Tuesday, 2012-07-10

*** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:02
*** danwent has quit IRC00:02
*** danwent_ is now known as danwent00:02
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting00:05
*** matwood has quit IRC00:06
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting00:17
*** gyee has quit IRC00:21
*** bencherian has quit IRC00:26
*** jgriffith has quit IRC00:27
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC00:27
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting00:27
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting00:27
*** danwent has quit IRC00:29
*** Guest40240 has joined #openstack-meeting00:30
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting00:32
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz00:34
*** tongli has quit IRC00:36
*** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting00:36
*** dwcramer has quit IRC00:39
*** s0mik has quit IRC00:42
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting00:44
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting00:44
*** Mandell has quit IRC00:47
*** heckj has quit IRC00:47
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC00:51
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting00:52
*** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:56
*** jdurgin has quit IRC01:00
*** Mandell has quit IRC01:01
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting01:04
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC01:08
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC01:13
*** matiu has quit IRC01:15
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC01:27
*** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting01:33
*** dolphm_ has quit IRC01:33
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net01:38
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting01:39
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer01:44
*** tongli has quit IRC01:49
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting01:51
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz01:56
*** lcheng has quit IRC01:56
*** ayoung has quit IRC01:57
*** anniec has quit IRC02:03
*** matwood has quit IRC02:06
*** zhuadl has quit IRC02:08
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting02:14
*** MegaTron has joined #openstack-meeting02:15
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:20
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting02:22
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:27
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting02:33
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC02:33
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting02:36
*** danwent has quit IRC02:40
*** blamar has quit IRC02:42
*** ncode has quit IRC02:46
*** Gordonz has quit IRC02:47
*** matwood has joined #openstack-meeting02:51
*** zhuadl has quit IRC02:52
*** Guest40240 is now known as jgriffith02:52
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting02:53
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:56
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting03:14
*** dwcramer has quit IRC03:19
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away03:25
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net03:25
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting03:29
*** joearnold has quit IRC03:32
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away03:37
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn03:37
*** koolhead17 has quit IRC03:39
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net03:43
*** bencherian has quit IRC04:03
*** adjohn has quit IRC04:03
*** zhuadl has quit IRC04:04
*** markmcclain has quit IRC04:22
*** koolhead17 has joined #openstack-meeting04:33
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting04:42
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting04:51
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting04:56
*** sacharya has quit IRC04:59
*** jbarratt has left #openstack-meeting05:00
*** jbarratt has quit IRC05:00
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting05:01
*** garyk has quit IRC05:02
*** dhellmann has quit IRC05:14
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC05:23
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz05:26
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting05:42
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting05:48
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting05:51
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC05:54
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting05:56
*** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting06:04
*** bencherian has quit IRC06:07
*** koolhead17 has quit IRC06:08
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC06:12
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting06:17
*** Mandell has quit IRC06:30
*** amotoki has left #openstack-meeting06:36
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting06:36
*** joearnold has quit IRC06:47
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting06:50
*** joearnold has quit IRC06:51
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting06:55
*** adjohn has quit IRC06:55
ttxdanwent: bug squashing day this Thursday06:56
danwentttx: ah, there is.  someone mentioned that during the meeting.  quantum prob isn't in too bad of shape, so hopefully it will be quick.06:56
danwentdo you have those graphs always running, or just during the events?06:57
ttxit's about bug fixing (and closing) this time around06:57
*** MegaTron has left #openstack-meeting06:57
danwentah, I see.06:57
ttxjust during the events so far06:57
danwentwe've been developing a pretty amazing set of core contributors who have been doing a good job of making sure the bugs don't pile up too high.  I'm really pumped about how much the team has grown just in the past two months.06:58
ttxcool. Quantum still looks like magic for most people out there, so growing a set of experts can't hurt :)06:59
danwentyeah.  its really nice to have a whole team of people who can dive in to help.  still rough around the edges, but now that we've merged IPAM into quantum and cut nova out of the picture for creating networks, things are actually a lot simpler, which is great.07:01
danwentbtw, i'm planning on putting together a video soon that will hopefully be a pretty clear demonstration of how things work.07:02
ttxthat would be great :)07:06
ttxnova-network has never been clear enough so that people would not put themselves into bad situations07:07
*** danwent has quit IRC07:09
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting07:09
*** shang has quit IRC07:30
*** dachary has quit IRC07:37
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting07:43
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting07:55
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting08:05
*** shang has quit IRC08:17
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting08:28
*** danwent has quit IRC08:38
*** anniec has quit IRC08:57
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting08:57
*** dachary has quit IRC08:57
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting08:58
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting09:19
*** dachary has quit IRC09:40
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting09:44
*** shang has quit IRC09:45
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting10:02
*** shang has quit IRC10:11
*** zhuadl has quit IRC10:18
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting10:28
*** dachary has quit IRC10:33
*** littleidea has quit IRC11:00
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting11:26
*** writerDi_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:27
*** derekh has quit IRC11:29
*** writerDiane has quit IRC11:30
*** writerDi_ has quit IRC11:32
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting11:35
*** janisg has quit IRC11:39
*** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting11:43
*** ncode has quit IRC11:43
*** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting11:43
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting11:57
*** blamar has quit IRC12:01
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting12:03
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** dachary has quit IRC12:06
*** dachary has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting12:29
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting12:31
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting12:37
*** sacharya has joined #openstack-meeting12:43
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting12:43
*** markmcclain has quit IRC12:47
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting12:50
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting12:55
*** GheRivero has quit IRC12:58
*** sacharya has quit IRC12:58
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting12:59
*** blamar has quit IRC13:06
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting13:07
*** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:07
*** shh_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:10
*** dhellmann has quit IRC13:11
*** dhellmann_ is now known as dhellmann13:11
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer13:11
*** shh_ has quit IRC13:12
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting13:16
*** rkukura has quit IRC13:16
*** dhellmann has quit IRC13:19
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates13:26
*** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting13:27
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting13:31
*** sacharya has joined #openstack-meeting13:33
*** matiu has quit IRC13:39
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting13:39
*** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting13:39
*** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting13:39
*** blamar has quit IRC13:41
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting13:41
*** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting13:44
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting13:45
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting13:46
*** Gordonz has quit IRC13:46
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting13:47
*** writerDiane has joined #openstack-meeting13:48
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting13:48
*** mnaser has quit IRC13:51
*** jaypipes has quit IRC13:51
*** wabat has left #openstack-meeting13:52
*** writerDiane has quit IRC13:54
*** writerDiane has joined #openstack-meeting13:55
*** writerDiane has quit IRC13:55
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
*** hggdh has quit IRC13:57
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:00
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
*** markmcclain1 has quit IRC14:03
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting14:03
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:05
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting14:05
*** markmcclain1 has quit IRC14:05
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting14:06
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:06
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting14:06
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:07
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz14:09
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:10
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:10
*** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting14:11
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC14:12
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting14:12
*** dachary has quit IRC14:13
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:14
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC14:17
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting14:19
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting14:19
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:23
*** dwcramer has quit IRC14:23
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz14:26
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
*** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting14:30
*** markmcclain1 has quit IRC14:30
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:30
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:30
*** anniec has quit IRC14:33
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting14:35
*** ayoung has quit IRC14:35
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:36
*** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:37
*** AlanClark has quit IRC14:38
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting14:38
*** markmcclain1 has quit IRC14:39
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:40
*** aclark_ is now known as AlanClark14:40
*** AlanClark has quit IRC14:42
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:42
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting14:44
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting14:46
*** mestery_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:46
*** mestery has quit IRC14:47
*** AlanClark has quit IRC14:52
*** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:52
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away14:52
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net14:52
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:53
*** dwcramer has quit IRC14:57
*** mattray has quit IRC14:58
*** zhuadl has quit IRC14:58
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** aclark_ has quit IRC15:00
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting15:04
*** s0mik has quit IRC15:07
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting15:10
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting15:20
*** Mandell has quit IRC15:24
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk15:36
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting15:37
*** littleidea has quit IRC15:39
*** ncode has quit IRC15:40
*** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting15:42
*** ncode has joined #openstack-meeting15:42
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting15:42
*** jbryce has left #openstack-meeting15:42
*** hggdh has quit IRC15:45
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting15:47
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC15:48
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting15:59
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC16:01
*** mnaser has joined #openstack-meeting16:12
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away16:12
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net16:12
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting16:12
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
*** shh_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:24
*** shh_ has quit IRC16:24
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer16:29
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting16:31
*** AlanClark has quit IRC16:35
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting16:35
*** tongli has quit IRC16:35
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC16:38
*** mnaser has quit IRC16:39
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting16:39
*** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:46
*** oubiwann1 has quit IRC16:50
*** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:51
*** oubiwann1 has quit IRC16:53
*** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:54
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting16:54
*** dhellmann has quit IRC16:55
*** GheRivero has quit IRC16:56
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting16:57
*** oubiwann1 has quit IRC16:58
*** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:58
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting17:02
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting17:03
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting17:04
*** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting17:04
*** mattray1 has joined #openstack-meeting17:05
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting17:07
*** mattray has quit IRC17:07
*** jog0 has quit IRC17:08
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** rohitk has left #openstack-meeting17:09
*** derekh has quit IRC17:10
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away17:10
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting17:15
*** s0mik has quit IRC17:17
*** somik is now known as s0mik17:17
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:17
*** anniec has quit IRC17:18
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec17:18
*** darraghb has quit IRC17:19
*** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting17:20
*** garyk has quit IRC17:20
*** PotHix has joined #openstack-meeting17:20
*** mikal has quit IRC17:24
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting17:30
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting17:30
*** mattray1 has quit IRC17:34
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net17:35
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC17:35
*** milner has quit IRC17:37
*** joearnold has quit IRC17:38
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting17:39
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates17:39
*** joearnold has quit IRC17:40
*** s0mik has quit IRC17:43
*** littleidea has quit IRC17:43
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting17:44
*** danwent has quit IRC17:44
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting17:47
*** hggdh has quit IRC17:47
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting17:50
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting17:50
*** koolhead17 has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** mnewby has quit IRC17:55
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting17:57
*** kevin has joined #openstack-meeting17:57
*** joearnold has quit IRC17:58
*** anniec has quit IRC17:58
ayoungheckj, dolphm ?18:00
heckjmorning morning!18:01
*** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Jul 10 18:01:24 2012 UTC.  The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:01
heckjola all18:01
heckj#topic Folsom Release and general planning18:02
ayoungHow do?18:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Folsom Release and general planning"18:02
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting18:02
heckjSo… looking at the release schedule, we're getting pretty close.18:02
heckj#link http://wiki.openstack.org/FolsomReleaseSchedule18:02
ayoungI wrote this up. https://gist.github.com/308514918:03
ayoungThat way maybe I don't hijack the whole meeting.18:03
heckjThe general idea is that all feature work is wrapped up bu the end of folsom-3, which is scheduled for Aug 16th - about 4-5 weeks from now18:03
heckjayoung: nice18:03
heckjLooking at the folsom blueprints and work, I'm guessing we're not going to get even half of this wrapped up: https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-318:04
heckj#link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-318:04
ayoungheckj, yeah...PKI tokens probably the only thing from that list that will get in18:04
heckjOutside of the PKI work, and the basic AD identity backend, I think everything is pending work on the V3 API18:05
ayoungMaybe the token ID thing?18:05
rafaduranheckj: Do you think V3 is ready to start coding some features?18:05
heckjI suspect we can make a good start on the V3 API work, but I don't know that we'll have it ready to roll in 4 weeks18:05
ayoungStop Implementing Token IDs as part of URIs18:05
heckj#link PKI Status: https://gist.github.com/308514918:06
ayoungheckj, that is not really status so much as "actions"18:06
heckjer, sorry18:06
heckjyeah - just getting notes in the logs, sorry about that18:06
heckj#link PKI work items/actions:  https://gist.github.com/308514918:07
ayoungstatus is more like:  have proof of concept working,  need to hammer out those details.18:07
heckjsoudns good18:07
heckjrelated, the V3 api has it's third draft now up - I spammed the OpenStack mailing list with it this past saturday: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VP-bTBbwsn6q-rDzuS9CEKb2ubE1VjbWRFd4BkkjoOY/edit18:07
ayoungI'm still feeling confident in getting this in18:07
heckj#link V3 draft3 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VP-bTBbwsn6q-rDzuS9CEKb2ubE1VjbWRFd4BkkjoOY/edit18:07
heckjayoung: it looks like you're making excellent progress18:07
heckjSo to answer rafaduran question, I think we're at the spot where we can start implementing the V3 API18:08
ayoungheckj, can we break it down to a series of tickets?18:08
*** marek_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:08
heckjI'm explicitly leaving open the API spec so that when we realise we painted ourselves into a corner, we can change the room and paint ourselves back out of it18:09
rafaduranheckj: I'm interested on the querying stuff, I can implement that part18:09
*** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting18:09
heckjayoung: I'd absolutely love to do that - LP has a "workitems" thing, we could open "bugs" related to it, or we could use a different method. Any preferences?18:09
rafaduranmaybe blueprints18:10
ayoungbugs works for me...keep using the same system18:10
ayoungrafaduran, they can all link to one blueprint18:10
heckjrafaduran: would love to have the help! One of the pending "Hmm, how's that going to work" is the request from Horizon (gabrielhurley) to allow the queries to request back related objects from the given REST resources. I don't have a good answer there.18:10
ayoungjust the individual line items18:10
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting18:11
rafaduranheckj: that's a interesting, issue, I will try to do some research whenever I have some free time18:11
heckj#action: heckj to create tags and bugs with an initial work breakdown18:11
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting18:12
heckjI'll make a first sweep of it (starting today) - will hit the mailing list with a reference to it, and we can iterate. I normally break down things with a group, so I expect it'll need revisions.18:12
heckjSo - all the stuff depending on V3 IMPL, I'm going to drop from folsom today18:13
heckj#action heckj to drop all dependent pieces on V3 API implementation from Folsom series18:13
heckjI'm expecting some hollerin', but I just don't see the work getting done otherwise.18:14
heckjAny questions?18:15
*** mikal has quit IRC18:15
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting18:16
heckjOkay - ayoung, did you want to get into any more detail about the PKI/signed tokens stuff?18:16
heckj(and we have rafarduran's topic pending)18:17
ayoungheckj, just to give a 1 line summary18:17
ayoungI am going to make it so the two types of tokens can coexist in order to simplify the upgrade process.18:17
ayoungAnyone interested in the details (beyond the gist I wrote above) can chat after the meeting18:18
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting18:18
heckjsounds good, thanks ayoung18:18
heckjrafaduran: you're up18:18
rafaduranok, thanks18:19
heckj#topic rate limiting middleware - feedback and corner cases18:19
*** openstack changes topic to "rate limiting middleware - feedback and corner cases"18:19
ayoungBTW,  please send me review requests18:19
ayoungI'' try to grab them if I see them,18:19
*** milner has quit IRC18:19
rafaduranAs I said in previous meetings I'm working on a rate limit middleware18:19
rafaduran#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-rate-limiting18:19
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting18:20
rafaduranI've updated the related bluprint18:20
rafaduranand the code start looking good18:20
rafaduran#link https://github.com/rafaduran/keystone/tree/bp/keystone-rate-limiting18:20
heckj#link https://github.com/rafaduran/keystone/tree/bp/keystone-rate-limiting18:21
rafaduranbut I still need some feedback/help on some situations18:21
rafaduranspecially on how to map requests to limits18:21
rafaduranI consider thre cases18:21
*** dolphm_ has quit IRC18:22
rafaduranrequests that doesn't need authentication, authentication requests and authenticated requests18:22
rafaduranso my first idea was map tokens to user id18:22
rafaduranbut now I'm not really sure, maybe it would be more useful map to usernames18:23
*** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:23
rafadurana use case is devstack, if this is ever used would be much more difficult the devstack configuration18:23
*** sparkycollier has joined #openstack-meeting18:24
rafaduranyou need to create users, get the id and if you wan a custom limit then change keystone configuration18:24
heckjrafaduran: I suspect you're making this more complex than it needs to be. I'd guess you could map a limit to the REST URI and call it good at that for a first cut.18:24
ayoungrafaduran, can you write up the issues you are dealing with and send it to the mailing list?  I would be great to have them documented, and we could spend the time to get the answers correct.18:24
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting18:24
heckjrafaduran: did you specifically want to not ratelimit by a user? I'm not clear on that use case and why that would be needed...18:24
heckjayoung: ++18:25
rafaduranheckj: not, I want limits by user18:25
rafaduranbut, how to map that user to the request is not clear18:26
rafaduranbut as ayoung said probably is better send an email to the mailing list18:26
heckjI'm with ayoung that I think this is something that would be very worthwhile to take onto email, but in the more immediate timeframe, I'm not clear on why you want to map it to a user - what does that get you that you want to take advantage of?18:26
heckjI'm happy to wait if you'd prefer to do that18:27
rafaduranI want map users because I think I need track somhow the reqeusts18:28
ayoung#action rafaduran to write up design questions for rate limiting18:28
heckj#action rafaduran to write up design questions for rate limiting18:28
rafaduranI mean, I need limit someone/something18:28
rafaduranmaybe I'm wrong with that18:28
heckj(I think I need to do all those to get them into the logs - very annoying, but I'm not sure)18:29
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting18:29
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting18:29
rafaduranthe idea also comes from how nova middleware  works (it maps by username)18:30
rafaduranand my work started from it18:31
rafaduranayoung: It would very useful if you can check what I'm doing, in order to be sure that is PKI compatible18:33
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting18:33
rafaduransince there is no API changes it should be, but I can miss something18:33
ayoungrafaduran, I'd be happy to.  If you have partial work,  please commit it to your account on github and send me a link...or share some other way18:33
rafaduranayoung: I've added the link when start writing18:35
ayoungSOunds good18:35
*** s0mik has quit IRC18:35
*** somik is now known as s0mik18:35
rafaduranit's not finished and I need solve what the mapping issue18:35
rafaduranbut that's pretty much my idea18:36
ayoungrafaduran, OK...It will take me some time to digest.18:36
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting18:36
rafaduranayoung: you can check the middleware stuff directly18:37
ayoungrafaduran, OK,  so with PKI,  getting info out of the token should be cheaper....no need for a remote call18:38
ayoungheckj, once we get PKI tokens merged,  we might want to think about somehow taking the info from the token and putting it into the request context so that we don't have multiple calls to openssl18:39
rafaduranyes, I was thinking about that too18:40
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk18:40
rafaduranayoung: you might add the compatibility layer into it18:40
ayoungrafaduran, give me a day or so to clean up the PKI stuff and repost to github,  and we can work through these two issues together18:40
ayoungrafaduran, sounds about right...I'd have to look in to it to grok completely18:41
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:41
rafaduranheckj: implementation apart, I'm not really sure how to proceed in order to get the bp reviewed/approved18:42
heckjreading backtrace really quick - had to take a phone call18:44
heckjayoung: re: populating the request context from the token, yes - I think that's an excellent idea18:44
heckjrafaduran: for the BP, I think we only really need to nail down the specifics of your use cases and what you're solving for, and once that's clear it is down to implemenation18:45
ayoung#action auth_token middle populates request context with data from signed token so it does not have to be fetched multiple times.18:46
*** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting18:46
heckjI'm not OCD about mananging the blueprints with their various status' and such - it's more about the code to me, with a blueprint being a handy indicator that someone is wanting to do some feature work, and a means of linking review requests together18:46
*** tim_chan has joined #openstack-meeting18:46
heckjrafaduran: anything more?18:47
rafaduranno, I think that's all for now18:47
heckj#topic open discussion18:47
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"18:47
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz18:47
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting18:48
heckjI don't have anything more - just finished cleaning up the blueprints and unlinking a pile of things from Folsom18:48
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting18:48
heckj#info If you have a BP that you think can get done in the next 4 weeks, let heckj know and we'll link the BP's back up18:48
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC18:49
rafaduranheckj: one more thing about the querying18:49
heckjrafaduran: shoot18:49
rafaduranheckj: API 3 defines URL for all resources so I think we can send links, and additionaly, somehow (maybe at querystring) accept a eager load (I think that was Gabriel suggestion) of objects18:50
rafaduranso it can be included into the querying18:51
heckjrafaduran: yeah - that "eager load" was Gabriel's request - the idea being able to pull in specific sets of related objects with the query parameters.18:51
ayoungI am going to be speaking at the Boston Openstack Meetup on July 24th about Keystone, and what to expect in Folsom.  I guess I'll modify the slide about the V3 API18:51
heckjayoung: heh, sorry :-)18:52
heckjayoung: I think we'll have a good implementation by then - but I don't want to set an expectation of other projects being able to use it in Folsom. It's just too late in the cycle to ask folks to change all that stuff up18:52
heckjI was wayyyyyy to naive about how long it would take to nail down a revised and consolidated API18:53
heckjBTW: Any complains about renaming tenants back to projects? Now's the time to bitch...18:53
*** dtroyer_zzz is now known as dtroyer18:53
ayoungheckj, that is fine. I want to be able to give an honest picture of what to expect.  I was actually posting in order to solicit input:  what are the most important things to communicate about Keystone?18:53
*** danwent_ has quit IRC18:53
heckjMy highlights would be PKI, bug fixes and stability, solid work towards an updated core API18:54
ayoungheckj, so long as they are called projects *Everywhere*  I am fine.  I think the term  *tenants* is too loaded, and we don't really meet the letter of the law on them anyway18:54
heckjdtroyer: since you're online, how's the progress on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/command-options?18:54
*** littleidea has quit IRC18:54
dtroyerheckj: it was merged last week18:55
heckjayoung: I aimed to do a global search and replace, and move everything to back to "projects". The API certainly encapsulates that, and I'll make some work items with the V3 Implementation to revise the docs with it18:55
heckjdtroyer: fully implemented to what you wanted? (I haven't looked)18:56
*** atiwari has quit IRC18:56
dtroyerheckj: yes18:56
heckjdtroyer: thxusir! BP updated18:56
dtroyerheckj: thx, I forgot to do that...18:56
ayoungheckj, are all of the openstack projects aligned with using the term "project" ?18:56
heckjayoung: that was nova's original term, and they never changed from it. horizon still uses project, and swift never moved to "tenant" from whatever they were calling that grouping.18:57
ayoungheckj, good18:57
ayoungworks for me18:57
heckjGlance uses different terms entirely (members, grouping) - which can be applied to whatever18:57
heckjthanks all - I've got to wrap this up and make a meeting in 2 minutes.18:58
heckjI'll post the BP update stuff to them mailing list since we didn't see dolph, guang and liem here today18:58
*** 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"18:59
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jul 10 18:59:03 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)18:59
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-18.01.html18:59
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-18.01.txt18:59
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-18.01.log.html18:59
jaypipesheckj: glance uses the term tenant.19:00
jaypipesheckj: and swift uses account IIRC. I would prefer account vs. tenant or project.19:00
mtayloranybody wanna talk about CI hooplas?19:01
jaypipesaren't we having a PPB meeting?19:01
jeblairafter the ci meeting, usually.19:01
clarkbmtaylor punches people that try to steal his meeting away19:01
*** sparkycollier has quit IRC19:01
jaypipesoh, must have the time wrong... sorry!19:01
* mtaylor punches jaypipes19:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Jul 10 19:02:00 2012 UTC.  The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:02
mtaylorfirst order of business ... hey jaypipes, anytihng new with tempest this week?19:02
*** Haneef has quit IRC19:02
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting19:02
*** gyee has quit IRC19:03
jaypipesmtaylor: you're kiddin, right? :)19:03
*** mikal has quit IRC19:03
jeblairpretty sure something notable happened regarding tempest...19:04
mtaylorjaypipes: I'm not! it was a leading question19:04
jeblairi'm ecstatic.  it's something we've wanted to do since the essex design summit!19:04
*** tim_chan has quit IRC19:04
jaypipesmtaylor: what jeblair said :)19:05
jaypipesmtaylor: we are now gating core projects on the tempest smoke tests.19:05
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting19:05
jeblairjaypipes: so what do we need to do before we can stop running exercise.sh?19:05
jaypipesmtaylor: in addition, the full tempest test suite (minus smoke, but after successful completion of smoke) are being run for tempest merges19:05
mtaylorjaypipes: w00t!19:06
mtaylorjaypipes: that's super exciting!19:06
jaypipesjeblair: I just need to do the analysis gap coverage19:06
*** rnirmal has quit IRC19:06
jaypipesjeblair: put a bug in on openstack-ci and assign to me?19:06
jeblairjaypipes: will do!19:06
*** dprince has quit IRC19:06
jeblairjaypipes: just keep in mind devstack-gate isn't running all the exercise scripts, so it may not be that bad.19:07
jaypipesjeblair: k. everything but boot from volume, right?19:07
sorenIt's worth noting that getting tempest trunk to pass against stable/essex is just a few small patches away. I got it working today, and will propose patches tomorrow.19:07
sorenSo we should be able to use the same gate there.19:08
jeblairsoren: oh good, those are going to come in handy real soon i bet.  :)19:08
jeblairright now the config is the same for all branches, but we can modify that if needed before your patches land (but hopefully that won't be necessary)19:08
sorenDunno. I've only tested it with one configuration, so maybe.19:09
*** rafaduran has quit IRC19:09
* mtaylor does a little dance19:09
soren...but I can expand that for sure now. I just needed the ball to be green so that I could block stuff from getting in if it went red.19:10
*** littleidea has quit IRC19:10
sorenAnyway, carry on.19:10
mtaylorI think that's it on that one.19:11
mtaylorjeblair: you had something to do with that one, anything else interesting from you?19:11
jeblairon a related note...19:11
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting19:11
jeblairi'm working on adding more flexibility to zuul regarding which jobs are run and how...19:11
jeblairso hopefully we can have a sane way of expressing that devstack-gate jobs for stable/diablo should run on oneiric slaves19:12
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC19:12
jeblair(regardless of how much longer that's going to be relevant, i'm pretty sure it's going to be useful in the future too)19:12
mtaylorspeaking of zuul - clarkb, did you add a feature people might care about this week?19:14
clarkbthere were some minor tweaks to the status page and you can now retrigger jobs by leaving comments on changes19:14
clarkba comment of "recheck" retriggers check jobs and a comment of "reverify" retriggers gate jobs19:15
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn19:15
LinuxJediclarkb: if I say "reverify" 10 times straight on one review will zuul poo itself?19:16
LinuxJediawesome :)19:16
jeblairyeah, adding 'skip enqueuing a second build set for the same change' is a todo.  :)19:16
mtaylorwhat does zuul poo look like?19:17
* LinuxJedi python exceptions I guess19:17
jeblaira big jenkins backlog.19:17
* LinuxJedi doesn't know why I did /me there19:18
mtaylorheh. you said log19:18
LinuxJedibetter than drizzledump19:18
mtaylorLinuxJedi: what's the status of stackforge?19:18
jeblairhey, i'm eating here.19:18
LinuxJediwell, we had lots of fun last week...19:18
LinuxJedia bug in HP Cloud completely blew away Stackforge Jenkins19:18
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting19:19
LinuxJediso we had 2 options: 1. rebuild, 2. go with the migration plan we talked about a couple of weeks ago19:19
LinuxJedifor those not following along at home the migration plan was to move gerrit and jenkins into Openstack's gerrit and jenkins19:19
LinuxJedibut keep github stuff separate19:19
LinuxJedithe US was out celebrating the fact they kicked us out19:20
jeblairyay us!19:20
LinuxJediso I made the decision to do option 219:20
mtaylorstinky british people19:20
LinuxJedilol :)19:20
LinuxJediand the migration went pretty smoothly considering19:20
*** dhellmann has quit IRC19:21
LinuxJediso Stackforge now uses review.openstack.org and jenkins.openstack.org19:21
LinuxJediand that is about it19:21
LinuxJedioh, we now have no persistent servers on HP Cloud19:21
* LinuxJedi destroyed what was left of Stackforge on HP Cloud on Friday19:22
sorenWhere are they instaed?19:22
sorenJust curious.19:22
mtaylorsoren: we're just using the openstack ones19:22
mtaylorsoren: which are all at rackspace19:22
LinuxJedisoren: they are part of Openstack's gerrit and jenkins, so yes19:22
LinuxJedion a positive note that gives us another tenant in HP Cloud to do evil things with19:23
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting19:23
* LinuxJedi is thinking using CentOS 3 to fail everyone's code19:23
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:24
*** somik has joined #openstack-meeting19:24
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting19:24
* mtaylor decides to use all of the compute resources in that tennant to set up a giant distcc cluster...19:24
*** milner has quit IRC19:24
clarkbdevananda's openvz devstack stuff will apparently do evil things19:24
LinuxJedimtaylor: that is an unlimited tenant, so knock yourself out ;)19:24
mtaylorLinuxJedi: BALLER19:24
jeblairoh, we should get openstackjenkins to be unlimited...19:25
mtayloryeah - how do we do that?19:25
LinuxJedijeblair: ok, I assumed they were all unlimited, because I didn't hit a limit when I did crazy stuff19:25
mtaylorjeblair: also, I just sent you email, but we have blockstorage enabled now on that hpcloud tenant19:25
jeblairoh, i think devstack-launch hits a quota sometimes.19:26
jeblairmtaylor: that's great, i should be able to finish backups soon then!19:26
mtaylorso - for those following along at home, we're going to use hp's block-storage-as-a-service thing to get a persistent volume for backups19:26
mtaylorjeblair: w0t!19:26
LinuxJedidamn, they aren't unlimited then, that broke my world a bit19:26
*** s0mik has quit IRC19:27
*** somik is now known as s0mik19:27
mtaylorhrm. in other news, I've been working on landing some patches to get the version code applied to the server projects as well as the clients19:28
mtaylorand am continuing to work on an openstack-requires repo19:28
mtaylorfor those who haven't looked at it - we have some REALLY interesting discrepancies between what we install in venvs for unittests and what devstack installs on the system via apt19:29
clarkbmore dramatic then different versions?19:29
mtaylorwell, no - just different versions19:30
LinuxJedidamn, I was hoping for a 'Dallas' kind of drama19:30
mtaylorbut it's interesting to see VERY specific version pins in pip-requires that are not what we install for devstack :)19:30
mtaylordevananda: how's openvz coming along?19:31
devanandawe got the nova driver code from rackspace last week19:32
devanandaso i spent several days figuring out how to get it to work with our ubuntu kernel19:32
LinuxJedidevananda now has square eyes reading through it all19:32
devanandaand it does :)19:32
devanandaon my bare metal box at home, i've got a working devstack with oepnvz containers and bridged networking19:32
devanandaone or two issues to work out with the networking, and i should be able to start running tests on it19:33
mtaylorexcellent. which means we can then start actually get a jenkins stood up to do that regularly19:34
mtayloron a similar track, spoke with primeministerp this past week who is doing similar work to get a hyper-v lab stood up19:34
mtaylorso maybe by end of cycle we'll have a couple of contrib testers checkout out different hypervisors!19:35
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting19:35
*** mdomsch has quit IRC19:35
jeblairnotmyname: ping19:36
jeblairnotmyname: so what are your thoughts on adding swift to the devstack gate?19:36
notmynamejeblair: I'd need to talk to the other core devs first. when could it keep us from merging a change?19:38
*** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting19:40
jeblairwhen a change breaks interoperability with the other prjects.  or in the case of transient failures (like the test node can't download a package).  or when a non-deterministic bug has crept into any included project.19:40
notmynameand what problem is it solving?19:41
jeblairpreventing changes from being merged that break interoperability with the other projects.19:42
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
sorenThe alternative is that a breaking change in Swift will block everyone else?19:44
jeblairwell, swift isn't tested at all in the devstack-gate right now, so breaking changes don't get noticed by the testing infrastructure.19:45
notmynamejeblair: ok, I'll take it up with the rest of the core devs. can we discuss it again at next week's CI meeting?19:45
jeblairsure thing.19:46
notmynamejeblair: or, we can talk about it later this week after I've had a chance to talk to everyone else19:46
sorenjeblair: Ok. Can we agree that these things need to happen at around the same time?19:46
jeblairokay, i'll be around19:46
jeblairsoren: yes, inclusion in the tests implies gating on that project, in my mind.19:46
sorenjeblair: I.e. using swift in the devstack gate and applying the same gaate to swift.19:46
clarkbmtaylor: apache in front of git-http-backend is now live?19:47
mtayloroh! yeah19:47
mtaylorI totally forgot19:47
*** dolphm has quit IRC19:48
mtaylorwe're serving out git anonymous http from gerrit using straight apache and not gerrit/jgit19:48
mtaylorso we should never see a java thread pool limit issue preventing us from being able to clone a repo19:48
LinuxJedialso, clarkb should probably talk about the gerritbot changes19:48
mtaylorand similarly, those threads and stuff in the java can be spent doing helpful things19:49
clarkbgerritbot has a new channel config yaml file that tells it which channels to join and what projects + events each channel cares about19:49
mtaylorttx: as a result of that, we changed a replication setting- so we should no longer be replicating draft changes to github19:49
mtaylorttx: so they may be more secure now - you may want to re-test their suitability19:50
jeblairmtaylor: isn't gitweb still an issue?19:50
mtayloris it?19:50
mtaylorwas that where the issue was?19:50
ttxhmm, I don't think I touhced github i nmy hack :)19:50
* ttx searches for bug19:51
clarkbit was one place with an issue19:51
clarkbwe can turn it off if the tradeoff is acceptable19:51
ttxmtaylor: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/902052/comments/219:51
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 902052 in openstack-ci "Gerrit should support private reviews for security bugs" [Wishlist,Triaged]19:51
*** s0mik has quit IRC19:51
mtaylorgotit. well - alternate idea - use github links instead of gitweb, and we just won't have github preview links for draft changes19:52
mtaylorwe could also have gitweb serve out the local replicas that apache is serving out, since those also will not have draft changes19:52
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting19:52
*** johnpostlethwait has joined #openstack-meeting19:53
* mtaylor may be drifting off topic19:53
ttxmtaylor: wouldn't "git https://review.openstack.org/openstack/$PROJECT" still expose the chnage somehow ?19:53
mtaylorttx: nope19:53
mtaylorttx: we're replicating to a set of local repo copies...19:53
mtaylorttx: but we're only replicating refs that are visible to users in the authenticated users group19:54
ttxmtaylor: do it and I'll do my best breaking it :)19:54
mtaylorttx: please do! check out the github replicas and the anon-http urls19:54
jeblairso as for gitweb, i guess we should see if we can have the gerrit-managed gitweb use the 'public' local repos...19:55
mtaylorttx: if those two are solid enough for you, we'd just have to decide whether we wanted to give up having revision preview links for draft changes19:55
ttxmtaylor: so gitweb is off-limit because it would be turned off if we were to go that way, right19:55
jeblairor otherwise, shut it off.19:55
mtaylorjeblair: ++19:55
ttxI need to access them *without* ging through gitweb now19:56
mtaylorwell, it would either be shut off if we went the github route, or it would serve the local replica repos19:56
jeblairgitweb has a minor secondary use of making the other branches like meta/config easily viewable.  :(19:56
jeblairbut people can always pull those i reckon.19:56
mtaylorhrm. yeah19:56
LinuxJeditime to start winding up the meeting I think19:57
LinuxJedior down, depending on how you look at it19:57
mtaylorok. anybody got anything else?19:58
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting20:00
*** 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"20:00
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jul 10 20:00:54 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-19.02.html20:00
mtaylorthanks all20:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-19.02.txt20:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-19.02.log.html20:01
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting20:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Jul 10 20:01:49 2012 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.20:01
jbrycesorry i'm late...20:02
*** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting20:02
*** torgomatic has joined #openstack-meeting20:02
jbrycegreat...that's 7 ppb members (anyone want to double check my count?)20:02
jbrycehttp://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda20:02
*** littleidea has quit IRC20:02
*** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse20:02
ttxyes 720:02
jbryce#topic cinder core progress20:03
*** openstack changes topic to "cinder core progress"20:03
jbryceso we had agreed to fast track cinder provisionally for core in Folsom with a check at the f-2 milestone20:03
jbrycethe requirement was enough feature parity to replace nova-volumes as default20:04
anotherjessevishy is on the way20:04
*** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting20:04
ttxFrom a release management perspective, the project hit its deadlines and followed the procedured, even if jgriffith is obviously still learning the ropes20:04
ttxso no blocker from my release-management-hat side20:04
jbrycejgriffith: could you give us a status update from your perspective?20:04
mtaylorjgriffith talks to me, so CI is not unhappy20:04
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting20:04
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
jgriffithjbryce: Yes, for the most part we're at feature parity20:05
jgriffithjbryce: Remaining issues are availability zones and quota implementation20:05
jgriffithjbryce: After that we have mostly the same bugs as Nova-V today :)20:05
jaypipesjgriffith: can those be done by F3?20:05
jgriffithjaypipes: Absolutely!!20:05
jgriffithjaypipes: We hit my goals for F220:06
jgriffithRemaining is slated F320:06
jgriffithMay not get to the "new" features I had hoped for but...20:06
* jaypipes has noticed an increase in coordination with dtroyer around devstack and cinder, which is great to see20:06
jbryceanyone have other questions for jgriffith?20:07
*** littleidea has quit IRC20:07
jgriffithdtroyer along with other folks have been very willing to help20:07
jaypipesjgriffith: I'd like to see some more involvement between cinder folks and tempest team20:07
jaypipesjgriffith: I'll email you about it.20:07
jgriffithjaypipes: You got it20:07
johnpurlooks like the project is tracking and being managed well. jgriffith, what are your concerns?20:08
jgriffithjohnpur: time :)20:08
johnpurlol, always20:08
*** anniec has quit IRC20:08
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec20:08
jgriffithjohnpur: Really it's getting better, more folks becoming interested20:08
jaypipesjgriffith: my final question is how have you been regarding coordination with annegentle and the docs team. that is an absolutely critical integration point IMHO considering the accelerated core promotion.20:08
johnpurdo we have POC installs that we trust?20:09
jbrycejaypipes: +120:09
jgriffithjaypipes: I've chatted with anne a number of times....20:09
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting20:09
jgriffithjaypipes: I have a lot of work to do there but I'm keeping in communication with her20:09
jgriffithjaypipes: I have a plan for F320:09
jaypipesgood to hear!20:09
johnpurremind me... if cinder is pushed to core is nova volume deprecated? what is the plan?20:10
jaypipesjgriffith: see johnpur's ? above... I agree would be cool to see some demo/POC envs for cinder20:10
jgriffithjohnpur: There's some debate on if/when that happens20:10
jaypipesjohnpur: no, shouldn't be. similar to Quantum, IIRC.20:10
jaypipesjohnpur: deprecated over the following release series, right?20:10
johnpurso nova volume is being maintained?20:10
anotherjessejaypipes: actually we are hoping that we remove nova-volumes20:10
jgriffithjohnpur: correct20:10
anotherjessesince the code was literally a cp -r20:10
jaypipesoh, ok...20:10
jgriffithjohnpur: Maintained in terms of bug fixes yes20:11
anotherjessesince otherwise we have to port between them20:11
jgriffithjohnpur: crtical features as well20:11
anotherjessehopefully we can just take the bugs in nova for volumes and move them to cinder20:11
anotherjesseand they are relevant20:11
jaypipesanotherjesse: well, if it *can* be a drop-in replacement, I suppose I could go along with that... if it truly is drop-inable by F320:11
* jaypipes adds drop-inable to Merriam Websters20:11
jgriffithanotherjesse: currently I'm fixing any bugs in "both" and will continue to do so as long as feasible20:11
johnpuranotherjesse, you seem to be disagreeing with jgriffith?20:11
anotherjessejohnpur: yes, doing double work for literally the same code base doesn't add value20:12
vishyI think we have to leave nova-volumes in for compatibility in Folsom, but mark it deprecated.20:12
johnpuranotherjesse +1 if we can pull it off20:12
ttxvishy: +120:12
johnpurvishy: that makes sense to me20:12
jaypipesvishy: I actually thought that was the plan... am a bit surprised about the planned exorcism of nova-volume in Folsom.20:12
jgriffithjaypipes: There was some concern raised from lunar team to me20:13
jgriffithjaypipes: Being the new guy trying to keep people happy :(20:13
jaypipesjgriffith: could you elaborate?20:13
johnpurbut that means that there is a level of maintenance that has to continue, at least until the code is deprecated20:13
ttxI think we need to maintain both until the end of Folsom, and mark it deprecated there20:13
* bcwaldon shows up late20:13
anotherjesseso, what is the messaging?  do we recommend anyone uses nova-volumes?20:14
jgriffithjaypipes: They're not likey to be ready to switch at F3, they are just asking to make sure we don't rip nova-v out20:14
jgriffithjaypipes: which we wouldn't20:14
ttxanotherjesse: no, we wuld recomment people use cinder fir volumes (and quantum for networking) in folsom20:14
jgriffithjaypipes: But that means IMO that there is still some bug maintenance that has to be done, at least up until F320:14
jaypipesjgriffith: ok, I see. it seems you and anotherjesse need to discuss?20:14
johnpurwe cannot "force" everyone to move overnight20:14
jaypipesjgriffith: or is it just a matter of timing?20:15
* ttx should fix his keyboard20:15
*** kbringard has joined #openstack-meeting20:15
*** alrs has joined #openstack-meeting20:15
jgriffithjaypipes: I think it's timing more than anything.  TBH I think it's handled and not going to be a major issue20:15
jgriffithI've had a number of talks with cthier about it20:15
jgriffithanotherjesse: I'm not proposing full on support of both either20:15
jaypipesjgriffith: k. so are we saying that n-vol will be deprecated through f3 and beyond, or removed?20:16
jgriffithjaypipes: deprecated20:16
*** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting20:16
* creiht bows20:16
jaypipesk. I *think* anotherjesse was saying removed though :)20:16
jgriffithjaypipes: I would propose removal in the H release20:16
jaypipescreiht: afternoon!20:16
jaypipesjgriffith: hmm... ok. not G?20:16
jbrycelet's hold on a minute20:16
jbrycesounds like we're digging into a separate issue20:17
jaypipesjbryce: vote on cinder core promotion?20:17
jbrycefirst, does anyone have any objections to cinder being core in folsom? then we can decide if we need to make a call on it's relationship to nova-volumes or if that's just up to the nova team to decide20:17
jbrycejaypipes: exactly20:17
jbryce#startvote Has cinder met the folsom-2 milestone requirements and should be included in the Folsom core release? yes, no, abstain20:17
openstackBegin voting on: Has cinder met the folsom-2 milestone requirements and should be included in the Folsom core release? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain.20:17
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.20:17
jaypipes#vote yes20:18
notmyname#vote abstain20:18
ttxjaypipes: don't believe everything anotherjesse says.20:18
jbryce#vote yes20:18
danwent#vote yes20:18
pvo#vote yes20:18
johnpur#vote yes20:18
heckj#vote yes20:18
jk0#vote yes20:18
ttx#vote yes20:18
bcwaldon#vote yes20:18
vishy#vote yes20:18
jaypipesquorum reached.20:18
anotherjessejaypipes: I dislike nova-volumes  it in G, but that is a different topic20:18
jbryceanotherjesse: do you want to revote just to make yours count?20:18
openstackVoted on "Has cinder met the folsom-2 milestone requirements and should be included in the Folsom core release?" Results are20:18
openstackyes (10): bcwaldon, johnpur, jbryce, vishy, heckj, jaypipes, jk0, ttx, danwent, pvo20:18
openstackabstain (1): notmyname20:18
anotherjessemy irc is really delayed20:18
* koolhead17 looks around20:19
* mtaylor too20:19
jaypipesso it looks like that's settled... jbryce move on to ceilometer proposal?20:19
jbryceso the second issue is what to do in relation to nova-volumes and the options seem to be rip out completely in F or deprecate in Folsom and remove in G (or H). is that correct? in20:19
ttxanotherjesse: you should move to a 1st-world country.20:20
*** jtran has joined #openstack-meeting20:20
jgriffithMy vote is deprecated in Folsom20:20
vishyanotherjesse is suggesting that we should delete it20:20
jaypipesjbryce: I think we were just discussing the possibilities there... not sure the technical committee is needed to decide that? the PTL can/should be able to?20:20
ttxI think it would be a bad message to send (and contrary to our lately-established practices) to deprected and rip in the same release20:20
creihtttx: ++20:21
johnpurDeprecate in Folsom, remove in G seems logical20:21
anotherjessejbryce: I don't like having the same code in two places… multiple places to fix bugs, we have to explain when to use one versus another20:21
vishyttx: who is going to commit to maintaining the nova-volumes code?20:21
anotherjessettx: but it isn't a rewrite or a remove, it is a MOVE20:21
vishyttx: is that the cinder team?20:21
* mtaylor agrees with anotherjesse20:21
creihtit is effectively a remove though20:21
mtaylorthis is a reorg, not a rewrite20:21
ttxanotherjesse: then it's not a question of deprecating.20:21
vishymtaylor: can the packaging issues be solved?20:22
jbrycehow much does it change the user experience though in terms accessing and using block storage?20:22
creihtjbryce: a huge amount20:22
johnpuranotherjesse: we should be recommending/pushing folks to Cinder in Folsom... Deprecation implies that the Volumes code will be static and not updated.20:22
jaypipesjbryce: good question.20:22
anotherjessejbryce: we never had a release of a client or library that used the nova volumes extension20:22
jgriffithI disagree with that20:22
vishyjbryce: if they were using essex nova client it works exactly the same way20:22
mtayloranotherjesse: would it be possible to list cinder as a dep of nova, and replace nova-volume with a proxy shim?20:22
ttxanotherjesse: it's a question of reorganizing, and we can do that in a single release alright. There is nothing being "deprecated"20:22
vishyjbryce: or they can switch to cinder client.20:22
anotherjessettx: yes, because in essex we had a VOLUME endpoint20:22
creihtanotherjesse: python-novaclient uses nova columes20:22
anotherjesseand nova-client used the VOLUME endpoint20:22
mtaylorvishy: I do not know what all of the packaging issues are20:22
anotherjessenot the volume extension for COMPUTE20:23
creihtmtaylor: I don't like that idea20:23
creihtat one time it did use the volume extension20:23
vishycreiht: it actually doesn't, the essex (and current release) uses /volumes20:23
creihtbefore you guys just ripped it out20:23
anotherjessecreiht: right, but it was never in a release20:23
* creiht sighs20:23
anotherjesseit was in the internal release ...20:23
*** flacoste has joined #openstack-meeting20:24
vishycreiht: so the only change is switching the endpoint in keystone20:24
creihtI will just say that I think we set a very bad president if we make that drastic of change by removing nova-volume and only having cinder in the next release20:24
mtaylorvishy: but I'm happy to go bang on figuring them out if I someone has a list20:24
*** hggdh has quit IRC20:24
creihtfrom a client perspective that is correct vishy, but not from a provider perspective20:24
jaypipesvishy: and what abvout the migration story... will volumes regiastered using nova-volumes work with cinder (and the vbolume endpoint) out of the box?20:25
anotherjessecreiht: if the code is the same on both sides, how is it a different story?20:25
creihtI'm about to release a whole set of infrastructure, and if you do this you will rip the carpet right out from under us20:25
jgriffithjaypipes: yes20:25
jaypipesjgriffith: k, thx20:25
vishycreiht: if there is an upgrade path for packaging, is it still an issue?20:25
creihtanotherjesse: it isn't exactly the same on both sides20:25
*** thingee has joined #openstack-meeting20:25
*** kevin has quit IRC20:26
anotherjessecreiht: elaborate?20:26
creihtthe code20:26
creihtcan't be exactly the same20:26
creihtspecifically for attach20:26
creiht /detach20:26
creihteither way20:26
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting20:26
creihtyou have a prescident of infrastructure for nova with nova-volumes that has already been a pain to track20:26
creihtand now you are saying you want to rip the whole rug out from under the table20:27
anotherjessecreiht: so for your internal project, just don't delete it?20:27
jbryceis this different than if those changes were made in nova-volumes inside of the nova codebase?20:27
creihtI don't think that is acceptable20:27
anotherjessecreiht: rax has their own branches for this stuff right?20:27
vishycreiht: since you're the advocate of keeping nova-volumes in, can you commit to helping keep it maintained20:27
creihtnot for volume20:27
creihtwe are tracking trunk20:27
creihtas close as we can20:27
vishycreiht: the main issue with leaving it in deprecated is it doubles maintenance for bug fixes20:28
vishycreiht: and nova-core has already demonstrated that they don't really care about keeping that up-to-date20:28
ttxcreiht: so if I understand correctly, it's technically a move, but it affects you because you were expecting it not to chnage in Folsom release, is that right ?20:28
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC20:28
creihtvishy: I understand, we will help where we can, but I can't promise to take over all maint20:28
jbrycecreiht: is deprecating in f and removing in g going to be better for you?20:28
jbryceor is it still the same problem just later20:28
creihtjbryce: I think that is very reasonable20:29
vishyjbryce: it allows them to switch over at there leisure20:29
creihtThat gives providers time to adjust20:29
anotherjessewhat about leaving the code in there the deprecation means that we don't even release it....20:29
anotherjesseif people want to notice it is there20:29
anotherjessethen they can use it?20:29
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting20:29
jgriffithanotherjesse: +120:29
creihtanotherjesse: define don't even release it20:30
*** alrs has quit IRC20:30
anotherjessecreiht: we don't have packages of it20:30
anotherjesseand don't recommend that redhat, ubuntu or other distros/companies ship it20:30
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting20:30
vishyI think we need to take this to the mailing list and see if we are causing anyone else pain20:30
*** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting20:30
jbrycevishy: +120:30
notmynameI didn't think openstack provided any packages for anything20:30
mtaylorwe don't20:30
creihtvishy: +120:30
*** milner has quit IRC20:30
jbrycei don't think this is a ppb call ultimately, but i think it's a worthwhile discussion to be had and the mailing list is a better place20:30
creihtanotherjesse: I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally that wouldn't bother me20:30
*** milner has joined #openstack-meeting20:30
jbrycelet's move on to ceilometer20:30
mtaylorbut we can do what anotherjesse said and recommend that redhat and ubuntu don't make packages for it20:31
johnpurjbryce: agree20:31
jbryce#option ceilometer incubation application20:31
vishymy compromise would be to leave it in in the source tree for people building their own packages20:31
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC20:31
mtaylorwe _could_ filter it out from the source tarball20:31
vishyand ++ mtaylor anotherjesse20:31
jbryce#topic ceilometer incubation20:31
*** openstack changes topic to "ceilometer incubation"20:31
creihtvishy: would you commit to continued bug fixing?20:31
jbryce(reading and typing at the same time...)20:31
vishycreiht: well hopefully there are no bug reports because no one is using it!20:31
ttxjbryce: I'd say it's a cinder+Nova call, the PPb should only be involved if the decision creates issues... not to make the call20:32
* creiht sighs20:32
vishycreiht: I have no problem merging bugfixes20:32
jbrycettx: i agree20:32
* creiht stands down20:32
jbrycecreiht: sighs and laughter?20:32
vishycreiht: but I plan on immediately dumping the code, so it will have to be a backport from cinder i guess?20:32
anotherjessejbryce: incubation meaning that it is on the way to becoming core?20:32
* ttx has been missing creiht sighing lately. happy to see you're back :)20:32
vishycreiht: it would be ship folsom, remove code right after release20:33
jaypipesanotherjesse: yes, the same meaning for incubation we've had for the past year :P20:33
creihtvishy: if it is the same code, then why don't they share some *gasp* common codebase? so that they could share bug fixes?20:33
anotherjessejaypipes: right - just making sure :)20:33
vishycreiht: craziness!20:33
anotherjessedo we expect a metering project to be part of core?20:33
jaypipesAre we on the Ceilometer topic?20:33
anotherjesseI think so20:33
jaypipesanotherjesse: I think that's what we're about to discuss.20:33
jbryceyes...on the topic of ceilometer incubation...20:33
mtaylorcreiht: that's what I was suggesting earlier when I suggested making cinder a dep of nova and having nova/volume just be proxy calls to the cinder code, btw20:33
anotherjesse(think that we are on the topic - I am not sure if metering should be core)20:34
creihtvishy: I don't like that idea either, but will wait to see what the mailing list turns up20:34
vishycreiht: ok. Am I on the hook for the email?20:34
jbrycecan we take the other discussion to the mailing list? or we can hit it again next week if we need to20:34
creihtvishy: depends... do you *really* want the mailing list email from me? ;)20:34
jbrycejgriffith: can you take point on sending a mailing list email out?20:34
jgriffithjbryce: Yes!!20:34
creihtjgriffith: thanks20:35
jbryce= )20:35
vishyjgriffith: talk with me offline20:35
jaypipesnijaba: you're up. :)20:35
jbryceceilometer has applied for incubation20:35
* nijaba is here :)20:35
jbrycenijaba: would you like to give an overview of what you all are trying to build?20:35
* dhellmann is here, too20:35
ttxOn Ceilometer, the application says, incubation in F, core in G: I think in all cases it would need to incubate longer than just one month (core projects for G need to be decided before the G cycle starts, which means somewhere in August)20:35
jaypipesdhellmann: welcome.20:36
nijabaso we are trying to collect all metering information from various projetcs so that billing system and others have a single point of contact to callect all info20:36
ttxso we are talking incubation for the rest of F and for G, I think20:36
jbrycettx: i agree20:36
*** kindaopsdevy_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:36
* nijaba makes a note of it20:36
koolhead17ttx, can`t extra effort make it possible to have metering in G ?20:37
sorenJust because it's not core doesn't mean it doesn't exist.20:37
vishythe ceilometer team has been doing a great job of being open, using common code and practices, etc. I'm just not totally convinced that it needs to be a core project.20:37
ttxkoolhead17: it's not a question of effort, it's a demonstration that you can follow a cycle20:37
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC20:37
*** kindaopsdevy_ is now known as kindaopsdevy20:37
nijabakoolhead17: having it != core20:37
anotherjessekoolhead17: just because the project isn't core / incubated doesn't mean that it doesn't work20:37
ttxkoolhead17: doing just one milestone before an application sounds like an automatic rejection reason for me20:37
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC20:38
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting20:38
koolhead17ooh okey20:38
dhellmannvishy and anotherjesse, can you elaborate?20:38
jbryceso we have 3 main infrastructure categories with compute, storage and networking. and then we have shared services like dashboard and keystone that make the other categories more unified and more easy to use. seems like metering is something that we get a LOT of requests for and could make sense in the shared services category20:38
nijabavishy: can you elaborate?  I would think it is a piece of code that most if not all deployment will need20:38
ttxjbryce ++20:38
*** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:38
koolhead17jbryce, ++20:39
*** danwent has quit IRC20:39
*** danwent_ is now known as danwent20:39
vishynijaba: We've discussed limiting the scope of infrastructure to core IaaS services, metering seems to be right on the border20:39
johnpurmy reaction is that the ceilometer project should continue as they have, and the incubation discussion should be just before the G summit. If it makes sense, the project incubates in G and applies for core in H if it makes sense.20:39
anotherjessejbryce: although I can see it being that we have the hooks for it, and let various entities support it20:39
anotherjessean opensource project called ceilometer or a commercial product called FOO20:40
anotherjessejohnpur: ++20:40
vishyanotherjesse: I think the plan is to support multiple backends in ceilometer20:40
johnpurin september we should have a good view on the metering project, and gives the community/mailing list time to react as well20:40
nijabaanotherjesse: FOO would talk to ceilometer, but why have all FOO reimplement the hooks?20:40
ttxjohnpur: would be a valid objection if we were questioning their maturity... but apparently we are questioning the coreness of its scope..; and that can be answered today20:40
dhellmannthat's right, vishy: we won't be charging users, just collecting data20:40
vishybut i don't know how well it would support commercial implementations20:40
anotherjessenijaba: because then it requires that everyone runs ceilometer ...20:40
jaypipesjohnpur: I don't think there's any reason not to start incubation in F (and continue incubation in G) if the PPB decides Ceilometer has the potential to be core.20:41
*** devananda has left #openstack-meeting20:41
anotherjessenijaba: if you already have a metering system in place then you might want to use it20:41
johnpurttx: i am proposing delaying that determination, subject to more discussion20:41
*** bencherian has quit IRC20:41
vishyjaypipes: yes, i think the question is do we reasonably see that ceilo fits in core20:41
heckjnijaba: reading the roadmap - is there no public API to this in the folsom release?20:41
vishy(at some point)20:41
ttxjohnpur: I think that's a bit unfair to them. We can determine the coreness of the matter now. Unless we prefer to punt to the TC20:41
nijabaheckj: it's about to be done20:41
jaypipesvishy: sure, that is a perfectly reasonable question.20:41
ttx(which would be a valid thing)20:41
dhellmannheck, we are starting work on the API in the next week or two20:42
vishyjaypipes: if we say no now, I don't think it is no forever, but we could say lets let it stew a while longer.20:42
nijabaheckj: before folsom is released20:42
jaypipesvishy: sure, agreed.20:42
jbrycei don't think that saying it's attacking a problem that could also be attacked by a commercial entity is necessarily the best argument since everything in openstack has commercial competitors20:42
johnpurttx: i don't get the attitude that if a project isn't in incubation/tracking to core that it isn't important?20:42
jbryceand as nijaba said, from my understanding, it's more about centrally exposing data from the different projects which could be consumed by zuora or x commercial billing product20:43
nijabajbryce: exactly20:43
dhellmannjbryce, that's right20:43
pvoheckj: http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering/APIProposalv120:43
koolhead17jbryce, sounds good20:43
dhellmannat dreamhost we are going to pull data from ceilometer and push it into our existing billing system20:43
ttxjohnpur: oh, no. By a bit unfair to them, I just mean, we make them wait and do extra efforts, which will not really help us determine the question of whether metring is core openstack or not20:43
nijabaThe project is for collecting resource usage data related to billing, but does not include any facility for recording customer billing details or actually charging customers or for transforming collected data into billing items20:43
johnpurttx: ok, ic20:44
jaypipesAs someone who vote no to Horizon being core (for reasons that I believed core projects to be the building blocks of the infrastructure), I've come to view Horizon as the critical piece of the OpenStack puzzle that it is: while it is not required for Openstack to function, it is the canonical reference implementation for a GUI. And if Ceilometer represents a canonical reference implementation for a metering project, I think it deserves to20:44
jaypipes be incubated.20:44
anotherjesseif ceilometer is incubated and becomes core, does that mean you *HAVE* to use it to be considered an OpenStack cloud (TM)20:44
ttxjohnpur: but yes, I can see how waiting could help us see how their API stabilizes and how well they become indispensable to the other projects20:44
mtayloranotherjesse: I'd say no more than horizon20:44
nijabaanotherjesse: I woudl hope not20:44
jaypipesanotherjesse: no. you don't require Horizon, but it's still a critical core reference implementation of a part of OpenStack20:45
bcwaldonanotherjesse: can we say that being an OpenStack cloud (TM) is providing all published APIs?20:45
anotherjessejaypipes: while I'm almost the other way - horizon is critical but it confuses to have a GUI next to the service - I had voted yes originally ;)20:45
pvoanotherjesse: how would you even test that? the others apis, horizion, etc would be easier to test for.20:45
pvoi guess the ceiliometer api could be tenant facing20:45
jaypipesanotherjesse: funny how time changes our opinions, eh? :)20:46
anotherjesseI'm asking because I want to know what it means to be in core for ceilometer20:46
*** milner has quit IRC20:46
jbrycecurrently we single out compute and storage apis as requirements for being "openstack", not the shared services20:46
nijabapvo: not at this point, but is considered for future versions20:46
dhellmannpvo: it isn't clear to me that the ceilometer API needs to be tenant facing, but it could be20:46
anotherjesseI hope that we can grow to have lots of projects that integrate with openstack but aren't core… I'm now pro-small-core ;)20:46
dhellmannI mean in terms of providing features useful to tenants20:46
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting20:46
pvoI would love to know my potential bill through an api20:46
jaypipesanotherjesse: to me, "being core" means that the project prioritizies integration with the other core pieces of OpenStack.20:46
dhellmannpvo: we don't know how much you might be charged, only how many resources you've used20:46
dhellmannso the provider still needs to do some calculation to determine the bill20:47
pvothe usage consumed is the important part20:47
koolhead17anotherjesse, ask me how much horizon changes openstack. greatly :)20:47
nijabapvo: from roadmap: "End-User API access to own metering information"20:47
pvonijaba: totally agree20:47
anotherjessekoolhead17: I know - I and my team has done a lot of work on it20:47
mtaylorand usage consumed metering with an api seems like a useful thing to be consistent across implementations20:47
*** anniec has quit IRC20:47
mtaylorto me20:47
pvomtaylor: ++20:47
jbrycecore designation really has historically been around integration with other releases, coordinated cycles, a level of maturity and meeting a threshold of being generally useful to most openstack users20:47
koolhead17anotherjesse, :)20:47
jaypipesmtaylor: ++20:48
jaypipesjbryce: ++20:48
koolhead17jbryce, ++20:48
johnpuralso, core projects are packaged by our downstreams, with other projects added by picking and choosing20:48
anotherjessegiven that approving for incubation today won't mean it is in core by G, I like johnpur's originally idea of voting before the summit20:48
ttxOne thing to note is that the foundation would weigh in on the final core inclusion call anyway20:49
jbrycettx: good point20:49
ttx(board of directors)20:49
jaypipesanotherjesse: yes, that would be totally fine with me.20:49
ttxso the question of "belonging to the scope of openstack" might end up being decided by them... while the TC vouches that the project is well ru and integrated with the others20:49
jbrycei'm ok with deferring, but could we define what we are hoping to gain in the deferral period so we can make sure we act on it?20:49
*** svsujeet has joined #openstack-meeting20:49
jaypipesjbryce: so shall we vote on whether to delay this incubation vote until September?20:50
jbryceis it more feedback from the mailing list?20:50
jbrycemaking sure it's taking a sane technical approach?20:50
jbrycescope of openstack?20:50
anotherjessejbryce: I kinda feel like we should have a section in proposals of integration status and efforts with all existing core projects20:50
* jaypipes thought we had that..20:51
ttxbasically its a bit of bad timing, with Folsom nearing the end and the future BoD/TC split20:51
johnpursince the project is primarily about aggregating and making usage information available to a variety of downstream consumers (billing systems, etc.) it would be cool to get feedback fromt he potential consumers on the approach, API, etc.20:51
nijabaanotherjesse: Nova integration is close to complete, and we have intiated dicussions with all other projects20:51
pvoits on my list to evaluate, just haven't had time20:51
vishyon the other side, there is no reason why we couldn't incubate it and later the TC can decide that it doesn't belong as a core project.20:52
*** littleidea has quit IRC20:52
jbrycevishy: also true20:52
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting20:52
notmynamebut unlikely20:52
anotherjessenijaba: cool - I'm just thinking about the meta-process :)  that as we incubate things we should have an explicit section on what it means for all the projects - for instance nova has a notification queue, but what does it mean for keystone, or glance20:52
ttxvishy: yes, that would be my preferred option20:52
ttxnotmyname: unlikely what?20:52
pvoI don't see the need to vote today. The work is progressing and the decision will be reevaluated later.20:53
notmynamettx: unlikely that a vote today would be overturned by tomorrows PPB/TC20:53
dhellmannanotherjesse, we are going to be working with the other projects to add notifications as needed20:53
jbrycettx: i think he's going off the track record that we've sent everything through incubation to core so far20:53
johnpurpvo: +120:53
dhellmannanotherjesse, that is easier now that RPC and notifications are in openstack-common20:53
ttxnotmyname: right... I think there would actually be more risk that the BoD would turn down our suggestion as "not in their idea of openstack scope"20:54
jbrycei think we should defer and try to gather a little more information20:54
notmynamejbryce: to answer which question?20:55
heckjI think we made a mistake with keystone, incubating it before it was ready to be used. I'd prefer to look about incubation *after* the project is fully operational rather than make a keystone-mistake again20:55
jbrycenijaba: can you add a new section to the application and discuss the integration status with each of the other projects. that does seem key since it's a shared service20:55
ttxand give Ceilometer time to prove they are actually an almost-indispensable companion to other core projects20:55
pvoheckj: ++20:55
jbryceheckj: i kind of agree. was actually thinking of that example20:55
nijabajbryce: k20:55
nijaba#action nijaba to  add a new section to the application and discuss the integration status with each of the other projects. that does seem key since it's a shared service20:55
heckjto be clear - I'm not against incubation at all, I'd ljust like to see the project mature before talking about it.20:56
vishy+1 to delay20:56
jbrycealso, any information you can gather from users along the lines of what johnpur was mentioning would be useful20:56
ttxheckj: like making a few milestones roughly around the core ones20:56
vishywe shouldn't be too anxious to add new projects, it also gives us time to prove that projects can become healthy without having to be in core.20:56
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting20:56
nijabajbryce: who was your last remark addressed to?20:56
jaypipesnijaba, dhellmann: a hint for your incubation future: if you haven't already, get with dtroyer on getting devstack to set up ceilometer so folks can more easily play around with it.20:56
jbrycenijaba: you, sorry20:57
nijabajaypipes: noted20:57
vishyI would like ceilo to be a success regardless of whether it s core.20:57
anotherjessevishy: ++++++20:57
jbryce2 minutes20:57
nijabajbryce: then I am afraid I have lost context :/20:57
johnpurwe have some largeish deployments that are using both commercial billing systems and homegrown ones that can provide some good feedback... if these guys weigh in with plans to utilize ceilometer this would be a big vote of confidence20:57
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
ttxand I would like it to be core if the user crowd begs for it, which means it needs to be around a bit20:57
heckjvishy: ++20:58
pvojohnpur: exactly. I plan on taking a peek at it soon20:58
vishy+1 to the devstack comment as well20:58
johnpurright on, pvo20:58
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting20:58
jbrycenijaba: did you see johnpur's last comment?20:58
nijabajbryce: yup20:58
dhellmannjohnpur, we got a lot of feedback from potential users when we designed the list of counters up front. is there something specific you would want us to ask now?20:58
johnpurhint to the hp guys, you should look at how this might work with zuora20:58
ttx(what johnpur said)20:58
pvodhellmann: I'll reach out soon.20:59
jbrycedhellmann: maybe add some of that into the application as well so it's centrally available20:59
nijabajohnpur: hp been looking at it closely, from the interactions we've had20:59
dhellmannjbryce, ok, we can do that20:59
dhellmannpvo, thanks, I'll watch for an email20:59
jbryceok. we're out of time. thanks everyone!20:59
*** 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"20:59
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jul 10 20:59:58 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-20.01.html21:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-20.01.txt21:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-20.01.log.html21:00
jbrycettx: your show = )21:00
*** danwent_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
*** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz21:00
*** anniec has quit IRC21:01
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec21:01
*** danwent has quit IRC21:01
*** danwent_ is now known as danwent21:01
*** maoy has quit IRC21:01
ttxheckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, vishy, devcamcar, danwent: (still) around ?21:01
ttxok, let's start21:02
openstackMeeting started Tue Jul 10 21:02:20 2012 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.21:02
ttxAgenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting21:02
*** littleidea has quit IRC21:02
ttx#info First meeting of the F3 era, we'll have a look at sanitizing plans so that they are a realistic view of what we're likely to achieve21:02
ttxWill also talk about the upcoming bug squashing day on Thursday... and give out the results of the G poll... will the Bear Revolt win ?21:03
*** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
ttx(or will order prevail)21:03
*** dhellmann has quit IRC21:03
mtaylorGO GRIZZLY OR GO HOME!!!21:03
creihtwhat? order never prevails with openstack ;)21:03
koolhead17mtaylor, :P21:03
ttx#topic Actions from previous meeting21:03
*** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting"21:03
ttx* ttx to see how danwent could track bugs outside quantum without creating noise21:03
ttxNot done yet, postponing21:03
creihtI was hoping for gristle21:03
ttx#action ttx to see how danwent could track bugs outside quantum without creating noise21:04
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC21:04
* ttx makes mental note: do not let creiht pick /any/ name21:04
ttx* ttx to formally announce the G poll on ML/twitter etc.21:04
*** flacoste has left #openstack-meeting21:04
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting21:04
ttxDONE, you have 41 minutes left to cast your vote for the G release name:21:04
creihtI gave up on picking sane names after the first vote :)21:04
ttx#topic Keystone status21:05
*** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status"21:05
ttxheckj: o/21:05
vishycreiht: which was your first vote?21:05
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-321:05
* heckj used the ttx.py script to clean things up this morning21:05
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
heckjI think it needs a french accent next21:05
ttxle ttx.py21:05
ttxheckj: I see you recently removed some targets ?21:06
bcwaldonle definitely21:06
ttxheckj: like... no more v3 ?21:06
heckjWe reviewed the work pending for F3, and there was just way too much that it was clear we weren't going to get done21:06
zulno no...en francais21:06
ttxheckj: ++21:07
*** markvoelker has quit IRC21:07
heckjV3 is still the focus, as it's a dependency on many of the desired pieces, but I don't want to set the expectation that other projects should start using V3 API at the end of a F3 milestone timeframe21:07
*** svsujeet has quit IRC21:08
ttxheckj: so the idea is to have a partial v3 implementation in Folsom ?21:08
heckjI'll be sending email about my un-linking of the BP's to the mailing list too - if more commits come in, I'll link them back up.21:08
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting21:08
heckjttx: My goal is to have V3 fully implemented by the milestone, but given the rate of change lately, I don't think it's likely to be fully there. Something will be - it may be partial, or not fully fleshed out.21:08
ttxbut definitely alpha/beta in all cases.21:09
heckjttx: yes21:09
ttxsounds reasonable.21:09
ttxOther projects: does that create red flags somewhere ?21:09
ttxor general relief ?21:09
gabrielhurleyheckj, ttx: how do these changes around the v3 implementation affect RBAC/policy implementations across the stack as a whole?21:09
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
gabrielhurley(that being the biggest piece that doesn't exist in v2)21:10
heckjgabrielhurley: policy will still be there, and there's a BP to consolidate a "suggested deployment" setup for all of them. Getting policy CRUD implemented in the API should be there, but we'd be greatly pressing to get the full integration will all the projects there in the next 4 weeks.21:11
gabrielhurleyso it becomes more of a Grizzly thing to really make that solid, then?21:11
ttxmy understanding is that it will make folsom a bit of a transitional release for Keystone, but I'm pretty sure most people can live with that21:11
*** jbryce has quit IRC21:11
heckjgabrielhurley: the big V3 related change in policy is sourcing it in keystone. That should be possible, and we can even focus on making that happen earlier rather than later21:11
gabrielhurleyheckj: yeah, the sourcing is what's important to Horizon21:12
gabrielhurleyif that happens I think I'm happy21:12
heckjgabrielhurley: noted21:12
ttxheckj: ok good, anything else ?21:12
heckjthat's it for me21:13
ttxQuestions about Keystone ?21:13
ttx#topic Swift status21:14
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status"21:14
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.5.121:14
ttxnotmyname: Hi! Target date was pushed back to July 30 ?21:14
notmynameyes it was21:14
ttxAnything specific you wait the completion of ?21:14
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting21:14
notmynamewe won't be able to get the additional QA this week that we normally have, so I pushed it back21:14
notmynameit's (slightly) possible that we may have it sooner, but I pushed it 2 weeks to be sae21:15
ttxoh, so it's more a QA sync issue than a missing needed feature ?21:15
notmynameand I hope, long-term, the recently proposed swift integration into tempest will help alleviate that21:15
ttxWould you include https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/keystone-middleware in it if it's ready by then ?21:15
ttxSounds good.21:16
ttxnotmyname: anything else you wanted to mention ?21:16
notmynameya, let me find a link21:16
notmyname#link WIP 1.5.1 changelog until LP is updated https://github.com/notmyname/swift/blob/1.5.1-changelog/CHANGELOG21:17
ttxcool, thx21:17
notmynameone more thing21:18
notmynameI'll be talking to the swift core devs this week about integrating swift with the devstack gates. nothing to say there, just stuff being done21:18
ttxNoted. Other questions on Swift ?21:19
ttx#topic Glance status21:19
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status"21:19
ttxbcwaldon: o/21:19
bcwaldonttx: hey hey21:19
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-321:19
* ttx preventively refreshes21:19
bcwaldonttx: you're safe today21:20
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC21:20
ttxOK, so there are (still) several things I don't really like here :)21:20
bcwaldonttx: I know :(21:20
ttxFirst, the 5 essential blueprints make me a bit nervous.21:20
bcwaldonttx: BUT I was working on https://launchpad.net/python-glanceclient !21:20
ttxbut I guess if the ETA on them is reasonable it's not such a big deal21:20
bcwaldonttx: I'm going to spend my afternoon figuring out what can happen in F321:21
bcwaldonttx: what's the OS policy on features after F3?21:21
ttxessential stuff gets post-F3 pre-RC1 exceptions21:21
vishywe have a STONITH protocol for features after f321:21
ttxand each of those exceptions lowers the general quality of the release21:21
bcwaldonvishy: I don't appreciate that21:22
bcwaldonvishy: define: STONITH21:22
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting21:22
bcwaldonttx: ok, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page21:22
vishyShoot the other node in the head (in this case the other node is the new feature)21:22
heckjSTONITH: Shoot The Other Node In The Head21:22
bcwaldonttx: SO, it will look better within 24 hours, I promise21:23
ttxbcwaldon: so if any of those look like they might not get completed before the end of the month... I would go the heckj route and question whether they should really be in Folsom21:23
bcwaldonttx: some of them are planned refactorings21:23
ttxyes, the glance client stuff is clearly on hte map... and the rest is V2 stuff afaict21:23
bcwaldonttx: I just need to look at each one and classify whether it can or can't get done after F321:23
*** jtran has left #openstack-meeting21:23
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting21:24
ttxbcwaldon: default answer is "cannot".21:24
bcwaldonttx: ok21:24
*** jbryce has quit IRC21:24
bcwaldonttx: I did want to talk about python-glaneclient21:24
ttxI really would like if we could not have feature freeze exceptions unless Murphy strikes21:24
ttxi.e. keep the option for spectucular failures rather than business as usual21:25
bcwaldonttx: since we aren't releasing client libs on the same schedule, they aren't really affected by FF and milestones21:25
bcwaldonttx: ok, and I think we need to decide who has the power to release client libs21:25
bcwaldonttx: as I now want to do it21:25
heckjbcwaldon: ++ would like to see that nailed down21:25
ttxbcwaldon: the PTL should decide when it makes sense21:26
bcwaldonttx: I've already decided that21:26
bcwaldonttx: i just need to be able to push a button21:26
ttxbcwaldon: the ptl /could/ ask me if I see any reason why that's a bad idea just now21:26
bcwaldonttx: are you going to be that button?21:26
bcwaldonttx: I'm fine with whatever, I just want to get moving21:26
ttxbcwaldon: no, normally taylor shall give you the ability to push tags to gerrit, which is all it takes21:26
gabrielhurleybcwaldon: ++ to PTLs having their finger on the button and not having a bottleneck/bus factor to contend with...21:26
bcwaldonttx: hmm, so if mtaylor isn't around, we can't release?21:27
bcwaldonttx: or do I just need to get him to add me to some magical group21:27
ttxbcwaldon: no ;) mtaylor just adds you to magic group once and for all21:27
ttxbcwaldon: so pushing a release is just a command away for you21:27
bcwaldonttx: ok, works for me21:28
bcwaldonttx: ATTENTION PTLs! Read that ^21:28
bcwaldonttx: that's all for me, then :)21:28
ttxbcwaldon: again, asking me before doing it can't hurt. Like some security issue might be near the end of the tube21:28
bcwaldonttx: definitely21:28
mtaylorworks for me21:28
ttxbut it's not blocking21:28
bcwaldonttx: best effort will be given21:28
ttxso if tere is anythign urgent, you can do it21:29
ttxbcwaldon: had another remark about the F3 plan...21:29
ttxThe second thing I don't like is the unassigned stuff. At this point, if nobody committed to doing the work, it won't get done.21:29
ttxOr do all those mean "I'll do them if nobody signs up for them" ?21:29
mtaylorttx: do you want all PTLs just to be in openstack-release?21:29
mtaylorttx: or you want me to make a separate group?21:29
*** anotherjesse_zz is now known as anotherjesse21:29
ttxmtaylor: I'd prefer not. You could reuse the drivers group21:29
bcwaldonttx: I'm going to do as many of them as I can if nobody picks them up21:29
mtaylorttx: or you want me to add each ptl to each project21:29
ttxor just make a group with the PTL only21:30
bcwaldonttx: I have soft commitments for some of them21:30
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting21:30
mtaylorttx: k. glance-drivers gets tag push on glance and python-glanceclient then?21:30
*** anotherjesse is now known as anotherjesse_zz21:30
ttxmtaylor: if bcwaldon is ok wit hit.21:30
ttxor with it21:30
ttxbcwaldon: would be good to have hard commitments at least for the essential one :)21:30
bcwaldonI'm not glance-drivers makes sense21:30
ttxok, done with Glance...21:31
ttxbcwaldon: Anything else ?21:31
bcwaldonmtaylor: at a minimum, I would like PTLs and release team to be able to do it21:31
bcwaldonttx: no sir21:31
mtaylorbcwaldon: release team has it everywhere21:31
bcwaldonmtaylor: lets talk about this later21:31
mtaylorbcwaldon: I'll give ptl the magic power per-project21:31
ttxmtaylor: sssh, that's our secret.21:31
ttxthe idea is to retsrict it to people that actually know that pushing a tag will trigger a PyPI upload.21:32
ttxsomehow some people ignore that, go figure.21:32
ttxQuestions on Glance ?21:32
ttx#topic Quantum status21:33
*** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status"21:33
ttxdanwent: yo21:33
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-321:33
danwentdon't let your eyes bulge too much21:33
ttxOK, so this one clearly falls in the "optimistic" category, with 31! targeted blueprints21:33
ttxAs a data point, you completed 16 in F1+F2 :)21:33
danwentyup, but our team is much bigger now.21:33
danwentjust focus on things that are essential or high21:33
ttxheh, ok21:34
*** anniec has quit IRC21:34
danwentanything at medium is not critical to the project, but someone said they were going to do it, so I'm taking them at their word and am targeting it for F-321:34
ttxdanwent: there were a number of them that weren't  inthe series goal = Folsom, you should spot them using ttx.py21:34
*** Ravikumar_hp has joined #openstack-meeting21:34
danwenti think i cleaned those all up this morning with ttx.py21:34
danwentunless someone has added more since then21:34
danwent(always possible)21:34
danwentwill do another pass21:34
ttxdanwent: ok, I guess we'll refine as we close the F3 deadline21:35
ttxas we get closer to, I mean21:35
danwentyeah.  we're going to be more demanding about people creating specs up front for any high or above item, which should help us keep tabs on the progress those issues are making early in the milestone period.21:35
ttxand publicly shame those who said they would do it but didn't21:36
danwentthat's the idea (which reminds me, i need to finish my spec....)21:36
ttxLooking at the 3 remaining essential blueprints...21:36
gabrielhurleyttx: SDD - Shame Driven Development21:36
ttxdanwent: Would like to make sure those will be delivered "early enough" in this milestone timeframe. Do you have an ETA for quantum-v2-public-networks and quantum-l3-fwd-nat ?21:36
danwentsounds like a great book21:37
ttxgabrielhurley: I actually do Sarcasm-driven development21:37
danwentI'm hoping for a review 3 weeks into the cycle on those.21:37
danwentlikely the l3 BP will be split into several, with non-essential items being handled separately21:37
ttxso..; before the end of the month ?21:38
*** oubiwann1 has quit IRC21:38
danwentat the end of the month, yes :)21:38
ttxdanwent: sounds good to me. Anything else ?21:38
danwenti doubt it will be much before :)21:38
ttxQuestions on Quantum ?21:39
ttx#topic Nova status21:39
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status"21:39
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-321:39
ttxvishy: o/21:39
ttx22 blueprints targeted, compared to 20 implemented during F1+F221:39
ttxThat said, lots of those are actually Low-prio or globally in progress so it's not as bad as it looks ?21:40
vishyyes i think it is ok. the high/essential ones look pretty good21:40
bcwaldonvishy: remove-deprecated-auth is almost done! All the changes are in review (gate failing right now)21:40
vishythey are mostly done21:40
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC21:40
ttxIdeally we would move a few "High" to "Medium" to better rank their priorities, but meh21:40
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting21:40
ttxA few highlights from ttx.py:21:41
vishythe only one that I'm particularly concerned about are no-db-messaging / no-db-compute21:41
ttxyes, not much progress there and a bit lae in the cycle for that anyway21:41
ttxThese two need to have their priority set and series goal set to "Folsom" if you approve them:21:41
ttx* https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-support-for-pci-passthrough-and-sr-iov21:41
ttx* https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/network-adapter-hotplug21:41
vishyrusselb promised to work on that during this milestone now that the roc stuff is done.21:41
*** joearnold has joined #openstack-meeting21:41
ttx(that last one has no assignee, so I wonder if it's serious)21:41
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting21:42
ttxvishy: please assess them before next week21:42
vishydid it now21:43
vishyput them both low21:43
ttxvishy: Anything else ?21:43
ttx#info Cinder was just promoted to core project so it will get its own topic starting next week21:43
ttxjgriffith: you'll have to become a regular for this meeting now :)21:44
ttxQuestions on Nova ?21:44
jgriffithttx: Have been anyway21:44
ttx#topic Horizon status21:44
*** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status"21:44
gabrielhurleyttx: \o     (I'm filling in for devcamcar)21:44
ttxgabrielhurley: awesome21:44
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-321:44
gabrielhurleyI think we're looking pretty realistic.21:45
ttxPlan looks good, realistic and clear :)21:45
gabrielhurleywhy thank you :-)21:45
ttxI don't really have concerns here. Anything you wanted to mention ? Help needed somewhere ?21:45
gabrielhurleythe only thing to mention is the policy/rbac blueprint which is dependent on keystone as we discussed earlier: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/ext-roles21:45
gabrielhurley(currently marked as "blocked")21:45
gabrielhurleyheckj and I are gonna work on making it happen, though21:46
gabrielhurleymore help is always good ;-)21:46
ttxQuestions for Horizon ?21:46
ttx#topic G naming results21:47
*** openstack changes topic to "G naming results"21:47
ttxAnd the winner is...21:47
ttxRules are here to be broken, let's go with "Grizzly" 88/4621:47
ttxbcwaldon: you win21:47
bcwaldonLIKE A BOSS21:47
gabrielhurleyviva la bear flag revolt!21:48
jk0grizzly like the chew, or grizzly like the yamaha atv?21:48
bcwaldongrizzly like the jk021:48
clarkbgrizzly like the flats21:48
ttxGazelle was the other pick but people chose chaos over order21:48
_0x44Keep in mind, that per the last "bear" release we had... "ZZ" is silent.21:48
_0x44Grizzly Hills is actually pronounced "Greely Hills"21:48
jk0we should have went with Gort21:48
jgriffithcreiht: +1 :)21:49
jgriffithcreiht: alas... too late21:50
ttxbcwaldon: I'll amend the rules so that order can be restored21:50
bcwaldonttx: call it the 'waldon clause'21:50
ttx#info G stands for Grizzly21:50
bcwaldonttx: or the 'bill of brians'21:50
ttxor the Waldon exception21:50
bcwaldonfine with me21:50
ttx#topic Other Team reports21:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports"21:50
ttxannegentle, jaypipes, mtaylor: anything you wanted to mention ?21:50
annegentleheld the doc meeting yesterday, notes available at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-09-20.03.html21:51
ttxanything particular you want to highlight ?21:51
annegentlecouple of items - the DocImpact flag isn't working, my test of it failed. clarkb and the CI team suspects we need a better mailing list to handle incoming notifications21:52
annegentle- please review the prototype docs translation process posted to the mailing list yesterday (thanks jaypipes for input!)21:52
annegentle- I've uncovered a problem with old html files remaining that Google sinks its hooks into, https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1022712, working it myself21:53
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1022712 in openstack-manuals "About 111 orphaned HTML files still can come up in Google searches" [High,Confirmed]21:53
mtaylorttx: I'm working on getting setuptools-git rolled out everywhere21:53
mtaylorttx: and pre-versioning rolled out to the server projects21:53
ttxmtaylor: sounds like the right moment.21:53
annegentle- also will send a note to the mailing list to discuss info architecture around three basics of OpenStack - Compute | Storage | Networking and how to shape docs21:54
ttxmtaylor: does that make us free from Final=True ?21:54
mtaylorttx: yup21:54
mtaylorttx: I've got a patch pending for glance, will update the one for nova rsn21:55
ttxannegentle: ok, anything else ?21:55
mtaylorttx: it also puts most of the logic from create-tarball into the projects themselves21:55
annegentleFinal note: we need more documentation updates for folsom - essex looks great now, but without the DocImpact flag I'm having difficulty scoping and prioritizing work for Folsom.21:55
annegentleMy request is that you log doc bugs in openstack-manuals for specific known needed updates.21:56
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC21:56
*** lzyeval has joined #openstack-meeting21:56
clarkbannegentle: did oubiwann get the info he needed to create that new list?21:56
annegentleUntil we get DocImpact working. Does that sound reasonable?21:56
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting21:56
ttxannegentle: certainly.21:56
mtaylorttx: oh - also, I've got some stuff coming up for review for folks releated to global dep list21:56
annegentleclarkb: was that request via email or IRC? I didn't' catch it, sorry oubiwann21:56
ttxmtaylor: sounds good21:57
mtaylorttx: I did a pass comparing what we install via packages for devstack vs. what we say we require in the pip-reuqires21:57
mtaylorit's not hte same21:57
mtaylorbcwaldon: ^^ you're going to love it :)21:57
ttx#topic Bug squashing day21:57
*** openstack changes topic to "Bug squashing day"21:57
mtayloryeah. I was thrilled21:57
ttxWe'll have a bug squashing day, all day Thursday.21:57
annegentleyay bug squash! Join me at Tech Ranch in Austin.21:57
ttxJoin us on #openstack-bugday on that day !21:57
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/BugDays/20120712BugSquashing21:57
ttxWe'll try to close as many bugs as possible, either by fixing or marking them Invalid21:57
annegentle#link http://www.meetup.com/OpenStack-Austin/events/72740812/21:58
ttxannegentle mentioned the in-person meetup in Austin, maybe others ?21:58
*** ayoung has quit IRC21:58
ttx#topic Open discussion21:59
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:59
ttxlast words before I close ?21:59
* creiht sighs21:59
creihtttx: that was for you :)21:59
creihtglad you missed me :)21:59
ttxjeblair: you need to send that flag design to Todd Morey so that we have it on the next summit T-shitrs22:00
ttxcreiht: heh22:00
* creiht hopes everyone realizes the above was a joke22:00
jeblairthat's the highest res picture i can find online.  :(22:00
ttxjeblair: I'm sure that won't stop an artist like you.22:01
jeblair(sadly, the original flag was burned in the fire that followed the 1906 earthquake)22:01
ttxand on those sad words22:01
*** 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"22:01
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jul 10 22:01:33 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)22:01
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-21.02.html22:01
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-21.02.txt22:01
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-07-10-21.02.log.html22:01
ttxthanks everyone!22:01
ttxSee some of you at OSCON soon !22:01
bcwaldonjeblair: nobody knows that we just named the G release in commemoration of my moving to Berkeley22:02
*** dtroyer is now known as dtroyer_zzz22:02
jeblairi'll keep your secret!22:02
ttxThe Berkeley Cabale successfully subverted openstack naming22:02
ttxhiding under a Bear revolt disguise22:03
bcwaldonwe fooled you all22:03
jeblairi was just hiding under a bear...22:03
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:03
*** anniec has quit IRC22:04
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec22:04
ttxsome projects do lazy consensus, we do active disagreement22:04
*** gabrielhurley has left #openstack-meeting22:04
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC22:04
*** hggdh has quit IRC22:04
*** lzyeval has quit IRC22:06
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting22:06
*** rnirmal has quit IRC22:07
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC22:07
*** kbringard has quit IRC22:10
*** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting22:18
*** ewanmellor has quit IRC22:19
*** s0mik has quit IRC22:21
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC22:22
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting22:24
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting22:25
*** sacharya has quit IRC22:28
*** jbryce has quit IRC22:28
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting22:29
*** marek_ has quit IRC22:29
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC22:34
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC22:35
*** oubiwann1 has joined #openstack-meeting22:36
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting22:36
*** markmcclain has quit IRC22:39
*** joearnold has quit IRC22:39
*** AlanClark has quit IRC22:47
*** dolphm has quit IRC22:48
*** johnpur has left #openstack-meeting22:50
*** mnewby has quit IRC22:53
*** dhellmann has quit IRC22:55
*** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting23:01
*** anniec has quit IRC23:04
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting23:05
*** oubiwann1 has quit IRC23:06
*** adjohn has quit IRC23:08
*** thingee has left #openstack-meeting23:13
*** mattray has quit IRC23:14
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting23:18
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting23:38
*** Ravikumar_hp has quit IRC23:39
*** alrs has joined #openstack-meeting23:47
*** Adri2000 has quit IRC23:53
*** Daviey has quit IRC23:54
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting23:57
*** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting23:57
*** adjohn has quit IRC23:59

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