| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 00:16 | |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 00:17 | |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 00:22 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 00:42 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 00:52 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:52 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 00:54 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:13 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 01:23 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 01:34 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:35 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:37 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:43 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 01:46 | |
| *** torgomatic has quit IRC | 01:53 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:35 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 02:43 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 02:45 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:48 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 02:50 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 02:54 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:02 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:07 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 03:25 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:26 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:28 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 03:31 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 03:40 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 03:42 | |
| *** ywu has quit IRC | 03:46 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:47 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 03:53 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:01 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:16 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 04:25 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:34 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:34 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 04:40 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 04:43 | |
| *** wabat has quit IRC | 04:53 | |
| *** wabat has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:54 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 04:57 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 05:06 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 05:17 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 05:18 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:18 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:18 | |
| *** jeblair has quit IRC | 05:19 | |
| *** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:19 | |
| *** paul_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:30 | |
| *** paul_ has left #openstack-meeting | 05:30 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:31 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 05:57 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 05:58 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:02 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 06:03 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 06:09 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:10 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 06:17 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:19 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 06:25 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 06:26 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:27 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 06:30 | |
| *** mikal has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:59 | |
| *** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:01 | |
| *** Razique has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:30 | |
| *** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:02 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:47 | |
| *** d_theodor has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:21 | |
| *** d_theodor has quit IRC | 09:24 | |
| *** dtheodor has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:27 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 09:35 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:49 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 09:59 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:59 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:23 | |
| *** davidkranz has quit IRC | 11:23 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has quit IRC | 11:33 | |
| *** davidkranz has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:38 | |
| *** davidkranz_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:40 | |
| *** davidkranz has quit IRC | 11:40 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:40 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 11:40 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:47 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 11:51 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:51 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has quit IRC | 11:52 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 11:55 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:00 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 12:03 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:12 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:19 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 12:29 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:49 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 12:54 | |
| *** GheAway has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:55 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:00 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:00 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:12 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 13:12 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 13:16 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 13:16 | |
| *** rachmtl has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:18 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:23 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:26 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 13:26 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:27 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 13:27 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:27 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:28 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:29 | |
| *** dtheodor has quit IRC | 13:31 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 13:31 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:33 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:36 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 13:37 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:40 | |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:44 | |
| *** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:54 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 13:55 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:00 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:02 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** edygarcia has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:04 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:13 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:15 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:23 | |
| *** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:25 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:28 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 14:30 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| *** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:34 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:42 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 14:44 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:44 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 14:47 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 14:48 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:58 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:00 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 15:01 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 15:08 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:17 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 15:19 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 15:19 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:20 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:21 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 15:31 | |
| *** Razique has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:39 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 15:41 | |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 15:41 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:43 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:52 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:54 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:58 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:00 | |
| *** reed_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** byeager has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** sleepson- has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:07 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:08 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse | 16:08 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** byeager has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** sleepson- has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:12 | |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 16:16 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:21 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 16:23 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 16:25 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:40 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:40 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 16:42 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:42 | |
| *** anderstj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:44 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:46 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 16:49 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:49 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 16:50 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:50 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:51 | |
| *** reed_ has quit IRC | 17:01 | |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:02 | |
| *** derekh has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:06 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:10 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:17 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:20 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 17:25 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:28 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:32 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 17:34 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz | 17:57 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| heckj | testing, 1.2.3... | 17:58 |
|---|---|---|
| heckj | #startmeeting | 17:58 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 17:58:37 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:58 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:58 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 17:58 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 17:58 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 17:58:43 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 17:58 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-17.58.html | 17:58 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-17.58.txt | 17:58 |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| heckj | yeah!!! | 17:58 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-17.58.log.html | 17:58 |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| heckj | here for the keystone meeting? 0/ | 18:00 |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| joesavak | o/ | 18:00 |
| rafaduran | 0/ | 18:00 |
| dolphm | o/ | 18:02 |
| heckj | ok | 18:02 |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 18:02:26 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:02 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| heckj | Big topic for today: rafaduran discussing https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 and related blueprint | 18:02 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged] | 18:02 |
| heckj | #topic https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 | 18:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098" | 18:03 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 18:03 | |
| heckj | why don't we start there - rafaduran, you good with that? | 18:03 |
| rafaduran | no problem | 18:03 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| *** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| rafaduran | as bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 reported keystone is not acting on consecutive login fails | 18:04 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged] | 18:04 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:04 | |
| rafaduran | however I think the real problem is that keyhstone is no acting on any suspicious activity | 18:04 |
| ayoung | \O/ | 18:04 |
| rafaduran | thus I've registered a blueprint for that https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security | 18:04 |
| rafaduran | that show how I think keyston should manage this situation | 18:05 |
| heckj | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/improve-keystone-security | 18:05 |
| rafaduran | there is also a working draft for this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/ | 18:05 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, think that link is wrong | 18:06 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: which one? | 18:06 |
| ayoung | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/ | 18:06 |
| ayoung | I'm getting a 404 | 18:06 |
| joesavak | 404 on that | 18:06 |
| heckj | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/ is returning a "NotFound" | 18:06 |
| joesavak | lol | 18:06 |
| rafaduran | not for me | 18:07 |
| dolphm | same | 18:07 |
| dolphm | (404) | 18:07 |
| ayoung | Its too secure | 18:07 |
| liemmn | lol | 18:07 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, is it draft only? | 18:07 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: yes | 18:07 |
| ayoung | I think you need to publish or perish | 18:07 |
| rafaduran | published | 18:08 |
| rafaduran | is working now? | 18:08 |
| *** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:08 | |
| dolphm | yep | 18:08 |
| joesavak | yup | 18:08 |
| joesavak | so experation, tolerance, etc are global configs? | 18:08 |
| ayoung | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7239/ | 18:08 |
| clarkb | you can also add specific people to drafts (if you still want to keep it mostly secret) | 18:08 |
| rafaduran | joesavak: no they are specific for a middleware that send emails on 401 errors | 18:09 |
| rafaduran | joesavak: that middleware is just an example but it also solves original bug | 18:10 |
| joesavak | ok | 18:10 |
| dolphm | i assume this all should be disabled out of the box? | 18:10 |
| rafaduran | doesn't matter | 18:11 |
| ayoung | dolphm, I think that the middle ware must be explicitly added to the pipeline in order to work | 18:12 |
| ayoung | but by default it would be left out? | 18:12 |
| rafaduran | If you think if should be disabled by default i can disable in etc/keystone.conf.sample | 18:12 |
| rafaduran | if everything looks good I will add some tests and updated docs how to enable it | 18:13 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, so is it "all or nothing"? | 18:13 |
| ayoung | Or can you turn on a limited subset of Functionaliry | 18:13 |
| ayoung | ity | 18:14 |
| rafaduran | the backends are not activate unless a middleware use them | 18:14 |
| dolphm | should be removed from the pipeline out of the box; doc'd as to how to enable it; most config should be commented out with assumed defaults in case it remains commented out; 'admin_emails' needs to be renamed, as 'admin' is very overloaded and the existing usage doesn't apply here | 18:14 |
| rafaduran | dolphm: ok | 18:15 |
| dolphm | not clear on what the 'secinfo' table is storing -- is it a log in sql? | 18:16 |
| rafaduran | not it stores information about requests/responses, so a middleware can query later and thus track suspicious activity | 18:17 |
| joesavak | id, response code, request mothod, path, date, response body - look like it's an audit trail | 18:17 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 18:17 | |
| joesavak | not sure what "extra" is. Just a col to store notes? | 18:17 |
| dolphm | rafaduran: it doens't appear to store statistics, are they computed per request then? | 18:17 |
| rafaduran | dolphm: yes, e.g: the MailConsecutive401 middleware store information if response is 401 and then query the 401 in a certain period | 18:19 |
| rafaduran | dolphm: then if 401 errors are greater than a given number (tolerance) it will send an email | 18:19 |
| joesavak | +1 - i like it | 18:21 |
| dolphm | so the 'security' driver implements a queryable request/response log; the middleware provides email-based alerts (but doesn't actually throttle, right?) | 18:22 |
| joesavak | right - not acting as repose or a rate-limit. Just notificaiton. Back-end could be atom-hopper | 18:22 |
| rafaduran | yes | 18:22 |
| rafaduran | the rate limit would be the second part | 18:23 |
| zykes- | uhm, vishy still getting: /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 -S -M pc-1.0 -no-kvm -m 4096 -smp | 18:23 |
| zykes- | whyyyyyy | 18:23 |
| rafaduran | but as I mentioned at bp ayoung at last meeting said that it probably conflict http work | 18:23 |
| vishy | zykes-: this is the meeting room | 18:23 |
| heckj | zykes-: wrong channel… :-) | 18:23 |
| dolphm | zykes-: wrong channel? | 18:23 |
| joesavak | raf - you may want to look at http://openrepose.org/ for rate-limiting | 18:23 |
| rafaduran | so I don't work on that after httpd work is done | 18:23 |
| zykes- | ah, wrong chan :) | 18:23 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, maybe, but also seems like you could use either. | 18:24 |
| ayoung | It might be possible to Rate limit this way | 18:24 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: you mean using middlewares? | 18:25 |
| ayoung | But... | 18:25 |
| ayoung | if each request is handled by a separate process...it would need to be dealt with at the HTTPD level | 18:25 |
| ayoung | so I think, while this might function OK, it wouldn't actually protect against a DOS or cracking attempt... | 18:26 |
| ayoung | unless it hits a DB table each time? | 18:26 |
| *** arunkant has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:26 | |
| rafaduran | yes it queries DB for each request if response is 401 | 18:26 |
| ayoung | I like the idea of using middlewares for it. I think it will work ok then against the cracking attempt, just not against a DOS | 18:27 |
| ayoung | but that is still better than nothing | 18:27 |
| ayoung | by a long shot | 18:27 |
| dolphm | rafaduran: if the response is 401, isn't it too late to rate limit? | 18:27 |
| dolphm | the dos has already succeeded at that point | 18:27 |
| rafaduran | dolphm: as I said right now I'm not doing rate limiting, just reporting | 18:28 |
| joesavak | rate limiting should be split outside of keystone, imo | 18:29 |
| dolphm | 'security' is probably too broad of a driver name, then... it's really just very specific monitoring | 18:29 |
| liemmn | I think this will increase the network chattiness for the middleware quite a bit... When I think of rate limiting, it is better done at the server, like a rest proxy. Why can't we configure the server to optionally send notification, rather than involving the middleware? | 18:29 |
| dolphm | i.e. there's no additional security | 18:29 |
| rafaduran | dolphm: I like monitoring | 18:29 |
| dolphm | rafaduran: very specific monitoring | 18:29 |
| dolphm | liemmn: +1 | 18:30 |
| rafaduran | liemmm: I think the idea is keystone itself can handle it, but of course you can provide same thing using others approachs | 18:31 |
| dolphm | heckj: thoughts | 18:32 |
| dolphm | ? | 18:32 |
| liemmn | I am just concerned that we need to keep the middleware "lean and mean"... A lot of token (and later signature) validation is going through it already... | 18:32 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| heckj | I think having an optional middleware that does ratelimiting is just fine | 18:32 |
| heckj | If we also want to enable some simple audit&report mechanism, then I think that might be best as a separate middleware | 18:33 |
| joesavak | fyi - rackspace developed this and made rate-limting configurable through a couple API calls. I can share some doc on that if it would help. | 18:33 |
| heckj | per liemmn comment's we want to be very careful about keeping the /token API piece performance | 18:33 |
| dolphm | heckj: that's what this is - audit & reporting via email | 18:33 |
| liemmn | Audt trails have to be secure... It's easier to secure it on the keystone server than on a bunch of service nodes... (IMO) | 18:34 |
| joesavak | liemn - +1 - especially since you're putting in the path which could include tokens | 18:34 |
| dolphm | liemmn: referring to the 'secinfo' table as the audit trail? | 18:34 |
| ayoung | heckj, that is why the PKI Blueprint...the fastest code is that which doesn't have to run.... | 18:36 |
| liemmn | no... I think that is not the audit trail right? That's just for checking the rate of failure.... If we want to implement audit trails, I am just saying it should be done on the server side. | 18:36 |
| heckj | ayoung: word | 18:37 |
| dolphm | ayoung: i'm a fan :) | 18:37 |
| liemmn | NOOP is the fastest :) | 18:37 |
| liemmn | and bug-free | 18:38 |
| ayoung | I updated the PKI Blueprint to make it clearer. I can talk through it if anyone wants | 18:38 |
| dolphm | liemmn: noop takes a cycle :P | 18:38 |
| *** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:38 | |
| ayoung | if we are done with rafaduran 's code? | 18:38 |
| dolphm | ayoung: yeah, we can carry that into code review | 18:38 |
| liemmn | dolphm: I am talking about code ;) | 18:38 |
| heckj | rafaduran: did you get the feedback you were after? | 18:38 |
| rafaduran | I think so, the reporting seems is not going to work | 18:39 |
| rafaduran | but then we are not addressing the original bug | 18:39 |
| dolphm | rafaduran: cite the bug in your commit msg, and clean up the Change-Id's plz | 18:40 |
| dolphm | i didn't even know this was for a bug | 18:40 |
| rafaduran | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 | 18:40 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged] | 18:40 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 18:40 | |
| rafaduran | I've explained it at the start | 18:41 |
| dolphm | rafaduran: sorry, i jumped straight to the review | 18:41 |
| rafaduran | np | 18:41 |
| ayoung | Am I up? | 18:42 |
| rafaduran | I think I will re-think this and try something not using middlewares | 18:42 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: yes | 18:42 |
| *** Haneef has quit IRC | 18:42 | |
| ayoung | OK updated the write up here: http://wiki.openstack.org/PKI specifically the section "Delegation and Scaling" | 18:42 |
| heckj | #topic: PKI ness | 18:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to ": PKI ness" | 18:43 | |
| dolphm | lol | 18:43 |
| heckj | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/PKI | 18:43 |
| *** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:43 | |
| ayoung | I had to find out from some people smarter than me what the right API to use was | 18:43 |
| ayoung | turns out it is called CMS | 18:43 |
| ayoung | Crypt Message Syntax | 18:43 |
| ayoung | the short of it is this | 18:43 |
| ayoung | when you get a token, there is a part of the response that lists the tenant and roles | 18:44 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:44 | |
| ayoung | so the data is something like | 18:44 |
| *** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:44 | |
| ayoung | {user: ayoung, tenant: coop-city, role: hallmonitor, groundskeeper} | 18:44 |
| ayoung | you then take that date and sign it by encrypting it with a private key | 18:45 |
| ayoung | someone else with the corresponding public key can decrypt it and know that it was encrypted by the private key | 18:45 |
| ayoung | now this key-pair is going to be from Keystone, thus validating the name Keystone | 18:46 |
| ayoung | and so when you get a token signed like this, something like Nova won't have to go back to Keystone in order to authenticate | 18:46 |
| ayoung | now, the expiration date needs to be in there, and there are details about key management, but that the TL:DR version | 18:47 |
| dolphm | (this is the exciting part) | 18:47 |
| ayoung | dolphm, sorry, that was the exciting part. | 18:47 |
| ayoung | the rest is boring details | 18:47 |
| dolphm | ayoung: i meant nova not having to go back to keystone :) | 18:47 |
| dolphm | ayoung: it's like magic scalability | 18:48 |
| ayoung | it will put a little more CPU load on the services, but I suspect that what is saved in terms of network and SSL back to Keystone will more than make up for it | 18:48 |
| dolphm | agree | 18:48 |
| dolphm | ayoung: cpu time is cheap | 18:48 |
| ayoung | If we really are concerned about CPU time for this, we've won... | 18:49 |
| dolphm | ayoung: so, this all fits with the existing X-Subject-Token header, it'll just be encrypted? | 18:49 |
| ayoung | My next task is to get a proof of concept working using the command line tools | 18:49 |
| dolphm | err X-Auth-Token** | 18:49 |
| ayoung | dolphm, yes | 18:49 |
| heckj | ayoung: with the API pieces you've found, is it possible to have multiple signers | 18:49 |
| ayoung | I think the X-Auth-Token will just be huge | 18:49 |
| ayoung | heckj, yes | 18:50 |
| dolphm | ayoung: how much bigger than the data it contains? | 18:50 |
| ayoung | heckj, so say there are 3 keystone servers, each has a different key. That needs to be part of the token | 18:50 |
| ayoung | dolphm, 1K | 18:50 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 18:50 | |
| ayoung | I think that is the nature of using the encryption | 18:50 |
| dolphm | ayoung: is there a maximum length on header values? | 18:50 |
| ayoung | I think we are OK. I'll confirm | 18:51 |
| ayoung | but I've seen some that are huge | 18:51 |
| dolphm | (first google: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/686217/maximum-on-http-header-values ) | 18:51 |
| heckj | ayoung: I believe you're OK, and the token as it stands today is already a string (albiet much smaller). It makes a nice add-on extra-fit | 18:51 |
| ayoung | dolphm, to answer your question "the HTTP spec does not define a limit, however many servers do by default. This means, practically speaking, the lower limit is 8K." | 18:52 |
| ayoung | heckj, yes. The idea is that we should be able to switch out Keystone first, and then the rest. However, I don't know if /tokens/{id} will allow the super long ones either.... | 18:52 |
| ayoung | but if we go with the scheme that token auth is in the page as opposed the URL we should be OK | 18:53 |
| ayoung | and having tokens in the URL is problematic for other reasons already stated | 18:53 |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:53 | |
| heckj | ayoung: yp, with ya | 18:53 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:54 | |
| dolphm | heckj: does this have potential to be core for v3? | 18:54 |
| heckj | dolphm: absolutely | 18:54 |
| dolphm | heckj: that would be awesome if we can do it | 18:54 |
| *** liemmn has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:55 | |
| ayoung | dolphm, I'll try to have a demo for next week, totally hand jammed, but should show the flow | 18:55 |
| heckj | ayoung: that would be excellent | 18:55 |
| heckj | We've got 5 minutes left. Any more questions or feedback for ayoung? | 18:56 |
| *** sdague_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:56 | |
| ayoung | I'd like to use python-nss as the Crypto library, and it will need to have the CMS API added to it. CMS is in the native. Fortunatly, I've talked with the maintainer and he is more than willing to add it. | 18:56 |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 18:56 | |
| heckj | #topic open discussion | 18:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 18:57 | |
| rafaduran | I've have some patches that need review again... | 18:57 |
| heckj | Administrative bits - there's quite a number of reviews pending for Keystone, with lots of new/good work. Please go take a look and put in your thoughts on the code and such | 18:57 |
| rafaduran | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6425/ | 18:57 |
| rafaduran | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7127/ | 18:58 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+keystone,n,z | 18:58 |
| heckj | I'm a bit behind on bug triage, but will be going through it this week as well | 18:58 |
| heckj | And… that's it for this week! | 19:00 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 19:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 19:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 19:00:13 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-18.02.html | 19:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-18.02.txt | 19:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-18.02.log.html | 19:00 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| mtaylor | who wants to talk about CI??? | 19:01 |
| soren | o/ | 19:01 |
| heckj | thanks all! | 19:01 |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 19:01:14 2012 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:01 |
| LinuxJedi | o/ | 19:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:01 |
| clarkb | o? | 19:01 |
| clarkb | er o/ | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #topic gerrit trigger plugin | 19:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "gerrit trigger plugin" | 19:01 | |
| mtaylor | jeblair: you go | 19:01 |
| jeblair | that looks exactly like a person scratching their head | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | what's up? | 19:01 |
| jeblair | o? <- gerrit trigger plugin makes jim scratch his head a lot | 19:02 |
| jeblair | so... | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | indeed | 19:02 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:02 | |
| jeblair | our current changes have been merged upstream | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | woohoo | 19:02 |
| jeblair | darragh points out that a few things may have been missed, but i'm sure they can be fixed with small patches | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | cool. does that mean we can close out https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/903375 | 19:02 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 903375 in openstack-ci "Finish and install new Gerrit Trigger Plugin" [High,Fix committed] | 19:02 |
| soren | What were these changes? | 19:02 |
| soren | Too many to enumerate? | 19:03 |
| jeblair | i'm working on speculative execution, which will let us test lots of changes in parallel and merge them in series, maintaining our current behavior of testing patches "as they will be merged", but parallelizing the process for speed | 19:03 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: i think so | 19:03 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: awesome | 19:03 |
| jeblair | soren: we added support for triggering on comment-added and ref-updated events | 19:04 |
| jeblair | comment-added is what we use to trigger testing and merging on APRV+1 votes | 19:04 |
| jeblair | ref-updated we use for building tarballs, etc, when changes land | 19:04 |
| soren | jeblair: Neat. I was just sweating at the Gerrit trigger plugin a couple of hours ago for not supporting that. | 19:04 |
| soren | Er... | 19:04 |
| soren | swearing. | 19:04 |
| soren | Mostly. | 19:04 |
| mtaylor | soren: you should use ours | 19:05 |
| soren | Clearly! | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | hrm | 19:05 |
| jeblair | we have a jenkins job that builds ours and has the hpi as an artifact | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: your changes to the docs for that don't seem to have made it to ci.openstack.org | 19:05 |
| jeblair | so whatever crazynees we're working on is available pre-built | 19:05 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: awesome, something to look at | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | soren: https://jenkins.openstack.org/view/All/job/gerrit-trigger-plugin-package | 19:06 |
| jeblair | so, immediate future work for me: continue working on spec-ex, fixing upstream merge problems as i go, and roll that out to openstack | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | /lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/gerrithudsontrigger/target/gerrit-trigger.hpi | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | gah | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | soren: https://jenkins.openstack.org/view/All/job/gerrit-trigger-plugin-package/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/gerrithudsontrigger/target/gerrit-trigger.hpi | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: sounds fantastic. you are enjoying java threading I take it? | 19:07 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: AH - I know why... | 19:08 |
| jeblair | i'm hoping that the spec-ex patch will be pretty small, but there are a lot of events and listeners going on here, so it'll take a bit to get it just right. :) | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: when I was cleaning unused stuff from openstack-ci, I removed setup.py, but we use that to build docs... | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: cool | 19:08 |
| LinuxJedi | haha! :) | 19:08 |
| *** jgriffith has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| jeblair | (eol) | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | sweet | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | #topic etherpad | 19:09 |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "etherpad" | 19:09 | |
| mtaylor | clarkb: how's tricks? | 19:09 |
| *** pcrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:09 | |
| clarkb | I think linuxjedi merged the puppet module today | 19:09 |
| mtaylor | I believe you are right | 19:09 |
| LinuxJedi | I did, was I not supposed to? | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | nope, that's great | 19:10 |
| clarkb | there are a couple extra things that I hsould eventually fix in that module, but for now you get everything but ssl certs, backups, and the json settings file (because passwords) | 19:10 |
| clarkb | Once I get accounts I can spin up a box to run that on and migrate the data from the old etherpad to the new | 19:11 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: LinuxJedi would be more than happy to spin you up a machine :) | 19:12 |
| clarkb | I suppose I should also document this which has not been done. | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: we have an openstackci account at rackspace that we use for important servers | 19:12 |
| LinuxJedi | sure thing | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | speaking of ... we should probably delete some old servers from the openstack account | 19:12 |
| * LinuxJedi makes a note... | 19:12 | |
| clarkb | that works for me too | 19:12 |
| *** liemmn has quit IRC | 19:13 | |
| mtaylor | but yeah - docs would probably be splendid. :) | 19:13 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: there is a stale meetbot server that can die | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | there are several stale servers ... | 19:13 |
| clarkb | document note is on the whiteboard | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | Shrews: you around? | 19:13 |
| Shrews | yup | 19:13 |
| mtaylor | #topic pypi mirror | 19:14 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "pypi mirror" | 19:14 | |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: if you have a list of them I can clear them out | 19:14 |
| Shrews | pypi mirror is initialized and up and running on http://pypi.openstack.org | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | Shrews: ++ | 19:14 |
| Shrews | right now, only updating once a day. may need to adjust that at some point | 19:14 |
| Shrews | now trying to figure out how to use it correctly so that we fall back to normal pypi.python.org in case there is something we are not mirroring | 19:15 |
| * Shrews not 100% convinced that we ARE mirroring everything, but not sure how to verify | 19:15 | |
| soren | What makes you think we aren't? | 19:15 |
| Shrews | soren: download size is around 6GB. from older posts about setting it up, i was expecting much more | 19:15 |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:16 | |
| soren | Yeah, that doesn't sound like much | 19:16 |
| clarkb | will it be a public mirror at some point? or is that more trouble than its worth? | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | well, I'm mostly wanting it to reduce latency and make our stuff more resilient... not so sure I care if other people get benefit from it :) | 19:17 |
| *** Haneef has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| mtaylor | although there's really nothing preventing its use by anyone at the moment I guess | 19:18 |
| Shrews | future stuff: see if pygerrit is worth anything | 19:18 |
| * Shrews done | 19:19 | |
| mtaylor | excellent ... | 19:19 |
| mtaylor | #topic jenkins job filer 2.0 | 19:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "jenkins job filer 2.0" | 19:19 | |
| * LinuxJedi up? | 19:19 | |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: yup | 19:20 |
| LinuxJedi | ok, so... | 19:20 |
| LinuxJedi | after massive complications with the puppet way of trying to create jobs in jenkins I have now re-written this in Python | 19:20 |
| LinuxJedi | and it takes YAML scripts for job configuration parameters | 19:20 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 19:20 | |
| LinuxJedi | and is all nice and modular and stuff | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | it makes me happy | 19:21 |
| LinuxJedi | it also talks the Jenkins API so can add/modify/delete jobs without any reload/restart | 19:21 |
| soren | Yeah, generating config.xml from Puppet templates doesn't seem like much fun. I've been doing that a fair bit the last while. | 19:21 |
| LinuxJedi | and logs everything in the job config history correctly and stuff | 19:21 |
| soren | LinuxJedi: Sweet. | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | soren: you should look at LinuxJedi's new stuff ... I think you'll like it | 19:22 |
| soren | LinuxJedi: So is Puppet involved in that at all? | 19:22 |
| LinuxJedi | soren: yes, just to specify which projects to push live | 19:22 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:22 | |
| LinuxJedi | soren: and it executes the python script | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | soren: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ci-puppet/tree/master/modules/jenkins_jobs | 19:22 |
| LinuxJedi | soren: so nothing essential | 19:22 |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 19:23 | |
| soren | LinuxJedi: I'll take a look. Thanks! | 19:23 |
| clarkb | LinuxJedi: you wrote a new implementation of the api for it? | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | next step is to make it support batches of jobs instead of having a long YAML per-project. I've made a start on this but it won't be finished until at least tomorrow | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | clarkb: yes, I tried 4 different APIs, they all sucked | 19:23 |
| LinuxJedi | clarkb: the only one that supported all the commands we needed didn't actually work :) | 19:24 |
| LinuxJedi | it took me *much* longer testing those libraries than writing a new one too unfortunately | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | sigh | 19:25 |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:25 | |
| mtaylor | cool | 19:25 |
| mtaylor | #topic openvz | 19:26 |
| LinuxJedi | Stackforge RedDwarf (currently disabled) and Ceilometer are using it currently | 19:26 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "openvz" | 19:26 | |
| mtaylor | oops. | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: anything else? | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | devananda: you wanna tell the nice folks how openvz support is going? | 19:27 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: nothing else on jenkins jobs right now | 19:28 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: is jclouds plugin far enough along to be used instead of devstack-gate on the HP internal jenkins for openvz (assuming that's the plan)? | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: I do not know. | 19:30 |
| mtaylor | I'm going to see if I can do a unittests poc with it this week some time | 19:31 |
| soren | I forget... Why do we care about openvz? | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | the story so far on openvz is that we can finally build the kernel module | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | soren: hp and rackspace both want nova to support it to use behind dbaas stuff ... the migrations feature I think it one of the big plusses iirc | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | but we're not going to merge the patch until we can test the patch | 19:32 |
| devananda | mtaylor: sorry, missed the ping... | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | s/we/vish/ | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | all good | 19:33 |
| devananda | so, like mtaylor said, we've got a .deb package of openvz kernel that boots in ubuntu. | 19:34 |
| LinuxJedi | devananda: you made it work with 3.x or is it an older kernel? | 19:35 |
| devananda | i'll be working this week to get jenkins building and testing it (probably with significant help from jeblair) | 19:35 |
| devananda | LinuxJedi: 2.6.32 | 19:35 |
| LinuxJedi | ah, ok :) | 19:35 |
| devananda | that's the last one supported by openvz, as far as they've said to me | 19:36 |
| devananda | as far as what tests to run on it, or gating, etc, i leave to others at this point :) | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | yeah - I think for now we're just gonna focus on being able to spin up openvz enabled machines | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | once we've got that, other folks can help actually drive testing and stuff | 19:37 |
| *** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:38 | |
| mtaylor | anything else ? | 19:38 |
| * LinuxJedi raises hand | 19:38 | |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: go! | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | stackforge email... | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | the stackforge gerrit server has been migrated to a different cloud account | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | ah yes. | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | this needed to happen anyway, but was accelerated due to mail not actually sending | 19:39 |
| LinuxJedi | about 20 minutes ago I was finally told why that happened and that it will happen again | 19:39 |
| * jeblair perks up | 19:40 | |
| LinuxJedi | so we need an action plan that will most certainly involve a relay server outside of HP Cloud | 19:40 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair, mtaylor: I've just emailed you the exact reason | 19:40 |
| * mtaylor is so happy ... | 19:41 | |
| *** mrmartin has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:41 | |
| LinuxJedi | yep, I want to use pointy things because it took a week to find out this information | 19:41 |
| LinuxJedi | and I was told it when I wasn't even looking for it | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | LinuxJedi: do we know what the 25 rate limit actually is? | 19:42 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: I didn't get that far, but it explains why a few cronspam were getting through | 19:42 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: lets just assume really damn low for now | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | yeah. that's probably fair | 19:43 |
| LinuxJedi | mtaylor: so low you will see that before PBL | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: any thoughts other than just running a mail relay on rackspace? | 19:44 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: i don't think that's appropriate | 19:44 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| mtaylor | I don't either | 19:44 |
| LinuxJedi | so I'm going to need to investigate this further this week | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | it's possible we might be able to get the rate limiting lifted on our account I believe | 19:44 |
| LinuxJedi | as there is an implied workaround on a case-by-case basis | 19:44 |
| LinuxJedi | yep | 19:44 |
| LinuxJedi | we just need to figure out who to talk to, and the guy I emailed you about is probably a good starting point | 19:45 |
| mtaylor | great | 19:45 |
| LinuxJedi | just wish *someone* had told me in all those mails in the last week :) | 19:46 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:46 | |
| LinuxJedi | I can't be the only person that is going to hit this :) | 19:46 |
| LinuxJedi | </rant> | 19:46 |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| jeblair | mtaylor: eom? | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | yeah. I think so | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | thanks everybody! | 19:48 |
| clarkb | oh I will be out friday | 19:48 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 19:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 19:49 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 19:48:59 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:49 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-19.01.html | 19:49 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-19.01.txt | 19:49 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-19.01.log.html | 19:49 |
| *** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| *** pcrews has left #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 19:52 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:58 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| ttx | o~ | 19:59 |
| bcwaldon | alo | 20:00 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: -o | 20:00 |
| notmyname | o/ | 20:00 |
| anotherjesse | err | 20:00 |
| anotherjesse | ;p | 20:00 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:00 | |
| * ewanmellor here | 20:00 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 20:00:51 2012 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 20:00 |
| jbryce | hi everyone | 20:01 |
| ttx | haz quorum? | 20:01 |
| vishy | o/ | 20:01 |
| danwent | o/ | 20:01 |
| jbryce | now we do | 20:01 |
| jbryce | one quick question coming out of last week | 20:02 |
| jbryce | since we agreed on an approach concerning 3rd party APIs, has that been communicated at all to any of those working on 3rd party API patches? | 20:02 |
| heckj | o/ | 20:02 |
| vishy | jbryce: it has not, I will send out a message to the list outlining the options | 20:03 |
| *** devcamcar_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| vishy | (for nova) | 20:03 |
| heckj | notmyname made a reference to it on the list, but nothing else has flowed out as yet | 20:03 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:03 |
| notmyname | I've talked to the IBM people about CDMI on swift, and swift3 compatibility extraction is currently in-progress | 20:03 |
| jbryce | #action vishy to send note out about 3rd party api plan | 20:03 |
| devcamcar_ | o/ | 20:03 |
| jbryce | vishy: thanks | 20:03 |
| jbryce | notmyname: cool...those are ones i was wondering about | 20:04 |
| jbryce | #topic completeness of core | 20:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "completeness of core" | 20:04 | |
| jbryce | ttx: do you want to introduce this one? | 20:04 |
| ttx | Sure. As explained in https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack-poc/msg00513.html ... | 20:05 |
| ttx | As several projects consider splitting some existing parts out, I think it's the responsibility of the PPB to make sure OpenStack Core (as a whole) remains complete and usable on its basic functionality | 20:05 |
| ttx | The PPB accept projects in Core based on the features they bring, so it's fair that we watch to make sure those features don't dramatically change | 20:05 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: I know jgriffith is here to talk about the cinder aspect | 20:05 |
| ttx | There are two ways to split features out. One is to split into another Core project (like Cinder) | 20:05 |
| ttx | The other is to split into a non-Core project (I suspect most of the Swift splits so far belong to this category) | 20:06 |
| ttx | For the first category, last week we established the rule that the project split needs to be completed by the middle of the cycle (a.k.a. folsom-2). A Core project split also needs a dedicated team/PTL to pursue development on it | 20:06 |
| ttx | In order to assess if a split is a core or non-core split, I suggest that proposed splits should be acked by the PPB | 20:06 |
| ttx | Project teams/PTLs still get to decide what feature should be split and what feature should not... | 20:07 |
| ttx | But we get to decide if a split feature is a Core feature or not. And therefore if it should be split into a Core project (with all the constraints that creates) or into an ecosystem project. | 20:07 |
| ttx | Thoughts ? | 20:07 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: I think maybe pbb should be an oversight not an active decider | 20:08 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: it's sometimes hard to fix after the fact. And you may discover certain things late... | 20:08 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: for instance in nova we might want to split volumes out to cinder and be core, but split cloudpipe out to a non-core project | 20:08 |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:08 | |
| jbryce | how significant does a split need to be to involve people outside of the project? | 20:08 |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 20:08 | |
| ttx | anotherjesse: that's perfectly alright to me. I just think the decision of removing features from core does not belong solely to the project | 20:09 |
| ttx | since the PPB defines what's "core" | 20:09 |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:09 | |
| anotherjesse | ttx: do you have an estimate of how much are we signing up for | 20:09 |
| vishy | ttx: i think another possibility is for features to go into another core project | 20:10 |
| ttx | vishy: indeed. Good point. | 20:10 |
| ttx | which would be perfectly alright if both projects agree. | 20:10 |
| devcamcar_ | are we expecting to split anything else out in the near term? | 20:10 |
| vishy | I think it is a bit much to assume that we should ack everything that wants to be pulled out, but perhaps there isn't really a lot | 20:10 |
| devcamcar_ | if not then I'd suggest treating a one off as such | 20:10 |
| bcwaldon | mnaser: sure, that looks right | 20:11 |
| vishy | there is one specific concern that started this, so lets just address the concern and move on | 20:11 |
| bcwaldon | sry | 20:11 |
| jgriffith | sorry... late | 20:11 |
| heckj | vishy: ++ | 20:11 |
| ttx | as an example, swift splitting swift3 sounds sane. Swift splitting keystone auth, a bit less. | 20:11 |
| vishy | notmyname: we were discussing keystone middleware for swift. Were you planning on pulling it out? | 20:11 |
| anotherjesse | a core project that doesn't speak core auth doesn't make sense... | 20:12 |
| notmyname | keystone middleware was never part of swift to begin with | 20:12 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: because keystone didn't exist until recently :-) | 20:12 |
| devcamcar_ | that's crazy to suggest removing keystone middleware from swift | 20:12 |
| ttx | vishy: we could simply make the requirement that splits need to be announced on the ML some time before they are done... to let us intervene in case of need (oversight) | 20:12 |
| vishy | notmyname: so it is currently in keystone. What about the changes to the client to enable keystone? | 20:12 |
| vishy | ttx: that seems fine | 20:12 |
| devcamcar_ | all that does is say that swift doesn't care about the rest of the projects | 20:13 |
| notmyname | vishy: the swift client is being removed from swift (into a separate deliverable for the swift project) | 20:13 |
| vishy | notmyname: gotcha, but it is still managed by swift-core? | 20:13 |
| notmyname | so that it can be developed separately and require other projects to have less dependencies | 20:13 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: would that work for you ? Announce clearly in advance to let the PPB react if they don't like the idea ? | 20:13 |
| notmyname | vishy: yes | 20:13 |
| vishy | notmyname: I think the general concern is that if there is some part of a core projects that other projects are depending on, that we make sure it stays in core somewhere | 20:13 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: yeah, I'm not against having pbb actively involved, it just seems like it would be a lot of work that isn't needed if there is a way like you just suggested | 20:14 |
| notmyname | however, swift client libs and bins don't have anything to do with where keystone/swift middleware lives | 20:14 |
| heckj | keystone/swift middleware is currently in keystone, no plans to remove it. | 20:14 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: so the preference of swift-core is that keystone integration would be a drop-in - not part of the project? | 20:14 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: agreed. I just want to make sure we are in the loop and have the final word on those. | 20:14 |
| notmyname | vishy: agreed. there is no plan to remove the client lib and bin from swift-core team | 20:15 |
| notmyname | heckj: and swift want to keep it there too | 20:15 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: why? | 20:15 |
| vishy | notmyname: ok cool that deals with most of my concerns then. | 20:15 |
| bcwaldon | sorry if I missed something, but why in the world does it make sense for keystone to own the identity api middleware that converts headers into swift-specific attrs? | 20:15 |
| anotherjesse | bcwaldon: yeah, that seems like it belongs in swift | 20:16 |
| devcamcar_ | yep | 20:16 |
| vishy | notmyname, anotherjesse: I think more important than the location of the middleware, is that we have a gating test somewhere | 20:16 |
| heckj | there's dependencies both ways - glance and swift have gone "one off" in middleware auth | 20:16 |
| notmyname | the swift (or any project) middleware that provides keystone integration should, IMO, live with keystone (the auth system). therefore the auth system become a contained piece that develops it's features as a whole | 20:16 |
| heckj | nova, keystone, and quantum are all using token_auth to add context up the pipe | 20:16 |
| ttx | jbryce: before we address the specific case of keystone auth in Swift... do we have agreement that core projects splits should be announced in advance to let the PPB question or oppose them if need be ? | 20:17 |
| jbryce | ttx: was just writing the same thing = ) | 20:18 |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: it shouldnt live with keystone, its only used by swift, and what it does depends directly on how swift is organized | 20:18 |
| ttx | that way we can solve the problem earlier next time, in case it happens again. Then we can talk about how we solve the current questionable split | 20:18 |
| jbryce | before we dive too far into specific case, does everyone feel like having major feature splits announced prior to the work being complete and giving people a chance to comment is a good idea? | 20:18 |
| bcwaldon | yes, so there is time to say no | 20:19 |
| heckj | jbryce: yes | 20:19 |
| bcwaldon | when necessary | 20:19 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:19 | |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: there is a middleware that keystone maintains that converts keystone auth headers to a wsgi context | 20:19 |
| vishy | jbryce: yup | 20:19 |
| devcamcar_ | ttx: +1 | 20:19 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: what swift needs inside it is a middleware that takes that wsgi context and converts it to what swift needs | 20:19 |
| jbryce | and my practical definition for major splits would be pulling something out that would then go into a project of its own | 20:19 |
| notmyname | jbryce: I'm not sure I agree with that | 20:19 |
| ttx | jbryce: and that the PPB is ultimately competent on Core feature content ? | 20:19 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: that shouldn't live in keystone, that should be in swift and should be versioned with swift not keystone | 20:20 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: yes | 20:20 |
| ttx | jbryce: or at least completeness / basic operation needs | 20:20 |
| jbryce | notmyname: do you have an alternate idea or just would prefer no prior notification? | 20:21 |
| notmyname | jbryce: no, separating parts of the project requiring approval by the PPB is not something I support. it's technical decisions that should live within the project | 20:21 |
| *** edygarcia_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:21 | |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: not if its going to affect the ecosystem | 20:21 |
| jbryce | notmyname: the proposal did not require approval just notification | 20:22 |
| notmyname | bcwaldon: one problem is the original problem that ttx proposed to solve is that it can't be solved. we already are relying on projects "out of our control" to provide functionality within openstack projects (all the 3rd party libraries) | 20:22 |
| ttx | notmyname: but for authentication, we rely on an openstack project. | 20:23 |
| ttx | making it incomplkete would look very bizarre. | 20:24 |
| jbryce | sure we can't solve it for all code in the world, but for code that we have been responsible for, it seems like it's not a bad idea to do a sanity check that we are not throwing out something that is critical to openstack as a whole | 20:24 |
| heckj | notmyname: the technical choices of one project need to consider the ecosystem as a whole - OpenStack Core as a viable, coordinated product | 20:24 |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| *** edygarcia_ is now known as edygarcia | 20:24 | |
| bcwaldon | heckj: ++ | 20:24 |
| notmyname | ttx: ok, so about 10 minutes ago was the first time (recently) that keystone swift integration has been mentioned as a major problem requiring ppb oversight. I don't really feel ready to address that issue fully here (especially with the several conversations going on at once) | 20:25 |
| notmyname | heckj: I agree | 20:25 |
| ttx | notmyname: sure, we can defer to next week | 20:25 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: is the reason for making the integration be in keystone because swift doesn't want to maintain it? | 20:25 |
| ttx | notmyname: I just wanted to have teyh general rule spelled out, not the particular case | 20:25 |
| anotherjesse | or does the swift team want to maintain integration but in a different project | 20:26 |
| notmyname | anotherjesse: I'm not sure I'm ready to answer that :-) | 20:26 |
| ttx | jbryce: maybe for this week we should just vote on the general rule ("advance announcement" and "PPB rules the completeness of core") | 20:26 |
| notmyname | ttx: but I don't think we need a general rule. ie nobody is proposing to remove any sort of "core" functionality | 20:26 |
| jbryce | i'm fine with deferring on the specifics of swift until next week | 20:26 |
| notmyname | I don't think there is a problem that we need to have a policy about | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: the concern is that swift doesn't care about integrating with openstack auth | 20:27 |
| anotherjesse | which hurts the community | 20:27 |
| ttx | notmyname: I think that example proves otherwise. I don't see a drawback in saying that splits should be announced in advance to let a chance for the PPB to question it. | 20:28 |
| jbryce | do other people think we should have a general standard around notification? | 20:28 |
| ttx | I don't really want to watch all commits for all projects and discover stuff. | 20:28 |
| jgriffith | jbryce: yes | 20:28 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: yes | 20:28 |
| anotherjesse | ttx: agreed - if I am downstream of a project I'd like to know significant changes that are coiming | 20:29 |
| heckj | jbryce: yes | 20:29 |
| devcamcar_ | jbryce: +1 | 20:29 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: +1 | 20:29 |
| vishy | +0 | 20:29 |
| jgriffith | bottom line is if there's a change that impacts other projects there has to be some notification/discussion | 20:29 |
| notmyname | -1 | 20:29 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: +1 and for me it's not just about the oversight of ppb, but just helping everyone be aware | 20:29 |
| ttx | jbryce: should be announced on the development list, yes | 20:30 |
| vishy | I don't see the need for more policy. I think we notice these things when they come up and i don't think any of the ptls would remove major pieces of the code without discussion/notification | 20:30 |
| danwent | vishy: +1 | 20:30 |
| ttx | vishy: it's not really policy, it's communication | 20:30 |
| ttx | like we said that new deps should be discussed as well | 20:30 |
| danwent | I think we can agree that such things should be communicated… whether we need an official rule on it vs. trusting someone's common sense and good judgement is another thing. | 20:31 |
| ttx | let's file that one under "obligation of communication" | 20:31 |
| vishy | ttx: I agree that it is a good idea and should be done, I just don't see the need for an explicit policy about it. | 20:31 |
| notmyname | vishy: +1 | 20:31 |
| ttx | vishy: so that nobody can pretend they understood otherwise ? | 20:31 |
| jbryce | danwent, vishy: i agree with you guys but it sounds like notmyname doesn't even agree with the idea? | 20:31 |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 20:32 | |
| notmyname | I agree that communication is good. I don't think there needs to be a policy and I _really_ don't think that non-core devs should be able to approve or deny the technical decisions of the core dev team | 20:32 |
| ttx | vishy: I really don't want to fly to San Francisco to learn about the next one. | 20:32 |
| ttx | I'd like to make sure it will be on the ML | 20:33 |
| vishy | I would much rather solve this technically: i.e. get devstack gating in on the swift fuctionality we are depending on | 20:33 |
| ttx | vishy: we might miss special cases. Anything wrong with communication ? | 20:34 |
| vishy | currently ec2 support depends on the swift3 middleware. That is in core right now... | 20:34 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| *** GheRivero has left #openstack-meeting | 20:34 | |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: those are two different issues - whether we have a recommendation to communicate changes that affect users ----------- and whether a project has complete autonomy | 20:34 |
| *** oubiwann2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:34 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| vishy | vishy: I think we are much more likely to miss proposed domino-effects from splits through announcements than through gating. | 20:34 |
| jbryce | so instead of a policy, can we just agree that there should be a general standard of communication where major feature removal is communicated to the mailing list before the change is complete? | 20:34 |
| ttx | vishy: I'm not asking that we have a formal PPB meeting before each proposed code split. Just that the splits are announced on the ML | 20:35 |
| vishy | ttx: ^^ | 20:35 |
| *** oubiwann1 has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| bcwaldon | notmyname: these aren't just technical decisions, where code lives and what projects exist arent' technical decisions solely up to swift-core | 20:35 |
| *** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| jbryce | is vishy talking to himself again? | 20:35 |
| vishy | vishy: yup | 20:35 |
| ttx | vishy: checking on gating is a complement, not an alternative | 20:35 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| *** devcamcar_ has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| ttx | vishy: I'd rather discuss the issue before the change is pushed to jenkins. | 20:36 |
| *** markmcclain1 has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| vishy | ttx: if we want to officially support announcements that is fine | 20:36 |
| *** arunkant has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| *** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| vishy | ttx: I think we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist though | 20:36 |
| ttx | vishy: some PPB members follow development from some projects from quite far and might miss something that affect them. | 20:37 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 20:37 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 20:37 | |
| vishy | ttx: i agree, but the two examples we have of this so far there have been announcements already | 20:37 |
| soren | vishy: After that fact. | 20:38 |
| soren | s/that/the/ | 20:38 |
| vishy | soren: Oh? | 20:38 |
| vishy | maybe i was misinformed, I thought the announcement about the breakout of stuff was for the next release of swift (i.e. it hasn't happened yet) | 20:39 |
| vishy | notmyname: am I mistaken? | 20:39 |
| notmyname | vishy: you are correct | 20:40 |
| soren | Eh? | 20:40 |
| notmyname | all of the changes that we proposed were discussed extensively with the whole swift-core team, the 3rd party developers, over email, IRC, and in person at the summit. the email that I sent was the conclusion of all of those discussions, but it was not sent after the code changes happened (some of the changes haven't happened yet) | 20:40 |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:40 | |
| vishy | notmyname: ok I'm not going insane then :) | 20:41 |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:41 | |
| jbryce | yeah, and i'm honestly not really big on trying to define yet another policy (YAP?). can we just say that it's good practice to announce big changes/splits/removals on the mailing list before they're completed? | 20:41 |
| soren | Sorry, my bad. | 20:41 |
| vishy | jbryce: +1 | 20:41 |
| jbryce | then we can discuss on a one-off basis if someone feels like something specific is really going in the wrong direction | 20:41 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: and I think there is a lot of concern about keystone integration with swift | 20:42 |
| ttx | jbryce: I could agree with that. | 20:42 |
| anotherjesse | for next week :) | 20:42 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:42 | |
| vishy | I think this all started because I thought that the swift/keystone middleware was in swift and it was on the list to get pulled out. | 20:42 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: yes. let's get it on the agenda and talk about it specifically | 20:42 |
| vishy | so my bad too :) | 20:42 |
| ttx | jbryce: discussing it in advanace shouyld be the benefit of everyone. Prevents painful reverts | 20:42 |
| jbryce | notmyname: can we talk about swift + keystone next week? | 20:43 |
| notmyname | jbryce: sure | 20:43 |
| jbryce | do people have specific issues they'd like notmyname to address next week? | 20:43 |
| ttx | So does everyone agree that we need to care about "OpenStack Core" being able to deliver basic functionality using non-ecosystem components ? | 20:44 |
| jbryce | or just general discussion on swift+keystone integration and maintenance of the integration code? | 20:44 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: what the intention is for the swift team in regard to keystone integration - active involvement? preferred deployment? assumed default? | 20:44 |
| vishy | ttx: +1 | 20:44 |
| ttx | and that discussing splits in advance is a good thing ? | 20:44 |
| vishy | ttx: +1 | 20:44 |
| ttx | doesn't have to be policy, just some assertion of what we care about | 20:44 |
| jbryce | ttx: +1 and +1 | 20:45 |
| vishy | I think that is just good community sense | 20:45 |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| jbryce | i assert that i care about that = ) | 20:45 |
| ttx | indeed | 20:45 |
| *** maoy has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:45 | |
| ttx | (and if there is a specific issue with that, it should be raised as a topic separately) | 20:46 |
| jbryce | anything else on this for this week? | 20:47 |
| heckj | was there anything specific we needed to talk about re: Cinder? | 20:47 |
| jbryce | #topic open discussion | 20:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 20:48 | |
| anotherjesse | regarding cinder - we should write this up a little more formal but I hope that we can go down a path that results in: | 20:49 |
| jbryce | heckj: cinder is on a fastrack for being core in folsom if it is able to match existing nova-volume functionality by folsom-2 milestone | 20:49 |
| anotherjesse | shipping cinder as core in folsom, removal of nova-volume from nova | 20:49 |
| heckj | good by me | 20:49 |
| anotherjesse | otherwise we are updating code in both places | 20:49 |
| ttx | heckj: that was last week discussion | 20:49 |
| anotherjesse | it does mean we can't do huge changes - we need to treat the code as "stable" and do incremental work | 20:49 |
| ttx | heckj: we'll track progress towards that at the weekly project/release meeting | 20:49 |
| heckj | yes, but vishy mentioned jgriffith was here to talk about Cindr - didn't know if there was another topic pending | 20:49 |
| jbryce | anotherjesse: we discussed that last week and agreed on doing a big health check at folsom-2 | 20:50 |
| anotherjesse | jbryce: cool - was on a flight last week :-/ | 20:50 |
| devcamcar | anotherjesse: basically if things are looking good by folsom-2 then thats how we'll proceed | 20:50 |
| anotherjesse | devcamcar: hawt | 20:50 |
| ttx | jbryce: i'll make sure to rise any red flag in advance of that milestone | 20:50 |
| jgriffith | heckj: Just an update for the upcoming project meeting (10 minutes) | 20:50 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 20:50 | |
| jbryce | anything else? | 20:50 |
| notmyname | yes | 20:50 |
| notmyname | do we have a policy on copyright assignment? | 20:51 |
| jbryce | in what regard? | 20:51 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: the cla doesn't require it - so we haven't been doing copyright assignment afaik | 20:51 |
| jbryce | we don't require it | 20:51 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:51 | |
| anotherjesse | if someone wants to assign copyright, they are allowed to | 20:51 |
| notmyname | we've had some recent submissions that are new files with copyright assigned to both the submitter and openstack llc. that seems weird to me | 20:52 |
| russellb | i'm betting that was not intentional. they probably just did a copy/paste and added their name. | 20:52 |
| jbryce | notmyname: i'll ask alice about it | 20:53 |
| jbryce | does seem a little strange | 20:53 |
| notmyname | jbryce: ok, will do | 20:53 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: ianal, but the copyright holder can assign copyright - but I agree with russellb that it is probably just copy-paste of header | 20:53 |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:53 | |
| ttx | jbryce: quite a few files in Nova are this way | 20:53 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce to ask Alice King about copyright assignment to OpenStack, LLC | 20:53 |
| notmyname | ttx: that makes sense if it was an edited file, but not a new file | 20:53 |
| ttx | jbryce: it's definitely not required or forbidden. | 20:53 |
| anotherjesse | notmyname: some people start a new file by copying an existing and deleting the code leaving the header … | 20:54 |
| anotherjesse | a guess | 20:54 |
| vishy | jbryce, ttx : generally that is due to multiple edits on the same file | 20:54 |
| notmyname | jbryce: all the RAX contributed stuff (to swift) is assigned to openstack llc | 20:54 |
| ttx | notmyname: oh, you mean he probably shouldn't have assigned copyright to OpenStack LLC. Isee, and I concur | 20:54 |
| notmyname | ie, there is no RAX copyright in any swift file | 20:54 |
| jk0 | same for nova | 20:54 |
| ttx | notmyname: but I'm pretty sure he can if he wants (IANAL, etc) | 20:54 |
| jbryce | notmyname: right. i asked alice about something similar and she was concerned about people assigning new IP to OpenStack LLC without our awareness | 20:55 |
| jbryce | but i'll send her an email | 20:55 |
| notmyname | jbryce: the question there is who is "our" | 20:55 |
| jbryce | notmyname: exactly | 20:55 |
| jbryce | 5 minutes...anything else? | 20:55 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| jbryce | all right. thanks everyone! | 20:57 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 20:57 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 20:57:50 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:57 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-20.00.html | 20:57 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-20.00.txt | 20:57 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-20.00.log.html | 20:57 |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 20:58 | |
| ttx | heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: still around ? | 21:00 |
| danwent | o/ | 21:00 |
| bcwaldon | hey hey | 21:00 |
| vishy | ttx: here, can we do nova first today? | 21:00 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| vishy | ttx: I'm supposed to jump into another meeting in 15 | 21:00 |
| ttx | vishy: Ok | 21:00 |
| heckj | o/ | 21:00 |
| ttx | lets' start quickly then | 21:00 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 21:01:07 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 21:01 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:01 |
| notmyname | ttx: o/ | 21:01 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| ttx | Today's agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:01 |
| jgriffith | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | #info We have one week left before folsom-1 milestone-proposed cut | 21:01 |
| ttx | so for affected projects we'll be reviewing progress against published milestone goals | 21:01 |
| ttx | #info General release status page is back, available at: | 21:01 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/releasestatus/ | 21:01 |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| ttx | In other news, would be good if you could let me know what you think of: | 21:02 |
| ttx | https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg11678.html (the open bug triager thread) | 21:02 |
| ttx | if you haven't cast your opinion yet, let me know what you think | 21:02 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:02 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: that release status page is awesome | 21:03 |
| ttx | It existed in previous releases as well :P | 21:03 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:03 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:03 |
| ttx | versioned-rpc-apis (russellb, needscodereview): was all code proposed for that ? | 21:04 |
| ttx | or is there more to it ? | 21:04 |
| vishy | I think that is all of it. russellb ^^ ? | 21:04 |
| russellb | that's all of it | 21:04 |
| ttx | ok, cool | 21:04 |
| ttx | finish-uuid-conversion (mikal, goodprogress): are we getting closer to code proposed ? | 21:04 |
| russellb | well ... i haven't converted the network or volume rpc apis, actually. | 21:04 |
| ttx | fwiw I need to work on more gerrit/LP integration to more accurately drive the status of blueprints from commit messages | 21:05 |
| ttx | which would remove the need for most of those questions | 21:05 |
| vishy | russellb: that is ok, I don't see any point in those | 21:05 |
| russellb | volume because i didn't want to interfere with heavy cinder dev, and network because ... well i don't remember why. i think i just figured that code isn't changing. | 21:05 |
| russellb | ok cool | 21:06 |
| *** edgarmagana has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| russellb | then yes, that's all of it. | 21:06 |
| vishy | ttx: there are only two tables left to convert | 21:06 |
| *** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:06 | |
| ttx | ok, so looking on track | 21:06 |
| ttx | volume-decoupling (vishy, goodprogress): same question ? | 21:06 |
| vishy | not sure if mikal is here for status update | 21:06 |
| *** User95 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:07 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| vishy | ttx: there are a few items left, not sure that all of them will be done for folsom-1 | 21:07 |
| vishy | ttx: they depend on having a functioning cinderclient, so probably going to defer the later items to folsom-2 | 21:07 |
| ttx | ok. We'll talk about Cinder progress just after Nova | 21:07 |
| ttx | Back to nova folsom-1: 2 targeted bugs | 21:07 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/990019 seems to need a new push to pass the gate | 21:07 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 990019 in nova "Self links don't contain tenant id for server entity in images response" [Undecided,In progress] | 21:07 |
| ttx | on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6979/ | 21:08 |
| ttx | and https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/966329 looks abandoned to me. jk0 ? bcwaldon ? | 21:08 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 966329 in nova "RAX-specific auth in novaclient" [Low,In progress] | 21:08 |
| vishy | yes if he doesn't rebase in the next couple days i will rebase | 21:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'll follow up with westmaas on that | 21:09 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: thx | 21:09 |
| *** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:09 | |
| ttx | #action bcwaldon to follow up on bug 966329 status | 21:09 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 966329 in nova "RAX-specific auth in novaclient" [Low,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/966329 | 21:09 |
| ttx | A quick look at the general folsom plan at: | 21:09 |
| ttx | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/folsom | 21:09 |
| ttx | vishy: Looks pretty complete to me. Should I set all the ones with undefined priorities to Low ? | 21:09 |
| ttx | or will you adjust them more precisely ? | 21:10 |
| vishy | ttx: I was going to go through them | 21:10 |
| vishy | I haven't prioritized stuff after folsom-1 yet | 21:10 |
| ttx | #action vishy to adjust 'undefined' folsom bp priorities | 21:10 |
| ttx | 2 bps are targeted but without folsom series goal: instance-type-extra-specs-extension and per-user-quotas | 21:11 |
| ttx | Want me to add them to folsom series goal ? | 21:11 |
| vishy | i think those are new ones i havent looked at yet | 21:12 |
| ttx | #action vishy to look at instance-type-extra-specs-extension and per-user-quotas for potential inclusion in folsom series goal | 21:12 |
| ttx | Last remark: In general it would be good if assignees could set the milestone where they think their folsom-goal blueprints will land. | 21:12 |
| vishy | ok looked, will approve them | 21:13 |
| ttx | it's not really the PTL's job :) | 21:13 |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:13 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:13 |
| vishy | yes | 21:13 |
| vishy | So I announced last week that I'm going to clean house on blueprints | 21:14 |
| vishy | Last chance before I obsolete them all! | 21:14 |
| ttx | do it do it do it | 21:14 |
| vishy | (This is reversible so if someone notices later it isn't too big of a deal) | 21:14 |
| russellb | NO WAIT! | 21:14 |
| russellb | jk. | 21:14 |
| * vishy beheads russelb | 21:14 | |
| ttx | jgriffith: could you give us a quick update on how Cinder is going so far ? | 21:15 |
| russellb | eep | 21:15 |
| jgriffith | ttx: yep | 21:15 |
| jgriffith | Still working mostly on decoupling efforts | 21:15 |
| ttx | jgriffith: should we make a proof-of-concept folsom-1 cut next week ? Or would that be totally useless ? | 21:15 |
| jgriffith | Hopefully the last of the volume FK dependencies is removed with the bug I'm workign on now | 21:15 |
| jgriffith | ttx: useless | 21:15 |
| ttx | jgriffith: even on the client side ? | 21:16 |
| jgriffith | ttx: I'm targetting F2 for functional | 21:16 |
| jgriffith | ttx: I could be persuaded but I don't think it's realistic | 21:16 |
| * ttx is begging for more work | 21:16 | |
| jgriffith | ttx: :) | 21:16 |
| ttx | jgriffith: ok then :) | 21:16 |
| jgriffith | Currently it's me vish and jesse | 21:16 |
| jgriffith | jesse has been out, but he's back in starting tomorrow | 21:17 |
| jgriffith | Should see some good progress in the next week but not enough to stand up I don't think | 21:17 |
| jgriffith | I'd like to see functional drop in by F2, that's been my goal all along | 21:17 |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| ttx | jgriffith: I'll use folsom-1 to check if the CI stuff is up to snuff, but won't produce tarballs. | 21:18 |
| ttx | jgriffith: anything more ? | 21:18 |
| jgriffith | ttx: More than fair... good news is the CI stuff w/ exception of pythong-cinderclient should be good to go | 21:18 |
| jgriffith | ttx: Nope, think that sums it up for now | 21:18 |
| ttx | cool. | 21:18 |
| ttx | Back to our regular schedule then. | 21:18 |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:19 |
| jgriffith | s/pythong/python/ :) | 21:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:19 | |
| ttx | heckj: o/ | 21:19 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:19 |
| ttx | heckj: Both blueprints now in good progress ? | 21:19 |
| heckj | good progress on the V3 keystone API draft - should have it up for public review this weekend. | 21:19 |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| ttx | heckj: publication would complete this informational blueprint, right ? | 21:20 |
| heckj | The tokenID/URI is in patches getting kicked back and forth between ayound and gyee, getting close to landing for a code review | 21:20 |
| heckj | ttx: yes, publication will complete it | 21:20 |
| ttx | ok | 21:20 |
| ttx | 3 open targeted bugs... a few of them look stuck to me: | 21:20 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/856887 | 21:20 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 856887 in keystone "Keystone cannot listen on IPv6" [Medium,In progress] | 21:20 |
| ttx | This one should be turned into a blueprint and probably targeted to another milestone ? | 21:21 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:21 | |
| heckj | ttx: yeah, it probably should. DOn't know that it'll make a f1 milestone | 21:21 |
| heckj | I'll do that | 21:22 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/963098 | 21:22 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 963098 in keystone "Keystone isn't acting on consecutive failed logins" [High,Triaged] | 21:22 |
| ttx | I think this one should be closed as FILED_AS_BLUEPRINT_NOW | 21:22 |
| ttx | No need for duplicate pointers. I can do that for you. | 21:22 |
| heckj | k | 21:23 |
| ttx | Looking at the rest of the folsom plan at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/folsom | 21:23 |
| ttx | Does that plan fully reflect your folsom objectives ? | 21:23 |
| heckj | at this time, yes. We might be able to bring some of PKI in earlier, depending on progress. Playing it by ear, will if we can. | 21:23 |
| heckj | Announced the page and details to the list earlier today - it will mean new dependencies for the PKI related library to the project(s) | 21:24 |
| ttx | heckj: could you set priorities so that we make sure essential stuff is properly tracked ? | 21:24 |
| heckj | will do | 21:24 |
| ttx | #action heckj to set priorities on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/folsom | 21:24 |
| ttx | At first glance there seems to be a lot targeted to folsom-3 compared to folsom-{1,2} | 21:24 |
| ttx | But based on the priorities you set it may or may not matter that much. | 21:25 |
| ttx | heckj: anything else ? | 21:25 |
| heckj | questions for Keystone? | 21:25 |
| ttx | none apparently, switching to swift | 21:26 |
| notmyname | o/ | 21:26 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:26 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:26 | |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.5.0 | 21:26 |
| ttx | How are the splits into associated projects going so far ? | 21:26 |
| notmyname | in progress. may have happened, but a few are still outstanding | 21:27 |
| ttx | Oh. Two new blueprints since I last looked | 21:27 |
| notmyname | :-) | 21:27 |
| ttx | Is that task assigned to the whole core team, or to a specific individual ? | 21:27 |
| notmyname | they are currently proposed patches | 21:27 |
| notmyname | the associated projects split? that involves nearly everyone | 21:27 |
| ttx | notmyname: ack | 21:27 |
| ttx | Still on track for an end-of-May/start-of-June release ? | 21:28 |
| notmyname | I still hope that 1.5.0 will be ready by the end of the month, but no promises yet | 21:28 |
| notmyname | I'll have a better idea by next week | 21:28 |
| ttx | works for me. | 21:28 |
| ttx | So "expand swift recon support" and "proxy logging middleware" are already proposed changes ? | 21:28 |
| notmyname | yes | 21:29 |
| ttx | will mark them "good progress". | 21:29 |
| ttx | notmyname: Anything else ? | 21:29 |
| notmyname | not from me | 21:29 |
| ttx | Questions on Swift ? | 21:29 |
| *** sdague_ is now known as sdague | 21:29 | |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:30 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: yo | 21:30 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:30 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: hey hey | 21:30 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| ttx | I suspect the status is accurate on your 7 targeted blueprints ? | 21:30 |
| bcwaldon | Yep, making great progress on the v2 API | 21:30 |
| ttx | Looks all on-track | 21:30 |
| bcwaldon | Josh Harlow's blueprint has a patch waiting to go through jenkins | 21:31 |
| bcwaldon | I'll add in more bp's as I get to them | 21:31 |
| ttx | 4 open targeted bugs, mostly on track as well. | 21:32 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/994609 | 21:32 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 994609 in glance "wsgi.Server() starts but is broken on osx (test_multiprocessing never ends)" [Critical,In progress] | 21:32 |
| ttx | I suspect there is more to this than just https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7172/ | 21:32 |
| ttx | Anyone working on completing it ? Or should the bug be split ? | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: commented on that this morning | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I think Patrick will do it, he was waiting on me to answer | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: definitely my bad there | 21:32 |
| ttx | ok | 21:32 |
| ttx | https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/988099 | 21:33 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 988099 in glance "Monkey patch all the (eventlet) things" [Medium,In progress] | 21:33 |
| ttx | Might need its change resubmitted. | 21:33 |
| bcwaldon | maybe s1rp can follow up on that | 21:33 |
| ttx | (was abandoned while we were looking the other way) | 21:33 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6788/ | 21:33 |
| ttx | In the meantime, let's look at the rest of Folsom now: | 21:34 |
| ttx | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/folsom | 21:34 |
| ttx | There are a number of undefined priorities there. Should those all be set to Low ? | 21:34 |
| bcwaldon | the bottom 4 are not yet defined as a feature, so I'm not willing to prioritize them | 21:34 |
| bcwaldon | the 5th from the bottom I will take care of now | 21:35 |
| ttx | There are also a bit too much of "Essential" in there. Essential means "defer release if not here", which makes me nervous and annoying. | 21:35 |
| ttx | So if you can downgrade a few of the Essential to "High" priority where it makes sense... | 21:35 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: why's that? | 21:36 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: to me, Essential means its gotta happen | 21:36 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: High is I'd like to have it but we can ship without it | 21:36 |
| ttx | You understand it well. It's just that when essential stuff is not completed by folsom-2 I tend to start knocking at your door. | 21:37 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: everything Essential will be done by folsom-2, I promise | 21:37 |
| ttx | but if that's what you really meant, it's ok. I guess :) | 21:37 |
| ttx | #info <bcwaldon> ttx: everything Essential will be done by folsom-2, I promise | 21:37 |
| ttx | amen | 21:37 |
| bcwaldon | crap | 21:37 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:37 |
| bcwaldon | negatory | 21:38 |
| ttx | Questions on Glance ? | 21:38 |
| ttx | #topic Quantum status | 21:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status" | 21:38 | |
| ttx | danwent: hey | 21:38 |
| danwent | o/ | 21:38 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:38 |
| danwent | So we decided to bump the keystone stuff to F-2, just not going to happen. | 21:38 |
| danwent | key focus in on v2.0 API | 21:39 |
| ttx | which bp is that ? | 21:39 |
| danwent | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/authorization-support-for-quantum | 21:39 |
| ttx | ack | 21:39 |
| danwent | ah sorry, that's the keystone one | 21:39 |
| ttx | melange-integration (jkoelker, started): what's the status of this ? Any chance it will be completed before Tuesday next week ? | 21:39 |
| danwent | wasn't sure what you were asking for. | 21:39 |
| danwent | ttx: yes, I jkoelker and _cerberus_ are full speed on this one. | 21:40 |
| ttx | database-common (garry kotton, needscodereview): is that completed by https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7169/ ? The commit message there was particularly unhelpful. | 21:40 |
| danwent | its a lot of work, but its also the top prority for the project, so I expect everyone to chip in and help out | 21:40 |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/database-common | 21:40 |
| danwent | ttx: yes, please refresh | 21:41 |
| ttx | argh. | 21:41 |
| danwent | that one merged in, but missed the automated hooks | 21:41 |
| ttx | exposed by caching | 21:41 |
| ttx | man-support: in folsom-1 but not is folsom series goal, should I fix that for you ? | 21:41 |
| danwent | sure | 21:41 |
| ttx | Looking now at the more generic plan for folsom at: | 21:42 |
| ttx | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/folsom | 21:42 |
| ttx | There are a number of folsom-2 blueprints that are missing the series goal, let me know if I should set those for you: | 21:42 |
| ttx | quantum-l3-fwd-nat, provider-networks, quantum-horizon, improved-nova-quantum-integration, new-cli, scalable-agent-comms | 21:42 |
| danwent | sorry, will do that :) | 21:42 |
| ttx | danwent: I can do it | 21:43 |
| ttx | I actually have a script to catch the discrepencies. | 21:43 |
| danwent | nice | 21:43 |
| ttx | Does that folsom page represent all you had in store ? Or is there a lot more coming ? | 21:43 |
| ttx | #action ttx to fix series goal for quantum/folsom bps | 21:43 |
| danwent | ttx: we're putting everything critical in F-1 and F-2 | 21:44 |
| ttx | this is how I like it | 21:44 |
| danwent | anything else if opportunistic for Folsom.. | 21:44 |
| ttx | danwent: Anything else ? | 21:44 |
| danwent | dont' think so. | 21:44 |
| ttx | Questions on Quantum ? | 21:44 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:45 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: o/ | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:45 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-1 | 21:45 |
| ttx | Status looks good to me on the blueprint side... no red flags ? | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | no big updates since last week - folsom 1 is moving well | 21:45 |
| devcamcar | i still owe blueprints for folsom 2 | 21:45 |
| ttx | I'm a bit more scared about the 20+ F1-targeted bugs | 21:45 |
| ttx | I guess we'll refine that list before we hit the milestone-proposed cut Tuesday next week | 21:46 |
| devcamcar | we're making steady progress on them | 21:46 |
| devcamcar | sounds good | 21:46 |
| ttx | Looking at folsom plan at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/folsom | 21:46 |
| ttx | does it represent your current Folsom goals ? | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | still owe a blueprint for proper quantum integration | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | and a few smaller ones, but yes this is pretty much accurate | 21:47 |
| ttx | unfortunately, contrary to bugs, blueprints do not support multiple projects | 21:47 |
| devcamcar | yea | 21:47 |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| danwent | devcamcar: i actually have "sister" bps in quantum | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | once we have https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/workflows that will enable a great quantum integration | 21:48 |
| danwent | sharing them would be much nicer | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | danwent: yea that would be nice. maybe some day :) | 21:48 |
| ttx | the idea is to use those "Folsom" pages, togther with prioritization, to make sure the important stuff lands | 21:48 |
| ttx | devcamcar: Anything else ? | 21:48 |
| devcamcar | ttx: sounds good | 21:49 |
| devcamcar | thats it for me | 21:49 |
| ttx | thanks to gabrielhurley for championing our I18N effort, btw | 21:49 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:49 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: happy to :-) | 21:49 |
| ttx | #topic Other Team reports | 21:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports" | 21:50 | |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: I'll be working with heckj on keystone i18n coming up soon | 21:50 |
| gabrielhurley | just fyi | 21:50 |
| ttx | Anyone from docs team ? | 21:50 |
| ttx | annegentle asked me to post the link to the Docs team meeting minutes | 21:51 |
| ttx | #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-14-19.59.html | 21:51 |
| ttx | the docs team had a meeting yesterday. | 21:51 |
| ttx | mtaylor/jaypipes: anything from CI/QA land ? | 21:51 |
| ttx | like an online tempest gate ? | 21:52 |
| ttx | Note that in addition to a I18N advocacy team, we should soon have a Python 3 advocacy team | 21:53 |
| ttx | formed after the meeting we had at the openstack design summit | 21:53 |
| ttx | Any other team lead with a status report ? | 21:53 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:54 | |
| ttx | Anything else, anyone ? | 21:54 |
| oubiwann2 | ttx: who should we contact about the Python 3 advocacy team? | 21:56 |
| *** salv has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| ttx | oubiwann: Mike Pittaro should send an email about this soon | 21:56 |
| oubiwann2 | nice | 21:56 |
| oubiwann2 | I know dhellmann will be very interested in that :-) | 21:56 |
| ttx | oubiwann: how is the ML setup going ? | 21:56 |
| oubiwann2 | jeblair: has some changes for puppet that should be landing soon | 21:57 |
| oubiwann2 | this will give us Exim configured for mailman | 21:57 |
| oubiwann2 | the next step is getting some DNS setup so we can start testing | 21:57 |
| oubiwann2 | *DNS set up, rather ;-) | 21:58 |
| oubiwann2 | (verb, not noun) | 21:58 |
| ttx | ok then | 21:58 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 21:59 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 21:59:05 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:59 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-21.01.html | 21:59 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-21.01.txt | 21:59 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-21.01.log.html | 21:59 |
| russellb | thanks! | 21:59 |
| *** russellb has left #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| *** gabrielhurley has left #openstack-meeting | 21:59 | |
| danwent | #startmeeting | 22:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue May 15 22:00:36 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 22:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 22:00 |
| danwent | hello quantum team | 22:00 |
| salv | Hello! | 22:00 |
| *** User95 has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| markvoelker | o/ | 22:00 |
| garyk | hi | 22:00 |
| danwent | #link Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings | 22:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Hi All! | 22:01 |
| danwent | #topic Folsom-1 Release | 22:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Folsom-1 Release" | 22:01 | |
| danwent | #info 1 week until Folsom-1 branch point | 22:01 |
| danwent | #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-1 | 22:01 |
| danwent | Most everything is in review or already committed, which is great. | 22:02 |
| rkukura | hi | 22:02 |
| *** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz | 22:02 | |
| danwent | As a community, I think we really need to pitch in and do what we can to make sure the v2.0 API gets in and tested…. there's still a good deal of work there | 22:02 |
| danwent | is jkoelker around? | 22:02 |
| danwent | (or perhaps he should be coding? :P) | 22:02 |
| *** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:02 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 22:03 | |
| danwent | Was good to see that people were commenting on the etherpads: | 22:03 |
| danwent | #links API v2.0 etherpad: http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-v2-api | 22:03 |
| danwent | though conversations get a bit hard to follow after a while on the etherpad | 22:03 |
| edgarmagana | hola mundo! | 22:04 |
| *** oubiwann2 has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| danwent | I'm hoping jkoelker and _cerberus_ will have a first cut of the API code by thursday. | 22:04 |
| _cerberus_ | O_o | 22:04 |
| danwent | I'll be working on plugin interface and wiring a base plugin | 22:04 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: yeah, I know, but if you do the math... | 22:05 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| danwent | _cerberus_: what can people do to help out? | 22:05 |
| _cerberus_ | danwent: we have a team outing tomorrow ;-) | 22:05 |
| jkoelker | sorry, was coding | 22:05 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: damn.... | 22:05 |
| danwent | ok, well, I'm just trying to work backward from tuesday branch point. | 22:05 |
| jkoelker | thursday eh? | 22:05 |
| jkoelker | well nothing like the present to start setting expectations... ;) | 22:05 |
| danwent | or do we not consider tuesday branch point feasible? | 22:06 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:06 | |
| jkoelker | thursday might be pushing it, if we have to include XML | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | i can probably get you a JSON only by Friday-ish | 22:06 |
| danwent | jkoelker: ok, i think we obviously have to support xml eventually, but for a concrete impl that people can look at, I hink json should be a-ok | 22:06 |
| jkoelker | sounds good to me | 22:07 |
| jkoelker | the serialization should be a middleware anyway... | 22:07 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| * jkoelker ducks | 22:07 | |
| danwent | but my sense is that a review on something this big would have to start early monday to have a good chance of landing by end of tuesday | 22:07 |
| * _cerberus_ stands behind jkoelker, still shorter | 22:07 | |
| danwent | :) | 22:07 |
| danwent | I'm clearing my plate of other stuff to help out this week, and hopefully other quantum team members can help out as wel. | 22:08 |
| danwent | so as you get an idea of things that other people might be able to bite off, please let people know. | 22:08 |
| salv | I will happily review over the weekend. | 22:08 |
| danwent | (xml serlialization/deserialization might be one) | 22:08 |
| _cerberus_ | We're tackling the networks and ports controllers atm | 22:08 |
| _cerberus_ | Basically everything else is fair game. | 22:09 |
| danwent | salv: great, early feedback will be really helpful. | 22:09 |
| _cerberus_ | We've been yak shaving about how to clean up all the fiddly bits like serialization and whatnot | 22:09 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| danwent | _cerberus_: ok, I'm working on the plugin interface, and we already have basic DB models right? | 22:09 |
| danwent | are those committed anywhere, or just on etherpad? would be good to get them committed. | 22:09 |
| jkoelker | github.com/jkoelker/quantum/tree/melange is the repo | 22:09 |
| _cerberus_ | dragondm was looking into the models | 22:09 |
| jkoelker | yea we have them sketched out the etherpad | 22:10 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: i'd save the yak shaving and get a first cut in so people get start to get a sense of the code. I'd like to avoid everything landing at the last minute :) | 22:10 |
| dragondm | yup. | 22:10 |
| *** markmcclain1 has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| _cerberus_ | Of course | 22:10 |
| danwent | jkoelker: are models ready to be committed? | 22:10 |
| dragondm | not yet | 22:10 |
| danwent | ok… pls ping me when they are. | 22:10 |
| dragondm | there was some refactoring to do, but they should be tommorow | 22:11 |
| danwent | dragondm: cool, thanks. | 22:11 |
| dragondm | will do | 22:11 |
| danwent | cool, well let the rest of us know how we can help you out here. a lot of things in F-2 depend on getting the API in, so I want to minimize slippage :) | 22:11 |
| danwent | Next topic for F-1 is the set of outstanding reviews | 22:12 |
| danwent | We're actually in not so bad shape. | 22:12 |
| danwent | I'd encourage reviewers to spend cycles on things that are bugs/bps targeted for F-1 | 22:12 |
| danwent | and higher priority over lower priority | 22:13 |
| edgarmagana | danwent: will do! | 22:13 |
| danwent | any reviews that are important for F-1 (other than the v2.0 API) that are not listed on the agenda? | 22:13 |
| danwent | #info Man page: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7192/ | 22:13 |
| danwent | #info Agent Common Dir: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7460/ | 22:13 |
| danwent | #info Client --debug flag: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7336/ | 22:14 |
| danwent | #info LB-plugin tuntap issue: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7433/ | 22:14 |
| danwent | #info Multi-node Quantum devstack: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7001/ | 22:14 |
| danwent | if so, please make sure they get targeted for F-1, and that they are appropriately targeted. | 22:14 |
| danwent | Since we have a lot of new people since the last release, I wanted to quickly cover the milestone release propose. | 22:14 |
| danwent | process | 22:14 |
| danwent | We'll branch late tuesday of next week. | 22:15 |
| garyk | that would be great | 22:15 |
| danwent | at that point, we'll have a milestone-proposed branch, which will only be used for important bug fixes, and master will be re-opened for F-2 | 22:15 |
| danwent | even bugs that need to go into milestone-proposed should first be pushed to master. | 22:15 |
| danwent | you can then notify me that it needs to be pulled into milestone-proposed (there is no review needed for this step, unless it is import complicated than a cherry-pick) | 22:16 |
| danwent | On wed, Thierry will check with me to make sure there aren't any important issues still outstanding, and if so, he will take the contents of milestone-proposed and release it as F-1 sometime in the following 24 hours. | 22:17 |
| danwent | so if we're close to a release and you hit what you think is a blocker, let me know ASAP. | 22:17 |
| danwent | during that time, please keep you eyes on the mailing list, as I will send out a note if we urgently need reviews on a bug fix. | 22:18 |
| danwent | ok, any questions/concerns about the process? | 22:18 |
| danwent | Ok, moving on :) ( think everyone's falling asleep) | 22:18 |
| danwent | one last comment on F-1 | 22:18 |
| danwent | #info we moved the keystone integration blueprint out of F-1, though we still need to early in F-2: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/authorization-support-for-quantum | 22:19 |
| danwent | _cerberus_: who should that be assigned to? | 22:19 |
| danwent | currently it is troytoman | 22:19 |
| _cerberus_ | Kevin Mitchell | 22:19 |
| danwent | lpid? | 22:19 |
| * salv reminds folk to remind Kevin to get in touch with me | 22:20 | |
| *** GheRivero has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| danwent | turns out there are a lot of kevin mitchells on launchpad | 22:20 |
| _cerberus_ | klmitch, I believe | 22:20 |
| danwent | #action: send kevin mitchell a note to contact salv about keystone + quantum | 22:20 |
| danwent | got it, thanks. | 22:21 |
| _cerberus_ | https://launchpad.net/~klmitch | 22:21 |
| _cerberus_ | yeah | 22:21 |
| danwent | Ok, anything else for F-1? | 22:21 |
| danwent | #topic community topics | 22:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "community topics" | 22:21 | |
| danwent | a couple items I wanted to bring up | 22:21 |
| *** maoy has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| danwent | First off, I don't think we ever wrapped up the "discussion" around python 2.4 and whether we should enforce that any code that might be pulled in by an agent will be compatible. | 22:22 |
| garyk | this could be very problematic for the RPC support (so i think) | 22:23 |
| danwent | I think there were concerns that openstack-common code will be used in agents, and thus this requirement would be somewhat "viral". I believe (but am not sure) that openstack in general decided not to focus on 2.4 support. | 22:23 |
| danwent | but if someone wants to champion this, I don't want to be the one standing in their way | 22:23 |
| danwent | is mnewby here? | 22:23 |
| garyk | rpc support => some form of openstack common | 22:23 |
| danwent | I think he discussed this ont he ML | 22:23 |
| danwent | #action #danwent revive python 2.4 in agent discussion on ML, get to conclusion | 22:24 |
| rkukura | openstack common rpc also depends on common cfg, which I'd like to see the agents and server use | 22:24 |
| danwent | rkukura: +1 | 22:25 |
| danwent | rkukura: want to create a BP around adding cfg support? | 22:25 |
| rkukura | danwent: sure | 22:25 |
| danwent | thx | 22:25 |
| rkukura | what milestone? | 22:25 |
| danwent | rkukura: probably F-2, as we don't want people having to change their config file (if required) later in the release cycle... | 22:26 |
| mnewby | i'm here | 22:26 |
| danwent | I expect the set of people testing out quantum as it prepares to be core to keep growing each milestone. | 22:26 |
| danwent | mnewby: hey | 22:26 |
| garyk | anyone else having devstack quantum issues or is it just me? | 22:27 |
| danwent | was trying to see what we need to do to drive the python 2.4 in agents discussion | 22:27 |
| danwent | garyk: please hold one sec | 22:27 |
| mnewby | danwent: What kind of discussion? | 22:28 |
| mnewby | danwent: Is there some question as to whether 2.4 support is necessary? | 22:28 |
| danwent | mnewby: yes, I think there was some discussions around the implications of 2.4 support for openstack-common | 22:28 |
| mnewby | danwent: The question is simple - should quantum support Xen? | 22:29 |
| danwent | and whether that means that we should try to make all code used by agents (likely to grow considerably with security groups, dhcp, etc.) 2.4 compatible. | 22:29 |
| danwent | mnewby: I think of it more as should the existing agents be able to run on XenServer dom0 | 22:29 |
| mnewby | danwent: Given that xen isn't moving in the near term, the questions are the same. | 22:30 |
| danwent | some people had mentioned approaches for using the service VM… I believe Citrix folks did this for some items in essex | 22:30 |
| danwent | mnewby: well, there's actually kronos that runs xenserver on newer debian, but I believe we're both focused on commercial XenServer, which is the main platform. | 22:31 |
| danwent | salv: are you able to comment? is running an agent in dom0 pretty much our only option? | 22:31 |
| mnewby | danwent: We're using XCP here at internap, which closely follows xenserver. | 22:31 |
| danwent | mnewby: sounds like you have a vested interest :) | 22:31 |
| danwent | that's fair. | 22:31 |
| salv | From my experience it is the only efficient option so far | 22:32 |
| mnewby | Nova has the same issue, btw. | 22:32 |
| mnewby | Agents intended to run in dom0 have to be python2.4 compatible. | 22:32 |
| salv | I heard of people which upgraded their dom0 python environment to 2.6, but this practice is not advisable. | 22:32 |
| mnewby | What would drive agents to not be 2.4 compatible? | 22:33 |
| danwent | mnewby: I thought someone said that nova only uses xenserver "plugins", and that their main agents (i.e., nova-compute) runs in the service vm. | 22:33 |
| danwent | mnewby: I think code that we write is easy to control | 22:33 |
| salv | danwent: correct. | 22:33 |
| mnewby | danwent: I'm pretty sure that's not true. | 22:33 |
| s0mik | danwent: I think thats correct | 22:33 |
| mnewby | danwent: There is agent code in nova, too. | 22:33 |
| danwent | openstack-common code is more of a concern, as we'll likely be using rpc, config, etc. from there. | 22:33 |
| danwent | perhaps you can work with them to make sure it is 2.4 compatible | 22:33 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 22:33 | |
| salv | ok, now I'm confused :) | 22:33 |
| danwent | mnewby: what is not true? | 22:34 |
| mnewby | salv: Sorry, I was delayed. You're right. | 22:34 |
| salv | mnewby: by agent code you mean code which is supposed to run on dom0? | 22:34 |
| mnewby | danwent: that nova agent code doesn't run in dom0. | 22:34 |
| mnaser | afaik, there is no services running on the dom0 (and it has been something that was enforced not to run in dom0 due to security) | 22:34 |
| danwent | I think we may be using the term agent loosely here. | 22:34 |
| mnewby | salv: yes | 22:34 |
| danwent | mnewby: yes, that's what I was trying to say | 22:34 |
| mnaser | there are xenapi plugins that are included (simple files) that are being called from the service VM on the node. the small xenapi plugins extend the functionality of the xapi that nova-compute connects to | 22:35 |
| mnewby | mnaser: I reviewed code as recently as february that was intended to be run in dom0. | 22:35 |
| danwent | ok, well, regardless, from salv's comments it sounds like our agent code would need to run on dom0 | 22:35 |
| danwent | so I'd like to focus on how we could make that work. | 22:35 |
| danwent | perhaps coordinating with the openstack-common folks is a good next step | 22:35 |
| danwent | I believe mnewby is already working with mtaylor to get some automated testing in. | 22:36 |
| rkukura | do the nova VIF drivers currently run in dom0? | 22:36 |
| salv | The alternative to running the agent in dom0 is cumbersome and involves development of new plugins. I tried it back last october :) | 22:36 |
| mnewby | Despite all the apparent enthusiasm to do so, there is no requirement that we use rpc at all let alone from openstack common. | 22:36 |
| danwent | rkukura: not the xenserver one | 22:36 |
| danwent | salv: yeah, I don't want to slow things down by implementing a lot of platform specific stuff if we can avoid it... | 22:36 |
| danwent | rkukura: xenserver vif driver using XAPI api, which makes webservice call to dom0 | 22:37 |
| danwent | (salv can correct me) | 22:37 |
| salv | danwent: no need to correct, you;re rigth | 22:37 |
| rkukura | danwent: could that be done by something like the rootwrap hook? | 22:37 |
| danwent | rkukura: don't follow... | 22:38 |
| salv | Btw, There's some code for baseline network protection which is not a xapi plugin and is supposed to run in dom0 | 22:38 |
| danwent | mnewby: sure, but at the least the config stuff.. | 22:38 |
| danwent | salv: are those the OVS filters? | 22:38 |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 22:38 | |
| salv | danwent: yes | 22:38 |
| mnewby | danwent: We may want to consider holding off on using openstack.common until dom0 is no longer 2.4. I will check, but keeping common 2.4 compatible will probably not be possible. | 22:39 |
| danwent | ok, well, sounds like there's still a lot to explore here. let's take this offline | 22:39 |
| danwent | I just wanted to make sure we were either moving forward with the discussion, or had reached a conclusion. Let's keep talking about this on the ML. In the mean time, I'm fine with reviewers requesting 2.4 compliance for our agent code. | 22:40 |
| mnewby | ok | 22:40 |
| danwent | but I suspect we will want to leverage openstack-common functionality in agents, so I think we need to explore more there. | 22:40 |
| danwent | sound fair? | 22:40 |
| danwent | i'll take that as agreement :) | 22:41 |
| danwent | Ok, on a new topic... | 22:41 |
| danwent | I wanted to encourage people to help out in responding to questions on the ML about quantum. | 22:41 |
| danwent | and also to sign up to be notified when people submit questions via answers.launchpad.net/quantum | 22:42 |
| danwent | the load is definitely going up, now that more people are trying out quantum, and we want them to have a good experience. | 22:42 |
| danwent | its also a good chance to identify gaps in our documentation. | 22:42 |
| danwent | and one last comment | 22:43 |
| danwent | #info anyone interested in helping maintain essex/stable branches for quantum should ping me. | 22:43 |
| danwent | #topic open discussion | 22:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 22:43 | |
| danwent | anyone have anything else to discuss? | 22:43 |
| garyk | devstack? | 22:43 |
| danwent | ah, thanks garyk | 22:44 |
| danwent | are you talking about the linuxbridge issue you mentioned? | 22:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyk: are you referring to the issue about bridge and gw devices created? or is it something else? | 22:44 |
| garyk | danwent: correct | 22:44 |
| danwent | lately i've been using devstack with OVS on the version that is under review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7001/ | 22:44 |
| danwent | but I saw that issue as well when testing with linuxbridge… didn't have time to explore it. | 22:45 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyk: I noticed it first when I was reviewing your agent changes | 22:45 |
| danwent | i'm not seeing a similar issue with OVS, so I suspect it is specific to the interface-driver (which is different between linuxbridge and OVS) | 22:45 |
| garyk | i guess i'll invest some time and explore | 22:45 |
| danwent | garyk: great… would be good to have more people familiar with that code as well. I can be a point of contact if you have questions about what is going on there. | 22:46 |
| danwent | (in terms of QuantumManager code). SumitNaiksatam is probably best for anything that is linuxbridge specific. | 22:46 |
| danwent | or just send to the ML :) | 22:46 |
| garyk | ok, i'll take a look and get back to you guys | 22:46 |
| danwent | thx | 22:46 |
| danwent | anything else? | 22:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah, I am looking at it as well | 22:47 |
| garyk | SumitNaiksatam: tx | 22:47 |
| danwent | ok, let's see what we can all do to help out with reviews this week, and to help with the new API code. | 22:47 |
| garyk | scaling agents: in process of getting it up and running | 22:47 |
| garyk | would like to discuss one issue here or can take it to the ML | 22:47 |
| danwent | garyk: go ahead | 22:47 |
| danwent | just in time :P | 22:48 |
| garyk | From my understanding concensus was to have the agent use attachment id to retrieve the network info. There may be false positives here if the plugin does not ensure that this is unique system wide. | 22:48 |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| mnewby | it's a uuid, no? | 22:49 |
| danwent | mnewby: yes, but multiple switches could claim to have it. | 22:49 |
| mnewby | that doesn't sound very uuid-like | 22:49 |
| garyk | if the vif could notify the agent with the id's then it is not a problem. | 22:50 |
| danwent | mnewby: this actually happens in real life, like when a VM migrates from one server to another, for a brief period of time that vif (and its UUID) actuallly exists in two locations. | 22:50 |
| mnewby | danwent: ah, gotcha | 22:50 |
| danwent | garyk: not sure I follow... | 22:51 |
| mnewby | garyk: what about udev notification? | 22:51 |
| danwent | garyk: do you mean vif-drivers? | 22:51 |
| danwent | garyk: maybe write an email to the ML on this? | 22:51 |
| garyk | ok - mail will be best | 22:52 |
| danwent | ok, last call. any quick updates before we close out? | 22:52 |
| danwent | thanks folks, talk to you next week (and see you on gerrit :P) | 22:53 |
| danwent | #endmeeting | 22:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Status and Progress (Meeting topic: keystone-meeting)" | 22:53 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue May 15 22:53:07 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:53 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-22.00.html | 22:53 |
| garyk | goodnight | 22:53 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-22.00.txt | 22:53 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-05-15-22.00.log.html | 22:53 |
| s0mik | take care folks till next time | 22:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye! | 22:53 |
| salv | bye! | 22:53 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:56 | |
| *** edgarmagana has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:03 | |
| *** edygarcia has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 23:08 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:09 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:29 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** anderstj_ has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 23:42 | |
| *** mrmartin has quit IRC | 23:42 | |
| *** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse | 23:49 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 23:51 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:53 | |
| *** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer | 23:53 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!