| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:07 | |
| *** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:10 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:11 | |
| *** salv-orlando has left #openstack-meeting | 00:11 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** anniec_ is now known as anniec | 00:14 | |
| *** somik has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:22 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 00:22 | |
| *** somik is now known as s0mik | 00:22 | |
| *** reed_ has quit IRC | 00:29 | |
| *** edgarmagana has quit IRC | 00:31 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 00:36 | |
| *** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz | 00:38 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:43 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:47 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 00:51 | |
| *** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away | 00:53 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 01:00 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:04 | |
| *** johnpostlethwait has quit IRC | 01:09 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 01:10 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:11 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:12 | |
| *** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net | 01:13 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 01:16 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:17 | |
| *** reed_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:18 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:19 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 01:21 | |
| *** PotHix has quit IRC | 01:29 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 01:32 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 01:34 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 01:35 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 01:42 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:56 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 02:20 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** reed_ has quit IRC | 02:25 | |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 02:27 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 02:28 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 02:28 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:31 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:32 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 02:33 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:42 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:46 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 03:00 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 03:05 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 03:05 | |
| *** zhhuabj has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:06 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:08 | |
| *** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:10 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:11 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 03:13 | |
| *** anniec_ is now known as anniec | 03:13 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 03:23 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:23 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:40 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 03:41 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:43 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 03:54 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 03:55 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 03:56 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:00 | |
| *** matiu has quit IRC | 04:44 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:45 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:47 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 04:55 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 04:57 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 04:59 | |
| *** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:01 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 05:02 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:05 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:41 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 05:45 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 05:47 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:49 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:51 | |
| *** rnirmal_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:52 | |
| *** rnirmal_ has quit IRC | 05:52 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 05:54 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 05:59 | |
| *** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:12 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:16 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 06:21 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 06:31 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:42 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:54 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 06:59 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 07:15 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:18 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:49 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 07:51 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:52 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 08:27 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 08:28 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:28 | |
| *** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:30 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 08:33 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:40 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:42 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 09:10 | |
| *** ijw1 has quit IRC | 09:17 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:17 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:17 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 09:21 | |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 09:33 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 09:33 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:39 | |
| *** gongys has quit IRC | 09:42 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 09:43 | |
| *** zhhuabj has quit IRC | 09:59 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 10:46 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:47 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:01 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 11:05 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:18 | |
| *** glenc_ has quit IRC | 11:19 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:20 | |
| *** milner has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:27 | |
| *** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:53 | |
| *** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:53 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:59 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:05 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 12:08 | |
| *** carlp has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:21 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 12:21 | |
| *** carlp has quit IRC | 12:25 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:27 | |
| *** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:27 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 12:30 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 12:31 | |
| *** anniec_ is now known as anniec | 12:31 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:40 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:40 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 12:45 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 12:50 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:52 | |
| *** dhellmann_ has quit IRC | 12:52 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 12:55 | |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:03 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:10 | |
| *** martines has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:12 | |
| *** lzyeval has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:19 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 13:19 | |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:19 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:20 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:32 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 13:33 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:38 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:41 | |
| *** garyk has quit IRC | 13:43 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 13:45 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:47 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:48 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 13:50 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 13:52 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:54 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 13:58 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 14:09 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:11 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:15 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:19 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 14:22 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:26 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 14:29 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:30 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:31 | |
| *** dendrobates has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:31 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 14:31 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:33 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:33 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:33 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 14:40 | |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 14:40 | |
| *** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:41 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:41 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 14:46 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:46 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 14:46 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:50 | |
| *** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:50 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 14:53 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:54 | |
| *** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:05 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| *** lzyeval has quit IRC | 15:08 | |
| *** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away | 15:12 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:15 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 15:23 | |
| *** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 15:25 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 15:25 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:26 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:27 | |
| *** mestery_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:32 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 15:33 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:33 | |
| *** mestery_ has quit IRC | 15:38 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 15:39 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:41 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:45 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| *** ozstacker has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:55 | |
| *** uvirtbot has quit IRC | 15:59 | |
| *** uvirtbot has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:14 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:16 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:17 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:18 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:19 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:20 | |
| *** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:20 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:33 | |
| *** anderstj has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:36 | |
| *** ozstacker has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 16:44 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:46 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:09 | |
| *** PotHix has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:10 | |
| *** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:12 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:14 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:16 | |
| *** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:17 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 17:19 | |
| *** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC | 17:20 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:25 | |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:29 | |
| *** darraghb has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:39 | |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 17:40 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 17:42 | |
| *** danwent_ is now known as danwent | 17:42 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:43 | |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:45 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:45 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 17:46 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ is now known as kindaopsdevy | 17:46 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 17:46 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:47 | |
| *** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn | 17:48 | |
| *** sacharya has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:56 | |
| *** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| *** jrouault has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:59 | |
| dolphm | o/ | 18:00 |
|---|---|---|
| heckj | folks around for the keystone meeting? | 18:00 |
| heckj | o/ | 18:00 |
| *** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:00 | |
| heckj | Looks like it's just you and me this time :-) | 18:01 |
| *** tw__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| heckj | #startmeeting | 18:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 3 18:01:24 2012 UTC. The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:01 |
| heckj | How's things? | 18:01 |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:01 | |
| heckj | #topic folsom-2 milestone | 18:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "folsom-2 milestone" | 18:01 | |
| heckj | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-2 | 18:02 |
| heckj | dolphm: you and I have a few reviews outstanding - otherwise we're in good shape for the F2 release milestone | 18:02 |
| liemmn | o/ | 18:03 |
| dolphm | heckj: i'll take another pass this afternoon | 18:03 |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| heckj | ayoung: around? | 18:03 |
| dolphm | is jenkins having a bad day again? :-/ | 18:04 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 18:04 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has quit IRC | 18:05 | |
| heckj | oh, probably | 18:05 |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 18:05 | |
| *** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:05 | |
| heckj | Reviews that need someone other than Dolph or I looking at this for the F2 release: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8909/, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9182/ | 18:05 |
| heckj | both for F2 milestone | 18:05 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9182/ | 18:06 |
| heckj | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8909/ | 18:06 |
| heckj | #topic hot issues | 18:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "hot issues" | 18:06 | |
| *** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:07 | |
| heckj | Any new issues? Hot topics? | 18:07 |
| liemmn | Heckj, when is the v3 API "frozen"? | 18:07 |
| ayoung | \)/ | 18:07 |
| ayoung | finally got the SSL Cert generation into Keystone | 18:08 |
| heckj | liemmn: I'm going through the existing feedback now - going to take one more cut at it, and then it'll be solid enough to start development against | 18:08 |
| heckj | I'd hoped to do that this past weekend, but ended up sleeping through most of it | 18:08 |
| liemmn | sounds good :) | 18:08 |
| heckj | ayoung: yeah!!! | 18:08 |
| ayoung | heckj, do we have a summary sheet of the changes? | 18:08 |
| dolphm | ready for implementation != frozen, correct? | 18:08 |
| ayoung | I have to present on it, and am lazy | 18:08 |
| heckj | liemmn: I do expect to leave the spec "open" per bcwaldon's suggestion to allow us to revise as we run into implementation issues | 18:09 |
| heckj | ayoung: #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-2 | 18:09 |
| dolphm | heckj: is that what glance did? | 18:09 |
| heckj | dolphm: yeah | 18:09 |
| *** tim_chan has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:09 | |
| heckj | dolphm: Brian said it made a huge difference for their work as they sussed out deeper issues | 18:09 |
| dolphm | heckj: i can imagine :) | 18:09 |
| ayoung | should I add in https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/994860 ? | 18:10 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 994860 in keystone "Keystone middleware auth_token assumes top level URL when making http connection" [Medium,In progress] | 18:10 |
| liemmn | ayoung, there were some feedback on making PKI optional... That is still in the plan right? | 18:10 |
| ayoung | liemmn, I don't want it optional. | 18:10 |
| ayoung | I'd rather have it out there, have everyone beat on it | 18:10 |
| ayoung | and if it is a real problem, we roll back | 18:10 |
| jrouault | but some implementers will not use PKI | 18:11 |
| ayoung | there are 2 parts to it: token generation and token validation | 18:11 |
| ayoung | the old style validation *can* be done with the new tokens | 18:11 |
| heckj | ayoung: I think it's only pending unit tests | 18:11 |
| ayoung | but vice versa is not | 18:11 |
| ayoung | heckj, my ticket? Yes, I will get unit tests. I meant should I add that bug to the API blueprint? | 18:11 |
| ayoung | jrouault, why would they not use PKI? | 18:12 |
| heckj | ayoung: not worried too much about it either way - | 18:12 |
| dolphm | heckj: ayoung: can we "demote," for example, the token validation call to an official extension, if it's not necessary for PKI and PKI is core? | 18:12 |
| ayoung | dolphm, I don't think that is wise | 18:13 |
| liemmn | ayoung, so... if someone is using non PKI and going through to Keystone backend to do a validation (and have no cert), how would that work with PKI enforced? | 18:13 |
| jrouault | ayoung: because they have implementations running today that dont require it | 18:13 |
| heckj | dolphm, ayoung: I don't want to demote anything at this point | 18:13 |
| ayoung | I think PKI will give us many new features. Probably most important is Federation | 18:13 |
| ayoung | liemmn, token is generated using PKI. That means that it can be validated with the signing cert. But it can also be validated the old way: by asking Keystone directly. | 18:14 |
| ayoung | I am going to post another patch shortly that is just the token generation | 18:14 |
| ayoung | the vaolidation will be a separate patch | 18:14 |
| liemmn | Cool, as long as we can still have an option to ask Keystone to validate the token, should the signed cert is not there, I think that should be ok | 18:15 |
| ayoung | dolphm, the thing is, token validation without calling to keystone is pretty much the reason for having PKI in the first place. Otherwise, we've just implemented a slightly more expensive token generation scheme | 18:15 |
| *** tim_chan has quit IRC | 18:15 | |
| ayoung | liemmn, signed cert is fetched on demand | 18:16 |
| jrouault | which is why it should be optional whether the token is signed | 18:16 |
| liemmn | I mean, if a token is not signed, then we have the option to ask Keystone to validate the token as before... | 18:16 |
| ayoung | One thing that is currently missing, and I am tempted to try and add before submitting the token generation is the ID of the Keystone server | 18:16 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: PKI will be part of just v3 API or it will land into master before it? | 18:16 |
| dolphm | ayoung: that's why i don't like it remaining in the "core" api | 18:17 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, it makes no changes to the API and will land before it | 18:17 |
| heckj | rafaduran: he's aiming to have it in prior to V3 api - in progress now | 18:17 |
| dolphm | ayoung: it's just bloat if it's not recommended | 18:17 |
| dolphm | granted, it should be kept around | 18:17 |
| ayoung | dolphm, this is based on the lessons learned in other IdM systems. Probably most notably is Kerberos. THe biggest difference between V4 and V5 is the way that service tickets are validated, which is what this is echoing | 18:18 |
| jrouault | another reason to support the current token scheme in conjunction to the PKI scheme is to support token revocations | 18:19 |
| *** tchan_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:19 | |
| ayoung | It should have a significant impact in decreasing the amount of network traffic | 18:19 |
| jrouault | not arguing that... just asking that is be optional | 18:20 |
| jrouault | you configure if you want PKI or not | 18:20 |
| heckj | we do need it to work side-by-side with the legacy mechanisms and not break the legacy mechanisms | 18:20 |
| heckj | #topic keystone-core | 18:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "keystone-core" | 18:21 | |
| heckj | Switching topics - sounds like that one's tapped out | 18:21 |
| heckj | I'm proud to announce the addition of ayoung to keystone-core | 18:21 |
| dolphm | awesome | 18:21 |
| dolphm | ayoung: grats | 18:21 |
| heckj | I'll send a note out to the list shortly with the same | 18:22 |
| ayoung | thanks | 18:22 |
| heckj | ayoung: awesome work, thank you - and here's more to do | 18:22 |
| heckj | :-) | 18:22 |
| heckj | #topic open discussion | 18:23 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 18:23 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| ayoung | um...one last thing on the PKI tokens...I was planning on changing the behavior of auth_token middleware, but I could also privde a different middleware for it....I could do something like check the length of the token, and if it is short, assume it is a hashed (current style) token, but if it is longer than some threshold, assume it is PKI signed. Question then is do we want to make people 1) default to phone home and enable | 18:24 |
| ayoung | signing validation or 2) default to PKI validation and explicelty enable phone home? | 18:24 |
| ayoung | My thought is that we should push the new functionality to ensure that people test it and report issues | 18:24 |
| ayoung | we can provide the fall back...so you would have to explicitly set the middleware on, say glance | 18:25 |
| ayoung | I'd hoped to avoid doing anything along those lines.... | 18:25 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 18:25 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:26 | |
| jrouault | so you will then support unsigned tokens? | 18:26 |
| dolphm | ayoung: shouldn't you try to decrypt in middleware, and if that fails, try phoning home if phoning home is enabled? | 18:26 |
| ayoung | jrouault, only under duress :) | 18:26 |
| dolphm | ayoung: otherwise immediately fail? | 18:26 |
| heckj | ayoung: extending the current auth_token middleware should be fine as long as it doesn't get too complex in there. kind of a judgement call though. | 18:26 |
| dolphm | ayoung: fail = reject authentication | 18:26 |
| liemmn | ayoung, you could leave the auth_token as is to provide the default behavior, and create a new filter before auth_token to handle PKI tokens. If the tokens are not PKI, then let them fall to the auth_token for legacy support. | 18:27 |
| jrouault | +1 | 18:27 |
| ayoung | liemmn, but that makes a configuration nightmare | 18:27 |
| liemmn | just another filter in the WSGI pipeline... | 18:27 |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 18:27 | |
| ayoung | liemmn, I object to the word "just" | 18:27 |
| heckj | means we have to change a bunch of client pipelines | 18:27 |
| dolphm | liemmn: that doesn't sound like it will work at all -- auth_token will filter out incoming authentication claims as-is | 18:28 |
| ayoung | it means that we have to change devstack, plus any tool like puppet or chef... | 18:28 |
| ayoung | human sacrifice, dogs and cats. living together | 18:28 |
| heckj | heh | 18:28 |
| dolphm | liemmn: and always attempt token validation | 18:28 |
| ayoung | masss hysteria | 18:28 |
| ayoung | Here's a thought. Let me get the token generation code through review and into the repo, and let people beat on it for a while. | 18:29 |
| liemmn | well.. the alternative is to have auth_token do it all... that's fine too, but IMHO, I am just trying to do separation of concerns... did not think about deployment | 18:29 |
| ayoung | Meanwhile, we can go through the auth_token code with a fine tooth comb, deal with corner cases etc | 18:29 |
| heckj | ayoung: that sounds like a good take on it | 18:30 |
| jrouault | i would like to conclude on whether PKI usage will be optional... | 18:30 |
| ayoung | I'd like to make it default | 18:30 |
| ayoung | but provide an override to turn it off? | 18:30 |
| dolphm | jrouault: are you asking about the api or keystone's implementation? | 18:30 |
| jrouault | yes, I would like to turn it off and use the v2.0 mechanism | 18:31 |
| heckj | jrouault: We will support that | 18:31 |
| dolphm | i'd vote for optional in API, and required (or at least on by default) in keystone | 18:31 |
| jrouault | doph: my understanding is ayoung wanted to force all tokens to be signed... I don't want to do that if I am using the v2 mechansim | 18:31 |
| jrouault | of validation | 18:31 |
| jrouault | it is unnecessary overhead | 18:31 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| dolphm | jrouault: still not sure if you're referring to the v2 api or v2 implementation? | 18:32 |
| ayoung | jrouault, out of curiousty, why? I mean, I understand the revokation issue, but beyond that, what issue do you see with PKI? | 18:32 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 18:32 | |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| jrouault | if I request a token from Keystone configured for no PKI, i should get a token back that is not signed | 18:32 |
| ayoung | jrouault, are you worried about doing a rolling upgrade? | 18:33 |
| dolphm | jrouault: as a service consumer, does it matter? | 18:33 |
| *** Haneef has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| jrouault | no, we have use cases where a signed token will just cause us greif | 18:33 |
| dolphm | jrouault: example? | 18:34 |
| ayoung | jrouault, the token is opaque. To the end user, the only difference will be the length | 18:34 |
| ayoung | and they should not really even care about that | 18:35 |
| jrouault | and that will cause problems for other services we have | 18:35 |
| dolphm | jrouault: example? | 18:35 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy_ is now known as kindaopsdevy | 18:35 | |
| heckj | jrouault: can you expand on the "grief" and what causes it? | 18:37 |
| dolphm | jrouault: i'm not sure how we're supposed to address issues that you're not sharing or justifying | 18:37 |
| jrouault | 1. we have other services that consume tokens that have problems with the length | 18:38 |
| ayoung | OK...I'll put in a disalbe override, but leave enabled the default. Will that suit everyone? | 18:38 |
| *** dwalleck_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:38 | |
| jrouault | yes | 18:38 |
| ayoung | jrouault, so you specifically need the shorter length? | 18:39 |
| dolphm | jrouault: what kind of length is problematic? what lead you to assume a specific length? | 18:39 |
| *** dwalleck_ has quit IRC | 18:39 | |
| dolphm | jrouault: is there a maximum token length documented somewhere that we need to correct? | 18:40 |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 18:40 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:40 | |
| jrouault | 2. we also have some keystone like token generators that are used for testing... those would all need to change to support signing... but that is not so much a concern for the community | 18:40 |
| ayoung | jrouault, I can help you build some replacements. | 18:41 |
| *** dwalleck_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:41 | |
| heckj | jrouault: I'm most interested in the length issue and what you're hitting there - do you have a max length? | 18:41 |
| jrouault | heckj: i do have the exact length but can get that to you | 18:42 |
| jrouault | s/don't/do | 18:42 |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 18:42 | |
| heckj | jrouault: thanks - would like to know that ASAP, as there's a bunch of other potential impacts there | 18:43 |
| ayoung | OK...I'm thinking that is insufficient reason to hold up the PKI side of things. THe token length could change for many reasons without PKI. I am not really willing to disable the server side just for a specific test harness | 18:43 |
| jrouault | making it optional is holding things up? | 18:44 |
| heckj | ayoung: don't hold up the PKI effort - carry it forward, let's just make sure we can disable it as an option, but not as the default settings | 18:44 |
| ayoung | heckj, disabling it is not trivial on the Keystone side. | 18:45 |
| ayoung | So it will hold it up. Plus, if both forms of tokens ate allowed, they should be minimally tested | 18:45 |
| heckj | ayoung: gotcha. Let's see what we can suss out to enable both or either at the same time | 18:46 |
| ayoung | OK...I'll post the current code to my github page here shortly | 18:46 |
| heckj | sounds good | 18:46 |
| rafaduran | ayoung: Can I change topic now? | 18:48 |
| heckj | #action jrouault to provide a max key length | 18:48 |
| heckj | rafaduran: yep - | 18:49 |
| ayoung | rafaduran, yes, please do so | 18:49 |
| rafaduran | I've working on the rate limit middleware, I still need some work on it, but It would be nice get some feedback on corner cases, defaults ... | 18:49 |
| rafaduran | I think it would be nice take some time for next meeting | 18:49 |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| heckj | rafaduran: I'll schedule it up as a specific topic for next meeting | 18:49 |
| rafaduran | heckj: Ok, thanks | 18:49 |
| *** Shrews has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:50 | |
| heckj | cool - any other topics for today? | 18:51 |
| heckj | Okay - gotta present in 5 minutes, so I'll close this up for today. | 18:53 |
| heckj | #endmeeting | 18:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 18:53 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 3 18:53:32 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:53 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-18.01.html | 18:53 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-18.01.txt | 18:53 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-18.01.log.html | 18:53 |
| *** kevin-lewis-9 has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| *** jrouault has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 18:55 | |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:56 | |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 19:00 | |
| *** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:00 | |
| mtaylor | ola! | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | #startmeeting | 19:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 3 19:01:38 2012 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:01 |
| clarkb | ohai | 19:01 |
| mtaylor | anybody around want to talk about so you think you can dance? | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | oh | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | I mean | 19:02 |
| mtaylor | openstack CI stuff? | 19:02 |
| jeblair | o/ | 19:02 |
| *** rkukura has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| mtaylor | neat | 19:03 |
| *** tchan_ has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| mtaylor | so - jeblair I believe wanted to talk about jenkinsy failure and retrigger stuff, yeah | 19:03 |
| jeblair | yep. | 19:03 |
| jeblair | my main concern is global dependency list and how that relates to getting the pypi mirror stable | 19:04 |
| jeblair | i see there's a mailing list thread, which unfortunately has some confusion associated with it. | 19:04 |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 19:04 | |
| jeblair | i certainly haven't seen a viable suggestion other than your initial one. | 19:04 |
| jeblair | would it be productive to talk about that here (perhaps summoning some people), or should we leave that on the ML for now? | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | no. and I intend, for the record, to ignore all of the irrelvant things that have been said so far | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | the ML thread is supposed to be informative, and then to ask an opinion on the name "openstack-requires" | 19:05 |
| mtaylor | the one counter suggestion I've heard is "openstack-packaging" - which I don't REALLY like | 19:05 |
| jeblair | yeah, i don't see a justification far that. i might say openstack-requirements but it's close enough. | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | although I do think we could certainly put in a dpkg-selections file and an rpm list so that devstack could consume the current state of depends | 19:06 |
| jeblair | (or openstack-dependencies) | 19:06 |
| jeblair | indeed. | 19:06 |
| mtaylor | I have to think too much to type dependencies | 19:06 |
| jeblair | heh | 19:06 |
| clarkb | that is what tab keys are for | 19:07 |
| clarkb | or ^N | 19:07 |
| jeblair | so do you have an estimate for when we might be fully utilizing that (and can use only our pypi mirror)? | 19:07 |
| jeblair | (and are there things other ppl can do to help it along?) | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | there's a couple of stages | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | I could post the new repo today (and just assume that when markmc gets back from vacation that he'll be unhappy with whatever the name is ;) ) | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | but then we have to start actually aligning the projects | 19:08 |
| mtaylor | I don't see that happening realistically until F3 | 19:08 |
| clarkb | and alignment is what will actually make this useful towards stability? | 19:09 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 19:09 | |
| mtaylor | it will ... because once we're aligned once, then all of the packages will have come from that list | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | so future divergence (like the list moving forward but nova not tagging along immediately) | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | will still have all of the prior versions in the mirror (since we don't reap) | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | ACTUALLY - I'm lying | 19:10 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:10 | |
| jeblair | but in all cases, devstack is going to test with exactly one version of each thing. | 19:10 |
| mtaylor | we don't need convergence. we have the complete set of packages _today_ | 19:10 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 19:10 | |
| mtaylor | all we need is for the repo to exist and the _policy_ to be that all new package versions must hit it first | 19:11 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:11 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| jeblair | yeah, we don't actually need changes to each project to get this merged. | 19:12 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:12 | |
| mtaylor | correct | 19:12 |
| mtaylor | we just need the repo, and to add its lists to our pypi mirror creation - and then we need to trigger a pypi mirror run on changes from the repo | 19:12 |
| jeblair | then perhaps we should go ahead and do that much, because it will make our mirror much more useful. | 19:13 |
| *** dwalleck_ has quit IRC | 19:13 | |
| jeblair | and then get devstack using the packages, and then get the copy-into-projects thing going. | 19:14 |
| *** dwalleck has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:14 | |
| jeblair | you think we can get the first step done within a week or two? | 19:14 |
| mtaylor | I do think so | 19:14 |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:15 | |
| *** dwalleck has quit IRC | 19:15 | |
| jeblair | okay. so my second item was to explore an alternate plan in case we couldn't do that in a reasonable amount of time... | 19:15 |
| mtaylor | I think if we can get vishy and bcwaldon and heckj and notmyname and danwent and devcamcar on board with at least attempting it | 19:15 |
| jeblair | (something like build the mirror from the individual projects and use it exclusively except in the case of testing a change to the -requirements) | 19:15 |
| jeblair | but perhaps we don't need to talk about the alternate plan if the main one looks viable. | 19:16 |
| mtaylor | right. well - also, I should take this moment to point out that we were seeing a MUCH higher failure rate than normal because the mirror script had been silently failing for the last month | 19:16 |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:16 | |
| jeblair | indeed, and thanks for fixing that! | 19:17 |
| mtaylor | well... remind me next time _not_ to put 2>/dev/null in scripts that get run by cron :) | 19:17 |
| jeblair | so point #3 i had was how to be more resilient to gerrit errors | 19:18 |
| jeblair | i believe clarkb's exponential backoff script is in place now | 19:18 |
| jeblair | and things seem to still work, so that's great. that should help us avoid failing when a simple retry of the git command would succeed. | 19:18 |
| clarkb | it is. I have been checking console output for jobs semi randomly to see if any of them have had to fetch more than once, but I haven't seen that happen | 19:18 |
| jeblair | it might be useful to have that script log when it has to back off | 19:19 |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:19 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:19 | |
| jeblair | perhaps it could syslog, and we could check up on it periodically | 19:19 |
| jeblair | clarkb: what do you think? | 19:19 |
| clarkb | sounds good. I will add that | 19:19 |
| jeblair | (and maybe someday we'll have a syslog server) | 19:19 |
| jeblair | cool, then we'll be able to track whether the incidences of transient gerrit failures are increasing or decreasing. | 19:20 |
| clarkb | you have also increased the http timeout from 5ms to 5s | 19:20 |
| jeblair | and of course, after our badgering, spearce found a bug in gerrit | 19:20 |
| jeblair | yes, that one | 19:20 |
| jeblair | there was a tuning parameter which i would have changed had the default not already been a 5 minute timeout | 19:21 |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| mtaylor | I think that'll help | 19:21 |
| jeblair | the bug was that it was interpreted as a 5 millisecond timeout, so that was pretty much useless. | 19:21 |
| *** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:21 | |
| jeblair | it's definitely a parameter that's right in the middle of where we thought the problem might be, so yeah, pretty optimistic. | 19:21 |
| mtaylor | also, I've got some apache rewrite rules up for review that I need to test that would allow all of our anon-http fetching to be done by normal git and apache - with packs themselves served out as static files by apache with no cgi anything in the way | 19:22 |
| clarkb | you also restarted all the things after the leap second bug which I am sure didn't hurt | 19:22 |
| mtaylor | so I'm hoping that helps too | 19:22 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: yep. that system is basically idle, plenty of room for apache to do what it does best. | 19:23 |
| jeblair | okay so #4 is how to handle retriggers, because no matter how awesome everything else is, something is going to break, or someone is going to impreve the system. | 19:23 |
| jeblair | and we need a not-ridiculous way for people to retrigger check and gate jobs. | 19:23 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| jeblair | so we've had two ideas about that | 19:24 |
| clarkb | my idea which is a bit of a hack (but less so than pushing new patchsets) is to leave a comment with some string in it that zuul will interpret as meaning retrigger the jobs | 19:24 |
| jeblair | and an earlier idea i had was to have a link in jenkins (maybe in the build description) that would retrigger the change in question. | 19:25 |
| jeblair | my idea is not easily or elegantly implemented in zuul. | 19:25 |
| jeblair | clarkb's idea is. | 19:25 |
| jeblair | the only downside i see to clark's is that, by design, anyone would be able to say "reapprove" and launch the approve jobs, even before a change has been approved. but that's really okay since gerrit won't merge them without the approved vote anyway. | 19:26 |
| mtaylor | I'd say... | 19:27 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 19:27 | |
| mtaylor | we don't really need re-approve, since anyone with approval bit in gerrit can already re-approve | 19:27 |
| jeblair | also, in magical pony world, i'd really like to have a button in gerrit, and clark's solution is more compatible with that possible future expansion. | 19:27 |
| mtaylor | retrigger, on the other hand, meets a current missing need | 19:27 |
| jeblair | well, before, anyone could retrigger an approval job | 19:27 |
| jeblair | i think probably patchset authors want to be able to reapprove their own patches, since they're watching out for them, without bugging core reviewers | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | good point | 19:28 |
| mtaylor | ok. I'm fine with it | 19:28 |
| jeblair | it's easy to do one, the other, or both with clarkb's change anyway, it's all just configuration. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | agree | 19:29 |
| * mtaylor is in favor of clark's change | 19:29 | |
| * jeblair agrees | 19:29 | |
| mtaylor | and a long-term task to add a button to gerrit | 19:29 |
| jeblair | so that just leaves 'what should the magic words be?' | 19:29 |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:29 | |
| clarkb | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9195/ adds this functionality to zuul | 19:29 |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| jeblair | i'm not sure just 'retrigger' is a good idea, i mean, it might trigger jobs due to casual code reviews. | 19:29 |
| mtaylor | I'd say that a comment left that is the text "retrigger" and only that text | 19:30 |
| jeblair | ah ok. | 19:30 |
| *** Mandell_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:30 | |
| mtaylor | so: ^\s*retrigger\s*$ | 19:30 |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| jeblair | and retrigger itself is vague (retrigger what?) | 19:30 |
| *** lloydde_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:30 | |
| *** lloydde has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| mtaylor | rebuild? | 19:31 |
| jeblair | perhaps it should be recheck/reapprove | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | recheck | 19:31 |
| clarkb | the verbs I used when testing were reverfiy and recheck | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | yeah | 19:31 |
| *** Mandell has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| clarkb | *reverify | 19:31 |
| jeblair | and we need distinct values for the two kinds of jobs | 19:31 |
| clarkb | recheck and reapprove sound good to me | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | recheck for pre-approval, reverify for post-approval | 19:31 |
| mtaylor | ? | 19:31 |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:31 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| jeblair | slight preferene for recheck/reverify | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | damn naming | 19:32 |
| mtaylor | yeah. me too | 19:32 |
| jeblair | (since jenkins isn't actually approving) | 19:32 |
| clarkb | works for me | 19:32 |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:32 | |
| mtaylor | cool. sold | 19:32 |
| *** tw__ has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| jeblair | okay, i think that's all the decision making i needed today. :) | 19:33 |
| mtaylor | anybody in channel who isn't the three of us have an opinion? you have exactly one minute | 19:33 |
| jeblair | (and i even told the ml we'd talk about this at the meeting today) | 19:34 |
| mtaylor | cool. ok. done | 19:36 |
| mtaylor | #topic bragging | 19:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bragging" | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | client libs are auto-uploading to PyPI now | 19:37 |
| mtaylor | #topic open discussion | 19:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 19:37 | |
| mtaylor | anything else? | 19:37 |
| jeblair | the devstack-gate job output is _much_ cleaner now | 19:37 |
| LinuxJedi | oh, I have something | 19:38 |
| clarkb | I do too once LinuxJedi is done | 19:38 |
| jeblair | jaypipes: any chance you're around? | 19:38 |
| LinuxJedi | Gerrit is now using my row color theme patch | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | yay! | 19:38 |
| LinuxJedi | and that has been pushed for review upstream | 19:38 |
| LinuxJedi | along with the other theme patch | 19:38 |
| clarkb | (and JavaMelody) | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | oh - and the monitoring patch is live - although if you didn't know that already, you probably don't have access to see it | 19:38 |
| mtaylor | jaypipes: yeah - how's that tempest stuff coming along? | 19:38 |
| * mtaylor doesn't konw if that's what jeblair was pinging jaypipes about | 19:39 | |
| LinuxJedi | if you don't have access to see it, it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow you have all been looking for | 19:39 |
| mtaylor | SO ... clarkb | 19:39 |
| jeblair | yep. we are so ready to run tempest on gates, but i don't think tempest is yet. | 19:39 |
| devananda | chiming in randomly here, my openvz kernel scripts can now handle in-place kernel upgrades | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | I _think_ there is some way to get melody to splat out its information in a form that collectd or icinga can pick up | 19:40 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 19:40 | |
| mtaylor | devananda: w00t! | 19:40 |
| mtaylor | oh, I spoke with primeministerp earlier today and he's working on getting the hyper-v lab back up and going - so we might have more contrib testing from there | 19:40 |
| jeblair | who is primeministerp? | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | and Shrews may or may not be getting closer to or futher away from nova openvz support, fwiw | 19:41 |
| jeblair | notmyname: are you here or on the road? | 19:41 |
| clarkb | mtaylor: it has pdf exports :) its "enterprise" | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | jeblair: can't think of real name - boston guy from suse/novell who worked with microsoft on interop | 19:41 |
| Shrews | mtaylor: yeah, well, there's been a wrench thrown in that we should discuss | 19:41 |
| mtaylor | Shrews: does the wrench involve buying me liquor? | 19:42 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:42 | |
| jeblair | ah, i remember him. | 19:42 |
| Shrews | mtaylor: no. devananda gave me some news that the RS patch may be forthcoming soon | 19:42 |
| mtaylor | o really? | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | great. well, do you feel you've learned things? | 19:43 |
| devananda | short version, it may arrive on github thursday, or it may not | 19:43 |
| joearnold | jeblair: notmyname is on the road. | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | on github? | 19:43 |
| Shrews | github? | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | why would it arrive on github? | 19:43 |
| jeblair | joearnold: thanks. bad day for getting updates from other people. :) | 19:43 |
| mtaylor | joearnold: unacceptable! | 19:44 |
| joearnold | :) | 19:44 |
| devananda | right. i don't know why. | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | joearnold: notmyname is always to be available | 19:44 |
| clarkb | I wanted to bring up cgroups and ulimits for jenkins slaves | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | devananda: well, I suppose it's something :) | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: yes! | 19:44 |
| jeblair | the change to add swift to the devstack gate worked without any particular drama, so it'd be nice to work on a plan to get that merged. | 19:44 |
| LinuxJedi | clarkb: excellent! | 19:44 |
| mtaylor | #topic cgroups and ulimits | 19:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "cgroups and ulimits" | 19:44 | |
| joearnold | mtaylor: true enough. He's on his way to flagstaff, az | 19:44 |
| clarkb | the ulimits modules was merged and is straightforward to use | 19:45 |
| clarkb | I think we are fairly safe limiting the jenkins user to some reasonable process limit using that module | 19:45 |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:45 | |
| clarkb | two questions though. what is a reasonably safe process limit? and how does the jenkins user login is it through su? | 19:46 |
| jeblair | clarkb: via ssh actually | 19:46 |
| clarkb | awesome. ssh login has security limits applied by default on ubuntu | 19:46 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:46 | |
| jeblair | jenkins master ssh's into the slave host, runs a java process, and that process runs jobs. | 19:47 |
| clarkb | but not for su | 19:47 |
| jeblair | on the devstack nodes, that _job_ would su to another user (stack) who might also su to root to run devstack.. | 19:47 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| jeblair | but since that happens on single use slaves with job timeouts, it's not such a priority. | 19:47 |
| clarkb | so other than determining what a sane number for a process limit is the ulimit stuff is not very scary | 19:48 |
| clarkb | cgroups on the other hand have the potential to be great fun | 19:48 |
| LinuxJedi | clarkb: 640kbytes should be enough for anyone! | 19:48 |
| jeblair | so we should probably monitor process count during, say, a nova unit test run. | 19:48 |
| clarkb | the current cgroup change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9074/ adds support for memory limits for the jenkins user on jenkins slaves but does not apply them in site.pp | 19:49 |
| clarkb | jeblair: good idea | 19:49 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 19:49 | |
| jeblair | clarkb: how do you think we should apply the cgroups change? | 19:49 |
| jeblair | carefully or recklessly? :) | 19:50 |
| clarkb | the cgroup configuration sets a soft memory limit of 512MB of memory for the jenkins user. This comes into play if there is any memory contention on the box | 19:50 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:50 | |
| *** nikhil has quit IRC | 19:50 | |
| clarkb | so jenkins would be limited to 512MB if something else was making the machine unhappy. | 19:50 |
| clarkb | it also applies a hard limit of 75% of the physical memory on the machine | 19:50 |
| clarkb | the hard limit is more dangerous, because by default OOM killer will be invoked to clean up jenkins' processes if it doesn't free memory when asked nicely | 19:51 |
| clarkb | we can disable OOM killer which will cause memory overruns to force processes to sleep when they need more memory | 19:52 |
| clarkb | or we can completely redo the numbers. I think not setting a hard limit and only setting a soft limit to 75% of physical memory would be safer | 19:52 |
| clarkb | jeblair: I was thinking carefully would be best :) | 19:53 |
| jeblair | so what happens if the soft limit is reached? | 19:53 |
| clarkb | maybe add a node definition for a specific jenkins_slave (more specific than the current glob) and see how that host does | 19:53 |
| *** thingee has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:53 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 19:53 | |
| jeblair | clarkb: that's a good idea. then we can easily disable that node if it causes problems. | 19:53 |
| clarkb | jeblair: soft limit only applies if there is memory contention on the host. In that case it acts like a hard limit | 19:53 |
| *** nikhil has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| LinuxJedi | clarkb: contention including swap? | 19:55 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:55 | |
| clarkb | LinuxJedi: I think so | 19:55 |
| LinuxJedi | I know HP Cloud only applies to devstack but we give those like 100GB of swap due to the way the disks are configured | 19:55 |
| clarkb | http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt kernel documentation doesn't quite spell out all of the details | 19:56 |
| * LinuxJedi really doesn't want to be using 100GB of swap on anything ;) | 19:56 | |
| clarkb | in that case we can set hard limits that are larger than 75% of physical memory | 19:57 |
| clarkb | maybe physical memory * 2 | 19:57 |
| LinuxJedi | jeblair: what do you think? | 19:57 |
| jeblair | well, i don't want to be swapping at all really. :) | 19:57 |
| jeblair | perhaps a hard limit of 90%? | 19:58 |
| clarkb | jeblair: ok | 19:58 |
| LinuxJedi | sounds good to me | 19:58 |
| jeblair | at 5G, that leaves 400M for the rest of the system, which seems reasonable. | 19:58 |
| jeblair | 4G, that is. | 19:58 |
| clarkb | I will update the change after lunch with what that looks like | 19:58 |
| LinuxJedi | we can always tweak it if it causes pain | 19:58 |
| LinuxJedi | but I feel safe with that | 19:58 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| mtaylor | ++ | 19:59 |
| jeblair | ok. and let's do clark's idea of applying it to just one jenkins slave | 19:59 |
| clarkb | sounds good | 19:59 |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| jeblair | 1 sec and i'll pick one. | 19:59 |
| * LinuxJedi watches jeblair use the scientific method of closing eyes and pointing to a random machine on the screen | 20:00 | |
| jeblair | precise8 | 20:00 |
| jeblair | LinuxJedi: close -- gate-nova-python27 runs there a lot. :) | 20:01 |
| ttx | hrm hrm. | 20:01 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 20:01 |
| ttx | jeblair: time to call that meeting to an end :) | 20:01 |
| jeblair | mtaylor: time to call that meeting to an end :) | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | kk | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | #stopmeeting | 20:01 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: ! | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | thanks guys! | 20:01 |
| mtaylor | #endmeeting | 20:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 20:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 3 20:01:56 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-19.01.html | 20:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-19.01.txt | 20:02 |
| LinuxJedi | lol :) | 20:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-19.01.log.html | 20:02 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: how ya doing? | 20:02 |
| jbryce | mtaylor: great, you? | 20:02 |
| *** Shrews has left #openstack-meeting | 20:02 | |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 20:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 3 20:02:17 2012 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 20:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 20:02 |
| jbryce | who all is present? | 20:02 |
| bcwaldon | here | 20:02 |
| mtaylor | jbryce: awesome as always :) | 20:02 |
| jk0 | o/ | 20:02 |
| ttx | \o | 20:02 |
| devcamcar | o/ | 20:02 |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 20:02 | |
| heckj | o/ | 20:02 |
| *** devananda has left #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| danwent | o/ | 20:03 |
| ttx | that makes 6 | 20:03 |
| ttx | 7 | 20:03 |
| jbryce | and 7 | 20:03 |
| jbryce | great | 20:03 |
| jbryce | let's start with bcwaldon's topic | 20:03 |
| jbryce | #topic Code for interfacing with proprietary systems | 20:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Code for interfacing with proprietary systems" | 20:03 | |
| jbryce | bcwaldon: want to lead this one? | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | matiu: and we already have a concept of sure | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | bah | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | yes | 20:03 |
| bcwaldon | strike that from the record! | 20:04 |
| ttx | <REDACTED> | 20:04 |
| * jbryce strikes | 20:04 | |
| bcwaldon | thank you, ttx | 20:04 |
| bcwaldon | and jbryce | 20:04 |
| bcwaldon | assuming everyone didn't read the email I sent, the tl;dr here is 'do we accept code designed to interface with non-open source or paid-only systems'? | 20:05 |
| jeblair | bcwaldon: what's the subject of the email you sent? | 20:05 |
| bcwaldon | jeblair: it was in response to jbryce's 'Tomorrow's meeting' sent to openstack-poc | 20:05 |
| ttx | jeblair: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack-poc/msg00552.html | 20:05 |
| *** rafaduran has quit IRC | 20:05 | |
| heckj | ttx: thanks | 20:06 |
| jeblair | bcwaldon: ah, mere mortals are unable to subscribe to that list. | 20:06 |
| bcwaldon | jeblair: yes, I see that now | 20:06 |
| bcwaldon | jeblair: thankfully ttx has your back | 20:06 |
| Daviey | it doesn't seem bad, providing there is protection to ensure that openstack is only a decent platform with paid-for software (ie, open core).. But also.. the tests need to be finite.. nbody can be blamed if they break that support, if the tests pass.. | 20:06 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: you mean, accept in core, right ? | 20:06 |
| bcwaldon | yes | 20:06 |
| bcwaldon | the cost of supporting this code weighed against the benefit seems too high | 20:07 |
| jbryce | does glance do this already? with s3 for instance? | 20:07 |
| pvo | o/ | 20:07 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: my 2c is that we should only accept code in core that we can test | 20:07 |
| danwent | bcwaldon: we certainly do in quantum. we have code that hits nicira solutions, cisco, and will be accepting code that hits NEC in F-3 | 20:07 |
| bcwaldon | for example, if I want to make a sweeping change to all of our glance store drivers, I need to test that I didn't break that | 20:07 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yes, thats what I'm getting at | 20:07 |
| danwent | our approach is that all unit tests should be able to pass even without the proprietary system being there. | 20:08 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: there are open-source implementations of the s3 api | 20:08 |
| danwent | (using a mock) | 20:08 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: so its kind of a special case | 20:08 |
| ttx | danwent: but is that code core ? Or a plugin ? | 20:08 |
| danwent | ttx: its a plugin, but its in the main repo... | 20:08 |
| danwent | maybe i'm confused by what you mean by "core" | 20:08 |
| bcwaldon | our functional tests are a bit weak in glance right now as we depend on a functional system (amazon s3, rackspace cloud files) to be able to run them | 20:08 |
| bcwaldon | danwent: into the openstack/glance repo | 20:08 |
| danwent | ok, yes, that's the same defintion I was using. Our plugins are in openstack/quantum | 20:09 |
| danwent | as would be nova code that hits vmware or hyper-v, I suspect | 20:09 |
| ttx | danwent: main repo, so your case would be in bcwaldon's scope | 20:09 |
| jbryce | what is the alternative for where this code would live? | 20:09 |
| ttx | jbryce: in a separate plugin project | 20:10 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: hosted by the other side of the equation | 20:10 |
| heckj | seperate repo, I suppose | 20:10 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: or in a different openstack repo | 20:10 |
| *** thingee_zz has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:10 | |
| ttx | the Hyper-V story shows that what we cannot test ends up breaking | 20:10 |
| ttx | but... | 20:10 |
| bcwaldon | I don't think anybody wants to argue that this code can't exist, it's really just who should own it and be expected to support it | 20:10 |
| ttx | I'm not sure the line in the sand is about "interface to proprietary" | 20:10 |
| jbryce | so separate and the user/distro is responsible for grabbing and integrating | 20:10 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: thats one idea | 20:11 |
| ttx | IMHO it's more about being given ways to test it | 20:11 |
| danwent | bcwaldon: agreed. for third-party code like this to be allowed to be in core, we require that a core dev signs up to maintain it. | 20:11 |
| jbryce | ttx: agree | 20:11 |
| *** thingee has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| danwent | (otherwise its kept out of trunk) | 20:11 |
| bcwaldon | danwent: I don't see how that would necessarily work in practice | 20:11 |
| bcwaldon | danwent: if a different member needs to make a change to that bit of code, how can he move forward? | 20:11 |
| heckj | bcwaldon: My own take would be to allow it, but keep it in a contrib/ (or equiv) directory, and support it to the point that it's tests drive it (through mocks, fakes, or whatever). | 20:11 |
| ttx | so if we are given "stuff" that allows us to gate on tests that interface with a proprietary platform AND a commitment to maintain that code... not sure we should refuse it becuase it interfaces with "something you have to pay for" | 20:12 |
| heckj | bcwaldon: you might end up needing to yank it in the future if it bitrots through ignoring, but I'd personally lean towards inclusion. | 20:12 |
| danwent | bcwaldon: anyone can change the code… the point is that someone is responsible for answering questions about the code, figuring out why a test broke if its unclear, etc. | 20:12 |
| bcwaldon | even if we aren't given tests, we just have to make sure it's isolated | 20:12 |
| bcwaldon | danwent: ok, then we're back to the added cost to development | 20:12 |
| ttx | I suspect on one end of the spectrum you have Hyper6V, on the other end you have Nicira's plugin | 20:12 |
| danwent | bcwaldon: not sure I follow, but according to ttx, it may not be relevant, so i'll stay quite :) | 20:13 |
| danwent | quiet | 20:13 |
| bcwaldon | danwent: please speak up! I'm not trying to shut anyone down here :) | 20:13 |
| bcwaldon | so it doesn't sound like we have a single answer to the question here | 20:14 |
| bcwaldon | I think I can move forward | 20:14 |
| danwent | bcwaldon: no worries | 20:14 |
| bcwaldon | so let's move on if nobody else has anything | 20:14 |
| jbryce | i think testability is a good delineator. also committed parties for maintaining. any additional features whether it's proprietary or not are going to have some added cost to the development | 20:15 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:15 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: yes, all things I'm going to take into account | 20:15 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:15 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: my gut feeling is that stuff that cannot be freely tested by anyone should be out of core. If we are given ways for anyone on the community to test their code against a proprietary platform, that would still count as "freely testable" in my book | 20:15 |
| danwent | jbryce: +1 | 20:15 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: my gut feeling as well | 20:15 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: good explanation of 'freely testable' | 20:15 |
| jbryce | yes...i like that definition too | 20:15 |
| jbryce | ok. moving on? | 20:16 |
| bcwaldon | +1 | 20:16 |
| jbryce | #topic PPB to Technical Committee transition | 20:16 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "PPB to Technical Committee transition" | 20:16 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: i.e. I would not consider an outside test platform that nobody has access to to count as "freely testable" | 20:16 |
| danwent | +1 | 20:16 |
| ttx | you actually want random devs to be able to test that their code doesn't break yours | 20:16 |
| ttx | anyway, new topic | 20:17 |
| jbryce | so i think there are 3 main things to discuss | 20:17 |
| jbryce | first...if things proceed on schedule, the foundation would be operational in september. which will also coincide with our next regularly scheduled election for PTLs, etc | 20:17 |
| jbryce | i propose that any time before the fall 2012 election that the TC needs to exist, the current PPB serves | 20:18 |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| jbryce | it will probably be a matter of weeks that we're talking about and would be simpler than trying to run another ad hoc election for that time period | 20:18 |
| ttx | sounds fair, we don't really have an alternative solution anyway :) | 20:18 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:18 | |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: +1 | 20:18 |
| heckj | +1 | 20:18 |
| jbryce | ok. that's what we'll write in | 20:19 |
| Daviey | ttx: No, an openstack developer should have to touch non-free software unless they want to. The unit tests must be enough IMO, and those that care about it - fix up issues. | 20:19 |
| jbryce | second and related to that | 20:19 |
| Daviey | oh, i'm too slow. | 20:19 |
| ttx | Daviey: you live 5 min in the past. Must be painful sometimes | 20:19 |
| jbryce | jaypipes and ttx were both elected to a 1-year term this spring | 20:19 |
| jbryce | i would propose that their terms continue until the spring 2013 election | 20:20 |
| ttx | jbryce: I'd say that depends on the election mechanism. If it is staggered, that would probably be appropriate | 20:20 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 20:21 | |
| ttx | especially if we renew the elected seats 2 by 2 or 2.5 by 2.5 | 20:21 |
| Daviey | ttx: it's the leap second throwing me off.. (sorry for the noise) | 20:21 |
| ttx | (PTLs+5 option) | 20:21 |
| jbryce | well i think for any of the generally elected seats (whether that is all the TC or a subset) we should have staggered 1-year terms elected in our regular 6-month cycle | 20:21 |
| ttx | jbryce: I'm ok with it, but I probably shouldn't have voice on that ;) | 20:22 |
| jbryce | haha | 20:22 |
| jbryce | does anyone object? | 20:22 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:23 |
| jbryce | the final item is the big one... | 20:23 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 20:23 | |
| jbryce | 9 generally elected or PTLs + 5 generally elected | 20:23 |
| jbryce | i've gone back and forth on this several times. i think either can work and they both have pros and cons | 20:24 |
| jbryce | in talking to non-PPB members and the emails on the list from non-PPB members, there does seem to be more buy-in to not automatically giving seats to PTLs | 20:24 |
| devcamcar | jbryce: i'm all in favor of simplicity and removing the need for additional bodies/committees | 20:25 |
| *** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:25 | |
| devcamcar | so i favor PTLs + 5 | 20:25 |
| ttx | jbryce: I think it depends on whether the TC has oversight on the projects or not | 20:25 |
| jbryce | but i know that several of the PTLs feel very strongly that it would disconnect the projects from the TC | 20:25 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:25 | |
| ttx | jbryce: if it does, then I'd agree that the PTLs need to be there, so PTLs+5 | 20:25 |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:26 | |
| ttx | If the PTLs still have final full control and can ignore TC... then 9 elected sounds better | 20:26 |
| heckj | if the TC doesn't have oversight on the projects, what is it's purpose? | 20:26 |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:26 | |
| ttx | heckj: defines what openstack is and is not. But can't tell a given PTL he is wrong | 20:26 |
| ttx | heckj: I agree with you that it should have that oversight | 20:27 |
| ttx | heckj: but so far, in the PPB setting, it never did | 20:27 |
| ttx | so that's a change. I'm all for it. And I'm ready to accept PTLs+5 if its clear that the TC has oversight | 20:27 |
| jbryce | ttx: besides the swift release cycle, i would say that there are plenty of things the ppb has laid out that the projects have had to follow | 20:28 |
| danwent | I think PTL+5 is the best why to insure good communication of TC decisions to the different projects, though I admitly don't have a strategy around what happens as we get more and more core projects. If we think TC decisions are all that relevant for each ongoing project though, this may not matter. | 20:28 |
| jbryce | not all of which have always been popular | 20:28 |
| ttx | jbryce: example ? | 20:28 |
| danwent | sorry, missing a NOT in my last sentence :) | 20:28 |
| jbryce | new review system | 20:28 |
| jbryce | github for code, launchpad for blueprints/bugs | 20:28 |
| danwent | jbryce: if those are representative of TC decisions, then I think PTLs should be involved. | 20:29 |
| danwent | if TC is more about letting a new project join, etc. then maybe they don't need to be involved. | 20:29 |
| jbryce | and even with the release cycle, swift has had a release for inclusion in every openstack "release" and we didn't mandate that milestone all had to be coordinated | 20:29 |
| ttx | jbryce: I know we stopped from pushing for specific things precisely because the projects kept final call. Up to the point where we had to threaten to remove the "openstack" label from a given project | 20:30 |
| ttx | jbryce: but that's history. Looking ahead, I'd like to put that in the TC charter | 20:30 |
| ttx | and if everyone agrees with that, I'm fine with PTLs+5 | 20:30 |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 20:31 | |
| ttx | (I still think it will suck as we add more core projects, but life is full of trade-offs :) | 20:31 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:31 |
| jbryce | do we have anyone else on the side of 9 generally elected seats? | 20:31 |
| ttx | jaypipes: ^ ? | 20:31 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:32 |
| jbryce | well let's edit the proposal to put these decisions in there as final | 20:32 |
| jbryce | i think the only other thing is the election staggering | 20:32 |
| devcamcar | if TC is only about which projects join, then its scope is too limited to really be effective | 20:33 |
| jbryce | if we go with PTL + 5, i'd rather just elect 2 general seats in the spring and 3 in the fall like we've been doing instead of having a .5 month term | 20:33 |
| jbryce | .5 year term | 20:33 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:33 | |
| jbryce | .5 month term wouldn't be very long... | 20:33 |
| jbryce | i'd volunteer for that one. = ) | 20:33 |
| devcamcar | lulz | 20:34 |
| ttx | jbryce: we also mentioned that we could have a rep from the user committee | 20:34 |
| devcamcar | jbryce: sounds reasonable though | 20:34 |
| ttx | so that would make 2+2 | 20:34 |
| jbryce | jbryce: i think we're just going to have a provision for the user committee to be able to add agenda items that the TC chair will need to recognize (can't just ignore indefinitely) | 20:35 |
| jbryce | so we would just run our fall 2012 election with 3 seats for 1-year generally elected terms and jaypipes and ttx would continue to serve until the spring 2013 election | 20:35 |
| heckj | (hands of blue) | 20:35 |
| jbryce | firefly! | 20:36 |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| ttx | jbryce: sounds simpler than my "3rd guy gets 6month" hack | 20:36 |
| jbryce | ok | 20:36 |
| jbryce | done | 20:36 |
| ttx | though it hurts my sese of symmetry | 20:36 |
| ttx | sense* | 20:36 |
| jbryce | you guys are all really into this discussion, i can tell | 20:36 |
| *** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:37 | |
| jbryce | i think that's it then | 20:37 |
| heckj | jbryce: I guess you just need to get to something more contentious... | 20:37 |
| jbryce | we'll get these docs all updated | 20:37 |
| ttx | heckj: any suggestion ? | 20:37 |
| ttx | jbryce: I can draft the last version based on that | 20:37 |
| heckj | ttx: not today - saving it up for blowing stuff up tomorrow | 20:38 |
| jbryce | ttx: awesome | 20:38 |
| ttx | haha | 20:38 |
| jbryce | #topic open discussion | 20:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion" | 20:38 | |
| *** ijw1 has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| jbryce | anyone have anything else? | 20:38 |
| bcwaldon | negatory | 20:38 |
| heckj | good here | 20:38 |
| danwent | nope | 20:38 |
| *** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| ttx | I have | 20:38 |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| jbryce | just under the wire...i was about to stopmeeting | 20:38 |
| ttx | jbryce: at the bottom of http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee | 20:38 |
| ttx | Amendment section | 20:39 |
| *** ijw has quit IRC | 20:39 | |
| ttx | should amendments to the TC charter be approved by the BoD ? | 20:39 |
| jbryce | oops...missed that one | 20:39 |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| ttx | (Also there is a bit of choice in the election system, let me know if anyone has string opinions for/against STV/Schulze) | 20:41 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: makes sense to me | 20:41 |
| jbryce | ttx: this is not something that the bylaws currently requires | 20:41 |
| jbryce | i can give you the wording from the latest draft (which i'm hoping to get on the wiki tonight) | 20:42 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| jbryce | "Except as expressly provided in these Bylaws, the Technical Committee shall determine its process and procedures, provided that such process and procedures must be published in a manner that they are readily accessible to all Members of the Foundation." | 20:42 |
| ttx | jbryce: I guess it depends if the BoD will have to power to dissolve the TC ot not | 20:42 |
| jbryce | ttx: they do not | 20:42 |
| ttx | jbryce: I see you've been busy :) | 20:42 |
| jbryce | ttx: oui | 20:43 |
| * ttx puts his collection of trade-offs back in the closet | 20:43 | |
| devcamcar | ttx: i'd say the tc charter should be approved by BoD, but the BoD charter should also be approved by the TC | 20:43 |
| devcamcar | mutually assured destruction :) | 20:43 |
| ttx | devcamcar: looks like it will rather be mutually assured ignorance | 20:43 |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:44 | |
| ttx | jbryce: if that language stands in the bylaws, obviously amendments do not require BoD approval | 20:44 |
| *** sleepsonzzz is now known as sleepsonthefloor | 20:44 | |
| jbryce | ultimately, the membership as a whole (including individual members) could change the bylaws and change the technical committee however they want, but a bylaws amendment is not a board only decision | 20:45 |
| jbryce | bylaws amendments in this area are a pretty high bar to cross | 20:45 |
| ttx | jbryce: oh, I see. BoD can't dissolve TC... but it can dissolve the bylaws tat created the TC in the first place. | 20:45 |
| jbryce | ttx: no...the bod on their own cannot do that | 20:46 |
| jbryce | it requires a special type of vote | 20:46 |
| ttx | works for me | 20:46 |
| jbryce | it requires an affirmative vote of the individual members | 20:46 |
| ttx | ok, will remove that "option" at the end | 20:46 |
| jbryce | to change the tc portions of the bylaws specifically | 20:47 |
| jbryce | ttx: one final question | 20:47 |
| jbryce | does it look like cinder is going to hit their f2 milestone requirements to be core in folsom? | 20:47 |
| ttx | jbryce: all lights are green | 20:48 |
| jbryce | great | 20:48 |
| jbryce | anything else from anyone? | 20:48 |
| jbryce | thanks guys! | 20:48 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 20:49 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 3 20:48:59 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:49 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-20.02.html | 20:49 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-20.02.txt | 20:49 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-20.02.log.html | 20:49 |
| bcwaldon | jbryce: thank you, sir | 20:49 |
| heckj | grazie | 20:49 |
| ttx | 10min recess | 20:49 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:52 | |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 20:55 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 20:56 | |
| danwent | markmcclain: even though we aren't integrated with devstack, can you add a few lines here about how to run the dhcp-agent manually? http://wiki.openstack.org/RunningQuantumV2Api | 20:57 |
| markmcclain | yes | 20:57 |
| danwent | thx | 20:57 |
| ttx | o/ | 21:00 |
| *** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| danwent | o/ | 21:00 |
| ttx | heckj, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar: back ? | 21:00 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| devcamcar | o/ | 21:00 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: yep | 21:01 |
| *** tongli has quit IRC | 21:01 | |
| heckj | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: is Vish in your line of fire ? | 21:02 |
| lloydde_ | he's in mine | 21:02 |
| vishy | o/ | 21:02 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Jul 3 21:02:26 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 21:02 |
| ttx | awesome | 21:02 |
| ttx | Agenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting | 21:02 |
| ttx | #info F2 will be cut at the end of the day. | 21:02 |
| ttx | #info In this meeting we'll review what's left to do, defer stuff that won't make it, get the PTL sign-off and refine the F2-targeted bug lists. | 21:02 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| *** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** ecarlin has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** matiu_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** matiu_ has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| *** matiu_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:03 | |
| ttx | * vishy to comment on Nova bug triaging thread so that we can start doing sth about it | 21:03 |
| *** ecarlin has quit IRC | 21:03 | |
| ttx | Was DONE, nova-bugs team is now open so anyone can help with http://wiki.openstack.org/BugTriage | 21:03 |
| ttx | * ttx to look into organizing a bug squashing day like we did for Essex | 21:03 |
| ttx | This was DONE as well. Proposed date is Thursday next week, July 12th: | 21:04 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/BugDays/20120712BugSquashing | 21:04 |
| *** ecarlin has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| ttx | If you want to organize a real-life event, you can add it to the wiki page | 21:04 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| ttx | #topic Keystone status | 21:05 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status" | 21:05 | |
| ttx | heckj: o/ | 21:05 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:05 |
| *** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:05 | |
| ttx | All targets are implemented, so I suppose we are OK to cut the milestone-proposed branch in ~10 hours ? | 21:05 |
| heckj | ttx: yep | 21:05 |
| ttx | Looking at the F2-targeted bugs... there are 3 of them. | 21:05 |
| ttx | At this point we need to refine that list so that it only contains "milestone publication blockers": | 21:06 |
| heckj | we're getting some bugfixes in - they've just been approved by our newest core member and are flowing through the system now | 21:06 |
| *** matiu has quit IRC | 21:06 | |
| ttx | (which we'll fix and backport to milestone-proposed) | 21:06 |
| ttx | * https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1019498 | 21:06 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1019498 in keystone "update keystone to pep8 1.3 " [Wishlist,In progress] | 21:06 |
| ttx | I think this one is nice-to-have, but not blocking... I'm fine with it landing today, but I don't think it should be considered a blocker ? | 21:07 |
| heckj | if it doesn't flow through the approval perfectly, I'll pull it. It's literally in-progress in the gates now | 21:07 |
| ttx | * https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1016171 | 21:07 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1016171 in keystone "Keystone API is forcing Content-Transfer: chunked on responses" [Wishlist,In progress] | 21:07 |
| heckj | If any of these don't make it in by 5pm PST tonight, I'll pull em | 21:07 |
| ttx | OK | 21:07 |
| heckj | (3 more hours) | 21:07 |
| *** kindaopsdevy has left #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| ttx | then anything you taregt to F2 will mean that we cannot publish the milestone until the fix is in. | 21:08 |
| ttx | heckj: Is there any other bug that should be fixed before we finally publish Keystone F2 ? | 21:08 |
| ttx | Was wondering about https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1020109 | 21:09 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1020109 in keystone "User role deletion is broken" [High,Fix committed] | 21:09 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| ttx | ooo. Fixed | 21:09 |
| heckj | :-) | 21:09 |
| heckj | Do you have a script that lines up all the fix-committed, or do I need to do that manually? | 21:09 |
| ttx | well then, you have all the correct answers, I'm forced to let you go | 21:09 |
| ttx | heckj: I have a script that turns FixCommitted into FixReleased + milestone | 21:10 |
| heckj | perfect | 21:10 |
| ttx | that I run as part of the MP cut process (tomorrow morning) | 21:10 |
| ttx | Wednesday morning bugmail spam | 21:10 |
| ttx | heckj: anything else ? | 21:10 |
| heckj | not from me - I'm good | 21:10 |
| ttx | Questions about Keystone ? | 21:11 |
| ttx | #topic Swift status | 21:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Swift status" | 21:11 | |
| ttx | notmyname is traveling this week, asked me to paste a bit of update | 21:11 |
| ttx | #link https://twitter.com/notmyname/status/219941711927980032 | 21:11 |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:11 | |
| ttx | "although I haven't updated LP yet, everything is on track for the 1.5.1 release in 2 weeks AFAIK." | 21:11 |
| ttx | So let's move to another F2-affected project, unless someone has questions on Swift ? | 21:12 |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:12 | |
| ttx | #topic Glance status | 21:13 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Glance status" | 21:13 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: o/ | 21:13 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: hello | 21:13 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:13 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: pretty, eh? | 21:13 |
| ttx | Was a bit scary this afternoon, but now looks like you're all set! | 21:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I wouldn't say it was 'scary'... | 21:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: it needed some grooming | 21:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: and that's all done now :) | 21:14 |
| * ttx thinks bcwaldon will need more than grooming to complete all his F3 targets | 21:15 | |
| * vishy resists the urge to change the blueprints out from under ttx | 21:15 | |
| ttx | vishy: try me | 21:15 |
| * bcwaldon also enjoys speaking the third person | 21:15 | |
| bcwaldon | crap! | 21:15 |
| ttx | Anyone has a bug that we shouldn't publish F2 with ? | 21:15 |
| ttx | (Glance F2, I mean) | 21:15 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Anything else on your mind ? | 21:16 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: well, I've been feeling like I need to get some coffee | 21:16 |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: other than that, no | 21:16 |
| ttx | coffee good | 21:16 |
| ttx | Raise your hand if you've a question on Glance... | 21:16 |
| ttx | (when I prepared this meeting earlier today, it looked a lot more busy) | 21:17 |
| heckj | bcwaldon: coffee ++ | 21:17 |
| ttx | #topic Quantum status | 21:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status" | 21:17 | |
| ttx | danwent: yo | 21:17 |
| danwent | hi | 21:17 |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:17 |
| ttx | On the blueprints side, 2 targets left: | 21:17 |
| danwent | btw, you'll want to refresh for status on a couple bugs that i updated 15 mins ago | 21:17 |
| danwent | yes, dhcp is our key focus | 21:18 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-dhcp | 21:18 |
| danwent | we're very close on that. | 21:18 |
| ttx | Pending on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9064/ ? | 21:18 |
| danwent | yes. -1s are style issues right now. needs final testing though. | 21:18 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/provider-networks | 21:18 |
| danwent | i'm confident this will get in. | 21:18 |
| danwent | (comment was about dhcp) | 21:18 |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 21:18 | |
| ttx | Looks like this one is still a bit far away. The change up for review only partially implements it. Defer ? | 21:18 |
| *** matiu_ is now known as matiu | 21:19 | |
| danwent | the provider-networks stuff will almost certainly not make it. | 21:19 |
| danwent | unless we decide to backport to milestone proposed | 21:19 |
| danwent | he will have a review tonight, but I don't think its critical to push. | 21:19 |
| ttx | danwent: I'd prefer not to backport feature code | 21:19 |
| danwent | ttx: yes, that's my feel as well. I'm fine bumping it right now if you prefer. | 21:19 |
| danwent | you're pulling branches in 3 hours? | 21:20 |
| ttx | Are you OK with me cutting the F2 branch in ~10 hours with what will be in there ? Or is quantum-dhcp a must-have-in-F2 | 21:20 |
| ttx | ~10hours, I need some sleep | 21:20 |
| danwent | we'll have it in less than 10 hours | 21:20 |
| ttx | danwent: sure, but in case I wake up and it isn't ? I hear Ci sometimes fails | 21:20 |
| danwent | should have it pushed in a few, as author is on east coast | 21:20 |
| danwent | hehe. please hold if its not in. its important, and i'll my best to make sure it is in, CI be damned. | 21:21 |
| ttx | OK | 21:21 |
| danwent | but I will email you to let you know if we somehow can't get CI working. | 21:21 |
| * ttx refreshes bug list | 21:21 | |
| ttx | 5 bugs on the F2 target list | 21:22 |
| danwent | all in progress bugs are in review. | 21:22 |
| ttx | * https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1019462 | 21:22 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1019462 in quantum "devstack support for quantum DHCP" [High,Confirmed] | 21:22 |
| danwent | two of the 5 issues are devstack, which isn't something that makes the tarball | 21:22 |
| ttx | isn't that a devstack bug ? | 21:22 |
| danwent | yes, but for sanity I track it in quantum (ducks) | 21:22 |
| ttx | danwent: we should find a way for you to track outside bugs that doesn't involve creating fake bugs :) | 21:23 |
| danwent | i would love that | 21:23 |
| danwent | we should probably also just defer #1019899 | 21:23 |
| ttx | #action ttx to see how danwent could track bugs outside quantum without creating noise | 21:24 |
| danwent | i need to track changes to nova, devstack, horizon as well as quantum | 21:24 |
| ttx | danwent: at the EOD can you refine that list so that it only contains stuff you intend to backport and that you don't want to release F2 without ? | 21:24 |
| danwent | no easy to to do that sanely on launchpad without "shadow" bugs | 21:24 |
| salv-orlando | bug 1019899 is 5 minutes from push | 21:25 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1019899 in quantum "add support for requested_networks extension to Nova/Quantum v2 code" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1019899 | 21:25 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: ah, still up :) | 21:25 |
| ttx | danwent: you can search for tags at openstack superproject level | 21:25 |
| ttx | danwent: we'll talk about that another day :) | 21:25 |
| danwent | ttx: ok, will explore that. | 21:25 |
| ttx | danwent: at the EOD can you refine that list so that it only contains stuff you intend to backport and that you don't want to release F2 without ? | 21:25 |
| danwent | salv-orlando: please propose soon, as we'll need to find nova core devs for that one (ducks again..) | 21:26 |
| danwent | ttx: yes, will have bug lists pruned. | 21:26 |
| danwent | all of that stuff will move if the reviews done clear today | 21:26 |
| danwent | don't | 21:26 |
| ttx | danwent: Awesome. Anything else ? | 21:26 |
| danwent | one thing | 21:26 |
| danwent | so with v2 quantum there are a lot of changes in how you invoke quantum that will be the result of F-2 and F-3 work. | 21:27 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| danwent | we've had a lot of trouble getting eyeballs on quantum-related reviews for devstack | 21:27 |
| danwent | so we're trying to work with devstack leads on how we can get some quantum team members core reviewers status for devstack to help with the load | 21:27 |
| ttx | danwent: right, that sounds like the good way to solve that | 21:28 |
| danwent | this is also important for devstack gating | 21:28 |
| danwent | we've had reviews for that hanging for weeks | 21:28 |
| ttx | danwent: ok, keep us posted on the outcome | 21:28 |
| danwent | I'll loop you into the existing email thread. | 21:29 |
| danwent | that's all from me | 21:29 |
| ttx | Questions on Quantum ? | 21:29 |
| ttx | #topic Nova status | 21:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova status" | 21:29 | |
| ttx | vishy: hey | 21:29 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:30 |
| * ttx refreshes | 21:30 | |
| vishy | hi | 21:30 |
| *** mnewby has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| vishy | i didn't break it :) | 21:30 |
| ttx | 7 targets left, looks like massive defer-to-F3 is in order :) let's review them... | 21:30 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/finish-uuid-conversion | 21:30 |
| ttx | Status a bit unclear on that one ? | 21:30 |
| vishy | ttx: turns out there is a bit more, so lets defer it | 21:30 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: this is done, right? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/integrate-python-glanceclient | 21:31 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: no | 21:31 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: what's left to do ? | 21:31 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: I did all the work to be able to do that | 21:31 |
| bcwaldon | actually do it | 21:31 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: how much time does actually doing it take ? | 21:31 |
| ttx | is that compatible with F2 ? | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: more than I would have for f2 | 21:32 |
| ttx | ack | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | bar | 21:32 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: what about https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/remove-deprecated-auth ? | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I've been totally ignoring that one | 21:32 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: f3 | 21:32 |
| ttx | (finish-uuid-conversion pushed to F3) | 21:32 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: wth, its not like you have anything else to work on | 21:32 |
| vishy | :o | 21:33 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: I know :( | 21:33 |
| *** PotHix has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/quantum-nova-network-api | 21:33 |
| ttx | Pending on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8916/ ? | 21:33 |
| ttx | which was merged.. | 21:33 |
| ttx | so complete ? | 21:34 |
| vishy | yup | 21:34 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-image-cache-management-2 | 21:34 |
| ttx | remove-deprecated-auth, integrate-python-glanceclient -> F3 | 21:34 |
| vishy | defer | 21:35 |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| vishy | that one got stuck in review | 21:35 |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| vishy | i think mikal switched to uuid stuff and will get back to it later | 21:35 |
| ttx | deferred | 21:35 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/instance-type-extra-specs-extension | 21:35 |
| *** PotHix has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:35 | |
| ttx | Review @ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8089/ | 21:35 |
| ttx | Looks almost there, would be good to push it in today | 21:36 |
| ttx | though the last comment by jog0 makes me wonder a bit | 21:36 |
| *** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:36 | |
| ttx | vishy: ? | 21:37 |
| vishy | ttx: i think it is ok. We are moving from capabilities specified | 21:37 |
| vishy | in flags to host aggregates | 21:37 |
| vishy | his patch is just adding more filtering based on capabilities | 21:37 |
| ttx | OK, so good to have,n but won't block F2 MP cut if not in in 10hours | 21:38 |
| ttx | last one: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/per-user-quotas | 21:38 |
| *** zigo has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| ttx | Review @ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8388/ | 21:38 |
| ttx | Also looks almost there, would be good to push it in today | 21:38 |
| vishy | ttx: i will approve that one | 21:39 |
| vishy | I was almost finished with the review | 21:39 |
| ttx | OK. I had a question about https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/multi-process-api-service (which is marked "Implemented") | 21:39 |
| ttx | Looks like https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8228/ is part of it though ? | 21:39 |
| ttx | so should it be considered still in progress ? and how likely is this to end in F2 ? | 21:40 |
| vishy | ttx: no that should be abandoned | 21:41 |
| vishy | jerdfelt rewrote that patch and it merged | 21:41 |
| ttx | good stuff | 21:42 |
| ttx | On the bugs side, no F2 targets. Anything that we should definitely fix before we cut F2 ? | 21:42 |
| ttx | I noted bug 1018721, maybe | 21:42 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1018721 in nova "Launching with source groups under load produces lazy load error" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1018721 | 21:42 |
| ttx | though if its a corner case it doesn't matter that much | 21:42 |
| vishy | ttx: it isn't a corner case and it is really nasty in essex as well. I just don't have a real fix, just the workaround | 21:43 |
| *** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:43 | |
| vishy | ttx: should i prop the workaround? I would really like to know what is causing it, because I expect it will come back in another form eventually | 21:43 |
| ttx | vishy: would be good to avoid the condition using the workaround... and open another bug to make sure we don't lose track of the more permanent fix | 21:44 |
| vishy | ttx: yeah, although the repro case will be hard :) | 21:45 |
| ttx | (maybe targeting it to F3 so that it stay on scope) | 21:45 |
| ttx | so yes, I'd prop it for f2 | 21:45 |
| ttx | should I target that bug ? | 21:45 |
| vishy | yes | 21:46 |
| ttx | anything else that looks really bad and we shouldn't have on the milestone ? Apart from the two CVEs that were pushed today ? ;) | 21:46 |
| *** anniec has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| *** anniec_ is now known as anniec | 21:47 | |
| ttx | vishy: Anything else ? | 21:47 |
| ttx | vishy: i'll cut F2 with what's in master tomorrow morning, and defer the last two BPs in case they didn't make it | 21:48 |
| vishy | yes | 21:48 |
| vishy | I need reviews on host_aggregates patch too | 21:48 |
| ttx | that's for F3, right ? | 21:48 |
| ttx | Questions on Nova ? | 21:49 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx, vishy: question: while we're in the nova-volume/cinder transitional period when there are bugs about volumes (api, attachment, etc.) should those bugs be targeted against nova, cinder, or both on Launchpad? | 21:49 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: single bug, two tasks | 21:49 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: so add each project on the same bug report | 21:49 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: that's how I would do it yes | 21:49 |
| gabrielhurley | k | 21:49 |
| vishy | gabrielhurley: probably both | 21:50 |
| ttx | vishy: the host_aggregates patch is for F3, right ? | 21:50 |
| vishy | ttx: final is for f3, i was hoping to get part 1 if f2 | 21:50 |
| vishy | but i guess it isn't super-urgent | 21:50 |
| ttx | vishy: ok | 21:50 |
| ttx | #help reviews wanted on host_aggregates patch | 21:51 |
| ttx | #topic Horizon status | 21:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status" | 21:51 | |
| ttx | devcamcar: hey | 21:51 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-2 | 21:51 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: be sure to refresh the page... ;-) | 21:51 |
| ttx | 1 target left :) | 21:51 |
| ttx | * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/nova-volume-optional | 21:51 |
| ttx | Looks like it's "almost there" with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9038/ ? | 21:51 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: devcamcar will reappear here, I'm sure, but yes. just needs a second +2 | 21:52 |
| gabrielhurley | no controversy | 21:52 |
| ttx | gabrielhurley, devcamcar: in the unlikely case that it's not merged at the end of the day..; should I block or cut F2 MP without it ? | 21:53 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: cut without it. it was moved up from F3 'cuz it was done. | 21:53 |
| ttx | ok, thx | 21:53 |
| ttx | Looking at the F2-targeted bugs... 4 left | 21:53 |
| ttx | devcamcar, gabrielhurley: Should they all be considered final F2 publication blockers ? | 21:54 |
| *** ijw1 has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: I'm just gonna keep talking until someone tells me to shut up... my two will be merged today but aren't blockers. as for the other two: | 21:54 |
| gabrielhurley | bug 982590 isn't a blocker but I don't know who has the power to fix it | 21:54 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 982590 in horizon "Repo description on github talks about old name django-openstack" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/982590 | 21:54 |
| gabrielhurley | and it'd be nice to get that fixed. | 21:54 |
| ttx | hmm, probably openstack-ci | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | bug 1016085 | 21:55 |
| uvirtbot | Launchpad bug 1016085 in horizon "Directories not included during install" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1016085 | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | that one is probably a blocker | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | it had an assignee until recently | 21:55 |
| ttx | this one looks like something we would backport the fix for | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | they abandoned it | 21:55 |
| ttx | agreed | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | so it needs to be fixed. I'll probably have to do it today | 21:55 |
| gabrielhurley | :-/ | 21:55 |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| ttx | gabrielhurley: you still have tomorrow, we can backport the fix until early Thursday | 21:56 |
| ttx | devcamcar, gabrielhurley: Anything else you wanted to mention ? | 21:56 |
| gabrielhurley | it mostly only affects the downstram packagers, but it needs resolution, for sure. I'll see what I can do. | 21:56 |
| gabrielhurley | ttx: that's it for me... | 21:56 |
| ttx | Questions for Horizon ? | 21:56 |
| ttx | #topic Other Team reports | 21:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports" | 21:56 | |
| devcamcar | and i'm back! perfect timing :) | 21:56 |
| ttx | annegentle, jaypipes, mtaylor: ? | 21:57 |
| devcamcar | thanks gabriel | 21:57 |
| ttx | devcamcar: heh | 21:57 |
| ttx | devcamcar: anythign you wanted to add ? | 21:57 |
| ttx | devcamcar: just in time for the best topic of the meeting | 21:57 |
| jgriffith | ttx: can Cinder be "other team" | 21:57 |
| devcamcar | looks like you guys have it under control | 21:57 |
| ttx | jgriffith: certainly :) | 21:57 |
| jgriffith | ttx: We'll hit F2 with what was planned after today I believe | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | 6 or 7 folks here at Piston today working on Cinder | 21:58 |
| ttx | jgriffith: unless you tell me otherwise i'll cut F2 branch from master in ~9 hours | 21:58 |
| jgriffith | ttx: That works | 21:58 |
| ttx | jgriffith: anything else ? | 21:59 |
| jgriffith | Nope | 21:59 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:59 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:59 | |
| ttx | Time has come for us to choose the name of the "G" release ! | 21:59 |
| devcamcar | hizzah! | 21:59 |
| ttx | You should all be able to cast your vote at: | 21:59 |
| ttx | #link https://launchpad.net/~openstack/+poll/g-release-naming | 21:59 |
| ttx | Poll will close at 21:30 UTC Tuesday next week | 22:00 |
| ttx | I cleaned up the options according to the rules of play at http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNaming | 22:00 |
| devcamcar | gerber? really? :x | 22:00 |
| ttx | heh | 22:00 |
| heckj | oooh! Now I like that one! | 22:00 |
| ttx | Still pretty good names in there, like Gazelle, Glenn or Guadalupe | 22:00 |
| devcamcar | baby cloud | 22:00 |
| ttx | "gerber" means "to throw up" in French. | 22:00 |
| devcamcar | lol | 22:00 |
| ttx | #action ttx to formally announce the poll on ML/twitter etc. | 22:00 |
| devcamcar | its a brand of baby food over this way | 22:00 |
| ttx | there must be a story behind that | 22:01 |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| devcamcar | i'd love to hear it | 22:01 |
| *** ayoung has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: Grizzly is Grizzly Flats, right? | 22:01 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: Grizzly is no longer an option | 22:01 |
| bcwaldon | no! | 22:01 |
| bcwaldon | that's it | 22:01 |
| bcwaldon | I'm quitting | 22:01 |
| ttx | we only accept single words | 22:01 |
| ttx | that's the rules ! | 22:01 |
| * devcamcar turns over a table | 22:02 | |
| * ttx hides | 22:02 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| ttx | I guess that means the meeting is over ? | 22:02 |
| bcwaldon | +1 | 22:02 |
| ttx | Awesome. | 22:03 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 22:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meeting channel. See http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings for schedule and http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/ for meeting logs" | 22:03 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Jul 3 22:03:02 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:03 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-21.02.html | 22:03 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-21.02.txt | 22:03 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-03-21.02.log.html | 22:03 |
| *** sleepsonthefloor is now known as sleepsonzzz | 22:03 | |
| *** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:03 | |
| * ttx can't wait for bcwaldon "G stands for Grizzly" grassroots movement to change the historic naming rules | 22:04 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'm on it | 22:04 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: you told me last week it was an option! | 22:04 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: I was fooled too | 22:04 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: let's be fools together | 22:04 |
| bcwaldon | Grizzly blows the other names out of the water | 22:04 |
| danwent | +1 | 22:05 |
| ttx | but but but | 22:05 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: the people have spoken! | 22:05 |
| heckj | bcwaldon: +1 | 22:06 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: GRIZZLY or gazelle | 22:06 |
| *** thingee_zz has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| ttx | we always only considered single words that make up a city or county name ! you mean you mean | 22:06 |
| gabrielhurley | bcwaldon: +1 | 22:06 |
| ttx | we would /change the rules/ ? | 22:06 |
| bcwaldon | FEEL MY WRATH | 22:06 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I have seen no such rules | 22:06 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: and don't you start linking me to things | 22:06 |
| gabrielhurley | bcwaldon: http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNaming | 22:07 |
| gabrielhurley | ;-) | 22:07 |
| ttx | hmmm | 22:07 |
| * gabrielhurley is not ttx | 22:07 | |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: a wiki...interesting | 22:07 |
| gabrielhurley | bcwaldon: agreed | 22:07 |
| bcwaldon | gabrielhurley: it's editable! | 22:07 |
| gabrielhurley | +! | 22:07 |
| *** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:07 | |
| gabrielhurley | hmmm... "+!"... not what i was going for, but I like it | 22:08 |
| ttx | hmmm I tried to add the option but it looks like I can't :) | 22:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: Grizzly still fits the criteria | 22:08 |
| ttx | there is no place called "Grizzly" in california ! | 22:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: can't...or won't | 22:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: It's short for Grizzly Flats | 22:08 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: and I can't even stop the poll I launched | 22:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: it's out of control! | 22:08 |
| ttx | LP is now sentient | 22:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: however, there is a Waldon, CA | 22:09 |
| devcamcar | its aware | 22:09 |
| devcamcar | bcwaldon: for w release | 22:09 |
| bcwaldon | if I can get a promise now that we will use Waldon, CA, I'll back off of Grizzly | 22:09 |
| devcamcar | got my vote! | 22:09 |
| ttx | Obviously W stands for Waldon | 22:09 |
| ttx | I don't even see the point in voting | 22:10 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: https://plus.google.com/112755545647106347658/about?gl=us&hl=en | 22:10 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: roller coasters count! | 22:10 |
| *** oubiwann has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| ttx | err | 22:10 |
| *** gabrielhurley has quit IRC | 22:11 | |
| bcwaldon | I am disappoint | 22:11 |
| salv-orlando | bcwaldon: I have a much more legitimate claim to the "O" release, then.... | 22:12 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: so it looks like there is no way back. Though I'd be happy to delegate the organization of the next poll to you | 22:12 |
| bcwaldon | salv-orlando: if it's in florida, you've got my vote | 22:12 |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| bcwaldon | ttx: let's not go crazy, now | 22:12 |
| ttx | I'll take full responsibility for G not being named Grizzly. | 22:12 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: we can let this one happen, then go to a bonus round where its the winner vs Grizzly | 22:12 |
| danwent | all G names on that list are boring. i'm still pro GrizzlyFlat | 22:12 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: hmm, tempting | 22:13 |
| bcwaldon | yeah, California is pretty disappointing for G's | 22:13 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: or just send out an email and short circuit the whole process | 22:13 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: just say 'does anyone really want it not to be grizzly?' | 22:13 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: OK, so how about you send | 22:13 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: done | 22:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: shortly | 22:14 |
| danwent | let's make t-shirts. they can say: I'm pro-gizzly | 22:14 |
| danwent | grizzly | 22:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: I'll follow-up your email announcing the poll | 22:14 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: an email saying you want to amend the rules of the contest so that "Grizzly" becomes an option | 22:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: just add in a clause about bears | 22:14 |
| ttx | and we run a second-round vote between the first contest winner and Grizzly | 22:14 |
| bcwaldon | or characteristics of lumberjacks | 22:14 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: ok, I'll send something after you announce the thing | 22:15 |
| ttx | ok, I guess I should send that email now, so that you can followup | 22:15 |
| *** dwcramer has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:17 | |
| ttx | bcwaldon: sent, should be up whenever the LP ML digests it | 22:21 |
| ttx | https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg14123.html | 22:21 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: If Grizzly wins, I want a "G stands for Grizzly" T-shirt | 22:22 |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:27 | |
| *** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:31 | |
| *** zigo has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:37 | |
| *** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net | 22:43 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| *** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:51 | |
| *** nati_uen_ has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** lloydde_ has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| * mtaylor votes for grizzle | 23:13 | |
| mtaylor | grizzly | 23:13 |
| mtaylor | not drizzle | 23:13 |
| mtaylor | grizzle | 23:13 |
| mtaylor | goddamit | 23:13 |
| * mtaylor votes for nothing - he apparently can't type worth a two-penny shit | 23:13 | |
| *** joearnold has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:18 | |
| *** s0mik has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| clarkb | I think mtaylor is trying to say that he would like grizzle to be an option | 23:20 |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:22 | |
| mtaylor | clarkb: I clearly should work on a release of a project called grizzle shortly after having worked on a database called drizzle | 23:22 |
| mtaylor | clarkb: because then doing an openstack install on top of drizzle would be - well, let's just say it wouldn't not be ridiculous | 23:22 |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 23:22 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** mnaser has quit IRC | 23:27 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:33 | |
| *** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC | 23:37 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:40 | |
| *** salv-orlando has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** anderstj has quit IRC | 23:44 | |
| *** ecarlin has quit IRC | 23:49 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:49 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!