| *** GheRivero_ has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** byeager has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:07 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:23 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 00:36 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:41 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 01:09 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 01:10 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 01:10 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:17 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:27 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 01:41 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 01:45 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:08 | |
| *** jog0 has left #openstack-meeting | 02:19 | |
| *** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:25 | |
| *** jog0_ has left #openstack-meeting | 02:25 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 02:48 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:50 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 03:02 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:02 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:03 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 03:24 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 03:38 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:02 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:07 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 05:18 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:20 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 05:37 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:38 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 05:55 | |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:00 | |
| *** deshantm has quit IRC | 06:07 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 06:24 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 06:24 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 06:50 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:53 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 07:11 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloo has quit IRC | 07:17 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:35 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 08:38 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:39 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 08:46 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:46 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 09:00 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:03 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:03 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:05 | |
| *** zigo-_- has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:12 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 09:13 | |
| *** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:16 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:19 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 09:30 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:32 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:34 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 09:44 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:44 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 09:48 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 10:59 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:13 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 11:52 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:55 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:05 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 12:09 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:21 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:07 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:09 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 13:52 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:52 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:55 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:57 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 14:22 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:23 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:36 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 14:43 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:44 | |
| *** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:45 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:53 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:53 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:54 | |
| *** blamar_ has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:00 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:12 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:18 | |
| *** yamahata___ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:18 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:32 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:42 | |
| *** deshantm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:45 | |
| *** deshantm has quit IRC | 15:48 | |
| *** deshantm_ is now known as deshantm | 15:48 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:57 | |
| *** GheRivero is now known as ghe | 15:59 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 15:59 | |
| *** ghe is now known as ghe_rivero | 16:00 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:00 | |
| *** ravi has left #openstack-meeting | 16:00 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 16:01 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** davlap has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:07 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:14 | |
| *** yamahata___ has quit IRC | 16:14 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:19 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:19 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:19 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:24 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:29 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:29 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:30 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 16:39 | |
| *** ravi_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 16:41 | |
| *** ravi_ is now known as ravi | 16:41 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 16:44 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:49 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 16:51 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:53 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:55 | |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:06 | |
| *** nikhil_ has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** nikhil_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:07 | |
| *** ghe_rivero is now known as ghe_ubuntu | 17:08 | |
| *** ghe_ubuntu is now known as ghe_rivero | 17:08 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:08 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 17:09 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloo has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| *** ravi has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:14 | |
| *** ravi has left #openstack-meeting | 17:15 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:32 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:44 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:52 | |
| *** ghe_rivero has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| ayoung | anyone here for Keystone? | 17:57 |
|---|---|---|
| dolphm_ | o/ | 17:58 |
| ayoung | let me see who else we can scare up | 17:59 |
| ayoung | termie, Keystone weekly meeting? | 18:00 |
| ayoung | sleepsonthefloo, ? | 18:00 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| sleepsonthefloo | ping anotherjesse | 18:01 |
| sleepsonthefloo | I pinged him rather | 18:01 |
| bcwaldon | *pung | 18:01 |
| anotherjesse | morning | 18:01 |
| * anotherjesse updates auto-joins | 18:01 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| heckj | morning morning | 18:03 |
| heckj | sorry for being slightly late | 18:03 |
| termie | holla | 18:03 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - want to lead it? | 18:03 |
| heckj | I don't have a scrollback (no bouncer yet) - anyone formally start this meeting yet? | 18:03 |
| heckj | termie - yeah, happy to | 18:03 |
| ayoung | nope | 18:03 |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 21 18:03:58 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 18:04 |
| heckj | #topic state and progress - bugs, bugs bugs | 18:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "state and progress - bugs, bugs bugs" | 18:04 | |
| heckj | I'm working from http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting | 18:04 |
| heckj | dolph went through an cleaned out a pile of bugs | 18:04 |
| termie | i've been on vacation pretty much since the merge and just got into the office so catching up quickly | 18:04 |
| heckj | And likewise, I added a pile more - marked with "redux" for the KSL branch work, and "python-keystoneclient" for the client work pending | 18:05 |
| anotherjesse | the review queue is pretty small - https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:openstack/keystone,n,z | 18:05 |
| dolphm_ | do we need to continue using redux tags? | 18:05 |
| heckj | Ive been using: "https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+keystone,n,z" | 18:05 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+keystone,n,z | 18:05 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| ayoung | I was talking over the Idaccca93 and I94e89271 bugs with the fedora packagers | 18:05 |
| bcwaldon | dolphm_: its a good hint at what's not a ks heavy bug, for your triaging effort | 18:05 |
| heckj | That's giving a broader picture with the client there too | 18:06 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm_: I think tagging legacy bugs "legacy" instead of using redux in the future? | 18:06 |
| termie | dolphm_: i'd say no, but we do want to kill off n/a bugs before we get rid of it | 18:06 |
| dolphm_ | legacy makes more sense, it's now the exception | 18:06 |
| ayoung | it seems that the migrate.cfg isn't getting into the right place, and both of those tickets are surrounding it | 18:06 |
| bcwaldon | can't we just invalidate legacy bugs? | 18:06 |
| bcwaldon | there is no codebase in which to fix them | 18:06 |
| dolphm_ | or tagging them with a more specific release / milestone | 18:06 |
| heckj | bcwaldon: we pretty much did such that for quite a number of them | 18:06 |
| *** dtroyer has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:06 | |
| heckj | bcwaldon: some of them are related to the V2 API which isn't clear - part of our topic for later this meeting | 18:07 |
| bcwaldon | kk | 18:07 |
| bcwaldon | moving on | 18:07 |
| anotherjesse | dtroyer has been doing a lot of work filing new bugs | 18:07 |
| heckj | he's also been cranking on fixes for a number of them :-) Really good work dtroyer! | 18:08 |
| dtroyer | thanks | 18:08 |
| heckj | #action heckj - mark all existing (non-redux) bugs as legacy with tags | 18:08 |
| heckj | We'll stop using redux for new tags, and I'll mark through the exceptions | 18:09 |
| heckj | ayoung - were you good on the bugs related to the migrate.cfg for packaging? | 18:09 |
| dolphm_ | i don't think there are any remaining legacy bugs | 18:09 |
| ayoung | heckj, still don't know exactly what the right fix is | 18:09 |
| dolphm_ | but new ones will surely appear | 18:09 |
| ayoung | we are getting close | 18:09 |
| heckj | #topic triaging bugs going forward | 18:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "triaging bugs going forward" | 18:10 | |
| termie | MARK ALL BUGS AS INVALID | 18:10 |
| termie | and we'll just fix things if they get submitted often | 18:10 |
| heckj | heh | 18:10 |
| bcwaldon | #seconded | 18:11 |
| termie | alright, only a randomly selected 50% of bugs each week | 18:11 |
| bcwaldon | #seconded | 18:11 |
| anotherjesse | ok, back to the meeting | 18:11 |
| heckj | My point was more that "is anyone interested in helping define the priority"? | 18:11 |
| heckj | I can take a swag at it to start, and you all can yell at me if you disagree for a first step, but I wanted to be inclusive in that delightful process if anyone wanted to step up there | 18:12 |
| dolphm_ | priority of new bugs? or what | 18:12 |
| heckj | silence == agreement then? | 18:12 |
| termie | my general thoughts on priority: critical == blocker, anything else but low == we should do this, low == nice to have | 18:13 |
| littleidea | heckj: you are looking for principles to prioritize by or volunteers? | 18:13 |
| anotherjesse | E4 is 10 days away | 18:13 |
| heckj | volunteers - I'm right with termie on philosphy | 18:13 |
| termie | i'm often more concerned about naming the bugs appropriately, it can be pretty narly trying to remember what all the misnamed bugs really are | 18:13 |
| termie | s/narly/gnarlh/ | 18:13 |
| termie | ... | 18:13 |
| heckj | termie - and convention you want to stick with that would make it easier>? | 18:13 |
| dolphm_ | there's also wishlist for nice to have | 18:13 |
| anotherjesse | termie - agree - updating bug titles is important | 18:13 |
| termie | heckj: no convention, just try to clean them up when prioritizing | 18:14 |
| termie | heckj: if they seem low on info or relevance | 18:14 |
| dolphm_ | like "keystone does not start" | 18:14 |
| heckj | kk - I'll see what I can do when going through them. If you want to volunteer to help with that effort, ping me. | 18:14 |
| heckj | dolphm_ yeah I liked that one | 18:14 |
| termie | i'll be going through them all to take a look today also to catch up | 18:15 |
| dolphm_ | == "RHEL packaging?" | 18:15 |
| dolphm_ | or something | 18:15 |
| heckj | I'm aiming to do a triage weekly going forward | 18:15 |
| termie | dolphm_: yeah | 18:15 |
| ayoung | RHEL packaging one should probably be fixed with my LDAP patch | 18:15 |
| littleidea | how about if there is too much for you to handle, you ping someone | 18:15 |
| heckj | termie - wait until you see the keystone+horizon bug that devin and im root went on about yesterday, very amusing from the side | 18:15 |
| ayoung | as what is missing is the pip include for ldap | 18:15 |
| termie | yeah | 18:16 |
| termie | just renamed it | 18:16 |
| heckj | littleidea - oh, don't worry - I'll be screaming if I need help | 18:16 |
| littleidea | :) | 18:16 |
| heckj | #topic - status of current work | 18:16 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "- status of current work" | 18:16 | |
| heckj | Dolph - how's XML coming along (then I'll ask ayoung about LDAP) | 18:16 |
| dolphm_ | xml support proposed -- needs reviews | 18:16 |
| heckj | termie - that's one I'd really like your eyes on | 18:17 |
| dolphm_ | https://review.openstack.org/#change,4297 | 18:17 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 18:17 | |
| ayoung | dolphm_, is there a good way to test from, say curl? | 18:17 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm_: are you using the soapui stuff? | 18:18 |
| dolphm_ | ayoung: yep, just -H 'Accept: application/xml' | 18:18 |
| termie | i'll be pretty much on reviews and bugs all day, so yeah, your xml patch is on deck | 18:18 |
| dolphm_ | anotherjesse: no, it's all python | 18:18 |
| ayoung | dolphm_, sounds good. I can give it a once over as well | 18:18 |
| *** xtoddx has left #openstack-meeting | 18:18 | |
| heckj | ayoung: LDAP work? | 18:18 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#change,4331 | 18:19 |
| ayoung | so LDAP code has been submitted for review | 18:19 |
| anotherjesse | dolphm_: related to the xml, are you also working on the WADLs -> docs.openstack.org? | 18:19 |
| ayoung | the most questionable piece is probably the inclusion of the modules | 18:19 |
| heckj | Oops - sorry, didn't wait long enough | 18:19 |
| * ayoung waits | 18:19 | |
| dolphm_ | anotherjesse: i've been working with anne on that, i think she's taking over the bug though | 18:19 |
| anotherjesse | cool - go on ayoung | 18:19 |
| dolphm_ | i'm helping her with the merge, she's organizing it all, etc | 18:20 |
| ayoung | so the modules are, as I see it, the contract of the documentation of the objects returned from the Identity API | 18:20 |
| ayoung | we need to document that somehow, and doing it in code is prefered | 18:20 |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:20 | |
| ayoung | but the SQL etc Identity backends don't use that code. | 18:20 |
| termie | ayoung: is there a piece of code you are referring to specifcially? i haven't looked at your patch in review yet | 18:21 |
| heckj | ayoung - sorry, I'm being dense - can you give me a reference or link to the "modules" - I'm not sure what that means | 18:21 |
| ayoung | Also, I need to submit at least one small update to the LDAP patch, to make the LDAP calls go via a threadpool | 18:21 |
| ayoung | termie, the file in the patchedcode is | 18:21 |
| anotherjesse | termie: it seems like identity backends don't have a list_tenants - intended (or should I file a bug?) | 18:21 |
| ayoung | keystone/identity/models.py | 18:22 |
| dolphm_ | anotherjesse: i think dtroyer proposed a patch for that? | 18:22 |
| ayoung | heckj, the modules.py file was in the old keystone code base | 18:23 |
| ayoung | my version looks like this | 18:23 |
| ayoung | http://fpaste.org/PkT6/ | 18:23 |
| ayoung | hmm, might have had git issues, that file looks larger than what I had...let me find the right version | 18:24 |
| dtroyer | anotherjesse: get_tenants_for_token is what list_tenants should do, but without the tenant filter | 18:24 |
| heckj | ayoung: I'm not entirely sure we care so much about that original setup, that seems to be a hold-over of an older application structure. Am I missing something? | 18:24 |
| ayoung | https://github.com/admiyo/keystone/blob/ldap4/keystone/identity/models.py | 18:25 |
| anotherjesse | dtroyer/termie: I'll look up what I was thinking | 18:25 |
| termie | dtroyer, anotherjesse: talking about doing both of those was discussed a bit previously, to support legacy behavior | 18:25 |
| ayoung | heckj, thing is, we need to document what you get back from get_user | 18:25 |
| termie | dtroyer, anotherjesse: i think gabriel hurley was going to go add the list_tenants version in addition to the get_tenants_for_user | 18:25 |
| anotherjesse | termie: I'm referring to backend api, not http api | 18:26 |
| termie | anotherjesse: i know | 18:26 |
| anotherjesse | will discuss in #openstack-dev after meeting | 18:26 |
| ayoung | heckj, otherwise, if you want to add a new backend you need to reverse engineer it from the SQL alchemy code, which is wrong | 18:26 |
| termie | anotherjesse: there are two different backend paths for the same frontend call depending on context | 18:26 |
| termie | ayoung, heckj: agreed, we've discussed this before, is it a bug yet? | 18:26 |
| dtroyer | termie: I proposed a get_tenants_for_user yesterday. My list_tenants (equivalent) depends on some other props to land first | 18:26 |
| heckj | termie - I think it is | 18:26 |
| * heckj looks | 18:26 | |
| ayoung | termie, no. The change should be going in the LDAP code to start | 18:26 |
| termie | dtroyer: you propossed get_tenant_by_name perhaps? get_tenants_for_user already exists | 18:27 |
| ayoung | er...actually, yes it is a bug. | 18:27 |
| heckj | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/928441 | 18:27 |
| heckj | found it | 18:28 |
| uvirtbot` | Launchpad bug 928441 in keystone "document base model types for key elements within Keystone API" [High,Confirmed] | 18:28 |
| ayoung | termie, so is adding the models.py file OK, and we'll just use that as a startuing point for the other stuff? | 18:28 |
| dolphm_ | .mkv | 18:28 |
| termie | dtroyer: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/master/keystone/identity/core.py#L127 | 18:28 |
| dolphm_ | (wrong window) | 18:28 |
| termie | ayoung: sure, but it'll probably get ignored until there is something actually using it (if it is only for doc purposes) | 18:28 |
| ayoung | termie, LDAP code uses it | 18:28 |
| termie | ayoung: then what is the question? | 18:29 |
| dtroyer | termie: then it was get_users_for_tenant… too little sleep... | 18:29 |
| termie | ayoung: will be part of your review, no? | 18:29 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| ayoung | termie, yes | 18:29 |
| heckj | Let's call it good there - | 18:29 |
| termie | ayoung: then we'll sort it htere | 18:29 |
| ayoung | OK | 18:29 |
| *** zykes has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:29 | |
| heckj | so state for XML and LDAP is both are under review and moving forward | 18:29 |
| *** zigo-_- has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| anotherjesse | with the goal of landing before E4? (Mar 1) | 18:30 |
| heckj | ideally | 18:30 |
| heckj | #topic - E4 | 18:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "- E4" | 18:30 | |
| heckj | So related there - E4 is coming up damn quick, and I'd like to have us all focus exclusively on bug fixes and doc updates in E4. Any qualms? | 18:31 |
| heckj | Call it a feature freeze on the code side after E4? | 18:31 |
| ayoung | IPv6 is probably not going to be E4 ready, as it is dependant on an Upstream eventlet change. Recommend we postpone it. | 18:32 |
| ayoung | upstream eventlet change that is not yet submitted upstream, that is | 18:32 |
| heckj | ayoung - is that linked as a bug? blueprint? | 18:32 |
| anotherjesse | ayoung: I agree since if someone needs ipv6 they can use an http proxy? | 18:32 |
| heckj | (I agree, btw) | 18:32 |
| ayoung | heckj, it is in the IPv6 bug | 18:32 |
| anotherjesse | (and it is the same issue for all the other openstack components) | 18:33 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| heckj | ayoung: retagged it to folsom-1 | 18:33 |
| heckj | any qualms with "feature freeze" for Essex4+? (going twice) | 18:34 |
| termie | nope | 18:34 |
| heckj | #agreed keystone to feature freeze - exclusive focus on bugs and docs for post essex4 milestone | 18:34 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| heckj | #topic tenants & users - should all 'users' have a default client | 18:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "tenants & users - should all 'users' have a default client" | 18:35 | |
| anotherjesse | do you mean default tenant? | 18:35 |
| termie | we've discussed default tenant quite a bit on my team and we've wanted it since pretty much day one | 18:35 |
| heckj | Yeah - and the expected and needed interactions between all these guys. | 18:35 |
| anotherjesse | right now horizon doesn't expect a default tenant to exist | 18:35 |
| termie | we pushed off doing it pre-merge so as not to mess with stuff, but i think we'd still like it | 18:36 |
| heckj | Key question - does anyone know of a use case where you'd want to have a user *without* a tenant, let alone a default tenant? | 18:36 |
| * termie looks at dolphm_ | 18:36 | |
| anotherjesse | heckj - you can have a backend (like LDAP) where you don't know the default tenant | 18:36 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - if you are mapping into an existing LDAP/AD/... | 18:36 |
| termie | in practice people are selecting the first tenant from a list in those cases | 18:36 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: is that a desired feature though? Why would you want to auth them to do anything if they weren't related to a block of "ownership of resources" (what I think a tenant represents)? | 18:37 |
| anotherjesse | termie: it could be that there is no tenant (you are backending to a corporate LDAP - you have a user — but no tenant memberships exist for you yet) | 18:38 |
| anotherjesse | I think we want to design it so a user could come back with no tenant membership | 18:38 |
| anotherjesse | which wouldn't let them do much | 18:38 |
| anotherjesse | but wouldn't blow up | 18:38 |
| termie | anotherjesse: that seems opposite to your previous statements | 18:38 |
| ayoung | anotherjesse, you mean where you are pulling in a large user list from some external identity mangement system? | 18:39 |
| termie | anotherjesse: do you have a use case for a non-tenanted user? | 18:39 |
| dolphm_ | this all makes more sense to me if you can have a list of default tenants, and tokens can be scoped to multiple tenants as well | 18:39 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: that's not a great UX for the user - it means someone else has to intervene to get them functional. I think we should ideally default to a flow that gets someone functional right off the bat, or deny then auth. | 18:39 |
| dolphm_ | but that doesn't fit the spec at all | 18:39 |
| anotherjesse | let's move this to the mailing list? | 18:39 |
| anotherjesse | or #dev after the meeting | 18:40 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: want more time to think on it? | 18:40 |
| anotherjesse | heckj: let's talk in #dev in 20 minutes | 18:40 |
| heckj | I'd like to try and drive to some conclusions pretty quick here, as the docs are incomplete here, and there are bugs that are dependent on the answers | 18:41 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: Ok, I'm good with that | 18:41 |
| heckj | #action: resume discussion in #openstack-dev after meeting | 18:41 |
| heckj | last topic - | 18:41 |
| heckj | (Am I going to fast for folks?) | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | nope, you're fine | 18:42 |
| dolphm_ | nope | 18:42 |
| heckj | #topic collection of use cases - designing v.Next | 18:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "collection of use cases - designing v.Next" | 18:42 | |
| dolphm_ | yay | 18:42 |
| heckj | I started a wiki page to collect use cases | 18:42 |
| heckj | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/KeystoneUseCases | 18:42 |
| heckj | termie and I are both in agreement we want to keep this as close to rubber on the road as possible | 18:42 |
| heckj | I'm hoping that using this as a baseline, we can drive out more discussion at the Design Summit on the next gen of the API and the key constructs | 18:43 |
| anotherjesse | heckj we need to add one about adding an experimental/third party service - and supporting it without giving it complete power to do everythign (eg if we send it a user token, they can send it to all the other services and act as the user) | 18:44 |
| *** Vanchester has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:44 | |
| anotherjesse | (service = new cloud service to the catalog) | 18:44 |
| heckj | For some of the fundamental changes that were originally planned in essex, there were side-effects that I don't think were clearly communicated to all the other projects (nova, glance, swift, horizon). My goal is to have a basis to do that at the summit, talking in concrete terms | 18:44 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: can you add that in to the wiki page? | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | sure | 18:45 |
| heckj | or send me an email with the details, and I can pester you until I understand and I'll add it :-) | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | it is in the folsom summit topics as "Trust & Service" | 18:45 |
| anotherjesse | it does need fleshed out | 18:45 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: I think that's reasonably well defined in your head, and at the moment, not at all in mine | 18:46 |
| termie | heckj: nice | 18:46 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - perhaps we should focus on these post march 1st? | 18:46 |
| heckj | ayee also has the desire for a domain (the HP domain thing from earlier) that I needs to get nailed down into more concrete terms | 18:46 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - you mean gyee | 18:46 |
| anotherjesse | ? | 18:47 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: good by me - just wanted to start the ball rolling for anyone interested in looking forward | 18:47 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: ^^ gyee, yes, sorry | 18:47 |
| heckj | (crappy typist) | 18:47 |
| anotherjesse | general discussion time? | 18:47 |
| heckj | #topic - open discussion | 18:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "- open discussion" | 18:48 | |
| gyee | I was half way there, implementing domains for the fat Keystone, till KSL came along | 18:48 |
| gyee | :) | 18:48 |
| heckj | anotherjesse: made a quick note in the wiki so I wouldn't forget it | 18:48 |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:48 | |
| *** vito_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:48 | |
| heckj | gyee: yeah, sorry about that. | 18:48 |
| *** vito_ is now known as Guest39472 | 18:49 | |
| anotherjesse | notmyname just gave https://review.openstack.org/#change,3712 a +2 (that is dtroyer's patch for common keystone configuration of cli tools) | 18:49 |
| anotherjesse | anyone been around swift enough to know if they wait for another +2 before approval? | 18:49 |
| notmyname | yes they do | 18:49 |
| anotherjesse | cool - was going to ask if we knew anyone else to reach out to, to get the other review ;) | 18:50 |
| gyee | btw, we do have SSL hookup for the LDAP backend right? | 18:50 |
| heckj | gyee: I know there was prior discussion on domains, but it's very wide impacting and needs to be discussed with it's impact to the broader project. I'm concerned that the impact flow into other projects isn't well understood or represented as (blueprints) in those projects (nova, swift, glance, etc). | 18:50 |
| heckj | gyee: take a look at ayoung's code in https://review.openstack.org/#change,4331 | 18:51 |
| gyee | k | 18:51 |
| ayoung | gyee, not yet | 18:51 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: do you have a recommendation of who we can ask to review the cli patch? | 18:51 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| ayoung | first hack is using LDAP, Have not test ldaps | 18:51 |
| gyee | ayoung, SSL is a must have, LDAP cache is good to have since LDAP data are highly static | 18:51 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: nothing more specific than "any of the other core devs" | 18:52 |
| ayoung | gyee, I'll give it a test. Need to set up my openldap setup for ldaps. THink it should work | 18:52 |
| heckj | notmyname: put more bluntly, can we ask for your help in digging up another core reviewer? | 18:52 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: can you ask in your swift channel - we would like essex to have a standard way of configuring clients and I know you guys do releases a little different - so the sooner the better :) | 18:53 |
| notmyname | heckj: heh | 18:53 |
| notmyname | ya, I'll ask the other devs to take a look :-) | 18:53 |
| anotherjesse | thanks! | 18:53 |
| heckj | notmyname: thank you! | 18:53 |
| anotherjesse | has anyone reached out to the fedora guys about packaging? | 18:54 |
| termie | not i | 18:54 |
| anotherjesse | chuck is already working on it for ubuntu | 18:54 |
| heckj | I've been talking with Josh Harlow a bit - can reach out to Kiall | 18:54 |
| heckj | I don't know who's really doing that side of the work though | 18:55 |
| heckj | (also submitted a few packaging patches to chuck yesterday) | 18:55 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - markmc might be a good person to ask | 18:55 |
| * zul ears perk up | 18:55 | |
| heckj | anotherjesse: do you know who to contact? | 18:55 |
| heckj | ^^ thanks | 18:55 |
| uvirtbot` | heckj: Error: "^" is not a valid command. | 18:55 |
| heckj | damn bot | 18:55 |
| heckj | zul: just tossed you a few patches to look at re: packaging - actually on several projects | 18:56 |
| zul | heckj: yep they all got merged this morning | 18:56 |
| *** Vanchester has quit IRC | 18:56 | |
| heckj | Oh - sweet. | 18:56 |
| heckj | Anything else? Anyone else? | 18:57 |
| anotherjesse | so - resume talk in #dev about default tenants in 5 minutes (bio break) | 18:57 |
| termie | k, i am about to adjourn from this to go talk about default tenants with jesse so we can have something for the channel | 18:57 |
| heckj | sounds good | 18:57 |
| termie | (after bio, not during) | 18:57 |
| heckj | Thanks all - if you want something in the agenda for next week, ping me. | 18:57 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 18:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 18:57 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 21 18:57:44 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:57 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-18.03.html | 18:57 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-18.03.txt | 18:57 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-18.03.log.html | 18:57 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 18:58 | |
| *** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:58 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| *** jog0_ is now known as jog0 | 19:01 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:03 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 19:07 | |
| *** GheRivero is now known as GheAway | 19:08 | |
| *** Guest39472 has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| *** GheAway has quit IRC | 19:12 | |
| jeblair | i think mtaylor is out sick | 19:16 |
| heckj | :-( | 19:17 |
| heckj | hope he gets better soon | 19:17 |
| *** vitoordaz has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:20 | |
| vitoordaz | Hello | 19:22 |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:25 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:42 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:44 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:52 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 19:56 | |
| *** justinsb has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:57 | |
| *** sparkycollier has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:57 | |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| jbryce | who's here? | 19:59 |
| jk0 | hi | 19:59 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 19:59 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 21 19:59:59 2012 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 20:00 |
| danwent | o/ | 20:00 |
| pvo | o/ | 20:00 |
| ttx | o/ | 20:00 |
| jbryce | agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 20:00 |
| anotherjesse | \o/ | 20:00 |
| reed | o/ | 20:00 |
| ttx | 5/14 | 20:00 |
| ttx | or is it 12? | 20:01 |
| ttx | no.. 14. | 20:01 |
| jbryce | 14 | 20:01 |
| jbryce | yep | 20:01 |
| jbryce | we need 2 more | 20:01 |
| vishy | o/ | 20:01 |
| notmyname | here | 20:01 |
| ttx | 7/14 | 20:01 |
| jbryce | devcamcar, ewanmellor, jmckenty: around? | 20:01 |
| ewanmellor | Yep | 20:01 |
| jmckenty | yep | 20:01 |
| jbryce | #topic Quantum core promotion | 20:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum core promotion" | 20:01 | |
| ttx | 9/14, yay | 20:01 |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:01 | |
| jbryce | so picking up from where we left off last week with quantum, did everyone see dan's email? | 20:02 |
| anotherjesse | Dan - "The existing nova-network manages will remain supported for Folsom, but no feature work will be done on them (only bug fix work)" - is refining of the APIs considered feature work? | 20:02 |
| jmckenty | yeah, vaguely | 20:02 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: tenant APIs, or internal network API abstraction? | 20:03 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: which apis? | 20:03 |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| anotherjesse | vishy: the work bcwaldon and others have been doing on revising the openstack api (for 3.0 or whatever it is called) | 20:03 |
| danwent | ultimately, I think what work is done on existing managers is vishy's call. I think his goal is to minimize it. | 20:03 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: we discussed trying to move those apis into a network-api | 20:04 |
| vishy | the same way we are for volume | 20:04 |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| vishy | but we could leave the extensions in compute and deprecate them | 20:04 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: ok, I read the document dan sent as: we will have a quantum API and the exising nova APIs would "proxy" to quantum | 20:04 |
| vishy | initially yes, but the goal is to get to a standard openstack network api i think | 20:05 |
| anotherjesse | independent of that there is the work on taking some of the extensions in nova and making them core in the next version | 20:05 |
| anotherjesse | if those are still proxying to quantum would we be able to do that | 20:05 |
| anotherjesse | or is that considered feature work? | 20:05 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: do you think nova v3 will be done in folsom? | 20:06 |
| vishy | that seems like a G think to me | 20:06 |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 20:06 | |
| anotherjesse | it seemed F before essex ;) | 20:06 |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:06 | |
| danwent | I think having network API in both nova + quantum API long-term is a mistake. | 20:06 |
| vishy | i don't think floating ips and security groups (for example) should be in the compute core api | 20:06 |
| johnpur | danwent: agree | 20:06 |
| anotherjesse | I think we need to be explicit about that in the plan document | 20:07 |
| pvo | vishy: I'd agree with that. | 20:07 |
| anotherjesse | so - *no* further progress on nova network api-s … at the release of essex they are frozen in time | 20:07 |
| anotherjesse | (modulo bug fixes) | 20:07 |
| pvo | anotherjesse: on 2.0 api, you mean? | 20:08 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: OK. I had considered the nova network apis part of the existing nova network managers. I will make the explicit in a revised version of the doc. | 20:08 |
| anotherjesse | pvo - they aren't in the 2.0 api - they are only in extensions | 20:08 |
| vishy | why cant we update ext? | 20:08 |
| *** zns has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:08 | |
| pvo | right, no further progress on 2.0. they're locked and 3.0 opens for dev estimated by F/G? | 20:08 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: that's what I'm trying to ask - the document doesn't make a statement on what we do with the nova-network APIs (that are currently extensions) | 20:08 |
| zns | o/ | 20:09 |
| anotherjesse | are they frozen, are they considered for inclusion with core, can they evolve as long as the feature set doesn't change, ... | 20:09 |
| anotherjesse | the document talks about feature work & the managers, not the API | 20:09 |
| vishy | i think we can make minor changes as necessary | 20:09 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: I would expect that those nova-apis would be handled along with the existing nova-network managers. They would be largely frozen, and not planned to be promoted from extensions to part of the core nova API. I would not expect Quantum functionality to be exposed via those Nova APIs. | 20:11 |
| jbryce | i also think we shouldn't tie the evaluation of quantum only to that decision. if quantum is functional and has matured and is on the path right now, i don't want to delay it an entire additional 6-month release cycle before it's core | 20:12 |
| jmckenty | I worry about integration, though | 20:12 |
| vishy | we absolutely have to define a network v1 api | 20:12 |
| vishy | that would include quantum/melange features as well as network related functionality in nova | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | regardless of quantum's quality and functionality, if it's not well-integrated with the rest of core, we could easily end up with problems | 20:13 |
| danwent | jmckenty: can you elaborate? I know you expressed some concerns last week via email. | 20:13 |
| jmckenty | sure - do existing simple behaviours work out of the box? | 20:13 |
| anotherjesse | summary about APIs: nova's network extensions (floating ips, sec groups, …) will remain extensions and no work should be done to promote them core. any work done to networking extensions should be minimal | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | E.g., do launched instances end up with working network connectivitiy | 20:14 |
| danwent | jmckenty: yes | 20:14 |
| danwent | jmckenty: assuming you've setup a quantum plugin and are running QuantumManager for you network manager | 20:14 |
| jmckenty | do sec groups work with quantum? | 20:14 |
| jbryce | it seems like there's a plan for integration that vishy and danwent have come up with and both agreed on, but it's going to be hard to know every detail right now no matter how long we spend talking through it | 20:14 |
| anotherjesse | the difference between this and the glance integration - nova has an "image-list" functionality that we didn't remove that proxies to core and is expected to be there. | 20:15 |
| vishy | jbryce: +1 | 20:15 |
| jmckenty | right - can we gate on trystack? | 20:15 |
| ttx | jbryce: +1 | 20:15 |
| danwent | jmckenty: that is one of the APIs we're planning on moving over from Nova to Quantum. | 20:15 |
| *** eglynn__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:15 | |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:15 | |
| devcamcar_ | +1 | 20:15 |
| anotherjesse | anyone who wants any networking apis will need to use quantum since extensions shouldn't be assumed to be there | 20:15 |
| danwent | but existing nova security groups work if your plugin supports them. | 20:15 |
| danwent | sorry, two threads at once... | 20:15 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: yes, we aren't forcing the issue in folsom | 20:16 |
| anotherjesse | jmckenty: trystack is a deployment of the *last* stable release - doesn't make sense to gate on it | 20:16 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: so folsom will ship with deprecated network and old extensions | 20:16 |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 20:16 | |
| jmckenty | right, so what's the integration CI environment? | 20:16 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: the doc says the default is quantum | 20:16 |
| jmckenty | e.g., can we make promotion to core dependent on successful integration testing? | 20:16 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: doc says goal is to default to quantum | 20:16 |
| devcamcar_ | it should be the default | 20:16 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: but we're leaving old stuff in as a fallback | 20:16 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: :) | 20:16 |
| jbryce | it's status quo for folsom in capability with the upside potential of extra functionality in quantum | 20:16 |
| danwent | jmckenty: we're integrated with devstack, though no one is running automated smoketests yet. This is something I'm really pushing for. | 20:17 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: we wil have to decide around FF time if the integration is complete enough to switch the default, but I think we should strive to make it that way. | 20:17 |
| danwent | jmckenty: these are all good points, and items we need to take care off. | 20:17 |
| ttx | vishy: sounds like a good plan. | 20:17 |
| jmckenty | So I would be worried about promoting to core if it's not ready to be the default | 20:17 |
| danwent | jmckenty: I'm not trying to say that we're fulling integrated yet, just trying to get a better sense of your concerns. | 20:18 |
| jmckenty | I think it ends up being a confusing message for the user community | 20:18 |
| jbryce | how do other people feel about conditional promotion? | 20:18 |
| jbryce | upon integration testing? | 20:18 |
| johnpur | i believe the project (Quantum) is ready to be promoted to core and that all of the issues being raised can be worked by dan, vish, etc. | 20:18 |
| danwent | I think there's risk for confusion either way, as people are already starting to use Quantum because it solves a need, yet it is not core. | 20:18 |
| jbryce | right | 20:18 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think it's a bit of chicken-and-egg. I trust Dan and Quantum guys to get their Ci integrated | 20:18 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: my concern is that if we don't state what we are doing with the nova api's then people will either want to make changes or we end up frozen with no progress if it doesn't land (eg, the lunr situation with volumes - where we didn't change anything for a long time with volumes — or the keystone situation where everything didn't land and it was assumed) | 20:18 |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 20:19 | |
| johnpur | we need to step forward and set the direction for the networking in OpenStack | 20:19 |
| jmckenty | danwent: right, that's what the incubation stage is for, though | 20:19 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| jbryce | ttx: that's my personal feeling too. especially seeing how mature they already were when they started incubation | 20:19 |
| anotherjesse | if the document says we are freezing feature work for folsom, we should have a statement about api work too | 20:19 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: I think we need to get a draft proposal for network api v1 out asap | 20:19 |
| ttx | jbryce: and how efficiently they managed to align with release process around E3 | 20:19 |
| johnpur | vishy: +1 | 20:19 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: even if it means we do the same thing we did with volumes, separate it into its own endpoint | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | I can't vote to promote to core without automated smoketests or a community-accessible integration environment | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | even if that's a higher bar than any other project :) | 20:20 |
| devcamcar_ | I don't see a better way to reach the finish line than to try it. dan has done a great job integrating with rest of projects | 20:20 |
| anotherjesse | jmckenty: there is already devstack support for quantum, and you can run tests against it | 20:20 |
| danwent | jmckenty: I'm a huge fan of getting that work done. | 20:20 |
| ttx | promoting to core is always a bit of a leap of faith. This one seems less risky than others we did in the past. | 20:20 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: it is a 6-month period before it's actually core in a release | 20:20 |
| jmckenty | ttx: the previous ones were a bit of a train wreck, though | 20:21 |
| jbryce | if we don't promote now, we're basically saying quantum won't be core for at least a year | 20:21 |
| danwent | I think we have all of the pieces together, we just need someone to actually put us in the main CI environment. | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | the goal should be to do better, right? | 20:21 |
| *** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:21 | |
| jmckenty | k | 20:21 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: absolutely | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | so I'm still good with conditional promotion | 20:21 |
| ttx | jmckenty: part of the issue is linked to the fact that 6 month is a long time to wait if you miss the boat. Working on fixing that :) | 20:21 |
| jbryce | i'm fine approving and giving dan some things that we think are priorities. it sounds like he already agrees that they're priorities and from the way that quantum has gone to this point, i have a lot of faith that he'll get it done | 20:21 |
| jmckenty | I'd also like to see a bit of a migration plan for existing deployments | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | on the docs side | 20:22 |
| danwent | I would agree that if quantum is not successfully integrated into the CI infrastructure, I wouldn't want it as core :) | 20:22 |
| vishy | danwent made the point when we talked that there is no way they can get all of this done with the current team | 20:22 |
| vishy | so the onus is on nova to start moving people over to focus on quantum | 20:22 |
| jmckenty | gotcha | 20:22 |
| pvo | vishy: thats part of our plan as well. | 20:23 |
| danwent | jmckenty: we have a pretty good start on docs: http://docs.openstack.org/incubation/openstack-network/admin/content/index.html | 20:23 |
| vishy | they need to double the amount of people working on it | 20:23 |
| jmckenty | and we need core status and a freeze on nova-network to do that | 20:23 |
| johnpur | or recruiting more network savvy people from the community | 20:23 |
| vishy | jmckenty: right | 20:23 |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:23 | |
| jmckenty | danwent: I like the docs, but they don't have a "migrating from nova-network" section :) | 20:23 |
| danwent | jmckenty: fair :) | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | I saw a lot of pain on the "switching to keystone" side, that I think docs could have helped with | 20:24 |
| jmckenty | I'll see if Lloyd can help with that | 20:24 |
| anotherjesse | some of the work will need to be devs fixing things like "Multi-host nova-network HA is not supported (i.e., running nova-network on each compute node for HA purposes). It is unlikely that Quantum Manager will support this mode in Essex." | 20:24 |
| danwent | jmckenty: definitely. we'd really appreciate some help on that end. | 20:25 |
| jbryce | for essex, quantum would still not be core, though | 20:25 |
| jmckenty | anotherjesse: yeah, that would be a major regression | 20:25 |
| *** zykes has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| jbryce | and not included or defaulted to in nova | 20:25 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: yes. Quantum is actually going to have its own L3 abstraction that will support a multi-node deployment. | 20:26 |
| danwent | those docs are for people using it right now. | 20:26 |
| annegentle | I'd like to see migration plan plus detailed plans on doc updates for existing network info for nova | 20:26 |
| danwent | but i agree providing a multi-host equivalent is important. | 20:26 |
| annegentle | basically what all the rest of y'all are saying | 20:26 |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| vishy | danwent: we can take this offline, but I think we need to discuss whether the network_api/v1 will live in nova for the time being | 20:27 |
| jmckenty | I'd also like to see some commitment from the quantum vendors community to provide context around their products (Nicira, MidoNet, Cisco-whatever, etc) | 20:27 |
| danwent | vishy: ok. | 20:27 |
| jmckenty | that's probably a separate concenr, though | 20:27 |
| jbryce | todos for dan: migration docs, integration testing, ha mode | 20:27 |
| vishy | basically promoting all the extensions and the mova.network.api to its own endpoint | 20:27 |
| soren | jmckenty: Context? | 20:27 |
| devcamcar_ | multihost is essential | 20:27 |
| jbryce | vishy: mova? is that a new fork? | 20:28 |
| vishy | oh yeah | 20:28 |
| vishy | its mo bettah | 20:28 |
| reed | mova and rwift | 20:28 |
| jk0 | hehe | 20:28 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: that is what I need to understand before I can say yes/no to core | 20:28 |
| danwent | devcamcar: I see the basic requirement being that there must be an open source quantum plugin that provides all of the capabilities of the existing nova network solution (and hopefully much more) | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | soren: we'll need a blog post that says: "This is quantum. It replaces nova-network because of <x>. There are commercial versions of quantum from vendors <x,y,z> with features <a,b,c>" | 20:28 |
| *** legkodymov has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:28 | |
| danwent | what other vendors choose to do in terms of HA strategies is up to them. | 20:28 |
| jmckenty | soren: otherwise, I'm going to be on the phone with PCWorld explaining how CISCO has taken over OpenStack, or some such retardedness | 20:29 |
| jmckenty | Ala what just happened with MSFT | 20:29 |
| jmckenty | Oh, speaking of which - PCWorld called this morning and wants to talk about MSFT. I gave them Collier's cell #. Anyone else know anything concrete? | 20:30 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: they're working on their plan. nothing concrete announced | 20:30 |
| jbryce | other questions or should we vote on promotion? | 20:30 |
| danwent | btw, who is best point of contact talked to about CI infrastructure integration? | 20:30 |
| * jmckenty apologizes for the segue | 20:30 | |
| anotherjesse | danwent / vishy - does this mean we need to define network api 1.0 strategy before a vote | 20:31 |
| ttx | danwent: Ci infra integration: jeblair and mtaylor | 20:31 |
| danwent | ok, usual suspects :) | 20:31 |
| anotherjesse | danwent: mtaylor is sick, jeblair | 20:31 |
| vishy | danwent: basically it just involves proposing defaults to devstack and opnstack-ci | 20:31 |
| vishy | i turned on the volume tests doing that | 20:31 |
| danwent | vishy: ok, then we may be good to go already. | 20:31 |
| anotherjesse | I'm happy with +1 to core assuming we have a solid stance about what the API expectations are for nova with and without quantum | 20:32 |
| johnpur | the ci piece should not be much trouble | 20:32 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: +1 | 20:32 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:32 |
| jbryce | #info VOTE: Should Quantum be promoted to core for the Folsom release cycle | 20:32 |
| vishy | lets say a clear plan on network.api.v1 by the end of the summit | 20:32 |
| johnpur | vishy: agree | 20:33 |
| zns | +1 | 20:33 |
| jmckenty | add in a clear plan on integration testing, and docs for migration, and I'm +1 | 20:33 |
| ttx | +1 | 20:33 |
| johnpur | +1 | 20:33 |
| jbryce | +1 | 20:33 |
| jk0 | +1 from me, and +1 from pvo (he had to run to another meeting) | 20:33 |
| ewanmellor | +1 | 20:33 |
| notmyname | +0 | 20:33 |
| anotherjesse | +0 | 20:33 |
| devcamcar_ | +1 | 20:33 |
| anotherjesse | until I know about what the nova api story is I can't +1 | 20:33 |
| vishy | can we document the requirements | 20:34 |
| vishy | ? | 20:34 |
| vishy | and have an option to reverse the decision if they aren't met? | 20:34 |
| vishy | as in a contingency promotion? | 20:34 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| jmckenty | I think that's the plan, yes? | 20:34 |
| ttx | vishy: we actually always have the option of reversing the decision. | 20:34 |
| jbryce | vishy: we can always revoke core status | 20:34 |
| jbryce | #info Quantum is approved for core promotion for Folsom release (8 - +1, 2 - +0) | 20:34 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: specifically, are you looking to understand what network-related APIs will be exposed by nova stand-alone in F? | 20:35 |
| ohnoimdead | hooray! | 20:35 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| reed | congratulations danwent and the whole Quantum team | 20:35 |
| heckj | Congrats Quantum crew! | 20:35 |
| *** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| anotherjesse | danwent: it is mostly a nova question - not a quantum question | 20:35 |
| jbryce | #info priorities for first core cycle: migration documentation, feature parity with nova-network, integration with CI/testing, network api plan coming out of folsom summit | 20:35 |
| danwent | ok, thanks folks. I think we had a lot of good suggestions during the meeting today. | 20:35 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| anotherjesse | danwent: there has been lots of thought going into the openstack APIs and I'm not sure they need to be in sync with this | 20:36 |
| danwent | i'll appreciate you help working through these issues during the summit and beyond. | 20:36 |
| jbryce | did i miss any priorities? | 20:36 |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| johnpur | from a policy standpoint, jmckenty has brought up a good point in that we should blog/document how Quantum fits into the overall direction OpenStack is taking | 20:36 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: agreed | 20:36 |
| jmckenty | random question - does this mean danwent is on the PPB now? | 20:36 |
| jbryce | he would be after the next election cycle | 20:36 |
| jbryce | that's how we have handled the previous core promotions | 20:36 |
| anotherjesse | I think it can happen, I just don't want either what happened to volume api or keystone integration to occur again | 20:36 |
| danwent | anotherjesse: I've been talking to some folks, but it seems bcwaldon and some others may need to be in the mix | 20:36 |
| jmckenty | danwent: if you can get it down to a couple of sentences, that would be awesome. | 20:36 |
| zns | danwent: well done. The bar continues to rise for incubation. It's good :-) | 20:36 |
| *** jwalcik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| danwent | johnpur: +1 | 20:37 |
| zns | danwent: I meant for inclusion in core. | 20:37 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:37 |
| jbryce | #topic quantum + melange | 20:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "quantum + melange" | 20:37 | |
| jmckenty | is this a status update? | 20:37 |
| jbryce | anything we should discuss on quantum + melange? | 20:37 |
| jbryce | it was on our list of things to review this week | 20:37 |
| ttx | I read that Melange would get folded into Quantum in Folsom ? | 20:37 |
| danwent | ttx: that is what Troy is pushing for, and I think it makes sense. | 20:38 |
| ttx | That Melange is unstable, always looking for a project to live in. | 20:38 |
| jmckenty | Is it active? | 20:38 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| jmckenty | relatively? | 20:38 |
| *** jwalcik has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** Raj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:39 | |
| anotherjesse | danwent: does that mean sharing the same DB + queue + whatever internal datastores | 20:39 |
| danwent | jmckenty: I believe there is active development, but primarily from Rackspace | 20:39 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: i think it's moderately active, but not a large pool of developers | 20:39 |
| anotherjesse | danwent: or does that mean it is in the project but mostly stand-alone? | 20:39 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:39 | |
| danwent | anotherjesse: not necessarily. was talking with Trey Morris about this today. | 20:39 |
| jmckenty | I don't like the name melange anyway, so I'm happy to see it merge with a project with a cool name :) | 20:39 |
| devcamcar_ | I've heard it'll go back into nova, that it'll go in quantum. Seems clear that it won't be a separate project long term | 20:40 |
| danwent | probably would not fundementally change the back-end architectures of either. | 20:40 |
| danwent | key motivation is: 1) single network API for tenants, 2) Melange is important to decoupling networking from Nova DB. | 20:40 |
| danwent | for example, if you want a network that spans a nova zone. | 20:40 |
| jmckenty | cell | 20:40 |
| ttx | danwent: if Melange is needed for Quantum to work... it either needs to be included or file for core | 20:40 |
| danwent | jmckenty: ahem… yes, sorry | 20:41 |
| johnpur | perhaps we should have a topic on if/how to attract more active contributors across the OpenStack projects? | 20:41 |
| jmckenty | johnpur: We'll need a longer slot for that - and AFTER we talk about design summit attendance | 20:41 |
| johnpur | to help out Quantum, Melange, etc. | 20:41 |
| danwent | ttx: it is not strictly needed, as Quantum already works with Nova IPAM as well, but it is important to achieving the two goals I mentioned. | 20:42 |
| ttx | danwent: ok | 20:42 |
| soren | ttx: Well.. | 20:42 |
| soren | ttx: We have plenty of dependencies in Openstack on stuff that isn't core openstack. | 20:42 |
| jmckenty | soren: but do we have dependencies on incubated projects? | 20:42 |
| soren | ttx: If Melange had a thriving life on its own, that could still work. | 20:42 |
| jmckenty | or just external ones | 20:42 |
| danwent | johnpur: yes, I think attracting developers, especially those interested in the "core" code, not plugins, is very important. I've already been working at it. | 20:43 |
| anotherjesse | danwent: I like the idea that IPAM lives inside quantum, but I think it would be nice if it could be deployed & operated separately (different db/endpoint/controller) | 20:43 |
| soren | jmckenty: At the moment, only external ones (that I know of). | 20:43 |
| jmckenty | yeah, same. | 20:43 |
| ttx | jbryce: not sure there is that much to discuss about quantum+melange, then | 20:43 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:43 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: maybe get Trey to present if there's more to discuss? | 20:43 |
| jbryce | #topic Design Summit attendance process | 20:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Design Summit attendance process" | 20:44 | |
| jmckenty | Can I ask how we ended up with the process we have? | 20:44 |
| jmckenty | E.g., who was involved in the decision? | 20:44 |
| jbryce | ttx: do you want to just summarize the process and thinking behind it? | 20:44 |
| ttx | I can ... try | 20:44 |
| ttx | One goal of the events team was to have a single registration process | 20:45 |
| jmckenty | sorry, who is the events team? | 20:45 |
| ttx | jmckenty: lauren, markC, ToddM | 20:45 |
| reed | me | 20:45 |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| ttx | +reed | 20:45 |
| jmckenty | ktnx | 20:45 |
| reed | :) | 20:45 |
| ttx | my goal was to make sure we could get the right people, i.e. have the developers we need without overflowing the rooms with too many people | 20:46 |
| jmckenty | so there are three big issues with that | 20:46 |
| jmckenty | first, it's not a community-inclusive process to make drastic changes to the biggest OpenStack event | 20:47 |
| ttx | and somehow the limitations in cvent drove us to the invite-onnly situation | 20:47 |
| jmckenty | second, you're defining the "Right People" without consultation | 20:47 |
| reed | If I may add, the single reg process is a solution to the confusion created last time | 20:47 |
| jmckenty | OpenStack's biggest advantage, historically, has been it's relatively business-friendly format | 20:47 |
| ttx | jmckenty: so far we (RAX) always controlled who the "right people" were | 20:47 |
| soren | jmckenty: Who do you believe are being excluded? | 20:48 |
| ttx | through wait lists or invites | 20:48 |
| jmckenty | I've had 6 people email me asking for invite codes in the past two days | 20:48 |
| notmyname | I've got a list of 14 people to invite | 20:48 |
| ttx | This time we decided to involve the PTLs in the process | 20:48 |
| jmckenty | mostly new potential developers who I told to come to the summit to get involved | 20:48 |
| jmckenty | ttx: when did that happen? | 20:48 |
| jmckenty | And why the PTLs instead of the PPB? | 20:48 |
| soren | Why not? | 20:48 |
| ttx | i.e. anyone with a good reason can ask their PTL for an invite | 20:48 |
| jbryce | ptls and release manager have always owned the schedule for the design summit | 20:48 |
| reed | jmckenty, we had tens of requests from actual developers last time, after we filled the event with random people getting to the summit for a free conference pass | 20:49 |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:49 | |
| *** mikeyp has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:49 | |
| jmckenty | We also had dozens of non-contributors who BECAME contributors after their attendance at the last summit | 20:49 |
| jmckenty | The RedHat folks, the Yahoo folks, etc. | 20:49 |
| ttx | I think the process this time is actually way more open than last time, where I handpicked people from the wait list myself | 20:49 |
| jmckenty | Ah. | 20:50 |
| ttx | jmckenty: and those were invited | 20:50 |
| jmckenty | Where did the size constraint come from? | 20:50 |
| ttx | jmckenty: you can't have a good discussion in a room with 100 people | 20:50 |
| jmckenty | the UN would disagree with you | 20:50 |
| reed | LOL | 20:50 |
| reed | the UN is the worst example you could pick :) | 20:51 |
| jmckenty | So the constraint was your idea | 20:51 |
| notmyname | my issue is that ops and qa people (vital to the overall success) weren't included because they don't contribute lines of code. they still contribute to the process | 20:51 |
| ttx | jmckenty: the UN has better AV equipment than we have | 20:51 |
| jmckenty | The solution to the constraint was your idea | 20:51 |
| *** andrewbogott has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:51 | |
| jmckenty | and you decided who would be consulted about approving it, correct? | 20:51 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: ++ | 20:52 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: it was basically moving from a single waitlist to managed by the release manager and ptls like the schedule | 20:52 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: ++ | 20:52 |
| ttx | the size constraint is definitely my idea. the solution is not really mine | 20:52 |
| ttx | notmyname: the invite code you get are supposed to solve that | 20:52 |
| jmckenty | so what's the mission of the summit? | 20:52 |
| ttx | it's like a distributed wait list | 20:52 |
| notmyname | ttx: I've got 14 people for my 5 invites | 20:52 |
| jbryce | design summit managed by ptls+release manager, conference managed by events team+programming committee, single registration to eliminate the number 1 complaint we had about getting to the events last time | 20:53 |
| ttx | notmyname: you should probably get 15 more... as soon as some time passes to give existing contribtors a chance | 20:53 |
| jmckenty | again, what's the mission of the summit | 20:53 |
| ttx | Discuss design and development of the next release | 20:53 |
| ttx | a developers gathering | 20:54 |
| jbryce | after the initial invites are sent out, it will be opened up broadly again | 20:54 |
| reed | it's a two step invitation: first the known developers, + others invited by PTLs and community, then everybody else until we fill the rooms | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | you've prioritized discussion among existing code contributors over cross-disciplinary interactions | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | you're making the mozilla mistake | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | and you've left no room for users | 20:54 |
| jbryce | last time we opened it up broadly first and had a ton of people sign up just to get free passes to the conference | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | then don't make it a free pass to the conference | 20:54 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: +1 to needing users/deployers | 20:54 |
| jbryce | i agree that we need to make sure we have users and non-code committer technical people there | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | hell, make the summit cost money! | 20:54 |
| jmckenty | you're incentivized perverse behaviour | 20:55 |
| ttx | jmckenty: I guess we chose the path of least changes | 20:55 |
| ttx | from previous summits. | 20:55 |
| jbryce | we've got 5 minutes left | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | You chose the path of autocratic dictatorship | 20:55 |
| ttx | since nobody complained /then. | 20:55 |
| *** YorikSar has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:55 | |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: settle down please. | 20:55 |
| ttx | jmckenty: mind you, I'd prefer not to have to organize the registration of the summit | 20:55 |
| jmckenty | I just had my doc writers submit patches to nova, so I'm good | 20:56 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: we've got 2 months left, no one has actually been denied yet, there will be more seats available | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | they're in the authors file now | 20:56 |
| ttx | jmckenty: and concentrate on my real tasks | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | Can I propose that the PPB organize an events committee? | 20:56 |
| jbryce | can we wait a couple of weeks and see if we're really keeping out good people? if we are, i'm sure we can find a way to fit them in | 20:56 |
| ttx | jmckenty: so your main issue is with limiting the number of people attending ? | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | with people that WANT to organize summits? | 20:56 |
| jmckenty | A quote from my email this morning: | 20:57 |
| ttx | jmckenty: you think we can have productive discussions with 150 people per room ? And nobody hearing anything ? | 20:57 |
| jmckenty | " | 20:57 |
| jmckenty | One thing that I could use your help on is getting my two new OpenStack-dedicated hires into the Folsom Design Summit. Any idea how I can get them invites? I think they'd be able to contribute a lot to the conversations, especially by the time the summit rolls around. Duncan will definitely be attending, and I'll be around as well, but I'd really like my new guys to be a part of it too." | 20:57 |
| *** wwkeyboard has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| ttx | jmckenty: if everyone agrees with you, I'm more than happy to open the flood gates | 20:57 |
| jbryce | we've got 2 minutes and another meeting starting after this | 20:57 |
| jmckenty | can we vote on an events committee? | 20:58 |
| jbryce | can we give the existing process a couple of weeks to get through this first phase and see how big the problem actually is? | 20:58 |
| jbryce | we are literally 3 days into the process | 20:58 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: ++ | 20:58 |
| johnpur | jbryce: sounds like a reasonable approach | 20:58 |
| jmckenty | We've brought this issue up at every summit | 20:59 |
| ttx | jbryce: I'd really want to know if jmckenty wants to have unlimited attendance to the summit or not | 20:59 |
| jmckenty | That's totally not the point | 20:59 |
| jmckenty | I'd like to have our "open community" involved in the decision | 20:59 |
| soren | Is that a no? | 20:59 |
| *** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:59 | |
| jmckenty | rather than have ttx's summit every 6 months | 20:59 |
| jmckenty | There are a LOT of ways to manage attendance | 21:00 |
| jmckenty | cap on headcount per company | 21:00 |
| ttx | jmckenty: RAX organizes the summit and conference so far. | 21:00 |
| *** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| jmckenty | charging MONEY | 21:00 |
| jmckenty | Allocation of seats per attendee type | 21:00 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: you are getting close tot he line, dial it back | 21:00 |
| jbryce | we're out of time. we can take it to the ppb list if we want to keep going | 21:00 |
| jmckenty | e.g. current dev, new dev, qa, etc | 21:00 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 21:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 21:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 21 21:00:50 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:00 |
| *** Vek has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-19.59.html | 21:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-19.59.txt | 21:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-19.59.log.html | 21:00 |
| soren | That's what we do now. There are two groups: Current devs and everyone else. | 21:01 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| *** jdg has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| jog0 | is current devs anyone who ever committed or anyone who committed in the last x months? | 21:01 |
| *** johan_-_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | Yes, we can move to ML. I'd like to know what the problems are with the system, rather than complain about how much open event org should be | 21:02 |
| notmyname | jog0: ever, right now | 21:02 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: if you've got a detailed proposal let's have it | 21:02 |
| soren | jog0: Fair enough. "current devs" is everyone who was ever committed code. I don't think there's an expiry process. | 21:02 |
| jbryce | it's not worth taking it out on ttx...we're trying to respond to the feedback we got after the last summit | 21:02 |
| anotherjesse | jmckenty: seems like a perfect thing to email the pbb list / propose for a topic for next week? | 21:03 |
| jbryce | namely, registration is confusing, and in some of the sessions, the rooms are too full and it's hard to hear | 21:03 |
| ttx | jbryce: and it's certainly not my only decision. | 21:03 |
| ttx | anyway, next meeting | 21:03 |
| ttx | zns, notmyname, jaypipes, vishy, devcamcar: around ? | 21:03 |
| notmyname | here | 21:03 |
| zns | yes | 21:03 |
| vishy | o/ | 21:03 |
| *** jwalcik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:04 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 21 21:04:39 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:04 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:04 |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| ttx | Today's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:05 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:05 | |
| ttx | * anotherjesse to send post to ML after redux is merged into trunk explaining its impact | 21:05 |
| jaypipes | ttx: o/ | 21:05 |
| ttx | Did I miss it ? Or is this convered in the redux thread posted last week ? | 21:05 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: I think it was covered in the email (the bottom half was about the changes) | 21:06 |
| anotherjesse | but we want to send another once xml & ldap lands | 21:06 |
| anotherjesse | (both in review) | 21:06 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:06 | |
| anotherjesse | ttx: if you feel we should send another one now we can certain do so | 21:07 |
| ttx | nah, it's ok | 21:07 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:07 | |
| ttx | zns: o/ | 21:07 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:07 |
| anotherjesse | heckj and others have been being vigilant at hanging out in irc to answer questions as they come up | 21:07 |
| ttx | heckj: I marked rearchitect-keystone implemented as the branch was merged | 21:07 |
| zns | Patches going in. Quiet on the email front after the merge, so not sure what else to report on. | 21:08 |
| zns | Looking good so far. LDAP backend being implemented and I saw a few patches on migrations. | 21:08 |
| anotherjesse | bcwaldon has got a patch to migrate from nova's deprecated auth to keystone as well | 21:09 |
| heckj | ttx: thank you | 21:09 |
| ttx | heckj: If there is any significant feature gap left, would be good to track it as a separate essex-4 blueprint | 21:09 |
| heckj | XML and LDAP support are actively being reviewed right now | 21:09 |
| jk0 | anotherjesse: is that up on gerrit yet? | 21:09 |
| ttx | heckj: like those ^ | 21:09 |
| zns | anotherjesse, termie, dolphm, heckj: anything note worthy? | 21:09 |
| heckj | Other than that, we're working to lock things down to just fixing bugs and integration issues after Essex4 drop | 21:09 |
| bcwaldon | jk0: yes, there's a nova and a keystone branch | 21:10 |
| jk0 | cool, thnx | 21:10 |
| *** lzyeval has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:10 | |
| heckj | ttx: will be shifting back to blueprints to track that once I've had a chance to wrangle the current ones and asses their state | 21:10 |
| ttx | On the bugs side, was the current list of 94 Keystone bugs reviewed to see if they still apply post-redux-merge ? | 21:10 |
| heckj | ttx: it's been more functional short term to use bugs to track what should be in blueprints (because of tagging in the bugs) - we'll be shifting back away from that shortly | 21:11 |
| anotherjesse | jk0: yes | 21:11 |
| anotherjesse | https://review.openstack.org/#change,4304 | 21:11 |
| anotherjesse | https://review.openstack.org/#change,4334 | 21:11 |
| zns | * is pretty sure heckj meant to say 'assess' * :-) | 21:11 |
| ttx | #action heckj to create BPs corresponding to major feature gaps | 21:11 |
| heckj | ttx: yes - a few remain to be reviewed, and we discussed an ongoing triage process (I do it weekly, everyone yells at me) at the keystone meeting for the near term as well | 21:11 |
| ttx | then it would be good to drop usage of the "redux" tag... and use essex-4 milestone targeting for selecting bugs instead. | 21:12 |
| heckj | ttx: already in the works - that was an action item from today's keystone meeting as well | 21:13 |
| ttx | Great. | 21:13 |
| ttx | zns, heckj: anything else ? | 21:13 |
| heckj | zns: and yeah, I'm a sloppy typist at speed | 21:13 |
| zns | ttx: nothing else. | 21:13 |
| anotherjesse | heckj - I hope you code slowly then | 21:14 |
| heckj | ttx: We're trying to push basic RBAC (policy, etc) into the release prior to E4 - working with termie on the specifics | 21:14 |
| heckj | ttx: will have a code for review hopefully this week, but need an keystone meeting to discuss some of the components to make sure we're all on the same page. | 21:14 |
| termie | heckj, ttx: not providing a policy service, just making keystone do things the same way as nova | 21:14 |
| heckj | what termie said: | 21:14 |
| heckj | ^ | 21:14 |
| ttx | termie: sounds good. BP please so that we can track whether it lands in time | 21:14 |
| ttx | remember that we cut milestone-proposed branch for E4 EOD next Tuesday | 21:15 |
| ttx | that leaves little time | 21:15 |
| ttx | Questions about Keystone ? | 21:15 |
| heckj | ttx: I've got that | 21:15 |
| gyee | will the fat keystone extensions be ported over by E4? | 21:15 |
| *** gabrielhurley has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| anotherjesse | gyee: I think the major one is the cert verification | 21:16 |
| gyee | same question for the middleware | 21:16 |
| termie | gyee: we think ldap stuff will land, anything that large that isn't already in the patch queue sounds iffy | 21:16 |
| gyee | what about HP-IDM-serviceID? | 21:16 |
| termie | gyee: some extensions are also less applicable now, so not all make sense to port | 21:18 |
| anotherjesse | gyee: we can discuss in more depth in the #dev channel if you have time | 21:18 |
| ttx | right, we need to move on | 21:18 |
| gyee | do we have a list of what will be ported? | 21:18 |
| gyee | k | 21:18 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:18 | |
| ttx | notmyname: o/ | 21:19 |
| notmyname | hi | 21:19 |
| ttx | notmyname: Looks like there is time for one more release before inclusion into Essex final ? | 21:19 |
| notmyname | I agree | 21:19 |
| ttx | like sometimes mid-March ? | 21:19 |
| notmyname | ya. when is the cutoff for essex? | 21:19 |
| ttx | The release is April 5. Would be good to have your "release candidate" in one of the previous 4 weeks. | 21:20 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: if the cliauth blueprint change lands before your release we will have a single way for users to use an openstack cloud :) | 21:20 |
| anotherjesse | thx for the help on that review! | 21:20 |
| notmyname | ok. we'll shoot for middle/late middle march | 21:20 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: it will get in before the next release | 21:21 |
| notmyname | lots of good swift news this week: wikipedia using it in prod, softlayer deploying it, swiftstack chosen for pycon startup row | 21:21 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:22 | |
| ttx | notmyname: can I put a tentative 1.4.7 on March 22 ? | 21:23 |
| ttx | and we'll adjust the date if need be | 21:23 |
| notmyname | ttx: 23rd (a friday) is generally better. although you know how I feel about setting dates so far in advance ;-) | 21:24 |
| ttx | and you know how I feel about Fridays :) | 21:24 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:24 |
| notmyname | I don't have anything | 21:24 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:24 |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:25 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:25 | |
| *** bhall has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:25 | |
| ttx | jaypipes: yo | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | second in command, here | 21:25 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:25 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: hi! Two blueprints left open: retrieve-image-from and progressbar-upload-image | 21:25 |
| ttx | almost there ? Remember this needs to be merged before EOD Tuesday, next week. | 21:25 |
| bcwaldon | looks like they will land | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | I'll review them today | 21:26 |
| bcwaldon | I did want to thank eglynn__ for stepping up and fixing some bugs that have been around for a while | 21:27 |
| bcwaldon | no major news here :) | 21:27 |
| eglynn__ | bcwaldon: np ;) | 21:27 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else ? | 21:27 |
| bcwaldon | negative | 21:27 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:27 |
| *** adrian17od_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:28 | |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:28 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:28 |
| vishy | hi | 21:28 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:28 |
| ttx | I'd like to go through the remaining stuff, since most FFEs were given a deadline that is now past | 21:29 |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:29 | |
| *** mikeyp has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/host-aggregates (Armando) | 21:29 |
| ttx | marked implemented, but has reviews open... What's the story on that ? | 21:29 |
| vishy | yeah | 21:29 |
| vishy | i was going to mention that one | 21:29 |
| vishy | https://review.openstack.org/#dashboard,748 | 21:29 |
| vishy | so it was marked implemented too soon | 21:29 |
| vishy | the api etc was set with the first couple of reviews | 21:30 |
| ttx | ok | 21:30 |
| vishy | but there are various bugfixes/improvements to the underlying code | 21:30 |
| vishy | so those really need some attention | 21:30 |
| ttx | is it still on track ? and should be kept in Essex ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | yes, most of those are ready to go in | 21:31 |
| vishy | I'm going through them today, but they could use eyes from another core dev or 2 | 21:31 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/keystone-export-rewrite (bcwaldon) | 21:31 |
| ttx | should have been unblocked by redux merge... Status ? | 21:31 |
| vishy | needs review here: https://review.openstack.org/#change,4334 | 21:32 |
| vishy | it wasn't linked to the blueprint properly | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | i pushed up a minute ago with a proper link | 21:32 |
| vishy | the other blocked one i moved out of essex, since the migration plan depends on dep. auth | 21:32 |
| vishy | so we can't pull it until folsom | 21:32 |
| ttx | vishy: you mean, https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/remove-deprecated-auth ? | 21:33 |
| vishy | yes | 21:34 |
| ttx | ok | 21:34 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/scaling-zones (comstud) | 21:34 |
| ttx | Are all the essex-4 tasks completed ? | 21:34 |
| *** adrian17od_ is now known as adrian17od | 21:34 | |
| vishy | I think so. I marked it implemented | 21:34 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nexenta-volume-driver (Oleg) | 21:34 |
| ttx | Looks like it's "almost there"... should we extend the FFe ? | 21:35 |
| vishy | ttx: i haven't gotten a chance to look at it since getting back | 21:35 |
| vishy | but it looked close | 21:35 |
| vishy | when i left on thursday | 21:35 |
| ttx | ok, let's keep it in scope | 21:36 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/zeromq-rpc-driver (ewindisch) | 21:36 |
| ttx | Looks like it's still a bit far away, and the deadline is over. Extend or postpone ? | 21:36 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| russellb | I think it's ready for review, there were a lot of updates to it today | 21:36 |
| *** mjfork has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| devcamcar | given that that implementation is not intended for production use (yet) it wouldn't hurt to postpone it if its not ready | 21:36 |
| vishy | russellb: is there any reason why it needs to hit in essex? | 21:37 |
| vishy | I don't think anyone will reasonably be using it for production | 21:37 |
| russellb | no, not IMO, anyway | 21:37 |
| vishy | i don't really see the drawback of delaying it until folsom | 21:37 |
| ttx | agreed | 21:37 |
| ewindisch | between E4 bug fixes and stable backports, it can be made stable for production | 21:38 |
| vishy | ewindisch: but is anyone planning on using it? | 21:38 |
| vishy | ewindisch: it seems more like an experimental feature right now | 21:38 |
| ttx | if it's experimental anyway, it can live in a specific branch | 21:38 |
| anotherjesse | ewindisch: I assume you already have it in your product builds - having it land in F seems better from a support perspective | 21:38 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:39 | |
| ewindisch | my main problem is that it is becoming a hassle to maintain whenever RPC changes happen. I suppose that won't happen too much more in the Essex timeframe, though. | 21:39 |
| ewindisch | just today, Russell proposed a change that would require changes to the zeromq driver. | 21:40 |
| *** adrian17od has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| russellb | which one? | 21:40 |
| ttx | vishy: I'm for postponing. Your call ? | 21:41 |
| ewindisch | I0e5aff2e8a40ffd8390c0e19d89dd17e60a74130 | 21:41 |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 21:41 | |
| vishy | i'm leaning to postpone | 21:41 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/netapp-volume-driver (Robert Esker) | 21:41 |
| ttx | This one was abandoned due to absence of activity. Folsom too ? | 21:41 |
| vishy | they keep threatening to bring it back | 21:42 |
| vishy | but it seems like it is taking too long | 21:42 |
| vishy | i guess a branch for that one as well | 21:42 |
| ttx | right | 21:42 |
| ttx | On the bugs side, there are a few essex-4 targeted bugs that don't have clear assignee... | 21:42 |
| ttx | See list at https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:43 |
| ttx | #help assign yourself unassigned bugs on https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:43 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:43 |
| vishy | nope | 21:43 |
| vishy | don't forget to review! | 21:43 |
| ttx | Nova subteam leads: anything on your side ? | 21:43 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:43 |
| anotherjesse | devstack has been getting lots of attention for XS/XCP support as well as some integration work towards supporting fedora | 21:44 |
| anotherjesse | would be nice to work with the CI team to test XS/XCP (and LXC) deploys of openstack as well as KVM | 21:44 |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:45 | |
| *** eglynn__ has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| jog0 | Also what is the status of getting an 'official' openstack chef recipes repo setup? | 21:45 |
| *** eglynn__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| anotherjesse | jog0: I think jaypipes might be able to speak to that | 21:46 |
| jaypipes | jog0: you mean for diablo/stable? | 21:46 |
| jog0 | for both Essex and diablo/stable | 21:47 |
| jaypipes | jog0: (since github.com/openstack/openstack-chef IS the official repo) | 21:47 |
| ttx | ok, let's move on | 21:47 |
| jaypipes | jog0: but that repo only has current development trunk, not stable/diablo | 21:47 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:47 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: o/ | 21:47 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:47 |
| jog0 | thanks jaypipes | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:47 |
| ttx | 6 blueprints left, and one week left -- everything still on track ? | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | so for the most part we are down to just bug fixes - most blueprints are trivial changes relating to django 1.4 dropping | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | beta 1 just dropped so we are technically unblocked though we were hoping for an RC by now | 21:48 |
| ttx | How far away is the essential ec2-credentials-download ? 7 days left to merge it. | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | it'll be there before essex ships though so shouldn't be an issue | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | its late in the review stage now | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | should land any time now | 21:48 |
| ttx | Your list of 30+ open E4-targeted bugs still looks a bit daunting. 9 days left for those:) | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | we're also investing some resources into ensuring that django 1.4 lands in ubuntu 12.04 | 21:49 |
| ttx | devcamcar: hmm. It's post-FF there | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | most bugs remaining are trivial and i expect we'll get through most of those | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | i have a guy that is working with both the django and ubuntu community on it | 21:49 |
| ttx | ok | 21:50 |
| devcamcar | seems doable so far but we'll see | 21:50 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:50 |
| devcamcar | question about process - | 21:50 |
| devcamcar | the period between e4 landing and essex shipping - we currently have basically no work planned for that period | 21:50 |
| devcamcar | which i'm assuming is a good thing | 21:50 |
| devcamcar | if we have a bug that slips past e4 we can fix before what date? | 21:51 |
| ttx | devcamcar: sure. the plan is to produce release candidates until one looks "good enough" | 21:51 |
| devcamcar | great, we will be golden then | 21:51 |
| ttx | at that point we cut a release branch | 21:51 |
| ttx | and open Folsom | 21:51 |
| devcamcar | sounds good | 21:52 |
| ttx | ideally most projects would have their RC cut a few weeks before April 5, so that we are all set when we hit the deadline | 21:52 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:53 |
| ttx | #topic Incubated projects and other Team reports | 21:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects and other Team reports" | 21:53 | |
| ttx | danwent, troytoman: yo | 21:53 |
| danwent | o/ | 21:53 |
| danwent | So for E-4, quantum is looking to get all features in and reviewed by today. | 21:54 |
| danwent | https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/essex-4 | 21:54 |
| danwent | we're good on having most things in, but still lots to review. | 21:54 |
| danwent | two items not already in review are for devstack, so not really release issues. | 21:55 |
| *** gabriel_hurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| danwent | Also, not to bury the lead, but we got conditionally approved as a core project for Folsom by the PPB today. | 21:55 |
| ttx | yay | 21:55 |
| danwent | thanks to the PPB for a lot of great feedback on what will be needed for a successful transition from incubation to core | 21:56 |
| danwent | and a call to the community to help us out once Essex is out the door :) | 21:56 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| annegentle | congrats to the Quantum team! | 21:56 |
| danwent | thanks anne. that's about all on my end. | 21:57 |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? annegentle, mtaylor ? | 21:57 |
| annegentle | Doc Day March 6th. | 21:57 |
| annegentle | Need to work on Volume and Network replacements, maintenance of docs that exist as well as adding new. | 21:58 |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| *** gabrielhurley has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| anotherjesse | ttx: mtaylor is sick - perhaps jeblair is around | 21:58 |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:59 | |
| ttx | Two things I wanted to mention... | 21:59 |
| ttx | First, we have elections coming up. | 21:59 |
| ttx | #info For the PPB election, remember you need to register to vote, using the following website: http://ppbelectionsregistration.openstack.org/ | 21:59 |
| ttx | Second, the Folsom design summit. | 21:59 |
| ttx | #info If you're an active OpenStack contributor, you should have received over the week-end a personal invitation to the Design Summit. | 21:59 |
| ttx | You'll need that personal code to register for the summit. | 21:59 |
| ttx | #info Summit is invite-only this time: if you're a contributor (or want to contribute to Folsom) but weren't invited, you should ask your PTL for a personal invitation code | 22:00 |
| ttx | Anything else, anyone ? | 22:00 |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| *** sparkycollier has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| *** jlm^ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:00 | |
| ttx | guess not | 22:01 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 21 22:02:01 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-21.04.html | 22:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-21.04.txt | 22:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-21.04.log.html | 22:02 |
| *** YorikSar has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** lzyeval has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** Vek has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** gabriel_hurley has left #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 21 22:02:31 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 |
| *** mandeep has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| danwent | hello netstackers | 22:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Hearty Congratulations! | 22:02 |
| danwent | did the delayed meeting start let salvatore get back in time for the meeting? :P | 22:03 |
| mandeep | Hello | 22:03 |
| davlap | o/ | 22:03 |
| GheRivero | hi | 22:03 |
| mestery | o/ | 22:03 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| cdub | ahoj! | 22:03 |
| danwent | yup, Quantum in going to be a core project for folsom! | 22:03 |
| edgarmagana | Hola!! | 22:03 |
| mandeep | :-) | 22:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Great job Dan!! | 22:03 |
| *** eglynn__ has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| markvoelker | =) | 22:03 |
| somik | hello and congrats team Quantum! | 22:03 |
| davlap | congrats all! | 22:03 |
| cdub | great news, indeed | 22:04 |
| danwent | its an exciting step, but it also means a lot of additional work for all of us to live up to that challenge :) | 22:04 |
| edgarmagana | yes, we can! | 22:04 |
| danwent | I'll be sending out email with the some of the feedback from the PPB meeting (or you can probably look the minutes up yourself, as well) | 22:04 |
| danwent | edgarmagana: was that an obama reference? | 22:04 |
| danwent | :) | 22:04 |
| markvoelker | #link PPB minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-19.59.html | 22:05 |
| cdub | or bob the builder | 22:05 |
| danwent | thanks mark | 22:05 |
| danwent | Ok, so on to the meting | 22:05 |
| danwent | meeting | 22:05 |
| danwent | http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:05 |
| danwent | Some high-level feedback from the PPB: | 22:05 |
| danwent | 1) need to get integrated into main CI infrastructure for system-test/integration asap. | 22:06 |
| danwent | we've been working on this for sometime, and have a lot of the peices, but need to push this work to conclusion. | 22:06 |
| *** deshantm has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| *** woorea has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| danwent | 2) work to get to full parity with existing nova capabilities. | 22:06 |
| danwent | 3) API design work around integrating quantum + melange (to be discussed at summit, but we should really get started on this earlier). | 22:07 |
| danwent | 4) documentation around how to transition from a non-quantum setup to a quantum-based setup. | 22:08 |
| danwent | all in all, this is a lot of work, but its important to making sure people can fully leverage quantum. | 22:08 |
| danwent | Will discuss this more via email, but wanted to give you a flavor | 22:09 |
| danwent | are there any questions/comments about the transition to core? | 22:09 |
| *** Salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:09 | |
| mandeep | So melange is a part of the core as well (as a part of Quantum)? | 22:09 |
| wwkeyboard | What will the move to core do for the reviewers? Will all of the core devs be able to help? | 22:10 |
| danwent | mandeep: plan is that melange won't really exist anymore, though its IPAM capabilities will be folded into a new network API in the quantum project. | 22:10 |
| *** markmc has left #openstack-meeting | 22:10 | |
| danwent | wwkeyboard: I think we'll really have to grow our team of core reviewers. | 22:10 |
| danwent | wwkeyboard: this is something I already chatted with the PPB about, as I think we'll need more support from the general openstack community. | 22:11 |
| danwent | wwkeyboard: the questions of whether plugins will be included in the core is a separate issue, but certainly will have an impact on core dev review load. | 22:12 |
| wwkeyboard | and CI | 22:12 |
| wwkeyboard | Running their unit tests is one thing, but we won't be able to do functional testing on most of the plugins. | 22:13 |
| danwent | wwkeyboard: from a CI perspective, it is very unlikely that we will do CI for all plugins. | 22:13 |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 22:13 | |
| danwent | though I think one goal of the CI team would be to let other run equivalent CI infrastructure themselves. | 22:13 |
| danwent | so if you have a plugin, and a lab with the necessary equiptment, you could run CI testing for that plugin. | 22:14 |
| mandeep | Re: CI for plugins: Would that not depend on the plugin providing a test that can be run in the CI environemnt? | 22:14 |
| *** zykes- has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| danwent | mandeep: I think CI is more about doing basic functional testing that works identically regardless of plugin. | 22:15 |
| Salv-orlando | Some plugins require specialized hardware | 22:15 |
| mandeep | <danwent> OK. | 22:15 |
| *** johnpur has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| danwent | Salv-orlando: exactly, which is why were were saying that it would not be possible for openstack CI team to do CI across all plugins. | 22:16 |
| Salv-orlando | Agreed. | 22:16 |
| danwent | but the plugin creators themselves could choose to run the CI test infrastructure themselves with a lab that includes the specialized HW. | 22:16 |
| danwent | ok, any other questions? | 22:16 |
| danwent | Ok, next topic is Folsom design summit | 22:17 |
| danwent | invites | 22:17 |
| mandeep | salv-orlando: I understand. My point was in the plug-in writers write a plugin mock that can run in CI environment, we could run that (and identify API breakage etc early). | 22:17 |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:18 | |
| danwent | invites have gone out to an auto-generated list of people identified as existing openstack contributors | 22:18 |
| danwent | based on git/gerrit history, I believe. | 22:18 |
| danwent | this has caused quite a stir, as some people didn't get invites. | 22:19 |
| danwent | PTLs have a small number of additional invites for people who have not yet contributed, but plan on contributing in Folsom | 22:19 |
| *** ewindisch has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| danwent | so email me if you have not gotten an invite, but think you need one. We're doing our best to work though these issues. | 22:20 |
| danwent | remember, this is for the developer summit. | 22:20 |
| danwent | openstack conference is open to a much larger number of people. | 22:20 |
| danwent | questions/concerns on developer summit invites? | 22:20 |
| *** zykes has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:20 | |
| danwent | Ok, Essex-4 | 22:21 |
| *** mcohen has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| danwent | Today is our target for having all features reviewed and in. | 22:21 |
| *** nikhil__ has quit IRC | 22:21 | |
| *** shwetaap has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:21 | |
| *** nikhil__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:21 | |
| danwent | Looks like most things are in review: https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/essex-4 | 22:22 |
| danwent | though I had to do some clean-up earlier, as there were a lot of stale issues around. | 22:22 |
| danwent | So we have a lot of review work to do today. | 22:22 |
| *** Salv_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:22 | |
| danwent | Probably OK if it bleeds into tomorrow, but need to wrap it up very soon. | 22:23 |
| danwent | Please remember to keep an eye on the python-quantumclient repo as well: https://review.openstack.org/#q,status:open+project:openstack/python-quantumclient,n,z | 22:23 |
| danwent | Particularly, Salvatore has a branch on the 1.1 client changes which is very important: https://review.openstack.org/#change,4301 | 22:23 |
| danwent | I have one review on there, but we'll need a second. | 22:24 |
| danwent | salv, any comments there, or is it good to go? | 22:24 |
| Salv_ | Yeah I'll be up for a few more hours tonight. Been at the stadium, too much adrebakine, can't sleep | 22:24 |
| *** Salv-orlando has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| Salv_ | I haven't yet loojed | 22:25 |
| danwent | Salv: I don't know what that is, but I'll assume its an illegal substance :P | 22:25 |
| Salv_ | Looked at the reviews | 22:25 |
| *** zykes has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| danwent | based on my last review, I think we're in good shape on that one. | 22:25 |
| *** zykes has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| Salv_ | Mobile phone swipe keyboard is set to italian ;-) | 22:25 |
| bhall | danwent: I think he meant adrenaline? :) | 22:25 |
| edgarmagana | dan and salv: let me take a look today | 22:26 |
| danwent | ah… dissapointed :) | 22:26 |
| danwent | thanks edgar! | 22:26 |
| Salv_ | Thanks | 22:26 |
| edgarmagana | f you have already +1 I can approve it | 22:26 |
| danwent | edgar: I still need to do another pass, as salv uploaded some changes since I last reviewed. | 22:26 |
| danwent | but I don't expect problems as my previous comments where fairly minor. | 22:27 |
| danwent | https://review.openstack.org/#change,3618 | 22:27 |
| danwent | ryu plugin. salv and I have been doing this review | 22:27 |
| danwent | salv has a +1. I need to confirm that a few of my points where addressed, then I think its good to go. | 22:27 |
| danwent | nvp plugin review: https://review.openstack.org/#change,4358 | 22:28 |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:28 | |
| danwent | would be good to get a non-nicira review on this. We've all reviewed it internally, and could reveiew publicly, if needed. | 22:28 |
| *** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:28 | |
| Salv_ | I can do a review in the morning (europe morning) | 22:29 |
| mandeep | danwent: I will be reviewing it as well | 22:29 |
| danwent | great! | 22:29 |
| danwent | And there's a change to add a tunneling agent to OVS: https://review.openstack.org/#change,4367 | 22:30 |
| danwent | ~250 lines. | 22:30 |
| danwent | I still need to review this, and bhall is already reviewing. | 22:31 |
| cdub | hmm, interesting, thanks for noting that | 22:31 |
| danwent | but if anyone else wants to review, please add yourself. | 22:31 |
| danwent | is bob here? https://review.openstack.org/#change,4286 | 22:31 |
| cdub | danwent: bob is out this week | 22:32 |
| danwent | sumit and I have both +1'd his change, but I'm waiting on feedback regarding plugin binaries in the bin directory | 22:32 |
| *** zykes has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| danwent | cdub: ah... | 22:32 |
| danwent | Ok, so the question is whether plugin agent's should be in the main quantum/bin directory | 22:32 |
| danwent | my sense was that they should not be, but I wasn't sure if this was somehow needed for packaging. | 22:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | danwent +1 | 22:33 |
| danwent | cdub: is Bob completely offline? I'm wondering whether we can tweak this patch with him being out. | 22:33 |
| bhall | you mean in the tree? I think they should live with the plugin (maybe a bin directory in the plugin or something). If we split out the plugins to a repo at some point we'll have to move them out of the bin dir anyways | 22:34 |
| GheRivero | from a packaging view, plugins agent should be at plugins dir, this way it's easy to differenciate which binary belongs to which klg (althoug in this case is easier) | 22:34 |
| danwent | b/c this contains several things which are quite important. | 22:34 |
| cdub | danwent: pretty much offline, yeah. i can bug him, but i already did once...hate to interrupt his time off | 22:34 |
| wwkeyboard | bhall: +1 | 22:34 |
| bhall | all else fails we can push his patch and generate a patch to it | 22:34 |
| GheRivero | anyway, at packaging time we will move everything around | 22:34 |
| danwent | bhall: you thinking something like quantum/plugins/<plugin-name>/bin ? | 22:34 |
| bhall | yeah, something like that | 22:34 |
| GheRivero | +1 | 22:35 |
| davlap | +1 | 22:35 |
| danwent | that would make more sense to me, but had wanted to hear from bob as to whether he had a reason for his approach. | 22:35 |
| mandeep | +1 | 22:35 |
| *** egallen has quit IRC | 22:35 | |
| cdub | yeah, the package process places things whereever, just makes sense to have the basic pre-package layout be sane to being with | 22:35 |
| cdub | begin with... | 22:36 |
| danwent | Ok, cdub, should we abandon his patchset and have someone else tweak it, or do you think he would want to tweak it himself soon (given our time constraints). | 22:36 |
| cdub | danwent: can i let you know later today? | 22:36 |
| danwent | cdub: sure. | 22:37 |
| cdub | ok, cool | 22:37 |
| danwent | cdub: we just definitely want this patch in soon, as it has several things important to making sure the sdist tarball is not busted, which we need to be able to test the E-4 release. | 22:37 |
| cdub | *nod* | 22:38 |
| cdub | i'll chase down right after this | 22:38 |
| danwent | thx | 22:38 |
| danwent | Ok, there are a few other small commits that we should also review today/tomorrow. | 22:38 |
| danwent | but unless someone wants to call them out explicitly, I'll skip them here so we can get back to work :) | 22:38 |
| danwent | Ok, last thing on the agenda was just to comment on what people should expect in terms of the master branch in the next few weeks. | 22:39 |
| *** mcohen has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:39 | |
| danwent | next week, only thing going into quantum master should be bug fixes or packaging work. | 22:39 |
| danwent | focus should be on testing | 22:40 |
| Salv_ | And docs :-) | 22:40 |
| danwent | Salv_: indeed… I always welcome help :) | 22:40 |
| danwent | Salv_: and yes, you'll be working on 1.1 API docs, I suppose, right? | 22:41 |
| *** jwalcik has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| Salv_ | Correct | 22:42 |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| danwent | After E-4 is cut, we'll go into a release candidate phase. | 22:42 |
| danwent | we will aim to cut our quantum essex release well in advance of the actual release date, and then re-open master for commits. | 22:43 |
| *** Salv__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:43 | |
| danwent | (tehnically, master will be open before then, but team resources should primarily be focused on getting the release candidate polished, and docs in shape) | 22:44 |
| Salv__ | I co | 22:44 |
| danwent | Any questions/comments on that? | 22:44 |
| Salv__ | Sorry did not want to enter texy | 22:44 |
| Salv__ | Text ... | 22:44 |
| danwent | shoot, looks like i skipped to agenda items. are debo-os or mjfork around? | 22:44 |
| mjfork | yes\ | 22:45 |
| bhall | don't see debo | 22:45 |
| *** ewindisch has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| danwent | mjfork, anything to add on the horizon front? | 22:45 |
| mjfork | shuold be commiting in about 5 mins | 22:45 |
| danwent | great! | 22:45 |
| danwent | can you send a link out to the netstack list so people can help review? | 22:45 |
| mjfork | Gabriel Hurley gave me a few pointers, finally have tests passing and was able to use the network name | 22:46 |
| danwent | mjfork, cool. when is the horizon freeze? | 22:46 |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| mjfork | some rough edges to flush out in creviews (e.g. hwo to detect if Quantum is present) | 22:46 |
| mjfork | i don't know. | 22:46 |
| mjfork | danwent: where is no blueprint for this right? | 22:47 |
| danwent | ? | 22:47 |
| danwent | there is no blueprint? | 22:47 |
| danwent | none that I am aware of in horizon. | 22:47 |
| mjfork | whoops, meant there is no | 22:47 |
| *** mcohen has left #openstack-meeting | 22:48 | |
| *** mandeep has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| danwent | might just create a bug there. That's why I was asking about when they were freezing. | 22:48 |
| danwent | but we can figure this out offline. Let us know if we can help review. | 22:48 |
| danwent | mjfork, anything else? | 22:49 |
| mjfork | yes, i will catch you offline. specific question around default networks. | 22:49 |
| danwent | Only other things we need to figure out is the status of debo's devstack stuff. Dave, I believe you said you have some feedback around using the script with devstack? | 22:50 |
| danwent | let's just take that offline | 22:50 |
| davlap | danwent: yes... | 22:50 |
| davlap | i've been working on multi-node devstack + quantum | 22:50 |
| davlap | will send out scrpits to the ML... | 22:50 |
| danwent | ok, great. getting integrated into the CI infrastructure is really important, as its part of what the PPB really wanted to see. | 22:51 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else to discuss? Other than that, we just really need review cycles today. | 22:51 |
| danwent | (and likely tomorrow…) | 22:51 |
| danwent | Ok, thanks folks, and congrats again to the team. This is an exciting step toward Quantum being used widely throughout the OpenStack community. | 22:53 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:53 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 21 22:53:25 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:53 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-22.02.html | 22:53 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-22.02.txt | 22:53 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-02-21-22.02.log.html | 22:53 |
| danwent | talk to you all later! | 22:53 |
| bhall | adios | 22:53 |
| danwent | or more likely via gerritt :) | 22:53 |
| Salv__ | Bye | 22:53 |
| davlap | cya! | 22:54 |
| *** Salv__ has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** Salv_ has quit IRC | 22:54 | |
| *** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:55 | |
| *** jlm^ has left #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** johan_-_ has left #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** wwkeyboard has left #openstack-meeting | 22:59 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** ewindisch has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:00 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** jog0_ is now known as jog0 | 23:03 | |
| *** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:05 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:07 | |
| *** davlap has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** davlap has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:13 | |
| *** dtroyer has quit IRC | 23:13 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:14 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 23:14 | |
| *** davlap has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:15 | |
| *** ravi has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:27 | |
| *** Raj_ has quit IRC | 23:29 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:43 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 23:48 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** jdg has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** Yak-n-Yeti has quit IRC | 23:55 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!