folsom | 18:09 |
| zns | gyee: correct. | 18:09 |
| anotherjesse | apologies for being late - in a meeting :( | 18:09 |
| mtaylor | the where-does-new-features work go with our "make things stable" model at the moment is a bit of an unanswered/unaddressed issue | 18:10 |
| zns | mtaylor: do we have a folsom branch already in the repo? If not, we probably should base that on redux. | 18:10 |
| gyee | so Folsom = redux? | 18:11 |
| zns | mtaylor: yes. It's a gap. I think that's what's confusing for gyee. He's coding against master. | 18:11 |
| mtaylor | no, we don't - we don't really have a model for opening a folsom before essex is released... I think I should circle up with ttx | 18:11 |
| mtaylor | zns: indeed. I think it's a gap we need to solve :) | 18:11 |
| gyee | I am really confused now | 18:11 |
| zns | termie, anotherjessie: any thoughts on hwta Gyee should do? Code against master and port to KSL or code to KSL | 18:11 |
| gyee | what's the emoticon for confused? (_?_) | 18:11 |
| ayoung | We are going to have to decide :push path to redux and then merge to Folsom or the reverse. | 18:11 |
| ayoung | patch | 18:12 |
| zns | There are two challenges for gyee. One, he's building a new feature; so that should go in Ffolsom since we're feature frozen. Two, which branch should he be coding against given KSL is not baked yet. | 18:12 |
| zns | ayoung, gyee: any preferences for which? My preference is to continue on master until KSL is ready. | 18:13 |
| gyee | then do the porting? | 18:13 |
| ayoung | zns, I think I am going to focus on getting KSL feature compatible with curent master regardless. | 18:14 |
| gyee | I want to have some idea what the scope is | 18:14 |
| ayoung | I'd say that we push changes to redux, and then merge them over to Folsom | 18:14 |
| gyee | I can continue on master, but there will be porting effort right? | 18:14 |
| gyee | master to KSL | 18:14 |
| zns | ayoung: for new efforts, maybe that;s a good path. But gyee has already started on master, so maybe finish that and then we work on the porting? | 18:15 |
| anotherjesse | zns: my view is that we want to replace master with KSL asap | 18:15 |
| zns | gyee: correct. There will be work to port. But that applies to many of the features in master now that don't exist in redux (ksl) | 18:15 |
| ayoung | zns, I suspect that gyee will have a lot of work to do to make his changes work weith KSL, | 18:16 |
| ayoung | with | 18:16 |
| gyee | is the KSL code available now? I can go read the code and figure out the porting effort | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | our team is 100% focused on KSL in essex | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: https://github.com/termie/keystonelight | 18:16 |
| zns | anotherjessie: you're saying cut over before compatibility is reached? What about existing deployments? | 18:16 |
| gyee | anotherjesse, thanks | 18:16 |
| mtaylor | gyee: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/redux | 18:16 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, it is in the redux branch, too | 18:16 |
| anotherjesse | zns: compatibility is within days of being finished - the missing list is: XML, pagination, token delete | 18:17 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, do we care about parity for keystone-manage? | 18:17 |
| gyee | so token delete will be officially supported? | 18:18 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: it is an extension I think | 18:18 |
| gyee | that's the other issue I want to bring up | 18:18 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: the goal of other projects is to minimize the *-manage commands | 18:18 |
| ayoung | also, does that include the LDAP backend? | 18:18 |
| gyee | DELETE /v2.0/RAX/token/tokenId? | 18:18 |
| zns | anotherjessie: what about LDAP, errors returned, URL normalization? | 18:18 |
| anotherjesse | zns: url normalization? | 18:19 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 18:19 | |
| zns | anotherjessie: should we put all the gaps in blueprints/bugs? Maybe prefix the name with redux: ? | 18:19 |
| anotherjesse | zns: yep - that is in progerss | 18:19 |
| zns | .xml returns XML. .json reutnrs JSON. | 18:19 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:19 | |
| zns | OK. SOunds like we've got good momentum then for a switch to KSL soon? How do we validate that? What's the fallback for someone having problems? Use E3? | 18:20 |
| anotherjesse | for LDAP the reason we haven't ported the existing LDAP code (that we originally wrote for nova) | 18:21 |
| anotherjesse | is that KSL has the approach that tokens, users, tenants, members, roles each have their own backing system | 18:21 |
| anotherjesse | since you might want to use users from company's LDAP for SSO | 18:21 |
| mtaylor | well- the redux branch is tied in to gerrit now, so it will run all of the same tests that run against current keystone (or else new patches won't land) ... | 18:21 |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:21 | |
| anotherjesse | but you don't have write access for role/membership management | 18:21 |
| heckj | o/ (sorry for being late) | 18:22 |
| gyee | just to clarify, new features WILL go into redux correct? | 18:22 |
| mtaylor | so hopefully that should help with some of the validation | 18:22 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, then what is the right approach for LDAP in the new arch? | 18:22 |
| anotherjesse | heckj: your team is focused on KSL right? | 18:23 |
| heckj | yep | 18:23 |
| zns | gyee: new features will go into redux in the folsom timeframe. | 18:23 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| heckj | anotherjesse: lately updating the docs in ksl and cleaning work on python-keystoneclient | 18:23 |
| anotherjesse | zns: and that is because we are at feature freeze - regardless of ksl vs keystone? | 18:23 |
| zns | anotherjesse: correct. | 18:24 |
| gyee | zns: when can I start checking in domains code? | 18:24 |
| zns | gyee: the only way we should get new features in for Essex is if they are totally optional extensions (no schema changes, etc). | 18:25 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:25 | |
| gyee | domains feature is an extension, though we are extending users, tenants, roles, and services | 18:26 |
| zns | gyee: any time you are ready. As long as it is optional we can include it. But given we are in a feature freeze, we can't accept shcema or API changes. | 18:26 |
| zns | gyee: does it come with schema changes? | 18:27 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: you are referring to https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-domains - correct? | 18:27 |
| gyee | yes | 18:27 |
| gyee | new domains APIs | 18:27 |
| gyee | under /v2.0/HP-IDM/v1.0/domains | 18:28 |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| zns | anotherjessie, termie: would it be easier to implement domains in KSL in a way that would not alter the schema? That might be a path forward for gyee (and a way to leverage the architecture of KSL). | 18:29 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| anotherjesse | zns: reading it now | 18:29 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: are you around after the meeting to chat about it | 18:29 |
| gyee | sure | 18:29 |
| gyee | I can starting using KSL if you want | 18:29 |
| gyee | ya know, clear the land mines for your guys :) | 18:30 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: the major blocker would be XML support | 18:30 |
| ayoung | gyee, how much code do you have in the domains effort thus far? | 18:30 |
| anotherjesse | which we plan to land this week | 18:30 |
| gyee | ayoung, quite a bit | 18:30 |
| gyee | ~20 files | 18:30 |
| heckj | gyee, anotherjesse: I'm trying to grok what its providing, not geting it from the blueprint description | 18:30 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: my precursory read of the domain blueprint makes me wonder if it is accomplished with RBAC - having roles that allow "admin" api commands | 18:31 |
| * heckj was wondering the same thing | 18:32 | |
| zns | heckj: think of it as allowing multiple Admins, each managing their own slice of the Keystone pie without having access to each other's data. | 18:32 |
| gyee | essentially domains are new containers for users, tenants, roles, and services | 18:32 |
| heckj | a grouping around tenants - adding another level up to which we can apply policies, or is it one of those infinitely nested things? | 18:33 |
| gyee | just one level, we don't support nested domains right now | 18:33 |
| zns | heckj: one level, no nesting. | 18:33 |
| heckj | that sure sounds like it needs schema changes in the basic (a SQL) setup | 18:34 |
| gyee | just a way to segregate resources for easier management | 18:34 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: do services like nova/glance get the domain from the token validation? | 18:34 |
| heckj | You'd be able to apply that nicely in KSL using the policy engine setup and base components that are already in there | 18:34 |
| gyee | domain ID will be returned if hpdom extension is enabled | 18:35 |
| heckj | or is the domain even exposed to the services? | 18:35 |
| gyee | you can lookup services for a given domain | 18:35 |
| ayoung | gyee, Is there any reason to call it a Domain as opposed to Nested Tenants? | 18:36 |
| gyee | if hpdom extension is disabled, you can only operate on resources that is in the Keystone default system domain | 18:36 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: I ask because if a user has an admin role in a domain - nova/glance would need to make it so admin-ness was scoped to only tenants within that domain | 18:36 |
| gyee | anotherjesse, that | 18:36 |
| gyee | s correct | 18:36 |
| gyee | domain admin can only manage resource in his own domain | 18:36 |
| gyee | but he can assign roles in his own domain to users from another domain | 18:37 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: I'm concerned about adding it in the essex timeframe primarily due to changes required in other projects | 18:37 |
| anotherjesse | since nova doesn't have those concepts yet | 18:37 |
| gyee | anotherjesse, it's extension | 18:37 |
| anotherjesse | I like the idea a lot though - what are your thoughts | 18:37 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: but an extension in keystone that doesn't work with other open projects, perhaps we should time it for F1 (april)? | 18:38 |
| gyee | fully backward compatible | 18:38 |
| heckj | Thats a pretty fundamental and far-reaching component - I think we might be better served by lining it up for a folsom-1 introduction rather than this late in the release cycle | 18:38 |
| heckj | er, yeah - what anotherjesse said... | 18:38 |
| gyee | I am fine with Folsom | 18:39 |
| gyee | just let me know when it is ready so I can push codes for review | 18:39 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: it would be good for us to add to blueprint | 18:39 |
| zns | so that would mean gyee should port it to a folsom branch of ksl? Are we opening that branch? | 18:39 |
| heckj | zns: I think that would make a great deal of sense | 18:39 |
| zns | WHen would the right time for that be? Now, in a week, or on E4? | 18:40 |
| *** vincentricci_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| *** vincentricci has quit IRC | 18:40 | |
| *** vincentricci_ is now known as vincentricci | 18:40 | |
| zns | zns: proposing we open up the branch next week when KSL has reached compatibility. Seconds? | 18:41 |
| heckj | I think we could make the ksl branch available at any time - right now, but we wouldn't want it as default yet | 18:41 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - it is https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/redux | 18:41 |
| heckj | eh, teach me to be late to the meeting | 18:41 |
| anotherjesse | zns: the general project stance is that you don't open folsom until it is read | 18:42 |
| anotherjesse | so as to prioritize community working on current branches | 18:42 |
| zns | We'd be creating a new one off of that; folsom branch (based on redux). | 18:42 |
| anotherjesse | so if you want to work ahead you would create a local branch against KSL and merge prop once open | 18:42 |
| anotherjesse | this happens in nova as well (when a team is working ahead due to internal deadlines) | 18:42 |
| zns | OK. SO gyee should work on a local branch of redux and wait for folsom to open up? | 18:43 |
| ayoung | gyee, I'd just be aware that there are going to be many changes go in to redux between now and Folsom, so if you are going to work off a branch from redux, we will all want to make sure that it keeps up with all commits | 18:43 |
| ayoung | so rebase early and rebase often | 18:44 |
| gyee | or pushing code often :) | 18:44 |
| zns | #info New features should go in local branches and wait for folsom | 18:44 |
| heckj | #info based on the redux branch in keystone now | 18:45 |
| ayoung | gyee, well, if you had somewhere to push to, I'd agree.... | 18:45 |
| zns | #info redux branch should be ready for merge by next week | 18:45 |
| gyee | wait, so redux is NOT open for writing right now? | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | it is open for writing | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | you use git-review against redux | 18:45 |
| zns | I have one last quick question... | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | goal is to be ready to merge into master asap | 18:45 |
| ayoung | gyee, are you going to be pushing Domains changes into redux? I thought we just agreed it would wait until Folsom? | 18:46 |
| zns | anotherjessie: should we prefix bugs and blueprints with "redux:" to separate them from master? | 18:46 |
| zns | or any other thoughts on how to separate them? | 18:46 |
| anotherjesse | zns: use tags? | 18:46 |
| zns | tags works! | 18:47 |
| zns | #info: tag bugs/blueprints with "redux" to identify the branch | 18:47 |
| zns | Thanks everyone! | 18:47 |
| zns | #endmeeting | 18:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 18:47 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jan 31 18:47:37 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:47 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-18.02.html | 18:47 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-18.02.txt | 18:47 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-18.02.log.html | 18:47 |
| zns | Still around if there are more questions... | 18:47 |
| gyee | ayoung, so i should wait till April timeframe? | 18:47 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, zns so do we need to come up with a series of tickets for the work to merge redux in to master? | 18:47 |
| gyee | I am still confused | 18:48 |
| ayoung | gyee, zns don't think we were done | 18:48 |
| ayoung | gyee, that was what they meant by "Local branches" yes | 18:48 |
| heckj | gyee: Make a branch of your own based on redux and shift the work to there | 18:48 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: you can do it against redux now or in april - I recommend waiting for april - but in the meantime writing a blueprint for nova/glance/... about how they would integrate with these changes | 18:48 |
| heckj | gyee: rebase off redux periodically to keep up with changes (since it'll be moving to make it compatible), and plan to merge the whole set of changes in F1 timeframe. | 18:48 |
| zns | gyee: create a fork of the redux branch on your local/github repo. Do the domains work there. And we'll merge it in April. If you have it on github you can also share and discuss with others. | 18:49 |
| joesavak | \o - addt'l blueprint added for new use case | 18:49 |
| joesavak | #link https://www15.v1host.com/RACKSPCE/story.mvc/Summary?oidToken=Story%3A108340 | 18:49 |
| joesavak | wrong link - 1 sec | 18:49 |
| heckj | heh | 18:49 |
| zns | ayong: we ran out of time. Meeting shceudle is 45 minutes. But we can keep discussing. | 18:50 |
| joesavak | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/hide-service | 18:50 |
| zns | ayoung: ^^ | 18:50 |
| heckj | gyee - glance and nova will definitely need new blueprints to match against this effort | 18:50 |
| gyee | k | 18:50 |
| ayoung | zns, I am interested in working on the LDAP backend for redux | 18:50 |
| ayoung | just trying to get a sense of what that means based on the kvs approach | 18:51 |
| gyee | heckj, I'll create blueprint for nova and glance | 18:51 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: there is an openstack-common that it would make sense to place it | 18:51 |
| zns | ayoung: I think anotherjessie mentioned porting the Nova auth LDAP code. anotherjessie? | 18:51 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: one sec | 18:51 |
| heckj | ayoung: take a look at the KSL branch - it's got a driver/backend setup under "identity" that would be a good place to start | 18:51 |
| ayoung | heckj, I've looked at that. There was a comment in this meeting: | 18:52 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/redux/keystone/identity/backends | 18:52 |
| zns | Do we want to port both the Nova LDAP code and the Keystone master LDAP backend? | 18:52 |
| anotherjesse | you can write different drivers - https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/redux/keystone/identity/backends/pam.py for instance doesn't implement CRUD (since you can't via pam) | 18:52 |
| *** apontes has left #openstack-meeting | 18:52 | |
| anotherjesse | zns: I think we want to write a new more flexible one | 18:52 |
| heckj | anotherjesse - anyone in your crew already doing that porting work? | 18:52 |
| gyee | but LDAP you mean a true LDAP hook right? not FakeLDAP impl | 18:53 |
| anotherjesse | heckj: ya - we are focusing first on LDAP read-only — but more flexible | 18:53 |
| ayoung | " for LDAP the reason we haven't ported the existing LDAP code (that we originally wrote for nova) is that KSL has the approach that tokens, users, tenants, members, roles each have their own backing system since you might want to use users from company's LDAP for SSO" | 18:53 |
| anotherjesse | gyee/ayoung: are you preferring read/write? | 18:53 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: sounds like we should get a blueprint made for that work, link it to an etherpad or something to track the design and work effort | 18:53 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, if we don't do read write, I suspect PAM is sufficient | 18:53 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: agreed | 18:54 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, so is that going to be our approach: | 18:54 |
| anotherjesse | so - for ldap we will start a blueprint and share it out for updates on it | 18:54 |
| gyee | anotherjesse, I probably need both read and write | 18:54 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: k | 18:54 |
| gyee | thanks | 18:54 |
| *** vish1 is now known as vishy | 18:54 | |
| *** LinuxJedi_cell has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:55 | |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, I'd think we would want the ability to push changes to LDAP, but still maintain the tokens in a Keystone specific store. That might not even have to be SQL | 18:56 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: memcached ? | 18:56 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, that is one approach, sure | 18:56 |
| ayoung | or a replicated file | 18:56 |
| zns | ayoung: that's what master did. I think KSL maintains the ability to store different entities in different stores. | 18:56 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: that was my instinct for a choice | 18:56 |
| ayoung | zns, right. So in order to maintain that, do we have to front ldap with KVS ? | 18:57 |
| ayoung | so we can mix and match? | 18:57 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung - no | 18:57 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung - you specify your driver in the config | 18:57 |
| anotherjesse | https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/redux/tests/backend_sql.conf | 18:57 |
| ayoung | per entity, like the current keystone config? | 18:57 |
| ayoung | backend_entities = ['Tenant', 'User', 'UserRoleAssociation', 'Role'] | 18:58 |
| anotherjesse | quick note - vishy is going to be working on a migration from nova's deprecated auth (pre-keystone identity system) to keystone | 18:58 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, do we keep the backend_entities keyword, and have the dirver honor that? | 18:59 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:59 | |
| anotherjesse | we should move to #openstack-dev since there are other meetings coming | 19:00 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:00 | |
| mtaylor | like me! | 19:00 |
| mtaylor | who wants to talk about CI things? | 19:01 |
| LinuxJedi_cell | :) | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jan 31 19:01:07 2012 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 |
| mtaylor | #topic meetbot | 19:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "meetbot" | 19:01 | |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi_cell: we have access to the meetbot/meetinglogs server now, so we can work our puppet magic on it | 19:01 |
| LinuxJedi_cell | mtaylor: fantastic | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi_cell: which _also_ means that I can get you to add a couple of features ... | 19:02 |
| LinuxJedi_cell | Sure thing | 19:02 |
| *** davlap has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | a) I'd like to see see #startmeeting take an optional parameter which is a launchpad team containing the people who should have voting rights for votes | 19:02 |
| LinuxJedi_cell | ++ | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | b) I'd like to port in the voting feature from the ubuntu meetbot, so that someone can say "#startvote Do we like chicken" | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | and then the bot will tally and record the results of that vote | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi_cell: more python for you! | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | speaking of LinuxJedi ... | 19:04 |
| LinuxJedi_cell | Looking forward to it:) | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | branch expiration has gone live, and we've also got the pastebin sucked in to config management now | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi_cell: when you get bored, docs on the paste setup, yeah? (I think we should eventually have at least a top-level doc for each system/service we run/provide) | 19:05 |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:06 | |
| mtaylor | #topic multi-python support | 19:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "multi-python support" | 19:06 | |
| LinuxJedi_cell | I'll do it before I get bored, will do with backups tomorrow | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | awesome | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | we've got multi-python testing rolled live for python-quantumclient (hi guinea pig) | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | and the build slaves for it created and added | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | so we should be able to start adding other projects to multi-python testing via tox this week | 19:06 |
| * LinuxJedi_cell jumping in car | 19:07 | |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi_cell: have fun | 19:07 |
| *** LinuxJedi_cell has quit IRC | 19:07 | |
| mtaylor | #topic Open Discussion | 19:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion" | 19:07 | |
| mtaylor | anybody else got anything? | 19:07 |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 19:09 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 19:09 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 19:09 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:10 | |
| jeblair | i've pushed the ksl branch | 19:11 |
| jeblair | along with a merge commit for it | 19:12 |
| heckj | yeah!!! (thank you!) | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | hey! it's jeblair. w00t | 19:12 |
| jeblair | https://review.openstack.org/#change,3572 | 19:12 |
| * heckj is heads down in that KSL branch | 19:12 | |
| jeblair | there's the commit. | 19:12 |
| jeblair | and the branch is called redux | 19:12 |
| * mtaylor has a few commits to submit to make it work in jenkins | 19:12 | |
| jeblair | so you can 'git checkout redux', and 'git review redux' | 19:12 |
| heckj | we'll be doing work on the redux branch before merging it in - | 19:13 |
| jeblair | i figured so. the merge commit is not straightforward to make, so i think the way to go is to just keep working on the branch and let me know when it's ready to go in and i'll update the merge commit change | 19:14 |
| soren | Oh, I've got a question: | 19:14 |
| jeblair | i mostly wanted to put in a strawman change so that people can see what the commit will do when we're ready | 19:14 |
| * soren just stumbled in | 19:14 | |
| mtaylor | hey soren | 19:15 |
| heckj | ola! | 19:15 |
| *** martine has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:15 | |
| heckj | jeblair: sounds good | 19:15 |
| soren | What's the status on the implementing the "try every revision of openstack on a bunch of different people's infrastructure" thing? | 19:15 |
| jeblair | (and i'm volunteering to make the commit since we normally don't allow merge commits. in this case, one wrong step would give us 296 open changes for review) | 19:15 |
| LinuxJedi | phew, back | 19:15 |
| *** vincentricci has quit IRC | 19:16 | |
| mtaylor | soren: so far, we keep getting to the point of getting a jenkins slave hooked in for someone, and then it just sits there | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | we had an interesting chat with Daviey and jamespage yesterday about the Canonical OpenStack Jenkins | 19:17 |
| heckj | jeblair: I will totally take you up on that when we're ready - because I would clearly make that misstep… twice or three times :-) And the channel would be flooded with heck hate. | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | where I think an interesting first step (or possibly even long term approach) is for them to also run the gerrit trigger plugin on their jenkins | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | to trigger builds and vote on changes similar to how smokestack is working | 19:17 |
| soren | mtaylor: I heard a rumour they started doing that today. | 19:17 |
| soren | Oh. | 19:17 |
| soren | Not that. | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | and then if that goes well long term | 19:18 |
| soren | Or.. Meh, it's just something I heard in passing. Ignore it. | 19:18 |
| soren | Ok. | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | perhaps we can add a review category for them so that their jenkins has to pass | 19:18 |
| soren | Hm.. It would really be ideal if we could somehow connect two Jenkins instances. | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | jeblair brought up good a point about consolidated information presentation though | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | yes, it would | 19:18 |
| mtaylor | so far the plugin for jenkins that allows that isn't great | 19:18 |
| soren | So, at Cisco, I'll probably be setting up an automated test rig of some stuff, but I'd like to use the same ressources for these "upstream" sorts of tests. | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | soren: you're at cisco now, right? | 19:19 |
| soren | ...but it's hard to share the ressources between our own Jenkins and someone else's who is using our servers as slaves. | 19:19 |
| soren | mtaylor: indeed | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | soren: agree | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | soren: well - perhaps the canonical approach of installing the gerrit trigger plugin would be a good start | 19:20 |
| soren | mtaylor: Yeah. | 19:20 |
| soren | mtaylor: It's not like we use Jenkins to monitor the status of things much anyway. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | it does meet the criteria that we're interested in which is "vendors control and run the testing infrastructure they're donating" | 19:20 |
| soren | We tend to focus on Gerrit. | 19:20 |
| mtaylor | that is very true | 19:20 |
| soren | It does seem like a natural place to aggregate the results. | 19:20 |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:21 | |
| jeblair | the question is how they are aggregated in gerrit | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | we'll need to figure out the 'right' way to do information display ... if we get 10 vendors doing their own gerrit voting, it's going to be very ugly to look at | 19:21 |
| jeblair | my preference would be to see one report from jenkins with all the tests | 19:21 |
| soren | How does it work now? | 19:21 |
| soren | Does Smokestack have a special gerrit user? | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | soren: it just has a gerrit user | 19:22 |
| soren | Ok. | 19:22 |
| jeblair | a hodge-podge of random comments from various test rigs all arriving unpredictably at different times isn't really information aggregation or display, it's information spam | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | soren: and that gerrit user is unpriviledged and just votes like anyone else | 19:22 |
| soren | jeblair: If we could silence the succesful ones, would that be helpful? | 19:22 |
| jeblair | it's better than no information, but it's not nearly as nice as a simple list of jenkins tests | 19:22 |
| jeblair | how would you know they ran? | 19:22 |
| soren | jeblair: You wouldn't. | 19:22 |
| soren | jeblair: WEll.. | 19:22 |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:22 | |
| soren | I mean, sorry, yes of course you would. | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | I wonder if we could combine the multiple jenkins talking to gerrit approach ... | 19:23 |
| jeblair | people are now all the time asking whether smokestack has run on their tests, or how they can get it to do that | 19:23 |
| soren | ...but you wouldn't get e-mailed about them. | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | with the jenkins plugin that will report the status of jobs on another jenkins | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | so that we could have the gerrit interaction be federated | 19:23 |
| mtaylor | but still have a single information display page | 19:23 |
| * soren ponders | 19:23 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| jeblair | relying only on the gerrit trigger plugin, that extra info would not be aggregated, but if we could solve the problem of collecting output from a single gating job, that would work. | 19:24 |
| soren | I mean, I can envision how it could work, but it would mean changing Gerrit's data model somewhat. | 19:24 |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:24 | |
| jeblair | gerrit's dato model? how? | 19:24 |
| soren | Well, if we let these test runnes report their results to gerrit, but not have it count as votes in the same fashion as human votes, we could present it differently. | 19:25 |
| soren | *test runners | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | soren: yeah - that's what I meant earlier by adding additional review categories ... that part is actually reasonably easy | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | the tricky part is that the default display of that isn't really designed to be largely scalable :) | 19:26 |
| soren | We could have another information box on the change page on Gerrit that shows a lot of green buttons and red dots that would be links back to the respective Jenkins instance's console output for the change. | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | so we'll have a grid with a bazillion checkmarks | 19:26 |
| soren | It could be collapsed by default. | 19:26 |
| jeblair | whenever the topic goes to "reimplement jenkins in another system" i tend to think we should think about using jenkins. | 19:27 |
| soren | Just an overall "25 succeses, 0 failures" that could expand to the full list. | 19:27 |
| soren | ...or it could even show the failures by default and let you expand to see the full list. | 19:27 |
| soren | IT all just gets so much easier if you have a simple programmatic way to tell them apart. | 19:27 |
| soren | jeblair: I hear that. | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | there may be a multi-step thing lurking in here | 19:28 |
| soren | Another benefit of doing it all in Gerrit: | 19:28 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| mtaylor | perhaps doing the gerrit approach at first because it's pretty easy to get it going | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | and then set someone on the task of making the jenkins aggregation plugin properly | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | so that one jenkins can properly interact with another jenkins master | 19:29 |
| jeblair | what's missing there now? | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | because the use case of people contributing resources wanting to share those slaves with their own jenkins master is not going to go away | 19:29 |
| soren | We've always talked about having multiple tiers of platforms: Supported, not-quite-supported, if-it-works-it's-a-frickin-miracle, it's-not-supposed-to-work | 19:29 |
| soren | Or whatnot. | 19:29 |
| soren | The "supported" ones might be privileged to give -2 votes. | 19:30 |
| soren | The others, only -1. | 19:30 |
| soren | I dunno. | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | yeah, that's interesting | 19:30 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:30 | |
| soren | ...but that could be done through Jenkins, too, I suppose. | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: the main thing is proper federation ... as in, a slave jenkins that is itself a master | 19:31 |
| soren | But you'd lose quite a bit of detail. | 19:31 |
| soren | ...and every time Jenkins got another test result from somewhere, it might have to go back and re-vote. | 19:31 |
| soren | ..which will have won us nothing in terms of information spam. | 19:31 |
| jeblair | i'm wondering what's the hangup with the 'donated slave' model? | 19:31 |
| jeblair | why can't resources be shared? | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | the thing I said above... | 19:31 |
| soren | I explained that further up. | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | because you can't have a slave that's attached to two jenkins masters | 19:31 |
| soren | 19:19 < soren> So, at Cisco, I'll probably be setting up an automated test rig of some stuff, but I'd like to use the same ressources for these "upstream" sorts of tests. | 19:32 |
| soren | mtaylor: Well, you can, but they won't know about each other. :) | 19:32 |
| jeblair | you can run two slaves on a host. | 19:32 |
| soren | Which makes it very hard to do reliable tests for something like Nova. | 19:32 |
| jeblair | and you can externally mutex any shared resources they have | 19:32 |
| soren | ...which rather expects exclusive access to certain resources. | 19:32 |
| soren | jeblair: How so? | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | but the cisco jenkins already knows how to control how many things are supposed to be running on a given slave | 19:33 |
| jeblair | lockfile? just thinking out loud. :) | 19:35 |
| mtaylor | sure - so, I think there's a possible design nirvana and then some intermediary steps we can take between now and then | 19:36 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 19:36 | |
| jeblair | well, there's one more thing i'd like to say: | 19:36 |
| jeblair | consider contributing dedicated resources to the project | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | in a perfect world I don't think we want a quasi-jenkins dashboard in gerrit or a bunch of lockfile scripts running around to share slaves ... but both of those might be things we can do more quickly than implementing full-on jenkins federation | 19:37 |
| jeblair | be a serious supporter of the openstack project by saying "we need to dedicate hardware to upstream testing" | 19:37 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:37 | |
| jeblair | at least two companies have donated project-wide testing resources, i'd like to see more. | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | sure- but soren bringing this up isn't the first time it's been brought up as a concern by someone who is looking at donating resources | 19:37 |
| soren | jeblair: I'm not going to say that that is an unreasonable request, but I believe a model where you can still use the resources for your own stuff if OpenStack doesn't need them is a sensible thing to offer. | 19:38 |
| jeblair | ok. i think we're all on the same page. :) | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | cool. | 19:38 |
| soren | What's best? Having 5 machines for "upstream" and 5 machines for everything else, or having 10 machines that you share? | 19:39 |
| jeblair | that's a good point | 19:39 |
| soren | Multiply/divide as needed. | 19:39 |
| soren | :) | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | and I think that there isn't huge disparity on step 1 here ... which is that canonical are trying their own gerrit plugin for non-binding voting | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | and I think we can sort of see how that goes for a little bit before we have to solve whether we add them as a category or not | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | yeah? | 19:39 |
| soren | Yeah. I don't think the information level will be too overwhelming for at least a couple of months. | 19:39 |
| soren | And even if so, I think it's a good trade-off. | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | yeah - sort of like getting smokestack to vote - it's not perfect, but it's more than we had before :) | 19:40 |
| soren | Precisely. | 19:40 |
| soren | Ok, great. This is enlightening. | 19:40 |
| jeblair | we will shortly be up to 4 systems leaving feedback in gerrit, so i do think we need to go ahead and start solving the aggregation problem | 19:40 |
| soren | That would be very welcome for sure. | 19:41 |
| soren | I'd just hate to be without test results just due to potential information overload. | 19:41 |
| jeblair | yep | 19:41 |
| soren | "First world problem" doesn't exactly apply here, but close. | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | maybe let's schedule time to discuss in person with a whiteboard at ODS? | 19:42 |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 19:42 | |
| jeblair | organized testing > testing > no testing | 19:42 |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:42 | |
| soren | Right :) | 19:42 |
| soren | mtaylor: Let's do that. I hope we have some practical experience to base the chat on by then, though :) | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | soren, heckj: speaking of ... | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | fwiw, jeblair, LinuxJedi and I will be meeting in Boston the week of Feb 14 | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | you, or anyone else lurking, is more than welcome to come | 19:45 |
| heckj | sounds nice - but I'll be on the VERY other side of the USA (hawaii) on vacation :-) | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | heckj: BAH to vacation | 19:46 |
| soren | I'll be in San Jose. | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | Daviey, jamespage ^^^ you too | 19:46 |
| soren | I'll think of you when I fly over Boston. | 19:46 |
| mtaylor | yeah, it's cool - just wanted to make sure we'd invited you | 19:46 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: i told you you should hold it someplace awesome | 19:47 |
| jeblair | nobody wants to go to _boston_ in _februrary_ :) | 19:47 |
| soren | Boston's not awesome? | 19:47 |
| soren | Come on, Boston has.. | 19:47 |
| soren | er... | 19:47 |
| soren | No, you're right. | 19:47 |
| mtaylor | blame HP | 19:48 |
| jeblair | ok | 19:48 |
| soren | I always do. | 19:48 |
| soren | It's company policy. | 19:48 |
| Daviey | hola | 19:48 |
| soren | jk :) | 19:48 |
| * Daviey reads context | 19:48 | |
| Daviey | mtaylor: Yeah, i don't think i can justify flying out to Boston just for a beer... | 19:49 |
| Daviey | would love to thou :) | 19:49 |
| mtaylor | cool. also, we were talking a bit about your jenkins | 19:49 |
| mtaylor | mostly nice things | 19:49 |
| Daviey | mtaylor: right.. | 19:50 |
| Daviey | mtaylor: We are maintaining it in silent mode for the time being. | 19:50 |
| mtaylor | Daviey: seems like a good starting place | 19:50 |
| Daviey | Testing trunk post commit, and stable/diablo pre-commit | 19:50 |
| Daviey | (as a comment only, not gate) | 19:50 |
| soren | Does the Jenkins gerrit plugin report back? | 19:51 |
| soren | Or is that a custom built thing? | 19:51 |
| jeblair | it's built in | 19:52 |
| soren | Wicked. | 19:52 |
| jeblair | you can customize what it does on success/failure | 19:52 |
| jeblair | so what messages it leaves, whether/how it votes, etc | 19:52 |
| jeblair | (per job or jenkins-wide) | 19:52 |
| Daviey | yep, seems to be working well! | 19:52 |
| mtaylor | Daviey: you guys using our fork of it for now? | 19:53 |
| Daviey | mtaylor: yep | 19:53 |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:53 | |
| mtaylor | great. we'll keep you in the loop if we update anything | 19:53 |
| soren | Oh, there's a fork? | 19:54 |
| soren | That's good to know. | 19:54 |
| Daviey | thanks! | 19:54 |
| * soren hasn't a clue how to get custom plugins into Jenkins, though. | 19:54 | |
| jeblair | i have clearance to upstream our changes, will be starting that soon | 19:54 |
| mtaylor | soren: it's easy | 19:54 |
| mtaylor | https://github.com/jeblair/gerrit-trigger-plugin/tree/trigger-on-comment-added | 19:54 |
| soren | Trigger on comment added? Seriously? | 19:54 |
| Daviey | jeblair: Is that your emoployer issues? | 19:54 |
| mtaylor | soren: you build it, it makes a file, you drop it in to the jenkins plugin dir | 19:55 |
| soren | Why would you want to retest on every comment? | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | soren: approval is a type of comment | 19:55 |
| soren | Ah. | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | soren: so you have to be able to respond to comment types | 19:55 |
| jeblair | soren: it has a filter, we test on "APRV +1" | 19:55 |
| soren | So the first approval sends it to testing? | 19:55 |
| jeblair | Daviey: yes, it apparently took them a bit to okay that. | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | the +1 vote in the approval column | 19:55 |
| mtaylor | soren: a normal +1 vote from a person in code review is "CRVW +1" | 19:56 |
| mtaylor | and a +2 vote is "CRVW +2" | 19:56 |
| Daviey | well.. it was my plan to do testing when anyone proposes anything to diablo/stable. | 19:56 |
| Daviey | The idea being is that it smokes it before a human looks at it | 19:56 |
| Daviey | then the human can respond based on code review AND jenkins return | 19:56 |
| soren | mtaylor: Oh. SO the tests don't run until someone has approved the patch? | 19:56 |
| mtaylor | soren: for the openstack jenkins, yes | 19:57 |
| Daviey | soren: that is an option. | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | soren: although we're going to add pre-approval pep8 testing real soon now | 19:57 |
| soren | What Daviey says sounds smarter. | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | security risk | 19:57 |
| Daviey | yep | 19:57 |
| soren | I know. | 19:57 |
| Daviey | discussing that atm. | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | also | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | it's not testing entirely the right thing | 19:57 |
| soren | I've the one who's been saying that from day 1 when everyone else was saying "Just run the tests!" :) | 19:57 |
| mtaylor | because it's testing the patch submitted, rather than the patch as merged as it will be applied | 19:58 |
| mtaylor | however- if we get past the security issue, I think that what we might do is smoke test pre-approval | 19:58 |
| Daviey | soren: I need to protect against someone including "rm -rf /" in setup.py :) | 19:58 |
| mtaylor | and then re-test right before merge | 19:58 |
| jeblair | ideally, we'll do both, as we address the security problem | 19:58 |
| mtaylor | what jeblair said | 19:58 |
| soren | Daviey: I understand entirely | 19:59 |
| Daviey | i'm pondering a few things, one might be - creating the tarball in kvm. | 19:59 |
| soren | Daviey: ...but that's the case even if it's been approved. | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | destroying testing slaves is less of a problem if we are blowing them away and re-creating them every time | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | which we're moving towards | 19:59 |
| Daviey | I don't trust chroot or lxc yet. | 19:59 |
| Daviey | soren: right | 19:59 |
| mtaylor | so then it's just a problem of catching spam bots | 19:59 |
| Daviey | mtaylor: right.. i don't care about the nodes | 19:59 |
| Daviey | Well | 20:00 |
| Daviey | spambots worry me less. | 20:00 |
| Daviey | It's a pretty sterile enviroment | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | python is pretty powerful :) | 20:00 |
| Daviey | I had to get permission just to open up the firewall just to pypi | 20:00 |
| soren | Oh, we're imposing on the PPB meeting slot. | 20:00 |
| mtaylor | ppb isn't meeting | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | our slaves are all public cloud images :) | 20:01 |
| Daviey | Thye didn't meet last week either :/ | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | however - I think we're probably good here. | 20:02 |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| mtaylor | soren: obviously let us know if you want help on getting the modified gerrit-trigger-plugin going | 20:02 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: we should probably get around to fixing the manual trigger page | 20:03 |
| *** ravi_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| Daviey | soren: What are you testing, and on what platform? | 20:03 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: yep | 20:03 |
| Daviey | I power-read scrollback, so might have missed that | 20:03 |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| *** ravi_ is now known as ravi | 20:03 | |
| Daviey | soren: fwiw, we have 12 machines. | 20:04 |
| soren | Daviey: Nothing yet. I already told you I'm waiting for access to hardware :) | 20:04 |
| Daviey | soren: right, but i'm guessing there is a plan? | 20:04 |
| soren | Yes. Yes, there is. | 20:05 |
| Daviey | i'm sure you are not just waiting on hardware to start thinking about what you are testing for, and on what platform. :) | 20:05 |
| soren | I have a draft plan. | 20:06 |
| soren | It would be unlike me if it didn't involve Ubuntu. | 20:06 |
| mtaylor | soren: I'm SHOCKED! | 20:06 |
| Daviey | cryptic++ | 20:06 |
| Daviey | soren: you are crazy. | 20:07 |
| soren | Daviey: That's never been proved. | 20:07 |
| zns | zns here - sorry for being late. | 20:07 |
| zns | * realizes the ppb is not meeting * | 20:08 |
| soren | zns: You're excused. :) | 20:08 |
| zns | soren: thanks :-) | 20:09 |
| Daviey | DOes anyone have other ideas satisfying the security issue? | 20:09 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| soren | Yeah. | 20:10 |
| soren | My idea from the beginning was to only run tests from people we know who are. | 20:10 |
| soren | ..and where they live. | 20:10 |
| soren | So we can hunt them down if they screw with us. | 20:11 |
| jeblair | yeah, we've been thinking about that as well | 20:11 |
| Daviey | Well yes, but can i trust you not to accidently break our ci lab with a rm -rf /? :) | 20:11 |
| zul | hell no | 20:11 |
| soren | ..and the same group of people could send other people's branches off for testing once they're confident it's not a cracking attempt. | 20:11 |
| soren | Daviey: No. No, you can't. | 20:11 |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| Daviey | soren: it needs to be a stronger model than that | 20:12 |
| soren | Daviey: It works for Ubuntu? | 20:12 |
| Daviey | soren: Not really. | 20:12 |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:12 | |
| Daviey | soren: Can you r00t a buildd ? | 20:13 |
| soren | Daviey: Yes. | 20:13 |
| Daviey | soren: and you could break the host system? | 20:13 |
| jeblair | i think our approach is going to generally be to a) be protected if that does happen (throwaway bulid slaves), combined with a small amount of deterence for that happening (signup process (the CLA is filling this for now but i'd still like to get rid of it) or using the reputation of the submitter to decide to run a check on upload) | 20:14 |
| soren | Daviey: On the Ubuntu buildd's | 20:14 |
| soren | ? | 20:14 |
| soren | Daviey: Or the PPA ones? | 20:14 |
| soren | (not the same thing at all) | 20:14 |
| Daviey | right | 20:15 |
| Daviey | Regardless, I want a stronger model. | 20:15 |
| Daviey | :) | 20:15 |
| *** apontes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:15 | |
| Daviey | I also don't want to encourage levels of contributor | 20:15 |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| Daviey | contributor and core is enough of a split IMO. | 20:16 |
| Daviey | having degrees of contributor isn't ideal IMO. | 20:16 |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 20:16 | |
| mtaylor | agree. I was originally advocating the only split being that you had to have landed at least one patch before we would run your stuff pre-approval | 20:17 |
| mtaylor | between having signed the CLA and having convinced someone to land something at least once, it's likely we at least know you're a real person and where to find you | 20:17 |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:17 | |
| soren | Daviey: I can root the Ubuntu buildd's. BUilds run as root. | 20:19 |
| Daviey | nah, that is still crappy. | 20:19 |
| Daviey | soren: heh, yes - but can you BREAK the infra? | 20:19 |
| soren | Daviey: To the best of my knowledge, yes. | 20:21 |
| soren | I could be wrong, of course. And I'm not going to test the hypothesis. elmo knows where I live. :) | 20:21 |
| Daviey | heh | 20:21 |
| soren | I depends on what you mean by "the infra", of course. I'm pretty sure I can take a buildd out. | 20:22 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 20:23 | |
| Daviey | But that is the 'node' that i don't care about.. because it can be recovered through out of band power management | 20:24 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:24 | |
| Daviey | and pxe booting a re-isnstall | 20:24 |
| Daviey | The issue is the ftp-master, breaking that. | 20:24 |
| Daviey | right? | 20:24 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| *** davlap has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| soren | Well, if taking out a single node isn't a problem, then running arbitrary code from random crackheads shoulnd't be a problem either. | 20:25 |
| Daviey | I really don't worry too much about the node having woes, it's the incoming machibe | 20:25 |
| soren | Howeve.r. | 20:25 |
| Daviey | soren: Yes, but the jenkins server isn't a throwaway machine | 20:25 |
| soren | The problem isn't someone doing an "rm -rf /". | 20:25 |
| soren | You will discover that immediately. | 20:25 |
| Daviey | We could do the incoming process on a throwaway node i suppose, but an extra level of complexity and speed | 20:26 |
| soren | The problem is someone sneaking something in that will sit around and only much later add a backdor to Nova in an entirely unrelated commit or something. | 20:26 |
| Daviey | soren: /I/ won't discover it... because it's hands-off | 20:26 |
| Daviey | a forkbomb is just as inconvient. | 20:26 |
| Daviey | yeah | 20:26 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:27 | |
| *** davlap has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:29 | |
| *** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:31 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:39 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 20:43 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:44 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:48 | |
| *** Raj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:49 | |
| *** thingee has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:50 | |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| ttx | o/ | 21:00 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:00 |
| bcwaldon | ello | 21:00 |
| ttx | zns, jaypipes, vishy, devcamcar: around ? | 21:00 |
| * bcwaldon is standing in for jaypipes | 21:00 | |
| ttx | ok | 21:01 |
| ayoung | o/ | 21:01 |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| *** bhall has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| zns | zns here | 21:01 |
| Daviey | . | 21:01 |
| ttx | Still missing bloody Californians. | 21:02 |
| danwent | ttx: hey... | 21:02 |
| bcwaldon | that's what happens when they go to $Texas | 21:02 |
| ttx | danwent: woops. | 21:02 |
| danwent | its just the bloody californias that you need for this meeting that are missing :) | 21:02 |
| mtaylor | o/ | 21:02 |
| ttx | ok let's start. I'll pretend we have the meetbot, just in case we can refeed it the log | 21:02 |
| termie | ... | 21:03 |
| mtaylor | we have it | 21:03 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:03 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jan 31 21:03:10 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:03 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-19.01.html | 21:03 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-19.01.txt | 21:03 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-19.01.log.html | 21:03 |
| ttx | oh. | 21:03 |
| ttx | kewl | 21:03 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jan 31 21:03:23 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:03 |
| mtaylor | see - we can get stuff done sometimes | 21:03 |
| ttx | Today's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:03 |
| ttx | mtaylor: I never (EVER) doubted it. | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | zns: o/ | 21:04 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:04 |
| zns | Keystone Light branch is in. It's called "redux" | 21:04 |
| ttx | it's in ? or jus tproposed ? | 21:04 |
| ttx | or just proposed ? | 21:04 |
| zns | anotherjesse said "everybody is working on getting ksl ready for merge by next week" | 21:04 |
| *** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| vishy | hi | 21:05 |
| *** dabo has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| zns | ttx: it is a branch (https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/redux) and can be accessed through gerrit. | 21:05 |
| *** mikeyp has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | oh, I see | 21:05 |
| zns | So we should be looking at a merge soon. | 21:05 |
| heckj | ola | 21:05 |
| zns | Main items missing are: | 21:05 |
| zns | Gaps: | 21:05 |
| ttx | Would be good to have the rearchitecture appearing as a blueprint for essex-4 | 21:05 |
| zns | - Versioning | 21:05 |
| zns | - Content-negotiation | 21:05 |
| zns | - Extension negotiation | 21:05 |
| zns | - Errors (with content sensitivity) | 21:05 |
| zns | - URL normalization | 21:05 |
| zns | - Pagination | 21:05 |
| zns | - LDAP | 21:05 |
| zns | Features: | 21:05 |
| zns | - migration | 21:05 |
| zns | - os: extension for Quantum and Melange | 21:05 |
| zns | - OS-KSADM changes (support for password on user creation) | 21:05 |
| zns | Bugs: | 21:05 |
| zns | - ./keystone in bin, I get error | 21:05 |
| ttx | that way we could track that | 21:05 |
| heckj | ttx: will do | 21:06 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| ttx | heckj: cool, thanks. You can enumerate the gaps in the whiteboard | 21:06 |
| zns | ttx: we also agreed to tag bugs/bps for ksl with "redux" in LaunchPad. | 21:06 |
| heckj | ttx: will link it up to an etherpad that we're tracking | 21:06 |
| ttx | I'll keep close attention to this | 21:06 |
| gyee | will other extensions also be ported? | 21:06 |
| ttx | heckj: perfect | 21:06 |
| ttx | Do the other two blueprints (keystone-logging and keystone-test-refactor) still make sense in keystonelight context ? | 21:06 |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| zns | keystone-logging, no. tests, somewhat, because we have to work on tests in ksl. | 21:07 |
| heckj | ttx: most of the work I've been doing to keystone-logging has been applying it to the redux branch | 21:07 |
| *** spectorclan has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| ttx | heckj: so they are interrelated a bit | 21:07 |
| heckj | ttx: zns and team have bolstered logging in the current branch as well | 21:07 |
| ttx | ok | 21:07 |
| ttx | zns: Is keystone participating to the bug squashing day ? | 21:08 |
| zns | ttx: IU want to confirm our position on new features. They should all be parked in local branches until folsom? | 21:08 |
| zns | ttx: I believe so. I can't (was already booked out that day), but I think Dolph and joesavak will be. | 21:09 |
| ttx | zns: until we do RCs, which is for keystone shortly after E4 | 21:09 |
| zns | ttx: and then we'll create the folsom branch? Need to know what tell folks (like gyee). | 21:09 |
| ttx | then we create milestone-proposed to hold the release candidate, and trunk shifts to folsom | 21:10 |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| zns | We're doing that in E4 for Keystone? | 21:10 |
| *** berendt_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| *** berendt has quit IRC | 21:10 | |
| zns | * sounds good - just confirmin * | 21:10 |
| ttx | zns: yes, that's what we said at the last design summit | 21:11 |
| ttx | RCs statr after E4, and Keystone should be one of the first to get finalized | 21:11 |
| ttx | (and Horizon one of the last) | 21:11 |
| zns | ttx: roger. On board with that. | 21:11 |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| termie | which meeting is this that we are discussing keystone status in? | 21:11 |
| *** gregburek has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| ttx | Any specific bug squashing objective you'd like to mention on http://wiki.openstack.org/BugSquashingDay/20120202 ? | 21:11 |
| ttx | termie: the keystone meeting, probably | 21:11 |
| heckj | ttx: #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rearchitect-keystone | 21:11 |
| ttx | heckj: thx | 21:12 |
| heckj | termie - general meeting | 21:12 |
| zns | termie: also http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting | 21:12 |
| termie | "project status meeting" okays | 21:12 |
| ttx | zns: Anything else ? | 21:12 |
| zns | ttx: nope. | 21:12 |
| ttx | zns: for Keystone on bug squashing day it would be nice to review the list of bugs to see if they still make sense in KSL context. | 21:12 |
| *** anotherjesse1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:13 | |
| ttx | but maybe thats too early if the main branch hasn't been replaced | 21:13 |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:13 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| zns | ttx: OK. I'll relay to joesavak. | 21:13 |
| ttx | Questions for Keystone ? | 21:13 |
| joesavak | \o got it | 21:13 |
| deshantm | so just to be clear, ksl is default going forward only or is it also going to be in the essex release? | 21:13 |
| ttx | going to be in essex, if it closes the identified gaps. | 21:13 |
| anotherjesse1 | deshantm: assuming community votes yes as well | 21:14 |
| gyee | *all* existing extensions will be ported correct? | 21:14 |
| termie | gyee: if the extension writers port them | 21:14 |
| deshantm | ok thanks, just want to make sure where to focus QA efforts | 21:15 |
| anotherjesse1 | termie: we are working on porting them | 21:15 |
| deshantm | we all want Essex to be solid | 21:15 |
| ttx | More keystone / ksl questions ? | 21:15 |
| *** Ryan_Lane has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| *** andrewbogott has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:15 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:15 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:16 |
| ttx | notmyname: Still expecting 1.4.6 on February 10 ? | 21:16 |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| notmyname | no reason not to | 21:16 |
| ttx | notmyname: When can we cut a milestone-proposed branch ? Tuesday next week ? | 21:16 |
| ttx | or Wednesday maybe ? | 21:16 |
| notmyname | probably on wednesday | 21:16 |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:16 | |
| ttx | notmyname: Could you reference the features that are expected to be merged in this release at: https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.4.6 ? | 21:16 |
| ttx | I know you've been working on object versioning... | 21:17 |
| notmyname | yes, I've been asked to do that by others... | 21:17 |
| ttx | would like to know (as the rest of the world) if that's going to hit :) | 21:17 |
| notmyname | yeah, I've also been focusing on some rax stuff too. I'll get to it :-) | 21:17 |
| ttx | notmyname: Any specific objective for Swift on the Bug Squashing day ? | 21:17 |
| notmyname | no. but we'll have some of the core devs keeping an eye on the patches in order to give rapid feedback | 21:18 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:18 | |
| ttx | ok. | 21:18 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:18 |
| notmyname | so if patches are submitted, we hope to get them merged if possible that day | 21:18 |
| notmyname | one more thing | 21:18 |
| notmyname | ah. nm | 21:18 |
| ttx | #action notmyname to link blueprints corresponding to 1.4.6 features on milestone page | 21:18 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:19 |
| ttx | #info &.4.6 | 21:19 |
| ttx | arh | 21:19 |
| ttx | #info 1.4.6 milestone-proposed cut expected on Wed, Feb 8 | 21:19 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:19 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: yo | 21:20 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:20 |
| ttx | Who will be working on glance-bittorrent-delivery ? | 21:20 |
| *** martines has quit IRC | 21:20 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: (if anyone) | 21:20 |
| bcwaldon | no idea | 21:21 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Any specific objective for the Bug Squashing day ? | 21:21 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| ttx | #action jaypipes to assign or defer glance-bittorrent-delivery | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | The general idea of 'fix bugs' applies here | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | jaypipes is going to send out an email w.r.t. low-hanging-fruit in glance and tempest | 21:22 |
| bcwaldon | no big news on the Glance front :) | 21:22 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: fwiw I set some numbers as objectives for Nova, so that we can define "success" | 21:22 |
| *** anotherjesse1 has quit IRC | 21:22 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: feel free to do the same on the wiki page | 21:22 |
| ttx | like "fall below N open bugs" | 21:23 |
| bcwaldon | ok, we have nowhere near as many bugs (only ~20 available) | 21:23 |
| bcwaldon | ...to be picked up | 21:23 |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:23 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: ok :) | 21:23 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else ? | 21:23 |
| bcwaldon | Negatory | 21:23 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:23 |
| *** Tushar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:24 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:24 | |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:24 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:24 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:24 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:24 |
| ttx | Lots of stuff in there. Are all of those feature freeze exceptions ? | 21:25 |
| vishy | hi | 21:25 |
| ttx | or were some sneakily targeted ? | 21:25 |
| vishy | most but not all | 21:25 |
| vishy | some are just not really features | 21:25 |
| ttx | netapp-volume-driver, essex-backup-for-ebs and nova-sweep do not have essex series goal set yet (or priority) | 21:25 |
| ttx | does that mean those are not accepted yet ? ^ | 21:26 |
| vishy | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/consolidate-testing-infrastructure | 21:26 |
| vishy | for example | 21:26 |
| ttx | right | 21:26 |
| vishy | netapp seems to be supported on the ml so that one will probably be FFe | 21:26 |
| vishy | the other two look new | 21:26 |
| ttx | no need to review them now | 21:26 |
| ttx | #action vishy to review essex-backup-for-ebs and nova-sweep and deny/grant FFe | 21:27 |
| vishy | the scaling zones one is probably going to miss | 21:27 |
| vishy | i'm going to talk to comstud tomorrow but it seems like it is too late to FFe it | 21:27 |
| ttx | vishy: yes, this is a bit big. | 21:27 |
| vishy | ttx: I think they will just do a branch and propose for F | 21:27 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else on the blueprints side ? | 21:28 |
| vishy | i think not | 21:28 |
| ttx | I'd like to quickly discuss dead wood... since the press makes their headlines on it | 21:28 |
| vishy | most of the FFe stuff is in | 21:28 |
| ttx | Do you agree with ajaxtermectomy and HyperVectomy ? | 21:28 |
| vishy | yes | 21:28 |
| ttx | Anything else we should get rid of while we still can ? | 21:28 |
| vishy | ajaxterm definitely | 21:28 |
| vishy | deprecated auth | 21:29 |
| ttx | vishy: could you add tha tto the thread ? | 21:29 |
| vishy | we need to fixup the migration script though | 21:29 |
| vishy | m2crypto as well | 21:29 |
| vishy | sure | 21:29 |
| ttx | Do you want essex-4 blueprints to track their completion ? | 21:29 |
| vishy | hmm, yeah that is probably a good idea | 21:30 |
| ttx | I think it can't hurt. We had blueprints when we added the feature after all. | 21:30 |
| vishy | although we have bugs for m2crypto and ajaxterm right? | 21:30 |
| ttx | I'll add the ajaxterm and hyperV one. We'll link the bugs in | 21:30 |
| ttx | ajaxterm has several bugs linked | 21:30 |
| ttx | I'll propose the ajaxtermectomy. Anyone up to propose the HyperVectomy ? | 21:31 |
| ttx | soren maybe ? | 21:31 |
| berendt_ | what about removing bin/nova-manage? i read some note in a change request that it should be removed during essex-4 | 21:31 |
| vishy | yes | 21:31 |
| soren | ttx: Yeah, I was meaning to do that. | 21:31 |
| vishy | berendt_: that is one of the hopes for focus for e4 | 21:31 |
| vishy | berendt_: we still need some of the functionality ported to admin extensions | 21:31 |
| ttx | #action soren to create a blueprint about surgical removal of HyperV and target to e4 | 21:32 |
| *** mcohen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| ttx | #action ttx to create a blueprint about Ajaxtermectomy | 21:32 |
| vishy | berendt_: my team was planning on focusing on that next (after the stuff in our current email is done) | 21:32 |
| jog0 | m2crypto bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/917851 | 21:32 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 917851 in openstack-ci "replace m2crypto with shelling to openssl" [High,In progress] | 21:32 |
| vishy | berendt_: but help would be appreciated | 21:32 |
| berendt_ | vishy: are there existing bug reports? | 21:32 |
| ttx | #action vishy to push deprectaedauth, m2crypto removal to ML and blueprints | 21:32 |
| vishy | berendt_: I don't know | 21:33 |
| ttx | though M2crypto was already discussed, I think | 21:33 |
| vishy | berendt_: there may be some, but i doubt it covers everything | 21:33 |
| berendt_ | should be added as action too... | 21:33 |
| vishy | berendt_: live migration was moved | 21:33 |
| vishy | berendt_: and networks as well i believe | 21:33 |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** mcohen_ is now known as mcohen | 21:33 | |
| ttx | vishy: what replaces nova-manage ? plain nova + keystone CLI ? | 21:33 |
| vishy | ttx: yes | 21:33 |
| ttx | we still need db sync, I think | 21:34 |
| rkukura | is there a blueprint for nova-manage-ectomy? | 21:34 |
| ttx | rkukura: no | 21:34 |
| vishy | ttx: any reason why we couldn't do that through an admin api? | 21:34 |
| soren | Sorry, wait, what? | 21:34 |
| ttx | vishy: sounds like the job of a specific helper. | 21:34 |
| vishy | ttx: i guess we would have to make nova-api start without trying to load the models | 21:34 |
| ttx | soren: what what ? | 21:34 |
| soren | nova-manage is going away altogether or just for user management? | 21:34 |
| devcamcar | nova-manage is going away? | 21:34 |
| vishy | soren: hoping to remove nova-manage | 21:35 |
| soren | Why? | 21:35 |
| devcamcar | why? | 21:35 |
| ttx | (that's news to me too, fwiw :) | 21:35 |
| vishy | soren, devcamcar: because all of the stuff it does should be admin extensions | 21:35 |
| devcamcar | but … it's not | 21:35 |
| Daviey | The first i saw this mentioned was on the prettytable merge. | 21:35 |
| devcamcar | so you can't remove it yet :) | 21:35 |
| vishy | db could be a special case | 21:35 |
| soren | vishy: This is for Folsom, right? | 21:35 |
| vishy | devcamcar: hence the earlier comment: vishy: berendt_: that is one of the hopes for focus for e4 | 21:36 |
| vishy | [9:31pm] vishy: berendt_: we still need some of the functionality ported to admin extensions | 21:36 |
| vishy | soren: if necessary | 21:36 |
| devcamcar | sounds scary for essex | 21:36 |
| soren | You cannot seriously be suggesting that we replace nova-manage for Essex? | 21:36 |
| ttx | devcamcar: +1 | 21:36 |
| vishy | fair enough. If it must stay it must stay | 21:36 |
| devcamcar | i'm all for it for folsom | 21:36 |
| vishy | I still would like everything to become admin extensions | 21:36 |
| * ttx breathes again. | 21:36 | |
| vishy | asap | 21:36 |
| devcamcar | its a good goal | 21:36 |
| * vishy hates nova-manage | 21:37 | |
| ttx | its a bit late to remove it. Even if we could do that in two weeks, it breaks a bit of docs. | 21:37 |
| Daviey | Hmm | 21:37 |
| Daviey | If nova-manage is going away next cycle, it makes stable/'s team harder :) | 21:37 |
| vishy | and I wrote the first version so I'm allowed to | 21:37 |
| soren | So how would you consume these admin extensions? | 21:37 |
| soren | ....if not through nova-manage? | 21:37 |
| ttx | Daviey: why ? | 21:37 |
| vishy | soren: python-novaclient | 21:37 |
| Daviey | ttx: harder^D impossible to cherry pick :) | 21:37 |
| mtaylor | vishy: sorry, was away for a moment - LinuxJedi from my team was going to look at the M2Crypto removal bug if that's helpful | 21:38 |
| ttx | if it's folsom work, let's discuss that around a beer in April. | 21:38 |
| vishy | ok so how about this way: goal is to get everything into extensions so that you can successfully run without nova-manage | 21:38 |
| vishy | mtaylor: cool i think bcwaldon was looking at it too, so you might have to fight him | 21:38 |
| soren | My opinion: No. | 21:38 |
| soren | Goal is: STable Essex. | 21:39 |
| soren | That's number 1. | 21:39 |
| vishy | we can leave nova-manage in | 21:39 |
| mtaylor | vishy: if bcwaldon wants it, i'm sure LinuxJedi isn't going to argue :) | 21:39 |
| soren | If we manage that, sure, knock yourself out. Write a million admin extensions. | 21:39 |
| LinuxJedi | vishy: currently not my highest priority so happy for bcwaldon to play with it | 21:39 |
| *** AndrewWeiss has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:39 | |
| vishy | soren: goal hasn't changed there | 21:39 |
| ttx | vishy: that's a Folsom goal, right ? | 21:39 |
| soren | vishy: Well, if you're diverting a lot of attention to writing admin extensions.. | 21:39 |
| LinuxJedi | bcwaldon: feel free to re-assign https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/917851 to you | 21:39 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 917851 in openstack-ci "replace m2crypto with shelling to openssl" [High,In progress] | 21:39 |
| vishy | OK, I'm being to ambitious | 21:40 |
| soren | vishy: ...then I beg to differ. | 21:40 |
| bcwaldon | LinuxJedi: kk | 21:40 |
| vishy | * too ambitious | 21:40 |
| Daviey | vishy: aim high, fall far :) | 21:40 |
| vishy | fair enough. | 21:40 |
| ttx | Folsom goal.deal. | 21:40 |
| vishy | soren: stability isn't my only concern | 21:40 |
| ttx | vishy: I set up basic objectives for Nova on http://wiki.openstack.org/BugSquashingDay/20120202 -- feel free to adapt/change. | 21:40 |
| LinuxJedi | so that is why my wife always aims for the groin | 21:40 |
| vishy | soren: i also want it to be operatable | 21:40 |
| soren | vishy: All our admin docs explain how to do things with nova-manage. | 21:41 |
| vishy | soren: yes, that is an excellent point | 21:41 |
| soren | vishy: Things aren't going to automatically be more pleasant to work with because it gets APIified. | 21:41 |
| Daviey | isn't that just a grep away? | 21:41 |
| annegentle | we can prioritize it if needed though (the docs changes). Means some tough decisions though. | 21:41 |
| vishy | soren: so I will push my nova-manage desires to folsom | 21:41 |
| ewindisch | fyi, there have been suggestions of looking at encryption for the zeromq rpc driver. We might want m2crypto or similar when we get there. | 21:42 |
| annegentle | Daviey: Ha. No. | 21:42 |
| soren | Daviey: I sure hope vishy's hatred towards nova-manage goes further than just the name of the command. | 21:42 |
| Daviey | annegentle: Sorry! | 21:42 |
| ewindisch | that won't be essex, though | 21:42 |
| annegentle | Daviey: :) | 21:42 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:42 |
| ttx | we need to move on. | 21:42 |
| vishy | soren: haha, the name of the command makes no difference to me. I just want it to be doing everything through the api | 21:42 |
| vishy | ttx: nope, sounds like that one is settled | 21:42 |
| ttx | Nova subteam leads: anything on your side ? | 21:42 |
| soren | vishy: Right, so it's much more than just "a grep away" is my point. | 21:42 |
| ttx | Other questions on Nova ? | 21:43 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:43 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: o/ | 21:43 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:43 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:43 |
| ttx | Lots of blueprints here, but that was kinda expected... | 21:43 |
| *** edconzel has left #openstack-meeting | 21:44 | |
| devcamcar | i've already taken the first pass at removing a few of them and punting for folsom | 21:44 |
| *** mjfork has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:44 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: Having 3 Essential blueprints on the last milestone make me a bit nervous | 21:44 |
| ttx | devcamcar: when do you expect those to hit ? | 21:44 |
| ttx | "Essential" means "delay the release if not completed". | 21:44 |
| ttx | So I'd rather see those completed yesterday. | 21:44 |
| devcamcar | one is 80% done already, one has been tracking the overall work being done and we can close soon, the third i will downgrade to high | 21:45 |
| ttx | devcamcar: cool. | 21:45 |
| ttx | Who is assigned to ec2-credentials-download and image-upload ? | 21:45 |
| ttx | oh, recent fix | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | ec2 credentials is jake dahn | 21:45 |
| ttx | nm | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | image upload has not been started | 21:45 |
| *** jdg has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: Do you have specific objectives for the Bug Squashing day ? | 21:46 |
| devcamcar | tres and i will be triaging today and marking all the low hanging fruit items | 21:46 |
| devcamcar | main objectives are adding unit tests and reducing bugs | 21:47 |
| ohnoimdead | there's a lot of simple clean-up tasks new contributors can get their feet wet with | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | lots of the remaining 50 bugs are low hanging fruit at this point, some as simple as moving padding | 21:47 |
| ttx | devcamcar: ok, so "get all low-hanging-fruit addressed" or something | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | indeed | 21:48 |
| ttx | Feel free to mention on http://wiki.openstack.org/BugSquashingDay/20120202 | 21:48 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | nope | 21:48 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:49 |
| lloydde | fruit: nice | 21:50 |
| ttx | fruit is indeed nice. | 21:50 |
| * mtaylor likes fruit | 21:50 | |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects and other Team reports | 21:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects and other Team reports" | 21:50 | |
| ttx | danwent, troytoman: yo | 21:50 |
| danwent | got a couple of things. | 21:50 |
| ttx | danwent: shoot | 21:50 |
| danwent | Bug Squashing Day: focus is on getting some nova + quantum system integration tests written using devstack. | 21:50 |
| danwent | in person quantum bug squashing hangout @ Nicira in Palo Alto 2pm on thursday. presos will be done on webex, so people can attend remotely. will also try to have a virtual g+ hangout for those remote. | 21:50 |
| danwent | details on netstack list | 21:51 |
| danwent | also: Quantum essex-3 tarball has a snafu if you install from source using 'setup.py install'. New version of admin guide available with one-line work around: http://launchpad.net/quantum/essex/ | 21:51 |
| danwent | whoops, link got cut: http://launchpad.net/quantum/essex/essex-3/+download/quantum-admin-guide.pdf | 21:51 |
| danwent | Since Quantum is not core, we do not have a full freeze for E-4, but we are moving the feature freeze to a week earlier than normal, so Feb 21 | 21:51 |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 21:51 | |
| danwent | working with horizon team to get quantum + horizon in shape as well | 21:51 |
| ttx | danwent: ok. | 21:51 |
| danwent | Finally, I don't think this will be a surprise, but we're planning to propose Quantum as a core project for Folsom at an upcoming PPB meeting. | 21:51 |
| danwent | hooray for copy-paste :) | 21:52 |
| danwent | that's all | 21:52 |
| * mtaylor is surprised | 21:52 | |
| mtaylor | wait | 21:52 |
| mtaylor | the other thing | 21:52 |
| danwent | which? | 21:52 |
| ttx | danwent: the secret is to copy-paste slow enough that people think you're typing. | 21:52 |
| danwent | ah, but meeting is almost out of time :) | 21:52 |
| ttx | troytoman: around ? | 21:52 |
| troytoman | not much to report on melange - we are focusing on some scale testing around quantum/melange/nova integration | 21:52 |
| troytoman | so, we'll fix bugs as we find them | 21:53 |
| troytoman | also try to lock down the melange API for a v1 final | 21:53 |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? annegentle, mtaylor ? | 21:53 |
| annegentle | I've been working on "release notes" for Essex at http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Essex | 21:53 |
| annegentle | next will be doc priorities based on what we know to be in | 21:54 |
| annegentle | I'd like to learn more about KSL and the API | 21:54 |
| annegentle | so that we can properly source the content for api.openstack.org | 21:54 |
| mtaylor | various infrastructure things - moving some of the services around to new machines and whatnot | 21:54 |
| mtaylor | most interesting is that we're starting to roll out multi-python version testing, and we're about to start doing some pre-approval testing | 21:55 |
| ttx | ok | 21:56 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:56 | |
| vishy | I have a topic | 21:56 |
| ttx | vishy: go for it | 21:56 |
| vishy | this may be a summit discussion but i wanted to get people thinking | 21:56 |
| vishy | we have way too many drivers and such in nova-core | 21:56 |
| *** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| vishy | it would be really nice to have a way to package up drivers/schedulers/ and api extensions | 21:57 |
| vishy | into a single package that could be shipped separately | 21:57 |
| vishy | (perhaps with its own conf file) | 21:57 |
| Daviey | vishy: what is the benefit? | 21:57 |
| reed | any PPB member, please respond to the email I sent the board yesterday re: elections | 21:57 |
| vishy | bonus for a 1-click installer via horizon | 21:57 |
| ttx | We are at a netscape moment. | 21:57 |
| vishy | Daviey: the problem is maintaining all of that code in core is silly | 21:57 |
| vishy | example: solidfire has an optimization to their driver | 21:58 |
| vishy | they have to propose it through core and wait for a release | 21:58 |
| ttx | reed: I don't think I received it. | 21:58 |
| vishy | if we made it really easy to ship and package it separately | 21:58 |
| danwent | vishy: we have similar issues with Quantum manager | 21:58 |
| reed | ttx, I used the emailaddress monty gave me ... I blame him :) | 21:58 |
| vishy | we wouldn't have all of that overhead | 21:58 |
| *** thingee has left #openstack-meeting | 21:58 | |
| Daviey | vishy: wait, didn't we push more stuff into core to make it so trunk always worked? | 21:58 |
| ttx | reed: PM | 21:58 |
| danwent | our concern has been that if that code isn't in core, and interfaces change, no one will be running unit tests that catch the fact that they broke something in QuantumManager | 21:59 |
| vishy | Daviey: sure, but we don't really test the drivers that much | 21:59 |
| Daviey | python-novalcient was an example. | 21:59 |
| danwent | but I agree with the goal | 21:59 |
| vishy | Daviey: the packages could include tests | 21:59 |
| berendt_ | just as a side note: everything prepared for the FOSDEM? | 21:59 |
| ttx | vishy: ok, time is running short tpo discuss rearchitecting components :) | 21:59 |
| devcamcar | reed: confirmed, I didn't receive your message either | 21:59 |
| ttx | Bug squashing day is Thursday ! | 21:59 |
| Daviey | vishy: if they want it in diablo, we have the stable/ process :/ | 21:59 |
| ttx | Join us on #openstack-bugsquash, follow progress on http://wiki.openstack.org/bugstats/ | 21:59 |
| ttx | berendt_: we'll have an OpenStack developers meeting at FOSDEM, Chavanne room, Saturday at 6pm. | 21:59 |
| vishy | Daviey: and we could still include packages + testing | 21:59 |
| reed | damnit | 22:00 |
| berendt_ | ttx: I now.. maybe someone forgot to prepare a talk ;) | 22:00 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| Daviey | vishy: well, it impacts you more than most.. but from my PoV it seems like a PITA. | 22:00 |
| vishy | Daviey: but shipping them separately seems like it would get rid of a lot of overhead | 22:00 |
| AndrewWeiss | hey guys, apologies for interrupting but I also wanted to bring up the latest research project on the Academic Initiative Group for those that are members and are interested | 22:00 |
| vishy | Daviey: the current thing is a pain | 22:00 |
| Daviey | vishy: it seems that it mostly will allow people to land code which breaks drivers, and /someone/ else has to fix it. | 22:00 |
| Ryan_Lane | I agree with vishy. the current way of things is painful | 22:00 |
| vishy | Daviey: we have a bunch of code that is unmaintained in core, then vendors update and try and ship it all at the last minute | 22:01 |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| jdg | I think there are some benefits for everybody involved but we can pick up discussions later | 22:01 |
| ttx | vishy: ML ? | 22:01 |
| Ryan_Lane | I think we should go slightly further and have ways of directly extending core as well, though | 22:01 |
| ttx | We need to clear the floor for netstack. | 22:01 |
| vishy | ttx: ML sure, | 22:01 |
| vishy | ttx: and discussion at the summit | 22:01 |
| ttx | and probably summit as well :) | 22:01 |
| vishy | have fun netstack! | 22:01 |
| Daviey | summit | 22:01 |
| danwent | :) | 22:01 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jan 31 22:01:51 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-21.03.html | 22:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-21.03.txt | 22:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-21.03.log.html | 22:01 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jan 31 22:02:07 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 22:02 |
| *** LinuxJedi has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| danwent | hello all, this is now the netstack meeting | 22:02 |
| danwent | #info agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:02 |
| *** AndrewWeiss has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** mikeyp has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** LinuxJedi has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | everybody here? | 22:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hi | 22:03 |
| davlap | hi folks! | 22:03 |
| *** Tushar has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| *** apevec has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| mtaylor | o/ | 22:03 |
| *** andrewbogott has left #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| *** jdg has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| salv-orlando_ | hi there! | 22:03 |
| danwent | Ok, let's get started | 22:03 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| danwent | #info bug-squashing day is this thursday, Feb 2nd. | 22:04 |
| danwent | will will have an in-person meetup in Palo Alto at 2pm (email was to netstack list). | 22:04 |
| danwent | debo + I will be presenting at the start, with a focus on people getting devstack setup and used to write more interesting system/integration tests. | 22:05 |
| danwent | any questions, please contact me. webex and g+ hangout will be available. | 22:05 |
| danwent | if you are remote. | 22:05 |
| salv-orlando_ | great | 22:05 |
| salv-orlando_ | I'll be with you remotely for the first hours | 22:06 |
| danwent | my goal is to end the day with some basic integration test / smoke test code that someone can check in and can be run on a devstack host. | 22:06 |
| danwent | I will send webex info to the ML | 22:06 |
| danwent | #TODO #danwent send bug squashing webex info to ML | 22:06 |
| danwent | is debo here? | 22:07 |
| danwent | anything to add? | 22:07 |
| danwent | don't see him. | 22:07 |
| danwent | Ok, one other topic that I just added to the agenda | 22:07 |
| danwent | the deadline for applying to be a core project in Folsom is coming up very quickly | 22:08 |
| danwent | mid-Feb, essentially. | 22:08 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** Ryan_Lane has left #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| danwent | I think its been our goal to apply for core project status for Folsom, and plan to do that, but wanted to give people a chance to voice any opinions on the topic | 22:08 |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| danwent | so, feel free to chime in | 22:09 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| danwent | i'll work with jbryce and others to put together application. | 22:09 |
| danwent | are people excited? | 22:09 |
| bhall | danwent: very | 22:09 |
| salv-orlando_ | what does the application process require? | 22:09 |
| salv-orlando_ | in human words, which are the requirements for becoming a core project? | 22:10 |
| danwent | not much, in fact, its roughly equivalent to our incubation application, updated, I believe. | 22:10 |
| *** debo-os has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:10 | |
| salv-orlando_ | ok | 22:10 |
| danwent | I think the main criteria is that the openstack PPB sees value in the project and is willing to stand behind it. | 22:10 |
| danwent | so their metrics will be around quality, team, docs, etc. | 22:11 |
| danwent | I will also start a thread on the ML about this, but wanted to bring it up in the meeting as well. | 22:12 |
| danwent | more important, do people have concerns around this? If so, I'd like to start working to address them asap. | 22:12 |
| salv-orlando_ | my only concern is that we need to address much better documentation. | 22:13 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: which type? admin, dev? | 22:13 |
| danwent | as a core project, you get the help of the openstack docs team, but obviously we still need to shoulder a lot of the load. | 22:14 |
| salv-orlando_ | both of them. People often resort to the mailing list because they cannot find information about installing quantum or developing for it. And also we keep a lot of obsolete stuff on the wiki, which creates confusion. | 22:14 |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:14 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:14 | |
| danwent | I actually think the quantum admin guide is quite up to date… i think the emails to the ML are as much about people's tendency to not read documentation as they are about the docs being out of date. | 22:15 |
| annegentle | salv-orlando_: I think you guys are in good shape, docs-wise. | 22:15 |
| danwent | dev docs is definitely something we need to improve though. | 22:15 |
| annegentle | danwent: yep, agreed | 22:15 |
| annegentle | danwent: agreed on the tendency people have not to read docs :) Your dev docs sorta "have" to be on the wiki for now. Since there's no quantum.openstack.org. | 22:16 |
| danwent | salv: are there particular wiki pages that are out of date and we need to clean up? wikis indeed have a tendency of getting stale. | 22:16 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 22:16 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:16 | |
| danwent | annegentle: that's a good point. in fact, because quantum is not yet core, its fairly hard to find the docs on the openstack site, which might explain why there are so many questions to the ML. | 22:17 |
| annegentle | danwent: yes, the search for incubated docs has bit us before... | 22:17 |
| salv-orlando_ | I know about the pages I've created... most of them contain information which are not fully valid. The incubation status might explain people having difficulties finding docs, actually. I did not think about that. | 22:18 |
| annegentle | danwent: but this time around, the docs.openstack.org search box has included quantum admin docs | 22:18 |
| ohnoimdead | danwent: sending you some email wrt quantum ui but basically: we should take a design pass at the ui based on the new QuantumManager model and then add some bugs in horizon for the implementation. given everything on horizon's plate right now for e4 though i'm worried about getting this done before folsom. | 22:19 |
| danwent | ohnoimdead: thx, happy to sync up via email | 22:19 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 22:20 | |
| danwent | annegentle: that's good. my guess is that people just go to docs.openstack.org and don't look a lot deeper. but assuming quantum becomes core, that issue should go away | 22:20 |
| ohnoimdead | danwent: cool | 22:20 |
| danwent | annegentle: and by that I meant the landing page, and not much deeper | 22:20 |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:20 | |
| danwent | Ok, anything else on this topic? | 22:20 |
| danwent | I think everyone is asleep today :) | 22:21 |
| danwent | Ok, one note about the Essex-3 tarball | 22:21 |
| danwent | with the packaging changes, installing quantum from source using "python setup.py install" was broken with the E-3 tarball. | 22:22 |
| *** jog0 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| danwent | I don't think many people use this, so we just documented a work-around in an updated version of the admin guide. | 22:22 |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| danwent | we considered posting a new tarball, but that's a bit problematic with the official release process, so current thinking is that workaround is ok. | 22:22 |
| danwent | any concerns? | 22:22 |
| danwent | I believe this is fixed in master already (or at least in code review) | 22:23 |
| mtaylor | in code review - it _should_ work | 22:23 |
| mtaylor | although I'm _definitely_ in the market for feedback :) | 22:23 |
| danwent | only time (or testing + time) will tell :) | 22:23 |
| bhall | or just testing? :) | 22:23 |
| cdub | what would a tarball be w/out special updated admin guide workaround? ;) | 22:24 |
| danwent | bhall: yes, mainly testing | 22:24 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:24 | |
| danwent | cdub: sigh… | 22:24 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else on E-3 before we start talking about E-4? | 22:24 |
| edgarmagana | hi, sorry for joining late.. i was having some connection issues!! | 22:24 |
| *** martine has quit IRC | 22:24 | |
| danwent | hi edgar :) | 22:24 |
| bhall | edgarmagana: that's ok.. we just volunteered you to provide food at the bug squash | 22:25 |
| danwent | :) | 22:25 |
| bhall | edgarmagana: j/k | 22:25 |
| edgarmagana | I will bring the beer! | 22:25 |
| edgarmagana | forget about food! | 22:25 |
| danwent | more beer can't hurt! | 22:25 |
| danwent | great idea | 22:25 |
| danwent | Ok, so Essex-4 | 22:25 |
| danwent | final release date is 3/1/2012 | 22:25 |
| salv-orlando_ | Januray 3rd? | 22:26 |
| bhall | no :) | 22:26 |
| bhall | march | 22:26 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: so european :) | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando_ | oh... sorry I'm too european sometimes :) | 22:26 |
| danwent | March 1st | 22:26 |
| salv-orlando_ | is March 1st GA date or release branch point date? | 22:27 |
| danwent | plan is to avoid any large changes near to the end (as as the case with E-3) so we will code freeze a week ahead of usual, to make sure people have time to test sufficiently before the release: feeze will be Feb 21st. | 22:27 |
| danwent | freeze | 22:27 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: GA | 22:28 |
| danwent | so our freeze date for E-4 is a week ahead of the normal freeze date, which is usually two days before release. | 22:28 |
| danwent | since a big focus of E-4 should be testing + bug fixes, having an early freeze point should be no problem, right? | 22:29 |
| danwent | so let's take a look at features that we'll need to do before Feb 21st: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/essex-4 | 22:29 |
| danwent | debo: you're the main for system test? | 22:30 |
| danwent | main -> main guy | 22:30 |
| danwent | damn… he was here a few mins ago. always seems to disappear when I need him | 22:31 |
| salv-orlando_ | it's an heisen-debo | 22:31 |
| danwent | I will follow-up with debo specifically on that. We're seeing a lot of issues due to nova + quantum integration, so this needs to be a key focus | 22:31 |
| debo-os | Hi | 22:31 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: oh, i like that nickname | 22:31 |
| debo-os | Sorry I had to step out a bit | 22:31 |
| danwent | debo-os: just mentioning important of system test BP for e-4 | 22:32 |
| cdub | how about horizon integration? | 22:32 |
| danwent | cdub: its on the agenda list, but not yet a BP. | 22:32 |
| danwent | ohnoimdead and others will be creating bugs/BPs. | 22:32 |
| cdub | ah, oops, jumping ahead (saw nova + qunatuum integration and made me think of it) | 22:32 |
| danwent | there was also a thread on the email list. | 22:32 |
| debo-os | I think it is .... and its going to be out soon ... was evaluating the different options ... | 22:32 |
| danwent | debo-os: "out soon"? | 22:33 |
| debo-os | soon for sure .... | 22:33 |
| danwent | you're talking about basic system test framework? | 22:33 |
| debo-os | yes .... the basic test framework that we can use right awat | 22:34 |
| danwent | great | 22:34 |
| *** berendt_ has left #openstack-meeting | 22:34 | |
| danwent | Ok, sumit, linux bridge plugin is ready for review already, correct? | 22:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah...for more than a week now :-) | 22:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | already put 6 patches | 22:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any takers?? | 22:35 |
| danwent | ok, great. | 22:35 |
| danwent | I will definitely review this week | 22:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok great, thanks! | 22:35 |
| danwent | I also want to talk with the Ryu controller team. If they are planning on committing their plugin and creating a generic base class for ovs plugin and their plugin, I want that change in pretty early. | 22:36 |
| danwent | #todo #danwent ping ryu controller team about plugin for E-4 | 22:37 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| danwent | next item is updating the client (and CLI?) for API v1.1 | 22:37 |
| danwent | do this issue have an owner yet? | 22:37 |
| danwent | we also need to update QuantumManager in nova to use v1.1, so it can take advantage of filters. | 22:38 |
| danwent | Ok, I will shop around for an owner for the v1.1 client work. Definitely want to make sure that the existing v1.1 work can be leveraged. | 22:38 |
| danwent | (Nova + Horizon are obvious users) | 22:39 |
| danwent | Salv-orlando: what are plans for documenting v1.1? | 22:39 |
| salv-orlando_ | no owner for client at the moment. I would put it as highest priority. I'm willing to do it (client), but will have to defer some of the other work. | 22:39 |
| *** sleepsonthefloo has quit IRC | 22:39 | |
| salv-orlando_ | For 1.1, I was thinking about doing the same thing I did for 1.0. And then there's the wadl. Some work was done, I need to check the current status. | 22:40 |
| salv-orlando_ | And unfortunately I do not remember who did the initial work on the WADL. | 22:40 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: great. do you want to create an issue to track 1.1 docs? | 22:40 |
| danwent | was it nachi? | 22:40 |
| salv-orlando_ | yeah nachi ueno! | 22:40 |
| danwent | I think we can dig through email archives | 22:40 |
| salv-orlando_ | #action salv-orlando to file blueprint for API v1.1 documentation | 22:41 |
| danwent | thx | 22:41 |
| danwent | horizon integration was brough up earlier by cdub. | 22:41 |
| danwent | some folks from the horizon team are on board for doing work here during e-4, as is mjfork | 22:41 |
| danwent | cdub, anyone from your team able to pitch in? | 22:42 |
| danwent | everyone's quite when we ask for something :) | 22:42 |
| cdub | danwent: it's possible, we have bridge review/testing as first priority after e3 package is complete | 22:42 |
| danwent | sounds good | 22:42 |
| cdub | danwent: but, we can add to queue, i was actually not sure what the status was (hence the earlier question ;) | 22:43 |
| danwent | Ok, anything big item is the Authz work. Somik is traveling, so he can't check in, but I'm not sure how much progress has been made there. | 22:43 |
| danwent | cdub: i'm hoping for a lot of responses on the ML. that discussion should flush out some more concrete issues that people can volunteer to tackle. I'll make sure things get broken down into launchpad tasks | 22:44 |
| cdub | danwent: perfect, thanks! | 22:44 |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| danwent | finally, VPN. based on comments from vishy during e-3, we think there may be new VPN capabilities in nova that will "just work" with quantum. | 22:44 |
| danwent | but we should check. | 22:45 |
| danwent | #todo #danwent contact vishy about VPN + quantum | 22:45 |
| danwent | any items that already should be on our radar for E-4? | 22:45 |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:46 | |
| danwent | ok, any other quantum issues? | 22:46 |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| danwent | cdub, is everything in good shape for red hat/fedora packaging? | 22:46 |
| cdub | danwent: rkukura pushed e-3 package today | 22:46 |
| rkukura | danwent: initial F17 E3 package was pushed today | 22:47 |
| danwent | rkukura: awesome, link? | 22:47 |
| *** spectorclan has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:47 | |
| rkukura | still need to look at ovs agent, and a few other items | 22:47 |
| danwent | can we download the packages manually to check them out? | 22:47 |
| danwent | rkukura: let me know if there's any help you need packaging ovs agent. | 22:48 |
| danwent | Ok, well, any open discussion? | 22:49 |
| davlap | i have a quick announcement… | 22:49 |
| davlap | i'll be giving a talk tomorrow night on quantum at the openstack boston meetup (6:30 pm in Harvard): www.meetup.com/Openstack-Boston/ | 22:49 |
| davlap | if you're in the area would be great if you could make it! | 22:49 |
| rkukura | F17 package is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=296568 | 22:49 |
| danwent | davlap: spreading the word, great! | 22:49 |
| davlap | should be a good crowd! | 22:49 |
| rkukura | davlap: planning to drop in if possible | 22:50 |
| davlap | great! | 22:50 |
| davlap | look forward to meeting you! | 22:50 |
| danwent | rkukura: great, thanks. do you all coordinate with stackops (they're fedora/rhel based, right?) | 22:50 |
| *** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting | 22:50 | |
| rkukura | danwent: not sure of that - would need to ask markmc or someone | 22:50 |
| danwent | ok, I was going to ping them about quantum packaging, but wanted to see if you were already working with them. | 22:51 |
| danwent | Ok, last call for open items | 22:51 |
| danwent | Ok, thanks folks. Hopefully I will see/hear many of you at the bugsquashing event thursday! | 22:52 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 22:52 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jan 31 22:52:12 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:52 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-22.02.html | 22:52 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-22.02.txt | 22:52 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-01-31-22.02.log.html | 22:52 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks, bye! | 22:52 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| salv-orlando_ | bye bye | 22:52 |
| *** Raj_ has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| danwent | bye! | 22:53 |
| *** mcohen has left #openstack-meeting | 22:53 | |
| *** vincentricci has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** dabo has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** apontes has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** spectorclan has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:00 | |
| *** vincentricci has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
| *** vincentricci has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:00 | |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** maoy has left #openstack-meeting | 23:02 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** debo-os has quit IRC | 23:09 | |
| *** dabo has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:10 | |
| *** debo-os has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:10 | |
| *** spectorclan has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:11 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloo has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:22 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:34 | |
| *** debo-os has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** _adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** vincentricci_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:41 | |
| *** debo-os has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:43 | |
| *** vincentricci has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** vincentricci_ is now known as vincentricci | 23:44 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** _adjohn is now known as adjohn | 23:44 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:54 | |
| *** anotherjesse_ has quit IRC | 23:55 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!