Tuesday, 2012-05-08

*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting00:14
*** reed has joined #openstack-meeting00:15
*** joearnold has quit IRC00:29
*** shang has quit IRC00:34
*** reed has quit IRC00:35
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz00:49
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer00:50
*** s0mik has quit IRC00:54
*** sprintnode has joined #openstack-meeting01:06
*** sprintnode has left #openstack-meeting01:07
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz01:09
*** mdrnstm has quit IRC01:11
*** jdurgin has quit IRC01:15
*** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting01:20
*** danwent has quit IRC01:25
*** Mandell has quit IRC01:28
*** milner has quit IRC01:28
*** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting01:45
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting01:47
*** dwalleck has quit IRC01:47
*** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting01:48
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting01:57
*** pengyong has quit IRC02:00
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC02:03
*** markmcclain has quit IRC02:11
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting02:20
*** dwalleck has quit IRC02:26
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting02:29
*** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting02:35
*** s0mik has quit IRC02:36
*** dprince has quit IRC02:46
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting02:47
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting02:54
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC02:54
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting02:57
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer03:06
*** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting03:07
*** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC03:07
*** littleidea has quit IRC03:22
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting03:23
*** dwcramer has quit IRC03:32
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC03:32
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting03:35
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn03:40
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting03:53
*** jgriff has quit IRC04:10
*** mnewby_ has joined #openstack-meeting04:15
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting04:16
*** mnewby has quit IRC04:17
*** mnewby_ is now known as mnewby04:17
*** mnewby has quit IRC04:18
*** Gordonz has quit IRC04:26
*** joearnold has quit IRC04:35
*** danwent has quit IRC04:55
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting05:05
*** edygarcia has quit IRC05:12
*** gakott has quit IRC05:13
*** jkoelker has quit IRC05:13
*** dabo has quit IRC05:13
*** westmaas has quit IRC05:14
*** dragondm has quit IRC05:14
*** littleidea has quit IRC05:16
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting05:17
*** Mandell has quit IRC05:17
*** Madkiss has quit IRC05:18
*** soren has quit IRC05:18
*** shang has quit IRC05:20
*** troytoman-away has quit IRC05:21
*** Kiall has quit IRC05:21
*** ttrifonov has quit IRC05:21
*** anotherjesse_zz has quit IRC05:21
*** ywu has quit IRC05:21
*** jog0 has quit IRC05:21
*** justinsb has quit IRC05:21
*** zykes- has quit IRC05:21
*** dendro-afk has quit IRC05:21
*** cp16net has quit IRC05:21
*** fattarsi has quit IRC05:21
*** jd___ has quit IRC05:21
*** clarkb has quit IRC05:21
*** sleepsonzzz has quit IRC05:21
*** _0x44 has quit IRC05:21
*** xtoddx has quit IRC05:21
*** med_ has quit IRC05:21
*** s0mik has quit IRC05:21
*** sleepsonthefloor has quit IRC05:21
*** jamespage has quit IRC05:21
*** jakedahn has quit IRC05:21
*** Daviey has quit IRC05:21
*** blamar has quit IRC05:21
*** jeblair has quit IRC05:21
*** anderstj has quit IRC05:21
*** johnpur has quit IRC05:21
*** mikal has quit IRC05:21
*** glenc has quit IRC05:21
*** phantomcircuit has quit IRC05:21
*** Guest34196 has quit IRC05:21
*** yamahata_ has quit IRC05:21
*** chmouel has quit IRC05:21
*** Adri2000 has quit IRC05:21
*** no`x has quit IRC05:21
*** jaypipes-afk has quit IRC05:21
*** LinuxJedi has quit IRC05:21
*** cdub has quit IRC05:21
*** pknouff_ has quit IRC05:21
*** nikhil__ has quit IRC05:21
*** comstud has quit IRC05:21
*** termie has quit IRC05:21
*** tr3buchet has quit IRC05:21
*** soren_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Mandell_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Madkiss_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jkoelker_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** edleafe has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** westmaas has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** justinsb has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** troytoman-away has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jd___ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** chmouel has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** pknouff_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** anotherjesse_zz has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** sleepsonthefloor has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Kiall has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** no`x has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** dendro-afk has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** phantomcircuit has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Guest34196 has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jaypipes-afk has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** cp16net has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** fattarsi has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** nikhil__ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** clarkb has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** med_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** sleepsonzzz has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** comstud has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** termie has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** LinuxJedi has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** tr3buchet has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** ttrifonov has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** tightwork_ has quit IRC05:22
*** Madkiss_ is now known as Madkiss05:23
*** tightwork has joined #openstack-meeting05:26
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting05:38
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting05:39
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC05:43
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting05:44
*** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting05:51
*** anderstj has quit IRC05:58
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz06:05
*** joearnold has quit IRC06:10
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting06:32
*** Mandell_ has quit IRC06:56
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz06:57
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting07:09
*** mnewby has quit IRC07:27
*** mancdaz has joined #openstack-meeting08:04
*** mancdaz has quit IRC08:10
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting08:13
*** mancdaz1203 has joined #openstack-meeting08:24
*** pengyong has quit IRC10:01
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting11:35
*** primeministerp has joined #openstack-meeting11:50
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:01
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting12:01
*** ayoung has quit IRC12:02
*** pvo-away is now known as pvo12:11
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting12:24
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting12:28
*** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:48
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC12:48
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting13:00
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting13:00
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting13:00
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC13:04
*** dwcramer has quit IRC13:04
*** markmcclain has quit IRC13:08
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC13:12
*** blamar has quit IRC13:17
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting13:24
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer13:28
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting13:37
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:38
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting13:43
*** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting13:45
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting13:53
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
*** GheRivero_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:01
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:11
*** soren_ is now known as soren14:17
*** pengyong has joined #openstack-meeting14:17
*** jsavak has quit IRC14:17
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting14:17
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz14:20
*** jaypipes-afk is now known as jaypipes14:25
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:33
*** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting14:34
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting14:35
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:36
*** oubiwann has quit IRC14:52
*** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting14:53
*** Mandell has quit IRC14:56
*** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
*** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:57
*** anderstj has quit IRC14:57
*** AlanClark has quit IRC14:59
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting15:00
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting15:07
*** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz15:15
*** oubiwann has quit IRC15:17
*** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting15:17
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting15:20
*** aclark_ has quit IRC15:21
*** dolphm has quit IRC15:22
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting15:24
*** markmcclain has quit IRC15:28
*** notmyname has quit IRC15:30
*** notmyname has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** oubiwann has quit IRC15:30
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC15:31
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting15:35
*** Adri2000 has quit IRC15:43
*** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting15:43
*** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting15:43
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting15:44
*** garyk has quit IRC15:45
*** ayoung has quit IRC15:51
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting15:51
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:52
*** winston-d has joined #openstack-meeting15:58
*** dolphm has quit IRC16:01
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting16:02
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting16:05
*** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:05
*** derekh has quit IRC16:06
*** dolphm has quit IRC16:09
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting16:11
*** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting16:12
*** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting16:12
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting16:13
*** mancdaz1203 has quit IRC16:13
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting16:13
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer16:15
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting16:16
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
*** zigo-_- has joined #openstack-meeting16:18
*** zigo has quit IRC16:18
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting16:29
*** s0mik has quit IRC16:31
*** somik is now known as s0mik16:31
*** joearnold has quit IRC16:34
*** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting16:36
*** mestery has quit IRC16:41
*** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting16:47
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting16:48
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting16:50
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting16:53
*** dolphm_ has quit IRC16:53
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting17:00
*** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting17:04
*** winston-d has left #openstack-meeting17:09
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn17:09
*** derekh has quit IRC17:18
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting17:21
*** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting17:21
*** ohnoimdead has joined #openstack-meeting17:22
*** shang has quit IRC17:23
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 17:31:00 2012 UTC.  The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.17:31
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.17:31
heckjtesting the meeting bot17:31
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting17:31
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"17:31
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 17:31:12 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)17:31
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.html17:31
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.txt17:31
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-17.31.log.html17:31
*** ayoung_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:32
*** GheRivero_ has quit IRC17:34
*** ayoung has quit IRC17:36
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting17:37
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting17:42
*** darraghb has quit IRC17:44
notmynameheckj: do you have stable internet this week? ;-)17:47
heckjat least not working from a coffee shop to avoid riots in Seattle17:50
*** anderstj_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:50
*** joearnol_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:50
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting17:52
*** joearnold has quit IRC17:52
*** mnewby has quit IRC17:52
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting17:52
*** anderstj has quit IRC17:53
*** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting17:56
*** zigo-_- has quit IRC17:59
heckjfolks here for Keystone?18:00
*** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting18:01
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting18:01
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting18:01
heckjmorning gyee!18:01
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 18:01:46 2012 UTC.  The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:01
heckjNot much on the topic list for this week18:01
heckjNext week we've got rafaduran wanting to discuss https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 and a related blueprint that I think he's creating18:02
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged]18:02
heckj#topic open discussion18:02
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"18:02
gyeeheckj, I need some love on the serviceId review18:02
rafaduranthe bluprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security18:02
annegentleheckj: I have a question re: keystone database support also18:03
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting18:03
heckjgyee: could you put a link up here for folks to review?18:03
dolphmv.next api draft link- now, tomorrow, soon?18:03
rafaduranand a draft https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/18:03
*** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting18:03
heckjdolphm: soon - haven't made as much progress last week and weekend as I'd hoped18:03
heckjannegentle: question?18:04
heckj#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7010/ <-- requesting review18:04
annegentleheckj: is postgresql tested at all as a backend for the catalog? I'm trying to find the bug where dolph said he fixed it, still looking18:04
heckj#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security <-- for discussion next week18:04
annegentleheckj: I wondered if it was going to be punted to openstack-common18:04
heckjannegentle: not explicitly testing postgresql18:05
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz18:05
dolphmannegentle: https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/987121 ?18:05
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 987121 in keystone "strict constraint for database table creation" [Medium,Fix committed]18:05
annegentleok, it's https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/88542618:05
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 885426 in keystone "type error with postgresql" [Medium,Fix released]18:05
annegentleapparently one of the CSS OSS guys tested it for the manual they just released, and said there's still a problem.18:05
dolphmannegentle: tested essex-3?18:06
annegentledolphm: no, their manual documents what shipped with 12.0418:06
dolphmannegentle: that bug fix isn't in the current codebase (pre-redux)18:07
dolphmannegentle: they must be seeing a new bug18:07
annegentlehe didn't know whether to open a new bug or reopen that old one18:07
*** lcheng has quit IRC18:07
ayoung_rafaduran, let me look18:07
heckjdolph - should we reset that to triaged/confirmed and hit it now?18:07
heckjdolphm: ^^18:08
*** ayoung_ is now known as ayoung18:08
dolphmheckj: that bug is unreproducable against ksl18:08
heckjAh -18:09
heckjannegentle: if it's still an issue, let's open a new bug with as much repro info as we can against it18:09
annegentleI'll have him open a new bug against keystone then. He also was unsure if it was a distro problem.18:09
ayoungannegentle, I can give it a test on Fedora or RHEL if that will help18:09
rafaduranayoung_:I'm sorry, bu I'm not really sure what are you asking for18:10
annegentleayoung: sure, that would help. I want to genericize the install/deploy guide for those distros too18:10
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting18:10
ayoungrafaduran, disregard...18:10
ayoungannegentle, that is the Grail, isn't it18:10
ayoungwe were discussing (internal IRC)   the multiple ways people automate install18:11
ayoungannegentle, CC me when you open the ticket18:11
annegentleayoung: you got it18:12
ayoungrafaduran, for the "3 times and you are "(locked) out" issue,  we were discussing whether this is a generic Keystone problem or should it just be for the Keystone Database impl18:12
ayoungIt seems like many people that have their own Identity Managment would get account locking from a centralized source already...ie LDAP18:13
gyeeespecially AD, I had my locked the other day18:13
ayoungSorry gyy,  thought i was better at hacking your account. I'll get it right next time :)18:14
gyeebut keystone password policy might be a nice to have though18:15
ayoungrafaduran, but regarding the general "imporve security"  I suspect we should focus on reusing what has been done for HTTPD18:15
ayoungas opposed to trying to bolt things on to eventlet18:15
ayoungwhich leads to my next topic...18:15
rafaduranayoung: but reporting and rate limit doesn't conflict that18:16
ayoungrafaduran, agreed that reporting stands alone.18:16
ayoungNot sure about rate limit18:16
ayoungyou might be right there.18:16
ayoungThere also might be something in HTTPD to perform that as well.18:16
liemmnayoung, is the HTTPD SSL stuff ready for review yet?  We are looking to push the 2-way SSL back in...18:17
ayoungliemmn, SSL  or Client cert?18:17
ayoungHTTPD SSL works18:17
liemmn2-way SSL18:17
liemmnclient cert18:17
ayoungliemmn, OK,  so that Requires HTTPD18:17
ayoungand so I was asking if we can make that the one and only,  or if we need to keep eventlet around?18:18
ayoungheckj, ^^ is really a question for you18:18
heckjsorry - distracting. reading18:18
ayoungliemmn, however,  I have a paste I want to share which is the general approach18:18
liemmnsure... please shoot it my way and I can take a look... thx18:19
ayounglots of duplicated code there from higher,  but the gist is this18:19
ayoungconfigure HTTPD to do authentication for you,18:19
ayoungand then in Keystone,  the rule is18:19
ayoung1.  Look for UserId/ Password in the message itself18:19
ayoung2.  Look for a token18:20
ayoung3.  Look for REMOTE_USER18:20
ayoungREMOTE_USER means that HTTPD authenticated you already18:20
heckjayoung: we should keep both around from an internal code point of view.18:20
*** joearnol_ has quit IRC18:21
heckjayoung: we could also really use some documentation in the ReST files (doc/source) walking someone through how to configure to take advantage of the 2-way SSL and such.18:21
ayoungheckj, for 2 Way SSL ,  I'm not there yet,  but I would be happy to once I get it working.18:22
gyeeayoung, that's for authentication only right? what about token validation?18:22
liemmnFrom the middleware perspective, there is still a need to have both 2-way SSL and normal token validation... i.e., I only allow these hosts with these signed certs to do valiidate token.18:22
ayoungIt is going to be slightly different for Fedora and Debian based distros due to the way that HTTPD gets set up.  We already see that in Devstack18:22
ayounggyee, same general rule18:22
ayoungexcept the user part doesn;t apply18:22
ayoungso only look for admin auth token and then REMOTE_USER18:23
ayoungand then confuirm that remote user has admin privs18:23
*** patelna has quit IRC18:24
gyeeheckj, yeah, lots of docs for ayoung18:24
ayoungheckj, how about for a devstack install?  Is it OK if we go HTTPD there?18:24
heckjayoung: it should be an option for the devstack setup as well, but I don't see anything wrong with the idea.18:25
ayoungheckj, I see Eventlet being troublesome18:25
ayoungDevstack is getting pretty complex18:25
ayoungand I would like to avoid putting more knobs to turn in there18:25
ayoungIt comes down to most people using the default options18:26
ayoungexcept maybe for the piece they are working on.18:26
ayoungSo I'd like, in devstack, for httpd to be the default18:26
rafaduranayoung: why do you think eventlet is a problem?18:26
heckjayoung: that's the right place to start, but I'm not sure I agree that it *should* be default when I haven't seen it working yet. I don't doubt your work, just want to see it operational before we make it a default18:27
ayoungrafaduran, 1.  SSL support is spotty in Python, not just Eventlet.  2.  IPv6,  3.Client Certs and other auth versions.18:27
ayoungheckj, understood18:27
ayoungif I am making it work as a devstack patch18:27
ayoungI write it one way if it is going to be the one true approach18:27
ayoungand another way if it is going to be just an option18:27
ayoungrafaduran, rafaduran there are also issues in the Eventlet_>SQL code that we are seeing else where that I fear are going to bite us18:28
liemmnIMHO, SSL should be an option... For someone who wants to get started quickly with Keystone, certificates is cumbersome.  Make testing more cumbersome too.18:29
ayoungliemmn, that is correct18:29
ayoungcerts are only an option if the site admin sets them up18:29
ayoungthe nice thing about fronting with HTTPD is that they can even use basic-auth without changing the Python side of things18:29
ayoungthe changes are confined to /etc/httpd/conf.d/keystone.conf18:30
ayoung(on Fedora)18:30
ayoungliemmn, but, if you want to do , say Kerberos (AD)  you get that, too18:30
liemmnyeah... reading your blog on setup howto :)18:31
liemmnare we unit testing with httpd, too?18:32
ayoungliemmn, good question...I would argue that if you are running a webserver,  you are probably not "Unit testing"  but that is neither here nor there18:33
gyeeayoung, for certificate authentication, how do you map user certificate to keystone user ID?18:33
ayounggyee, I was thinking that REMOTE_USER should be username. So it is probably the Principal in the X50918:33
gyeethat configurable in your implementation?18:34
ayounggyee, I don't think we want to put the UserID into the Certificates, do you?18:34
ayounggyee, no,  but Client Certs are not done or tested yet anyway.18:34
liemmnuser name sounds good to me18:34
ayoungIwas focusing on getting Keystone to work with Nova first.18:35
ayoungI have it working with Glance.18:35
gyeeI am looking at http://fpaste.org/9PLL/18:35
gyeehow does httpd translate user cert into user_ref?18:35
liemmnLine 1218:36
ayounggyee, just to set expectations corectly:  I just wrote but have not tested that code...it was more a "thinking along these lines"18:36
ayoungself.identity_api.get_user_by_name(context=context, user_name=context['REMOTE_USER'])18:36
rafaduranayoung: a user can be authenticated for a given tenant too?18:36
gyeeoh ok, I'll wait for your rst doc then18:37
liemmnI do think we want to test 2-way SSL with unit tests... I am a big fan of unit tests...  We were doing it before; we should be able to do it now.18:37
ayoungliemmn, agreed.  The question, then, is how to run HTTPD for unit tests18:37
liemmnI have no answer yet, but... just something to keep in mind when it comes to configuration :)18:37
ayoungI'd guess something along the lines of :  "see if you can run HTTPD listening on 5000 or 35757 as the current user, reading all config info out of the git tree:"18:39
ayoungliemmn, but I'd almost think that Eventlet+basic_auth would be a good first step18:40
ayoungassuming that Eventlet then sets REMOTE_USER,  the rest of the Python code would remain unchanged18:40
liemmnThe client needs to validate server cert as well... so, need HTTPD there.18:43
ayoungliemmn, so  Eventlet ,  SSL and Client certs should really be a sn upstream Eventlet feature,  not anything specific to any Openstack18:43
ayoungliemmn, is that really unit testing Keystone,  or just that SSL is set up?18:43
liemmnyeah, actually, if my memory serves me correctly, that's where I made the changes...18:44
ayoungI mean,  you can always run curl -k ...18:44
*** s0mik has quit IRC18:44
ayoungliemmn, OK,  so there should be a pretty simple way to run and test SSL in Eventlet as well as HTTP,  if you can find your notes,  send them to me18:45
heckjliemmn: would love to see the same ^^  if you're finding them18:45
gyeehe's code were on the E3 branch I think18:45
gyeebefore the KSL cut over18:46
liemmn(digging up old mails... :) )18:46
heckj#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/1038/ <-- two way SSL from prior to KSL integration18:47
liemmn(that was my very first commit in Openstack... so, I f'up a lot... laugh it up :) )18:47
ayoung126        sslsocket = eventlet.wrap_ssl(socket, certfile=certfile,18:48
ayoung127                                      keyfile=keyfile,18:48
ayoung128                                      server_side=True, cert_reqs=cert_reqs,18:48
ayoung129                                      ca_certs=ca_certs)18:48
ayoungthat seems to be the heart of it...18:48
liemmnshould be a fairly small effort to get it working with eventlet18:49
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz18:50
ayoungheckj, I keep hearing that SSL support in Python is problematic.  Buy oviously Swift has been running this way for years...what am I missing?  Do real world Swift deployments just run with Hardware  SSL ?18:50
notmynameayoung: you should run swift with external ssl termination (in the load balancer or something like that)18:51
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting18:51
heckjayoung: I'm not sure what's behind the "SSL in python is problematic" - I haven't done much with it personally to know what the issues are or have been.18:51
*** s0mik has quit IRC18:51
gyeepython httplib2 does not do server cert validation18:51
ayoungnotmyname, doesn't that defeat the purpose of using eventlet or a similarly event driven web server?18:52
notmynameayoung: https://github.com/notmyname/ssl_eventlet_slowloris18:52
ayoungheckj, IIUC it comes down to Python taking the GIL when doing the SSL,  which means that a web server blocks for each request,  but I am not sure if that is the whole story18:53
notmynameayoung: it's not as much a problem with eventlet as much as how python exposes the socket to eventlet. but I'd like to explore more on this (it's near the bottom of my todo list)18:53
*** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting18:54
ayoungnotmyname, would swift benefit from HTTPD support?18:54
ayoungwe can have that conversation later...times almost up for this meeting and I've waxed poetic18:55
heckj5 minutes left18:55
gyeeheckj, I've started the domain bp impl18:57
heckjanything last minute before I close this down?18:57
heckjgyee: excellent!18:57
gyeeshould I stash the stuff in contrib or identity?18:57
gyeein the absence in /v3.018:57
heckjstart with contrib/ - and we'll work on moving/merging when we get /v3 settled18:57
liemmnquick question... heckj, how are the v3 api comming?18:58
*** lcheng has quit IRC18:58
liemmnany etherpad?18:58
heckjleimmn: way back to the begining of the meeting - didn't get the time I wanted this past week & weekend to work on it.18:58
heckjNo etherpad18:58
heckjwill be in google docs for feedback - etherpad is just a touch too unstructured for what I want18:59
liemmncool... please keep me and gyee in the loop.... thx18:59
heckjOkay - that's it for today!18:59
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"18:59
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 18:59:35 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)18:59
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.html18:59
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.txt18:59
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-18.01.log.html18:59
heckj^^ so glad that worked this week!18:59
uvirtbotheckj: Error: "^" is not a valid command.18:59
LinuxJedilol :)18:59
*** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
*** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting19:00
heckjfuckin bot19:00
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn19:01
*** liemmn has quit IRC19:01
LinuxJedimtaylor: ready?19:01
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 19:02:08 2012 UTC.  The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:02
mtaylormorning everybody, who wants to talk about CI stuff?19:02
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting19:02
mtaylorso, the big news this week is that I actually encoded the current todo list into bugs!19:03
mtaylor#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+milestone/folsom19:03
LinuxJediduring the weekend, you need a kick for that part19:03
mtayloranything we think we're actually going to do in the folsom cycle has now been targetted to the folsom milestone19:03
LinuxJedibut awesome otherwise :)19:03
jeblairLinuxJedi: you're one to talk -- you'd prefer he do it while on vacation? :P19:04
mtaylornice side benefit - we also get to keep seeing fix released bugs in that list ...19:04
jeblairmtaylor: neato19:04
LinuxJedijeblair: yes, but I'm not supposed to be the sane one (I think)19:04
mtaylorso, for those of you who did some bugs since ODS ... if you feel like targetting them to folsom it'll help us remember that we did them at the next summit19:04
mtaylorbut, you know, not super important19:05
mtaylorclarkb: you wanna tell folks about etherpad?19:05
mtaylor#topic etherpad19:05
*** openstack changes topic to "etherpad"19:05
clarkbsure is an instance that I got going this morning completely from scratch through puppet19:05
clarkbaside from a few minor details. SSL certs and mysql db backups are not puppeted19:06
mtaylordo we want ssl on it?19:06
LinuxJedimaybe for private etherpads?19:07
clarkbwe don't necessarily need it but it was the default in all the reverse proxy examples19:07
mtaylorI mean, I like ssl and stuff19:07
* jeblair is never opposed to ssl19:07
clarkbalso devstack horizon was already listening on port 80 :)19:07
mtaylorwe have multiple things using databases now19:07
*** pengyong has quit IRC19:08
jeblairclarkb: are there options to make chat and user lists visible by default?19:08
mtaylorif we use upstream mysql module, will that do sane backups and stuff?19:08
clarkbjeblair: I there may be in the settings file19:08
mtaylorjeblair: there's a personal config setting for chat to always be visible19:08
clarkbmtaylor: I am not sure about backups but it is cross platform mysql able19:08
jeblairi feel like having chat be hidden may cause people not to notice there is a chat going on, and not showing the user list may leave people editing without setting user names.19:08
LinuxJedimtaylor: have we even considered centralising the databases to a couple of servers?19:08
*** mdrnstm has joined #openstack-meeting19:08
LinuxJedijeblair: ++19:09
mtaylorLinuxJedi: I wouldn't be opposed to that in general... but at the very least having a mysql module that we use in our tree that does sane things with backups would be a great start!19:09
clarkbI can spend some time this afternoon to see what the mysql and vcsrepo modules will give us19:10
*** atiwari has quit IRC19:10
mtayloralso, nice things about new  etherpad is rest api19:10
clarkbseems like a lot of our modules do similar things in a bunch of different ways so moving to the upstream ones should be beneficial19:10
jeblairclarkb: yes, that's very much desired19:10
jeblairmoving to external or upstream modules, that is19:11
jeblairnot doing things different ways.  :)19:11
jeblairi like the new etherpad.19:11
jeblairone more question: is etherpad-lite easily themable?19:11
*** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting19:11
clarkbyes, iirc you drop your custom stuff in a special folder and everything is happy19:12
jeblairor would we just be wasting space if we put an openstack banner on top...19:12
LinuxJedijudging by the source of the html it should be easy enough19:12
mtaylorI think we'd be wasting space ...19:12
mtaylorbut perhaps an small openstack logo to the left of the bold button?19:13
mtaylorin the button bar?19:13
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting19:13
clarkboh and before I forget you can import documents too which is shiny19:13
zykes-ok danwent now i've purged the db19:13
zykes-restored essex manager.py, recreated the nova + ovs_quantum db and repopulated the settings, now i'm back to the error that it doesn't create gw-<uuid ish> interfaces when it spawns a vm19:14
clarkbsounds like I need to look at defaulting the chat window to open and ading an openstack logo19:14
jeblairzykes-: i think you have the wrong channel.  :)19:15
clarkbI think the 404 message is pretty blah too19:15
*** hggdh has quit IRC19:15
clarkband need backups19:15
zykes-oh, darn it ;)19:15
mtaylorclarkb: ++19:16
mtaylor#topic Jenkins Job Filler19:17
*** openstack changes topic to "Jenkins Job Filler"19:17
mtaylorLinuxJedi: wanna chat about that?19:17
*** Haneef has left #openstack-meeting19:17
LinuxJediso, I have been fixing bugs in our puppet module which automatically generates Jenkins jobs19:17
LinuxJedibut... it is getting insanely complex to describe a job now19:18
LinuxJedilike, I managed to confuse mtaylor with it last week19:18
mtayloryes. you did19:18
LinuxJediso, I am working on 2.0 right now19:18
LinuxJediit will be writing in Python and jobs are described in YAML19:18
LinuxJediit also talks directly to Jenkins rather than screwing with the FS19:19
LinuxJediwhich gives us lots of wins19:19
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting19:19
ShrewsLinuxJedi: so they'd no longer be in puppet?19:19
LinuxJediShrews: we will put the script and the YAML in puppet with some cron or something19:19
Shrewsah gotcha19:19
LinuxJedianyway, by the end of today it will probably be 33% there, hoping to have something we can really play with by the end of week19:20
LinuxJediin the mean time I'm not planning on fixing any 1.0 bugs since it is getting too hard to describe a job in puppet language19:21
LinuxJediand I hate ruby so I'm not going there19:21
mtaylorI think that finishing the good python version is the most important thing for your life at the moment19:21
mtaylorbecause we have reached the tipping point where the number of jobs we have is completely unworkable19:21
jeblairi'm very supportive of this.  :)19:22
LinuxJedioh totally19:22
mtaylor#topic PyPI Mirrors19:22
*** openstack changes topic to "PyPI Mirrors"19:22
mtaylorShrews: ?19:22
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz19:22
Shrewsso, working on setting up a local pypi mirror (sample here:
Shrewswaiting for RS machine for a permanent home19:23
Shrewsmtaylor: you on that?19:23
Shrewsthe plan is to mirror everything, which should be interesting19:23
mtaylorShrews: nope. LinuxJedi - can you help Shrews out with a machine in the openstackci account?19:24
LinuxJedimtaylor: sure19:24
LinuxJediwhat hostname do you want to give it guys?19:24
mtaylorLinuxJedi: pypi.openstack.org ?19:24
Shrewsthat url was wrong.. should have been
LinuxJedisounds good to me.  I'll arrange is straight after this meting19:24
mtaylorLinuxJedi: thank you19:24
LinuxJediShrews: how much disk would you like for it?19:25
* mtaylor thinks our mirror should mirror EVERYTHING, not just select things19:25
ShrewsLinuxJedi: gonna have to guess at that... let's try 25G?19:25
Shrewsor more19:25
LinuxJediShrews: should be able to give you at least 40G easily I think19:26
ShrewsLinuxJedi: great19:26
jeblairrs cloud machines can be upgraded after creation, so it's simple to move to another size19:26
Shrewsso i've been looking at what we need to do to manage that sucker through puppet19:26
Shrewsshouldn't be too hard19:27
mtaylorcool. clark did some crazy tihngs with etherpad ... so he might be a good person to ping in terms of getting a weird thing installed19:28
mtaylorit's _possible_ that a full pypi mirror might be quick enough to obviate the need for the .cache.bundle work we've been doing19:28
clarkbcrazy? the fun can be found here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7206/19:28
mtaylorspeaking of - we should review that...19:28
clarkbI don't think it is ready19:28
* LinuxJedi has also done some crazy-insane things with puppet so can help out if stuck19:29
mtaylorno. LinuxJedi has no time for Shrews19:29
clarkbI want to take a quick stab at the items above and try and incorporate them all, however I am not opposed to merging sooner :)19:29
LinuxJedihaha :)19:29
mtaylorclarkb: no rush19:29
mtaylorShrews: LinuxJedi must finish pyhton job filler before you can talk to him again ;)19:29
* LinuxJedi locks himself away in the corner19:30
Shrewsmtaylor: but he's so lonely in the morning/afternoon  :(19:30
LinuxJediShrews: not true, my wife is at hom... oh I see your point ;)19:30
Shrewsyou dang west coasters get up too late19:30
clarkbShrews: I have been trying to get up earlier, but it is hard19:31
mtaylorwell, I'm about to be east coast for a while, so I'll be around to yell at you earlier19:31
mtaylor#topic bare metal19:32
*** openstack changes topic to "bare metal"19:32
mtaylorin other news, devananda has gotten our new bare metal machines accessible!19:32
mtaylorso we might actually have some bare metal builders again19:32
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC19:32
*** dwcramer has quit IRC19:32
mtaylor#topic general things19:33
*** openstack changes topic to "general things"19:33
LinuxJedibare metal sounds like some top-shelf robot magazine, we should really think of a better name19:33
mtayloranybody got anything else?19:33
mtaylorjeblair - go!19:33
mtaylorjeblair: (want me to change the topic for you?)19:33
jeblairat UDS, some ubuntu folks are interested in making sure that openstack runs on arm as well as intel19:34
LinuxJedioh yea, I remember that coming up at ODS and thinking we my need to test that19:34
clarkbI have a beagleboard if we need bare metal testing hardware :)19:34
jeblairwhile i'd love to have a 2u, 250 watt, 48 arm processor machine in my room... i told them since they'll be doing stuff in a lab anyway, we can hook their testing up to gerrit19:35
LinuxJedijeblair: we could by some raspberry pi boxes ;)19:35
*** s0mik has quit IRC19:35
mtaylorjeblair: were they amenable to participating in our external-testing-interface program?19:36
jeblairso we can expect a couple of jenkinses from ubuntu to be reporting back to gerrit this cycle, if all goes well19:36
mtaylorlove it19:36
mtayloroh - don't know if I mentioned before, but jclouds plugin is released and in the wild, so we're going to try to get it to spin up our slaves soon19:37
LinuxJedione more thing from me, we have started documenting how to get external testing setups to report to Jenkins19:37
mtaylorLinuxJedi: ++19:37
mtaylorLinuxJedi: did you see my notes in the bug about that?19:37
LinuxJedi#link http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html19:37
mtaylor#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/99560019:38
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 995600 in openstack-ci "document external testing hooks" [High,Triaged]19:38
*** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting19:38
LinuxJedimtaylor: nope, I must have missed that when skimming them, sorry19:38
LinuxJedimtaylor: ah, want me to take that on?19:38
mtaylorthere you go, I jst assigned it to you19:38
mtaylorhowever, job filler more important :)19:38
LinuxJediof course :)19:38
mtaylorunless you need to context switch for sanity19:38
mtaylorobviously - do what works :)19:39
Shrewsexcept speak to me19:39
LinuxJedino, I'd rather concentrate on one thing at a time so that I don't forget where I am19:39
mtaylorthat is all I've got for now - anybody else?19:39
LinuxJediI lost sanity years ago19:39
LinuxJediaround the time I worked for a company beginning with 'O'19:39
LinuxJedionly other thing is meetbot should be stable now19:41
LinuxJediI fixed the last few minor issues last week19:41
mtayloralright - I've got a doctor's appointment ... thanks guys!19:42
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"19:42
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 19:42:09 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:42
*** dolphm has quit IRC19:42
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.html19:42
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.txt19:42
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-19.02.log.html19:42
*** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting19:42
*** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting19:43
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
*** ewindisch has quit IRC19:47
*** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:48
*** thingee has joined #openstack-meeting19:50
*** littleidea has quit IRC19:51
*** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea19:51
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting19:51
*** hggdh has quit IRC19:52
*** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting19:53
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn19:54
*** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting20:00
*** dolphm has quit IRC20:00
*** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting20:00
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 20:00:37 2012 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.20:00
*** milner has quit IRC20:00
jbrycehi everyone20:00
jbrycehttp://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda20:01
jbrycei see notmyname, ewanmellor, johnpur, ttx, danwent, bcwaldon...anyone else here?20:01
*** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting20:02
bcwaldonanotherjesse is out today20:02
jbrycewell let's get started20:03
jbryce#topic 3rd Party APIs20:03
*** openstack changes topic to "3rd Party APIs"20:03
jbrycevishy: you around?20:03
vishysorry, just reading the last couple posts in the thread20:04
jbryceso we've had some discussion on the mailing list, last week's chat, etc20:04
jbrycehow much do we want to try to tackle today? apis? core/non-core?20:05
johnpurlooks like there are various issues wrapped into the discussion20:05
vishyon the mailing list it sounded like people were mostly for option b20:05
notmynamevishy: can you paste in option b?20:05
ttxon it20:05
vishythanks ttx:20:05
vishyIt hink markmc made some good points in his email though.20:06
*** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
jbryce#info third party apis are not part of openstack core, and we focus on building a strong ecosystem where these apis could exist as proxies or external plugins. It is up to deployers to decide which ecosystem projects to include in their distributions20:06
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz20:06
jbrycethat was option b20:06
jbrycevishy: i agree20:06
vishyto take nova specifically, I'm not totally sure that we have the architecture for external plugins for apis really locked down20:07
vishyso allowing them into feature branches in the meantime might be the only option20:07
jbrycemy instinct is mostly in line with option b as well, but i think the issue i'm having trouble understanding how to make that a smooth experience for people20:07
johnpurwhile i agree in principle with b, we need to ensure that the actual implementations by the projects support high performance and compatible solutions20:07
johnpurotherwise, the external API's will always suck20:08
jbrycepeople in my statement being developers who want to create a plugin api for CIMI or another api as well as deployers who want to include them20:08
ttxI think mark's point is that we shouldn't be closing the door on the idea getting proper separation of compute code vs. API - which would enable APIs as plu-ins rather than as proxies20:08
jbryceto vishy's point, some of that is definitely architecture related20:09
ttxbut I'm not sure that's orthogonal to (b)20:10
johnpuralso, as a policy do we need to make a statement that the core projects must support an API extension/plug-in model? It will be weird to have solutions for only some of the projects.20:10
vishyso it seems like we could agree to make an effort in the projects to allow these external plugins to be as performant as what we work on internally, and to improve stability and testing of the interfaces we expose to the plugins so that they can be as solid.20:10
*** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting20:11
jbrycejohnpur: i think a key would be having some kind of standard convention if not a policy around how to do this across projects. otherwise it will only make these efforts more and more confusing20:11
johnpurvishy: +20:11
vishyand we could encourage the contributors to help improve those things in the core projects.20:11
*** s0mik has quit IRC20:11
notmynamejohnpur: vishy: it becomes hard to make general decisions when the APIs are so different in functionality20:12
vishyjbryce: I don't know that there is something that makes sense across the projects20:12
jbryceit doesn't have to be at a code architecture level20:12
johnpurnotmyname: understood, doesn't mean we should punt on the issue, right?20:12
vishynotmyname: agreed, we can't make general technical decisions, so I think the best we can do is make general policy decisions about best effort.20:12
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC20:12
*** dwcramer has quit IRC20:12
notmynameok. just don't want to go too far ;-)20:12
jbrycebut a basic convention of where they live and how they are treated. like what you (vishy) said20:12
johnpurvishy: agree20:13
jbrycelet me see if we've got some general agreement on some things20:13
jbryceopenstack projects should support an official openstack project api directly in the core implementation20:13
jbryceadditional APIs ("3rd party APIs") will live outside of the core implementation and can be integrated in individual deployments through and extenion/plugin mechanism20:14
notmynamejbryce: I agree, but it's almost a truism because whatever API they implement is the openstack API for that project20:15
jbrycenotmyname: i agree, just trying to define the differences between openstack API and 3rd party API20:15
jbrycethe core implementation should allow 3rd party APIs to be as performant as the openstack API by exposing solid, stable interfaces20:16
vishyjbryce: I'm not sure that we can mandate that they must live outside20:16
vishyjbryce: unless we are just talking ultimate goal here.20:16
johnpurcan a project support two "official" API's? for instance, a rest openstack implementation *and* a native standards based api? if it makes sense?20:16
vishyjohnpur: I don't know if we have enough information to make that decision20:17
jbrycevishy: ok. option b seemed to say that 3rd party APIs are not put in core20:17
vishyif one of the standards apis takes off and it makes sense, then i could see that happening20:17
vishyjbryce: I agree with the principle that they should be there20:17
heckjvishy: ++20:17
vishyjbryce: I just don't know if we are technically at the point where they can20:17
vishy(in some of the projects)20:18
johnpurvishy: it is the same thing you just raised... do we mandate the 3rd party api live outside?20:18
jbrycevishy: let's work on defining the end state of this as the goal/convention to aim for20:18
notmynamewe should talk about the ultimate goal instead of what is possible today20:18
notmynames/.*/jbryce +1/20:18
vishythe end goal is that 3rd party apis live outside and are just as performant and well-tested as what is inside20:18
jbryceso if a formal standard takes off, would we want it in core, or treat it as a 3rd party api still that lives outside?20:19
vishyjbryce: cross that bridge when we come to it?20:19
notmynamevishy: with the caveat that "if one of the standards apis takes off and it makes sense, then [we include it in the core]"?20:19
johnpurif the goal of being performant and stable is achieved, it shouldn't matter20:19
jbrycejohnpur: i agree20:19
johnpurexcept perhaps in a pckaging and deployment option sense20:20
ttxnotmyname: "taking off" is a bit subjective unfortunately20:20
notmynamettx: true20:20
vishynotmyname: +1 (if every deployer is primarily deploying CIMI or OCCI or <insert new api here> and everyone is using it, then we can determine whether it should join/replace the openstack api at that point)20:20
jbryceso from an implementation standpoint it sounds like we want to direct people developers working on 3rd party APIs to develop those externally to the core source? agree?20:21
vishyjohnpur: agreed, if we are successful, it shouldn't matter whether the code is 'in core' or not.20:21
heckjjbryce: I believe so, yes20:22
johnpurjbryce: yes. but this will only work if the projects do the work to allow the 3rd party API's to be integrated smoothly20:22
ttxif we do plug-ins well, and the packagers support the popular ones well, in the end it shouldn't matter that much20:22
johnpurttx: agree20:22
jbryceso is there any exposure/status for 3rd party apis?20:23
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting20:23
*** littleidea has quit IRC20:23
notmynamejbryce: the first easy way is with wsgi middleware20:23
jbrycedo we leave it completely up to packagers, deployers and distributions to find the set they want to include20:23
ttxjbryce: that's the difference between the (c) and (b) options20:23
ttxc is b with some kind of blessing20:23
notmynameoh, sorry. wrong definition of "exposure"20:23
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting20:24
ttxwe can definitely start with (b) and see. While we can't really do the other way around20:24
notmynamejbryce: I'd prefer to leave it up to the packagers and deployers and not give any status to one or another20:24
ttxlike start blessing some plugins and then remove that notion...20:24
*** littleidea has quit IRC20:24
heckjttx: I don't want to "bless" anything - I think that's the wrong approach. I DO want to make the extensions and additional components easily visible and findable. Just not asserting any "recommended", "official", or other heavily-laden word for our opinion of it.20:25
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting20:25
vishyI kind of prefer going the free market route and allow blessing to come from usage instead of some magic want wielded by us.20:25
johnpurjbryce: i think you are brining up a bigger issue... i am composing a ML for this, and want to discuss next week or so. the core issue is what the "container" is for openstack projects20:25
notmynameheckj: +120:25
ttxheckj: I think it's fair20:25
johnpurnotmyname's swift status triggered this for me20:25
ttxheckj: the grey area is about test integration I guess. We might want to "mark" some of them as being integrated into our CI20:25
jbryceheckj: i agree. i think the visibility part is way more important anyway20:26
heckjjohnpur: I'm not sure what you mean by "container"20:26
johnpuris there a difference between "swift" and "openstack object storage"? i think there is.20:26
jbrycettx: that was my next question = )20:26
johnpurlet me send thoughts to the ml before we get into it.20:26
notmynamejohnpur: the old question of openstack == API or openstack == api+implementation20:26
heckjttx: I don't think we should do that *now*. We can certainly approach it in the future, but we're not even fully testing our stuff yet - I wouldn't want to try and add in, and come up with a policy for what we add and what we don't, for external projects.20:26
jbrycejohnpur: i like the ml idea20:27
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting20:27
ttxheckj: right, so we can definitely do (b) and see if there is a need for some amount of (c) to stamp some of them "CI-tested"20:27
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn20:27
johnpurnotmyname: add in openstack == core plus other stuff20:27
ttxheckj: we might realize free market and a good website are better than the stamp.20:28
notmynamejohnpur: I look forward to your email :-)20:28
johnpur:) now i actually have to send it!20:28
heckjttx: I think we should not even approach testing any other APIs at this time. We need to get our own house in order and better test our own APIs prior to embracing anything external.20:28
jbrycettx: i agree. i think we need to offer some mechanism for visibility and free market will take care of stamping20:28
vishyok sounds like we are in agreement, but should we formalize the opinion so we can all +1 it?20:29
heckjttx: yes - I think free market and approval will be better than any official stamp20:29
notmynamevishy: +1 your +1 idea20:29
jbrycevishy: yes. let me take a stab at it20:29
ttxthis meeting is way more interesting as a post-lunch thing than as a pre-sleep thing.20:32
ttxI should move to PST.20:32
jbrycean openstack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the openstack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner. 3rd party APIs will not make use of OpenStack resources or have an official OpenStack blessing, but we may provide som20:32
jbrycevisibility for them (perhaps in the form of a website/directory).20:32
johnpurttx: are you in CA?20:32
ttxjohnpur: currently yes20:32
*** devcamcar_ has quit IRC20:32
ttxmaybe we can spare the "not make use of openstack resources" part20:33
jaypipesjbryce: sounds good to me.20:33
jbrycettx: ok20:33
ttxI expect some of htem to be developed under Stackforge or whatever20:33
ttxwhich could be considered "openstack reousrces" in a way20:34
jbryce#info VOTE: an member:openstack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the member:openstack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner. 3rd party APIs will not have an official member:OpenStack blessing, but we may provide some20:34
jbrycevisibility for them (perhaps in the form of a website/directory).20:34
notmynamejbryce: ya, I'd prefer to remove the whole last sentence20:34
ttx#startvote above motion: +1, +0, -0, -120:35
jbrycedo other people agree with that? we seemed to make a lot of statements about the unofficial nice of it20:35
*** jsavak has quit IRC20:35
jbryceunofficial *nature of it20:35
devcamcareverything except the last sentence makes sense?20:35
notmynameI think remaining silent on its "officialness", then unofficial is implied20:36
*** User has joined #openstack-meeting20:36
johnpuri would like to be encouraging about the 3rd party API projects, not position them so clearly outside of the openstack dev world20:36
notmynamebut remaining silent also allows us to change our mind to some degree of "blessing" later on20:36
heckjjonhpur: then assert will *will* provide a means of exposing and advertising them (aka StackForge or equiv)20:36
jaypipesjohnpur: does it depend on the API? You want to encourage the EC2 API in the same way as, say, OCCI?20:36
johnpuralso, if these projects adopt the openstack ci, qa, and automation startegies it is all tot he good20:36
jbrycei'd vote for staying silent on it initially then20:37
jbryceuntil we figure out what makes sense20:37
jbryce#info VOTE: an OpenStack project will support an official API in it's core implementation (the OpenStack API). other APIs will be implemented external to core. the core project will expose stable, complete, performant interfaces so that 3rd party APIs can be implemented in a complete and performant manner.20:37
ttx#startvote above motion? +1, +0, -0, -120:37
johnpurjaypipes: both are valid examples of external API's. the difference is that the OCCI api can be influenced by active contributions by the openstack community20:37
johnpurthat does make a difference20:38
ttxjbryce: use that line to start a meetbot vote count20:38
jaypipes#vote +120:38
devcamcar#vote +120:38
heckj#vote +120:39
ttxjbryce needs to start the vote first20:39
* vishy grins20:39
jbryce#startvote above motion? +1, +0, -0, -120:39
openstackBegin voting on: above motion? Valid vote options are , 1, 0, 0, 1.20:39
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.20:39
heckj#vote +120:39
openstackheckj: +1 is not a valid option. Valid options are , 1, 0, 0, 1.20:39
clarkboh damb20:39
heckj#vote 120:40
clarkbit splits on non characters darnit20:40
devcamcar#vote 120:40
jaypipes#vote 120:40
devcamcaralso: lulz20:40
jbryce#vote 120:40
johnpur#vote 120:40
ttx#vote 120:40
notmynameschrodingers vote20:40
notmyname#vote 120:40
ttx(use vote 0 if you don't agree, I guess20:40
danwent#vote 120:40
ewanmellor#vote 120:40
ttxjbryce: you need to #endvote at the end.20:41
vishy#vote 120:41
johnpurlook like a bug in meetbot :)?20:41
vishyyou can use yes, no, abstain i guess?20:41
ttxit's an experimental feature ;)20:41
jbryceanyone else?20:41
clarkbthe "parsing" cound be a little more robust20:41
openstackVoted on "above motion?" Results are20:41
openstack1 (10): ttx, jbryce, vishy, heckj, jaypipes, johnpur, danwent, devcamcar, ewanmellor, notmyname20:41
jbrycewow...that is so much easier than my previous scroll, add....scroll, add.....scroll, add method20:42
ttxclarkb: is the vote results logged to the meeting minutes ?20:42
jbrycewell looks like we have a path forward on that20:43
jbrycehow do we identify what work we need to actually go do to make that a reality?20:43
johnpurptl's need to take the action20:43
ttxI think each PTL will have to... what johnpur said20:43
*** dprince has quit IRC20:44
jbryceanything else on this topic?20:44
jbryce#topic Relaxing core promotion rules for existing core project split20:45
*** openstack changes topic to "Relaxing core promotion rules for existing core project split"20:45
jbrycehow does everyone feel about an expedited path for things like cinder that are being broken out of existing projects?20:46
ttxright, quick history first20:46
ttxcurrently you have to ask for core promotion before the cycle starts, so that you follow the whole cycle20:46
notmynamejbryce: to me that's the 2nd question. the first is if split projects should be sibling projects of the original project, or should they be part of a tree of projects under the parent20:46
ttxbut when a project is the result of a code split, we should relax that20:47
ttxthat said, we should have project splits happen early in the cycle20:47
heckjnotmyname: what's the practical difference?20:47
ttxso that we can exercise the release process and train the new PTL in time20:47
notmynameheckj: core project vs subteam of a project20:47
johnpurnotmyname: this is part of the question i raised earlier... is "openstack compute" == nova, or == nova+cinder+...20:48
heckj+1 for some additional PTL training...20:48
heckj(would've helped me anyway)20:48
ttxheckj: client libraries, for example, still belong to same PTL20:48
johnpurlet's focus today on the tactical question20:48
ttxwhile cinder has its ow nfull project20:48
ttxMy point is.. I'd like project splits to be completed by mid-cycle at the latest20:48
devcamcarjohnpur: openstack compute == nova, openstack block stroage == cinder20:49
johnpurso vish and crew can move forward with the creation and transition of nova volume to cinder20:49
ttxwhich means folsom-220:49
vishyttx: I think that is reasonable20:49
devcamcaranything else is super confusing20:49
jbrycedevcamcar: +120:49
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting20:49
ttxso we need to have a folsom-2 milestone for Cinder that reproduces the functionality of nova-volume20:49
ttxdoes that sound fair ?20:49
devcamcari'd suggest we relax the rules for core for cinder but also require milestones to be hit - for instance, if cinder isn't healthy by folsom 2 then it probably shouldn't be core?20:50
johnpurdevcamcar: in this case i agree with you, but there are other not so clear cases20:50
ttxdevcamcar: my point exactly.20:50
vishyttx: sounds reasonable20:50
jbrycettx: so to be clear, we would be granting cinder expedited core status for OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if they are able to replicate nova-volume functionality by folsom-2?20:50
devcamcarjohnpur: do we need a wide reaching policy? why not evaluate these on case by case basis20:50
ttxso Cinder is currently a "prospective project split" and may be fast-tracked to core status if folsom-2 milestone is hit properly20:51
devcamcarnot like there's going to be hundreds of them20:51
johnpurvishy: you are going to maintain full nova-volume functionality while cinder is being created, right?20:51
jbrycei would prefer to do anything out of the process to be case-by-case basis20:51
vishyjohnpur: yessir20:51
notmynamedevcamcar: I'll propose hundrends of parts of swift ;-)20:51
ttxjbryce: I think there is nothing cinder-specific in this rule20:51
johnpurso we have a fallback against milestones not being hit for folsom cinder20:52
ttxjohnpur: I'd generally like release deliverables to be set in stone by folsom-2 / mid-cycle. So client library splits for Glance/Swift should also happen before20:52
johnpurwe need to listen to ttx, he is the man! I agree.20:53
annegentleis cinder going to have a PTL? Doc requirements? What are the definitions around this process other than dev milestones?20:53
ttxannegentle: cinder has a ptl20:53
johnpurannegentle: yes20:53
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
ttxannegentle: part of the idea behind having everything ready by mid-cycle is so that docs can be set up way before the last milestone and rc period20:54
jbryce#startvote Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone? 1, 020:55
openstackBegin voting on: Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone? Valid vote options are 1, 0.20:55
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.20:55
*** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting20:55
vishy#vote 120:55
ewanmellor#vote 120:55
jbrycedo we need to include something about the interim PTL as well?20:55
devcamcar#vote 120:55
ttxPTL should join PPB by folsom-2, imo20:55
notmyname#vote 020:55
jbryce#vote 120:56
ttxnotmyname: does that mean 0 or -1 ?20:56
johnpurgiven the midcycle requirement, it is incumbent on the project ptl(s) to manage this appropriately, with full disclosure if milestones will not be hit. this is a key for folsom deliverables.20:56
ttx#vote 120:56
danwent#vote 120:56
vishyjbryce: we have an acting ptl, the plan was to have a vote for actual ptl later, perhaps we do that at folsom-2 as well20:56
notmynamettx: mostly 0 not -120:56
johnpur#vote 120:56
heckj#vote 120:56
ttxjbryce: that said, I thin k it's not a case-by-case, it's a general rule for project splits20:56
johnpurvishy: +1 on the vote20:57
jbryce#info will vote on interim cinder PTL at folsom-2 along with review of status20:57
ttxso we define what rules apply to "proposed project splits", and say that Cinder is one20:57
*** markmc has quit IRC20:57
jbryceany other votes?20:57
openstackVoted on "Grant cinder expedited core status for Folsom as OpenStack Block Storage (cinder) if it is able to replicate nove-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone?" Results are20:58
openstack1 (8): ttx, jbryce, vishy, heckj, johnpur, danwent, devcamcar, ewanmellor20:58
openstack0 (1): notmyname20:58
*** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting20:58
jbrycewith the new meetbot voting counter, we can never vote against anything20:58
clarkbyou can use things other than 1 and 020:58
clarkbYes, No, Abstain, Maybe etc20:58
ttxshould be: yes, abstain, no20:58
clarkbbut for numberic votes I will need to write a patch20:59
jbryceclarkb: cool. thanks20:59
*** alpha_ori has joined #openstack-meeting20:59
jbrycewe're out of time20:59
ttxwe can use real words. I think.20:59
jbrycettx: -120:59
jbrycethanks everyone!20:59
*** ewanmellor has quit IRC20:59
*** kevin-lewis-9 has quit IRC20:59
ttxjbryce: #endmeeting20:59
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"20:59
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 20:59:51 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:59
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.html20:59
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.txt20:59
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-20.00.log.html20:59
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
*** jbryce has quit IRC21:00
ttxheckj, notmyname, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: still around ?21:00
ttxbcwaldon: around ?21:00
heckjI'll grab food after the keystone update21:01
bcwaldonttx: yes21:01
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 21:01:25 2012 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.21:01
ttxToday's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting21:01
ttx#info We'll be mostly reviewing folsom-1/1.5.0 plans for each project21:01
ttx#info Folsom-1 is May 24th, so the milestone branch should be cut on May 22nd21:02
ttxThat means we have two weeks left.21:02
ttxBut first...21:02
ttx#topic Final Folsom release schedule21:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Final Folsom release schedule"21:02
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/FolsomReleaseSchedule21:02
ttxThis is the final proposal, which reflects the option we discussed last week.21:02
ttxThat makes final common "Folsom" release on September 27th.21:03
ttxAnd for milestone-following projects, feature freeze on August 14 (two days before last milestone)21:03
ttxAnd next Design summit on the week of October 15, with an extra week post-release to prepare.21:03
ttxPTLs: Does that sound good to you ?21:03
heckjttx: yep21:03
notmynamettx: I think I'm free that week ;-)21:04
bcwaldonyep yep21:04
ttxnotmyname: good!21:04
ttxI tried to avoid Columbus Day week which apparently some people like to have off21:04
ttxmoving on then21:05
ttx#topic Keystone status21:05
*** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status"21:05
ttxheckj: o/21:05
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-121:05
ttxTwo blueprints targeted (both essential)...21:05
ttxheckj: Is it a complete view of your folsom-1 plans ?21:05
heckjyep. implementation in progress on both of them, slower than I'd like on the API drafting, but coming along21:06
ttxstop-ids-in-uris: is marked beta available, so I guess it should be proposed for review soon ?21:06
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz21:06
heckjttx: Some of that code is in review now21:07
ttxdraft-v3-api: is the work on this started ? Is this really necessary by folsom-1 ? (if not, we can downgrade to "High")21:07
heckjttx: if we want to get it out, yes - it's essential. If we don't do it by F1, then we won't be doing a significant API upgrade this release at all.21:07
ttxfair enough21:08
ttxbut work started on that, right ?21:08
heckjttx: yes21:08
ttxok, will update21:08
ttxLooking at targeted bugs, there are three that are unassigned.21:08
ttxShould probably be untargeted if nobody is working on them.21:08
heckjwill update individually21:09
ttxheckj: anything else ?21:09
heckjI'm good21:09
ttxQuestions about Keystone ?21:09
*** johnpur has quit IRC21:09
ttxheckj: go grab lunch :)21:10
ttx#topic Swift status21:10
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status"21:10
ttxnotmyname: o/21:10
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.5.021:10
ttx4 blueprints, 2 completed already, looks good to me21:10
ttxAny vague idea of the ETA for 1.5.0 yet ?21:10
notmynameindeed. the important one there is https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/add-associated-projects-docs21:10
* ttx looks21:11
notmynamethere is no timeframe for 1.5.0 yet (beyond the vague "in the next few weeks")21:11
notmynamethere is a lot of coordination to split out the pieces and make sure they are ready to go21:11
ttxnotmyname: sometime in May/early June ?21:11
*** Gordonz has quit IRC21:11
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates21:11
notmynamebackground: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg11237.html21:11
notmynamettx: I'd hope by the end of this month21:12
*** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting21:12
ttxnotmyname: you can use "priority" in the blueprint to convey how important each blueprint relatively is21:12
notmynamethis means that swift 1.5.0 will be somewhat larger than other releases21:12
ttxnotmyname: Anything else ?21:12
notmynameby "larger" I mean it may take extra effor for deployers to upgrade since dependencies may have been added21:13
ttxthat way people will think they know why it's called 1.5.0 instead of 1.4.10 :)21:13
ttxQuestions on Swift ?21:14
notmynameone more thing21:14
*** markvoelker has quit IRC21:14
ttxnotmyname: go for it21:14
notmynameswift now has http://swift.openstack.org/associated_projects.html and if someone has something they want aded, it can be added with a patch to the swift docs in the swift codebase (normal openstack conditions apply)21:14
ttxno question on Swift ?21:15
ttx#topic Glance status21:15
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status"21:15
ttxbcwaldon: yo21:15
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-121:16
ttx5 blueprints, all essential...21:16
bcwaldonthat's how I roll21:16
ttxalmost all.21:16
ttxEssential ones: all completed except one in review ?21:16
ttxLooks almost done, which is good :)21:16
bcwaldonYep, I'm just pulling things in as they seem like they'll get done21:16
ttxIs it a complete view of the Glance f1 targets ?21:16
bcwaldonMy target for the v2 API is Folsom, dont have a good milestone yet21:17
bcwaldonttx: I doubt it21:17
bcwaldonttx: probably adding more as the work gets done21:17
ttxbut all the others would not be blocking anything, so Med/Low prio21:17
bcwaldonI guess i'm thinking about priority within the context of Folsom, not just F121:17
bcwaldonso I have more Essential blueprints that arent targeted to F121:18
bcwaldonI have asked for some help with the v2 APi blueprints on the list, but I didn't get any response21:18
ttxNext week we'll probably be looking at the whole folsom essential stuff and make sure the map to milestones is coherent21:19
bcwaldonSo if theres anybody thats interested in helping, I do have some work to be done21:19
bcwaldonttx: fine with me21:19
ttxtoday I wanted to make sure folsmo-1 objectives were mostly making sense.21:19
ttx#help <bcwaldon> I have asked for some help with the v2 APi blueprints on the list, but I didn't get any response21:19
bcwaldonttx: ok, as far as F1 is concerned, we're fine :)21:19
ttxbcwaldon: Anything else you wanted to mention ?21:19
bcwaldonttx: Nope21:20
ttxQuestions on Glance ?21:20
ttx#topic Quantum status21:20
*** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status"21:20
ttxdanwent: hey21:20
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-121:20
ttx9 blueprints, all assigned21:20
danwentso we've made good progress on everything but the two most important things.21:21
danwentthe new API with melange merged in21:21
danwentand keystone integration.21:21
ttxThree are in unknown state:21:21
ttxmelange-integration: is that one started ?21:21
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting21:21
danwentyes, that is started and jkoelker_  has a design he's going to send out soon.21:22
danwentbut that's my main concern, as there are many dependencies for F-2 that require that work to be done by F-121:22
ttxyes, refreshed earlier today, you're good now21:22
danwentsorry for the last minute tweaks21:22
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn21:23
ttxdanwent: should I just set the two "undefined" ones to "Low" prio ?21:23
danwenti know heckj and troytoman-away have been talking about the keystone integration, but I'm less familiar with the current status.21:23
ttx(database-common and man-support)21:23
danwentah, yes, I will do that.21:23
danwentthose are both in review already anyway, so I'm not worried about them at all.21:24
ttxlike you said, you look generally on track, but the essential/high stuff looks a bit behind21:24
danwentyup, i think that's a good summary21:24
ttxdanwent: Anything else ?21:24
danwentwe have our quantum scrum meeting next.  hopefully jkoelker_ will be there to comment21:24
danwentnope, that's it21:24
ttxQuestions on Quantum ?21:25
ttx#topic Nova status21:25
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status"21:25
ttxvishy: hey21:25
jkoelker_I'm here, i'm updating the blueprint with the etherpad links21:25
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-121:25
vishyI haven't heard back from some of the blueprint assignees as to when they will be complete21:26
ttx15 blueprints - some in unknown state21:26
vishyso there may be one or two more joining that list soon21:26
*** egallenZinux has joined #openstack-meeting21:26
ttxvishy: should I assume the "unknown" ones are "not started" ?21:26
*** jkoelker_ is now known as jkoelker21:27
ttxor that you will hunt down the assignees to get some input from them ?21:27
russellbformalized-message-structure sort of overlaps with versioned rpc apis .... so it's started21:27
russellbi would just call it 'started'21:27
ttxon it21:27
vishybeat you21:27
ttxI's easier when there is more lag between us21:28
vishythey are all prioritized and have a status21:28
ttxIn general, this looks mostly on track. Any particular concern ?21:28
vishythere are a bunch of important blueprints for folsom in general that have no assignees21:29
vishyso no concerns about this milestone, but there is lots of work that needs to be done21:29
ttx#help <vishy> there are a bunch of important blueprints for folsom in general that have no assignees21:29
vishy#info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/general-host-aggregates21:29
vishy#info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/config-drive-v221:30
ttxvishy: did you call for volunteers on the ML yet ?21:30
vishyare two big ones21:30
vishyi did21:30
vishyi didn't call out specific blueprints though21:30
jog0I can take https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/general-host-aggregates21:30
ttxWe could try to convince smoser to take config-drive-v2. He can be convinced with beer.21:30
ttxvishy: quick, grab jog0!21:31
vishyjog0: oh you emailed me about that didn't you21:31
vishyawesome will assign you21:31
jog0vishy:  yup, thanks21:31
*** egallenZinux has quit IRC21:32
ttx#action ttx and vishy to pour beer into smoser and get him to take config-drive-v221:32
ttxI'd like to talk briefly about Cinder...21:32
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting21:32
ttxIt will probably be "core" in Folsom as an existing core project split.21:32
ttxWe should have a recurrent Cinder topic at the weekly meeting21:32
ttxThere was a discussion at hte PPB meeting just before this one21:33
vishyttx: good idea, we might need to make sure jgriffith knows about it21:33
ttxWhere we decided that Cinder would be core if it can reach feature partity and release process conformity by folsom-221:33
ttx#action ttx to invite jgriffith to a regular Cinder topic at the weekly meeting21:34
ttxvishy: Anything else ?21:34
vishyjust a reminder about the email i sent regarding blueprints21:34
vishyI'm going to obsolete all of the blueprints next week that are not targetted to folsom21:35
vishyso if anyone knows of one that should stick around, let me know!21:35
ttxI think that's ok to do, it's not as if you can't revert that move21:35
ttxQuestions on Nova ? on Cinder ?21:35
ttx#topic Horizon status21:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status"21:36
ttxdevcamcar: o/21:36
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-121:36
devcamcari still have a few blueprints to create from the summit21:36
devcamcari retargeted a few for folsom-2 to keep the amount of work under check21:36
ttxStatus looks good to me...21:36
ttxProgress looks a bit slow (2 "High" are "not started"), still on track from your point of view ?21:37
devcamcargood progress on one of the bigger items: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/workflows21:37
devcamcarttx: yep, should still be good on the blueprints21:37
devcamcarthey are pretty narrow in scope21:37
ttxdevcamcar: Anything else ?21:37
devcamcarno, other than to say folsom-1 is mostly preparing for folsom-2 changes which depend on workflows21:38
*** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:38
ttxdevcamcar: could you explain workflows in a few words ?21:38
devcamcarwe can currently swap out dashboards/panels and customize pretty extensively21:38
ttxdevcamcar: sounds important, but the blueprint is a bit dry :)21:39
devcamcarbut we don't have a deeper integration between showing or hiding features21:39
devcamcarfor example, the launch instance workflow21:39
devcamcarif quantum is enabled it needs to present different options to the end user21:39
devcamcarand so the quantum within horizon has to be able to dynamically modify the workflow21:40
*** hggdh has quit IRC21:40
devcamcaronce we have this in place we can start having horizon pick and choose what to show in a much more elegant way21:40
ttxdevcamcar: so it's not really a user-facing feature, it's more on the developer/deployer/customizer side ?21:40
ttxok, thx21:40
devcamcaruser facing changes will mostly land as of folsom-221:40
ttxdevcamcar: Anything else ?21:40
ttxQuestions for Horizon ?21:40
*** littleidea has quit IRC21:41
*** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea21:41
ttx#topic Other Team reports21:41
*** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports"21:41
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting21:41
ttxannegentle, jaypipes, mtaylor: ?21:41
annegentleI've created four blueprints for openstack-manuals and have identified resources for all but one - a "try-it-out" mechanism for TryStack.org.21:42
annegentleI believe someone with big javascript chops could take it on, probably use https://github.com/ging/horizon-js.21:42
annegentle#info Docs seeking javascript gurus to implement "try-it-out" for TryStack.org - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/api-try-it-out21:42
ttxannegentle: I see 6 blueprints on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals21:42
ttxyou should be able to set the series goal to folsom to further limit the view21:43
annegentlettx: ah, I need to follow up with lloydde about his.21:43
ttxthose are folsom-wide goals, right ?21:43
annegentlettx: yep.21:44
ttxannegentle: anything else ?21:44
annegentlettx: that's all for this week. Next week we do have a Doc team meeting.21:44
ttxOn the I18N side, there is a thread going on the ML right now...21:44
ttxI'd like the PTLs to chime in and say how much I18N they are ready to support21:45
* ttx fetches link21:45
devcamcarttx: horizon is fully prepared, as far as i know21:45
*** littleidea has quit IRC21:46
ttxhorizon is a bit of a special case, since it's very user-facing21:46
ttxthere are 3 optoins21:46
ttx1. Horizon being I18N as the user-friendly web interface to OpenStack21:47
ttx2. All API-user-facing messages should be fully I18N21:47
ttx3. Everything (including log messages) should be I18N, introduce error codes to enable cross-language searching21:47
ttxall have horizon I18Ned :)21:47
annegentlettx: 3. includes some user docs?21:47
vishypersonally i think 3 is best based on feedback from eastern users21:48
ttxBefore someone decides we'll pursue (3) I'd like to make sure all the PTLs agree that they can support that level21:48
ttxsince I think "openstack" should be consistently I18Ned21:48
mtaylorttx: I put the folsom todo list up ...21:48
*** gyee has quit IRC21:48
mtaylorttx: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+milestone/folsom21:48
devcamcarttx: good thing it works in horizon then :)21:49
notmynameI think we have "support" in swift, but it's in quotes because I don't think anyone has actually tried it21:49
ttxso heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: please comment on the "i18n of log message" thread21:49
devcamcarttx: will check it out21:49
ttxif for some reason the list of options should be reduced, better know it soon21:49
ttxbefore anyone gets too excited21:50
ttxAny other team lead with a status report ?21:50
egallenI've prepared the french translation for horizon web interface, I put it today on my github.21:50
ttxvishy: about feedback from Eastern users, some of them voiced their support for option 1 (the China user group man did)21:51
ttxvishy: so it's not necessarily a "Asia vs. the world" issue21:51
*** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting21:52
ttxit's about reasonable expectations vs. effort involved, I think21:52
ttx#topic Open discussion21:52
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:52
ttxOn the bug triaging front, we'll probably open up the bug triagers team. Currently those are restricted teams21:52
ttxbut I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost, so I'll propose something on the ML soon about it21:53
ttxthat's all I had21:53
ttxAnything else, anyone ?21:53
ttxoubiwann: how is the new dev ML coming up ?21:53
*** jgriffith has quit IRC21:54
oubiwannttx: I need jeblair's help with exim as the next step21:54
oubiwannnow that he's back from vaca, we should be golden :-)21:54
ttxoubiwann: are you set on the prefixes ?21:54
ttxoubiwann: should we open the discussion on those a bit more publicly ?21:54
ttx(I mean, it's an etherpad, but not everybody knows about it yet)21:55
oubiwannyeah, there are some more than need to be added, but those are on the subteam page and I'll make sure I look at that and your etherpad notes before updating the mail list description21:55
oubiwannyeah, I can send out an email21:55
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting21:55
ttxoubiwann: feel free to extend the discussion on those. I'd prefer them to be set in stone before we even open21:55
ttxso that we can set the house rules quite clearly21:55
ttxok, so unless someone has something to add..21:56
oubiwannto be clear for everyone else, ttx means "extend the discussions in a public forum" before we "open up the mail lists (put them live)"21:56
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"21:56
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 21:56:57 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:56
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.html21:56
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.txt21:57
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-21.01.log.html21:57
ttxthanks everyone21:57
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer21:57
*** User has quit IRC21:57
*** oubiwann has quit IRC21:57
*** dwcramer has quit IRC21:57
*** heckj has quit IRC21:59
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting21:59
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz21:59
openstackMeeting started Tue May  8 22:00:20 2012 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.22:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.22:00
danwentwho's here?22:00
edgarmaganaI am here22:00
danwentjkoelker: ping?22:00
edgarmaganaI missed it last time... did not want to happend again  :-)22:00
garykgary's here22:01
danwentedgarmagana: much appreciated :)22:01
s0mikHello folks22:01
_cerberus_dietz is here22:01
*** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting22:01
danwent_cerberus_: ah, good.  I forgot your handle had an underscore, so tab wasn't finding you :)22:01
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting22:01
_cerberus_danwent: totally on purpose22:01
danwent_cerberus_: very smart :)22:02
*** markvoelker1 has quit IRC22:02
danwentOk, so first topic is reviews.  Summary: we've got a lot of them.22:02
danwentand more importantly, the reviewing workload is being handled by a very small portion of the community22:02
danwentspecial thanks to the many new people who have stepped up.22:03
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman22:03
danwentlater on we'll be talking a bit about core-dev status, both promoting new folks and looking at cleaning up the list for people who are no longer participating22:03
*** milner_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
danwentI'm not aware of any reviews that require special attention, but I wanted to give people a chance to call anything out.22:04
*** milner has quit IRC22:04
danwentSo we have 2 weeks until we branch for F-1.  That's not a lot of time.22:04
*** russellb has left #openstack-meeting22:05
danwentWe've made a lot of progress on the codebase in the past few weeks, but we're still cutting it somewhat close for two of our high priority issues.22:05
danwentparticularly the quantum + melange API changes (and backend implementation).22:06
danwentjkoelker: I believe you've been making progress on this behind the scenes, care to report?22:06
jkoelkerthat's our etherpad for the API22:06
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting22:06
jkoelkerand http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-v2-melange-integration22:06
jkoelkerif for the Database schema to support that api22:06
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting22:07
_cerberus_Also, somewhat tangential, but http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-authnz22:07
_cerberus_Since there's really no auth today22:07
danwent_cerberus_:  yup, that's the second bp I wanted to talk about :)22:07
danwentcan we link those etherpads from the BP in launchpad, so all of this can be found from the main quantum page?22:08
jkoelkerthey are22:08
jkoelkerjust updated it a bit ago22:08
danwentah, perfect :)22:08
danwentI see, its on the whiteboard (I was looking at the spec link)22:08
*** milner_ has quit IRC22:08
* jkoelker sucks at launchpad22:08
*** edygarcia has quit IRC22:08
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting22:08
danwenthehe, in many circles, that's a badge of honor :P22:08
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer22:09
jkoelkerBP updated, now with proper fields ;)22:09
danwentok and _cerberus_ , does that BP include updating the client_lib?22:09
danwentto "speak keystone"?22:09
danwenti forget if we decided to separate that out.22:10
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting22:10
_cerberus_danwent: that's the intent, yes22:10
_cerberus_We've got Vek looking at that on our end22:10
_cerberus_(who isn't in the room atm)22:10
danwent_cerberus_:  ok, thanks.  and I assume tr3buchet's work to redo the quantum + nova integration will start using the real client, not one pasted into nova, so we should be able to leverage that work there as well.22:11
danwentok… so I will definitely make sure I get thoughts on the etherpad here, as this is the big think ttx will be me up on if we aren't to the implementing phase by next tuesday :)22:11
danwentare there any other BPs we need to discuss for F-1 at this point? most of the other stuff seems to be humming along, with a lot in code-review already.22:12
danwentok, getting the API squared away in F-1 will be really important, as there are a bunch of things in F-2 that depend on it.22:13
danwentAlright, the last topic I wanted to bring up was membership in the quantum core dev team.22:13
_cerberus_Not it22:13
danwentvish sent an email to the main nova list about doing a "spring cleaning" on the nova core team.22:14
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting22:14
danwentwhen quantum started, we actually let anyone who volunteered be a core dev, with the idea that we'd do a spring cleaning at some point too.22:15
danwentnow that we're core, it seems like a good thing to do.22:15
danwentnote, the goal here is not to force anyone out, just to make sure the team membership is an accurate representation of who's doing work.22:15
danwentif you look at the list, there are some people that I suspect have never done a single quantum review :)22:16
edgarmaganadan: Ying could be removed22:16
danwentmy thinking is that I'll just email people who haven't been involved, and ask them if they plan on continueing to be involved to the degree that they should be considered core.22:16
danwentedgarmagana: good to know, thanks.22:16
danwentwe as a community can decide exactly what level of engagement that means, and how we decide on it.22:17
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk22:17
danwentbut my rough feeling is that a "core" dev should be doing 2-3 hours of reviews a week on average.  I'm happy to hear input from others though, as raw hours of reviews are not the only way people can contribute (answering email on the list, etc. is also important, as are other community tasks)22:18
danwentwhat do other people thinks?22:18
* jkoelker crickets22:18
* markvoelker is ok with this plan22:19
garyki am pretty new to this - i feel that sometimes it takes quite a while to get a review.22:19
mnewbyhard to measure22:19
edgarmaganadanwent: what about also asking to be attending this meeting as well22:19
jkoelker+1 to dan's suggestion22:19
danwentedgarmagana: agreed, i think reasonable attendence should be an expectation22:19
cdubi think that core is about review, not just community involvment22:19
danwentgaryk: yes, reviews are taking too long now.22:19
danwentcdub:  that's actually a good point to discuss.22:19
cdubsomebody who's great at answering list questions != someone who is also therefore implicitly trusted to have good judgement on code reviews22:19
cdubbut it's definitely a very useful community contribution22:20
danwentcdub: definitely agree, but at the same time, we want to encourage developers to be helping the community in many ways22:20
mnewbydanwent: encourage, yes.  not sure how being part of core encourages that though.22:20
cdubhonorary plaque?  /me ducks22:20
danwentcdub: so i agree that it can't be a reason to promote someone to core (that should be based purely on review + code skills)22:20
danwentcdub: :)22:20
*** rnirmal has quit IRC22:21
danwentcdub: ok, i'd be fine if we don't consider that in the criteria, though I'd love to have some way to encourage people to do such thankless tasks22:21
cdubshameless beer bribery22:21
*** lloydde has quit IRC22:21
danwentcdub: if you're paying….22:21
cdubfree as in...22:22
cdubdamn, doesn't work that22:22
mnewbyensuring that reviews are processed in a timely fashion requires core devs that are diligent at monitoring gerrit emails and performing the reviews that appear22:22
*** ayoung has quit IRC22:22
cdubperhaps soemthing on the list that highlights people's activity22:22
jkoelkerperhaps doing a review day once a week that rotates would help22:22
danwentok, so I think its fair to say that review skills + familarity with code are primary criteria, as well as attendence of team meetings (not mandatory, but they should make an effort to attend)22:22
mnewbycdub: i like that idea.22:23
med_meritocracy by making merit more obvious.22:23
mnewbytracking who is reviewing could be a good way of reminding people who haven't been participating as much that they could be doing more22:23
s0mikI think something akin to Nova Review days would also help spread the load..22:23
danwentmed_:  highlighting who is doing the reviews (perhaps based on lines of code reveiwed) would be nice22:23
_cerberus_s0mik: or just do them on the same day22:24
danwentmy concern with reviews days is that it can lead to people leaving reviews hanging until review day...22:24
danwenti'm curious to hear experience from people on Nova wrt review days22:24
danwentdid they work?22:24
s0mikNova reviews days has an assignee everyday22:24
danwents0mik: ah, i see, its not a team day, its a set of devs assigned to review that day?22:25
s0mikits akin to review "guru", on a particular day of the month, certain person is responsible to at least doing initial revies22:25
danwentI think something like that could work, once we have more core devs participating…22:25
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting22:25
danwentThe second half of this discussion is how do we start promoting the people who have been reviewing, but aren't yet core.22:26
_cerberus_danwent: I will say that, as a Nova core, I'm much more likely to review on that day versus others22:26
danwent_cerberus_: ok, and how frequently do you have them?22:26
danwentyou personally22:26
_cerberus_Every 2 weeksish22:26
markvoelkerNote also that the review days schema requires a bit of maintenance (http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack@lists.launchpad.net/msg11233.html)22:26
danwentmarkvoelker: yeah, saw that as well, which is why i'm a bit suspicous that it has been working22:27
s0mikquantum being a smaller project, would require a little more commitment with the limited set of cores we have..22:27
danwentOk.  right now I feel like everyone would have a review day twice a week.22:27
danwentmy main goal is first to get existing core devs reviewing more, and to add more deserving peopel to the core team.22:28
_cerberus_There are other problems with the nova review days that are difficult to address22:28
_cerberus_the minimum number sets a bar you have to meet22:28
_cerberus_Instead of necessarily wanting to review22:28
*** joearnold has quit IRC22:28
danwentdo people think instituting review days at this point would get more people reviewing?22:28
cdubquestion is what is the barrier?22:29
danwent_cerberus_: I also don't like just measuring # of reviews… as then people avoid large reviews.22:29
s0mikdanwent: I think at the minimum, review days will ensure that reviews don't go unnoticed for long22:29
_cerberus_danwent: and that's the other primary issue22:29
cdubis it time commitment?  focus? tools? lack of expertise?22:29
danwentcdub: my sense if that there are only a handful of peopel regularly checking22:30
cdub(it's why i don't like gerrit, but that's just me :)22:30
danwentand that the total number of changes are more than they can handle22:30
danwentcdub: you can get notifications via email22:30
*** jog0 has quit IRC22:30
danwentthat is what I meant by checking.22:30
*** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away22:30
danwentperhaps we should say that all core devs need to be signed up to get those notifications?  they can always ignore then, but its a good reminder22:31
mnewbycdub: why don' tyou like gerrit?22:31
danwentoh boy....22:31
cdubbecause of the review process (i'm crusty here, sorry)22:31
*** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting22:31
cdubbut i think it obscures the process over a old-school mail list mechanism22:31
mnewbycdub: obscures it how?22:32
cdubone advantage of having the reivews in your face is that you see and watch other reivews even if you don't participate22:32
danwentunless you're signed up for a review, you don't get further notifications on that review.22:32
cdubmnewby: it's another tool that you have to go fish for22:32
cdubthings to review22:32
mnewbycdub: and there is no advantage to using a web tool vs a mailing list for review?22:32
cdubmnewby: to me?  no.  but i'm happy to consider myself the minority there ;)22:33
danwentcdub: are there practical things we can do here?22:33
cdubdanwent: it's why i asked what you (collective) think the barriers are22:33
s0mikcan we have quantum-core as  a reviewer and make gerrit send out a quantum review to the entire core list?22:33
danwents0mik: i already get emails for each new review22:33
rkukuradanwent: how do we turn on email notifications?22:34
cdubif it's just people aren't spending time...well, email, gerrit, anything won't fix that22:34
danwentand was proposing that all core devs must do the same22:34
mnewbys0mik: each developer can sign up for notifications in gerrit22:34
*** mdomsch has quit IRC22:34
danwentrkukura: in gerrit22:34
mnewbypreferences -> watched projects22:34
danwent#todo #danwent, send out instructions on enabling email notification in gerrit22:34
rkukuradanwent: I'd have done it long ago if it was intuitive22:34
danwentmnewby: you win :)22:34
_cerberus_cdub: no matter what, I think it all comes back to time22:34
cdubi signed up a few months  back and got none, annoying22:34
mnewbyoops.   Settings -> Watched Projects22:34
danwent_cerberus_: I tend to agree.  we need more people reviewing regularly.22:35
s0mikI guess thats why liked review board ;)22:35
cdub_cerberus_: that's what it typically is ;)22:35
mnewbyAh… I think I have an idea.22:35
mnewbyWe haven't been using groups.22:35
mnewbyWe should document that for any new quantum review, the only reviewer to add is 'quantum-core'.22:36
mnewbyHeck, maybe we can get it set by default.22:36
cdubmnewby: what would that do?  send notification to all core devs?22:36
mnewbyThen there won't be a need for developers to individually configure themselves to receive notifications.22:36
mnewbycdub: yes22:36
s0mikmnewby: the concept of groups is what I was referring to earlier.. I think that would be great to have by default22:37
mnewbys0mik: let's ask openstack-ci.22:37
danwentmnewby: if you want to explore that, I'm for it.  I would prefer that it is automatic.  Otherwise, I think we should just have core devs sign up to "watch".  That's pretty straightforward in my opinion22:37
danwentok, so we've agreed that core devs will get lots more notifications for reviews.22:38
garykwhen does one assign a reviewer and when does one hope it will be picked up?22:38
mnewbydanwent: I'm on it.   Will make for more awareness of reviews, at least.22:38
*** dwcramer has quit IRC22:38
danwentI beleive we're also ok with a "spring cleaning", as no one will be forced out (they can always say that they will start reviewing…)22:38
mnewbygaryk: Hopefully we can have all core reviewers assigned.22:38
danwentmy final area that I want to explore is the bar at which new people should become core.22:38
danwentwe have some new people who aren't core, but none the less are doing a lot of very useful reviews22:39
garyki can use a drink at a bar now22:39
danwentyong and garyk come to mind22:39
danwenthow important is it that people have been contributing code to the project for a while, vs. simply having been proved a reliable reviewer of code?22:40
garyki think it is too soon for me. i need some more time to be more familiar with things22:40
mnewbydanwent: important.  reviewing can be just vetting python without any idea of implicit design considerations.22:40
s0mikI like the process of lazy voting where a core or the member self nominates after having achieved enough expertise..22:40
cdubreviewing is a distinct skill from code contributions (not mutially exclusive or anything like that)22:40
mnewbys0mik: +122:40
danwentcdub: I agree tha reviewing is a distinct set, but there's something to be set for "context" while reviewing22:41
danwents0mik: I agree, but I want to make sure people understand the bar, so they understand when they are ready to promote themselves.  Otherwise people may wait too long.22:41
danwentpeople tend to be overly conservative with self-promotion, as they don't want to get shot down.22:42
cdubyeah, i think people demonstrating competent review skills w/out many contributions should be considered, that's waht i mean22:42
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC22:42
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting22:42
garykcdub: +122:44
danwentOk, so I don't think there should be any official bar in terms of code contributions, but the person should feel confident that they have a "big picture" understanding of quantum architecture.22:44
edgarmaganadanwent: +122:44
mnewbyA simple vote on the ml should suffice, so that if anybody has any concerns they can be addressed.22:44
cdubdanwent: yeah, can we help with that?22:44
*** hggdh has quit IRC22:44
s0mikI agree with mnewby if there are concerns it can be handled by ML, a litmus test for core is very hard..22:45
danwentOk, so I think we're roughly on the same page here.  The quantum community is growing and changing quickly, which is a good think, so its important that we discuss how to handle this growth.22:46
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting22:46
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC22:46
danwents0mik: I agree.  I more want people to know the criteria by which they will be judged in such a vote.  Otherwise, they are unlikely to promote themselves.22:46
*** gabrielhurley has left #openstack-meeting22:47
danwentOk, any other comments on core status?22:47
danwentdo people think targeting 2-3 hrs per week for a core-dev review time (on average) is reasonable?22:47
danwentto high / to low?22:48
danwenttoo tired to answer?22:48
*** rafaduran has quit IRC22:48
rkukuradanwent: sounds about right22:48
garyki was hoping for 2-3 hours a day :)22:48
edgarmaganadanwent: sounds good!22:49
cdubhmm, seems reasonable-ish (i'd of thought for more, but considering overall lack of reviews, it's realistic)22:49
danwentgaryk: I should be clear.. that is for the low bar of being a core dev22:49
med_On average garyk,  you can offset some benchsitters.22:49
danwentyes, many of us obviously spend a lot more time than that, but this is the low bar, below which you should probably be asked to be removed from the core team.22:49
danwentOk, any other items for Open Discussion?22:50
danwentok, thanks folks!22:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)"22:50
openstackMeeting ended Tue May  8 22:50:37 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)22:50
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.html22:50
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.txt22:50
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-08-22.00.log.html22:50
garykthanks - goodnight22:50
markvoelker'night folks22:51
*** markmcclain has quit IRC22:51
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz22:51
cdubgaryk: g'night, thanks for staying up late!22:52
*** markvoelker has quit IRC22:55
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting22:56
*** ewindisch has quit IRC22:57
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman23:00
*** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting23:05
*** dolphm has quit IRC23:15
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting23:18
*** lloydde has quit IRC23:21
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** gyee has quit IRC23:24
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting23:25
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting23:25
*** joearnold has quit IRC23:27
*** anderstj_ has quit IRC23:27
*** mnewby has quit IRC23:36
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting23:39
*** egallen has quit IRC23:46
*** hggdh has quit IRC23:48
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC23:51
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting23:52
*** lloydde has quit IRC23:55
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting23:57

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