Tuesday, 2012-10-23

*** dkehn_afk is now known as dkehn00:03
*** ijw1 has quit IRC00:03
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC00:05
*** mnewby has quit IRC00:07
*** gatuus has quit IRC00:10
*** Mandell has quit IRC00:13
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting00:14
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting00:14
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting00:15
*** hemna has quit IRC00:17
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting00:18
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC00:19
*** jog0 has quit IRC00:22
*** danwent has quit IRC00:23
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:30
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC00:34
*** adjohn has quit IRC00:36
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting00:37
*** yjiang5_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:40
*** s0mik has quit IRC00:44
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn00:47
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net00:50
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting01:15
*** danwent has quit IRC01:16
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away01:17
*** Mandell has quit IRC01:19
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC01:20
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting01:21
*** stevebake has quit IRC01:22
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting01:24
*** maurosr has quit IRC01:26
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC01:26
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting01:50
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting01:50
*** dhellmann has joined #openstack-meeting01:50
*** krtaylor has joined #openstack-meeting01:51
*** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk01:51
*** jdurgin has quit IRC01:52
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting01:54
*** Gordonz has quit IRC02:00
*** mnewby_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:02
*** mnewby has quit IRC02:03
*** mnewby_ is now known as mnewby02:03
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:04
*** zhidong has joined #openstack-meeting02:04
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC02:08
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting02:09
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz02:10
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting02:11
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC02:12
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC02:14
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_zzzz02:14
*** anniec has quit IRC02:15
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting02:15
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting02:15
*** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting02:23
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC02:23
*** ijw1 has quit IRC02:25
*** dkehn_zzzz has left #openstack-meeting02:35
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC02:39
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting02:40
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net02:51
*** stevebake has joined #openstack-meeting03:03
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting03:06
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting03:14
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting03:19
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC03:24
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC03:26
*** tgall_foo has quit IRC03:35
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn03:45
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting03:46
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting03:48
*** jakedahn is now known as jakedahn_zz04:03
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting04:04
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting04:12
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting04:19
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC04:24
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC04:33
*** ozstacker has joined #openstack-meeting04:45
*** danwent has quit IRC04:56
*** littleidea has quit IRC05:00
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting05:02
*** gongysh has quit IRC05:04
*** ywu has quit IRC05:04
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting05:13
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting05:20
*** littleidea has quit IRC05:21
*** jamespage_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:22
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting05:23
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC05:24
*** jamespage_ has quit IRC05:35
*** afazekas has quit IRC05:38
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting05:41
*** garyk has quit IRC05:42
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC05:51
*** danwent has quit IRC06:00
*** davidkranz has quit IRC06:14
*** almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan06:18
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting06:20
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting06:24
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC06:25
*** davidkranz has joined #openstack-meeting06:39
*** davidhadas has joined #openstack-meeting06:39
*** jjm3 has quit IRC06:42
*** jjm3lp has quit IRC06:42
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting06:44
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting06:47
*** shang has quit IRC06:52
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting06:54
*** mnewby has quit IRC06:57
*** rafaduran has quit IRC06:57
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting06:58
*** EmilienM has quit IRC07:04
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting07:05
*** ywu has quit IRC07:10
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting07:10
*** nijaba has joined #openstack-meeting07:18
*** nijaba has quit IRC07:18
*** nijaba has joined #openstack-meeting07:18
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting07:19
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting07:22
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting07:23
*** EmilienM has quit IRC07:24
*** adjohn has quit IRC07:25
*** littleidea has quit IRC07:26
*** shang has quit IRC07:28
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC07:31
*** Ghe_Rivero has quit IRC07:38
*** GheAway is now known as GheRivero07:39
*** metral has joined #openstack-meeting07:40
*** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:42
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC07:42
*** salv-orlando_ is now known as salv-orlando07:42
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting07:43
*** davidkranz_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:53
*** davidkranz has quit IRC07:54
*** al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away07:55
*** almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan08:04
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting08:08
*** EmilienM has quit IRC08:13
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting08:21
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting08:21
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting08:27
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC08:31
*** pvo has quit IRC08:31
*** henrynash has quit IRC08:33
*** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting08:33
*** Mandell has quit IRC08:33
*** oubiwann has quit IRC08:34
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC08:59
*** rafaduran has quit IRC09:09
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC09:17
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting09:22
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting09:27
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC09:31
*** zhuadl has quit IRC10:18
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting10:22
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting10:27
*** rkukura has quit IRC10:31
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC10:32
*** maurosr has quit IRC10:58
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting10:59
*** maurosr has quit IRC11:04
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting11:05
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting11:06
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting11:08
*** maurosr has quit IRC11:08
*** al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away11:09
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting11:09
*** ywu has quit IRC11:10
*** maurosr has quit IRC11:13
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting11:14
*** maurosr has quit IRC11:19
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting11:19
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting11:28
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC11:32
*** jamespage_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:38
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting11:43
*** zhuadl has joined #openstack-meeting11:43
*** littleidea has quit IRC11:45
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting11:46
*** almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan11:47
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:53
*** sandywalsh_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:00
*** mikal has quit IRC12:04
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** jamespage_ has quit IRC12:10
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC12:16
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting12:28
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting12:29
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC12:35
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting12:39
*** arbrandes has joined #openstack-meeting12:40
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting12:43
*** rafaduran has quit IRC12:50
*** tgall_foo has quit IRC12:52
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting12:55
*** joesavak has quit IRC12:57
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting12:59
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting13:02
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting13:06
*** maurosr has quit IRC13:10
*** ywu has quit IRC13:11
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting13:14
*** littleidea has quit IRC13:15
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting13:17
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting13:17
*** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting13:18
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting13:21
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting13:30
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting13:31
*** davidkranz_ is now known as davidkranz13:36
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC13:40
*** mtreinish has joined #openstack-meeting13:47
*** maurosr has quit IRC13:49
*** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:52
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC13:52
*** salv-orlando_ is now known as salv-orlando13:52
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting13:55
*** maurosr has quit IRC13:56
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting13:59
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting13:59
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
*** maurosr has quit IRC14:00
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting14:01
*** zhuadl has quit IRC14:01
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting14:01
*** s0mik has quit IRC14:03
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC14:03
*** anniec has quit IRC14:04
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting14:04
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:04
*** maurosr has quit IRC14:05
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting14:06
*** al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away14:07
*** maurosr has quit IRC14:10
*** cmagina has joined #openstack-meeting14:12
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC14:14
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC14:17
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:18
*** cmagina has left #openstack-meeting14:19
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away14:22
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net14:22
*** dhellmann-afk is now known as dhellmann14:22
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away14:25
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting14:34
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting14:35
*** Gordonz has quit IRC14:39
*** markv_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:41
*** primeministerp has joined #openstack-meeting14:42
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting14:45
*** dwcramer has quit IRC14:46
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC14:48
*** Hitesh_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:54
Hitesh_primeministerp: Hi Peter14:54
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting14:55
*** pnavarro has joined #openstack-meeting14:56
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net14:56
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
primeministerpHitesh_: hi hitesh14:57
Hitesh_primeministerp: Let's wait for 5 min to join Alesandro and Pedro14:57
primeministerpHitesh_: alessandro isn't joining14:57
Hitesh_primeministerp: Ok14:57
Hitesh_primeministerp: how was the summit session?14:58
Hitesh_primeministerp: I hope you guys enjoyed :)14:58
*** garyk has quit IRC14:58
primeministerp#startmeeting hyper-v15:00
openstackMeeting started Tue Oct 23 15:00:16 2012 UTC.  The chair is primeministerp. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.15:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.15:00
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'hyper_v'15:00
*** luis_fdez has joined #openstack-meeting15:00
primeministerpHi all15:00
primeministerpit's going to be a relatively quick meeting today15:00
primeministerpI'm very busy and alessandro is travelling15:00
primeministerplet's get started15:00
primeministerp#topic SD Summmit15:01
*** openstack changes topic to "SD Summmit"15:01
Hitesh_primeministerp: Ok15:01
primeministerpso we had a great summit15:01
primeministerplots of great interest in Hyper-v15:01
*** dkehn has joined #openstack-meeting15:01
*** joesavak has quit IRC15:01
primeministerpwe had aproximately 40+ people attend the discusssion/demo that alessandro and I gave15:01
Hitesh_primeministerp: Awesome15:02
primeministerpwe had great interest in hyper-v from all the big guys15:02
Hitesh_primeministerp: Sounds great !!15:02
primeministerppnavarro: would you agree?15:02
pnavarrocompletely agree15:02
Hitesh_pnavarro: :)15:03
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
primeministerpeven shuttleworth was impressed15:03
EmilienMsorry for late15:03
EmilienMI'm in classroom :)15:03
primeministerpEmilienM: no worries15:03
pnavarroAlessandro didn't even have time to have a lunch15:03
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
primeministerpit was also great to meet everyone in person15:04
Hitesh_primeministerp: Great !!15:04
EmilienMI can't stay anymore, sorry15:04
primeministerpwe were also able to make all the introductions to help for the grizzly push15:04
Hitesh_primeministerp: I hope you guys had a great time with each other15:04
pnavarrodon't worry EmilienM, I'll cath up later15:04
primeministerpHitesh_: very busy15:04
EmilienMI'll help with OVS & doc :)15:04
primeministerpEmilienM: perfect15:04
primeministerpEmilienM: i'll be in touch15:04
Hitesh_primeministerp: Pedro and I wll be more for Quantum15:05
primeministerpin terms of the design session15:05
*** EmilienM has quit IRC15:05
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC15:05
primeministerpit was basically the usual guys however vishy did make it for part of it15:05
primeministerpwe have some basic direction on key bits to work on15:05
Hitesh_primeministerp: did you get a chance to talk with Dan for Quantum?15:06
primeministerpspecifically around the rdp console integration as well as quantum15:06
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting15:06
Hitesh_primeministerp: Ok.15:06
primeministerpHitesh_: yes he did15:06
primeministerpHitesh_: as well as many others15:06
Hitesh_primeministerp: awesome15:07
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting15:07
primeministerpso that being said, development is probably going to start next week15:07
primeministerpin the mean time15:07
Hitesh_primeministerp: Pedro and I will start more dig into Quantum :)15:07
primeministerpI'd like people to continue testing the existing bits,15:07
Hitesh_primeministerp: sure, we will do15:07
primeministerpwe still need to test pedro's latest bits15:07
primeministerppnavarro: did it make it through?15:08
primeministerppnavarro: the cinder bits?15:08
Hitesh_primeministerp: Cinder one's?15:08
pnavarroprimeministerp: not yet, I check everyday and we need one more core approval15:08
primeministerppnavarro: so we're waiting on a plus +215:09
primeministerppnavarro: can you email the cinder ptl15:09
primeministerppnavarro: or did he review already15:09
pnavarroprimeministerp: yeah15:09
primeministerpso we need another cinder core +15:09
pnavarroprimeministerp: Yes, he already reviewed15:09
pnavarro#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14541/15:09
primeministerppnavarro: do you have the url to the review?15:09
primeministerpvishy: ping15:10
primeministerpvishy: any chance for a cinder review for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14541/15:10
primeministerppnavarro: can you ask on openstack-dev as well?15:10
primeministerpwe'll push to get this in this week15:10
*** ywu has quit IRC15:11
primeministerppnavarro: cc me on any emails15:13
primeministerper please15:13
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting15:13
pnavarroprimeministerp: any direction about what quantum plugins will be developed for Grizzly?15:13
primeministerpdoes anyone have anything else to add?15:13
primeministerppnavarro: alessandro is preparing a write up and we're going discuss it15:14
pnavarrogreat ! primeministerp15:14
primeministerpthat will not happen until next week though when he's back15:14
Hitesh_primeministerp: Ok.15:14
Hitesh_primeministerp: great !!15:14
primeministerpI believe he actually comes back on thursday15:14
Hitesh_primeministerp: please include me that mail thread as well, for quantum bits :)15:15
primeministerpanything from the CERN folks?15:15
luis_fdeznothing new... jose was wearing fashion new t-shirts...15:15
primeministerpluis_fdez: sorry I didn't have one for you15:16
luis_fdezhehe, no problem!15:16
primeministerpluis_fdez: my employer didn't pay for them, i did15:16
luis_fdezI was talking with jose and on Thursday we will all together get update about the summit15:16
*** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting15:16
primeministerpluis_fdez: I'll have one made for you when you go production w/ hyper-v15:16
Hitesh_primeministerp: did Jitendra meet you at the summit?15:17
luis_fdezthat sounds fair ;)15:17
primeministerpluis_fdez: lots of good discussion with Tim and Jose15:17
primeministerpHitesh_: he attended our discussion15:17
Hitesh_primeministerp: Great !!!15:17
primeministerpHitesh_: i met him briefly15:17
Hitesh_primeministerp: Cool,.15:18
pnavarroprimeministerp: I'd need your slides for Paris meetup15:18
luis_fdezok primeministerp, I think they got all the main information we need... also the resize  that came to my mind during the meeting15:18
Hitesh_primeministerp: same for me :)15:18
primeministerpluis_fdez: that will prob be added for grizzly15:18
Hitesh_primeministerp: please share your slides with me too15:18
pnavarrothat'd be cool to upload the slides in: http://www.slideshare.net/openstack15:18
primeministerpluis_fdez: i think alessandro has some of the bits15:19
primeministerppnavarro: they should already be linked from the summit15:19
primeministerppnavarro: however I'll look15:19
primeministerpI'll make sure the slides get on slideshare15:20
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"15:20
openstackMeeting ended Tue Oct 23 15:20:26 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)15:20
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2012/hyper_v.2012-10-23-15.00.html15:20
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2012/hyper_v.2012-10-23-15.00.txt15:20
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2012/hyper_v.2012-10-23-15.00.log.html15:20
*** Razique has joined #openstack-meeting15:21
*** pnavarro has quit IRC15:22
*** luis_fdez has quit IRC15:25
*** Hitesh_ has quit IRC15:28
*** hggdh has quit IRC15:29
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away15:30
*** henrynash has quit IRC15:31
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting15:33
*** dwcramer has quit IRC15:36
*** markmcclain has quit IRC15:39
*** joeswaminathan has joined #openstack-meeting15:40
*** tong|2 has joined #openstack-meeting15:44
*** hggdh has quit IRC15:44
*** tongli has quit IRC15:47
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting15:48
*** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting15:51
*** dwcramer has joined #openstack-meeting15:51
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting15:51
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC15:52
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net15:53
*** tong|2 has quit IRC16:03
*** tgall_foo has quit IRC16:03
*** tong|2 has joined #openstack-meeting16:03
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:03
*** shang has quit IRC16:04
*** shang__ has joined #openstack-meeting16:04
*** tong|2 is now known as tongli16:04
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting16:06
*** oubiwann has joined #openstack-meeting16:07
*** shang_ has quit IRC16:07
*** Razique has quit IRC16:08
*** rafaduran has quit IRC16:11
*** gatuus has joined #openstack-meeting16:14
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting16:16
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting16:16
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_brb16:18
*** markv_ has quit IRC16:19
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:19
*** joesavak has quit IRC16:19
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
*** markv_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
*** shang__ has quit IRC16:21
*** markv__ has joined #openstack-meeting16:22
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting16:22
*** shang_ has quit IRC16:23
*** markv_ has quit IRC16:25
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:25
*** markv__ has quit IRC16:27
*** markv_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:27
*** jhenner has quit IRC16:27
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC16:28
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:28
*** markv_ has quit IRC16:28
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting16:28
*** markvan has joined #openstack-meeting16:29
*** jsavak has quit IRC16:29
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk16:30
*** blamar has quit IRC16:30
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting16:31
*** dwcramer has quit IRC16:32
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting16:34
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting16:34
*** davidhadas has quit IRC16:36
*** davidhadas has joined #openstack-meeting16:38
*** guimaluf has quit IRC16:39
*** dkehn_brb is now known as dkehn16:40
*** shang has quit IRC16:44
*** larsks has joined #openstack-meeting16:44
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting16:46
*** gatuus has quit IRC16:47
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting16:48
*** gatuus has joined #openstack-meeting16:52
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC16:55
*** jakedahn_zz is now known as jakedahn16:55
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting17:03
*** shang has joined #openstack-meeting17:05
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting17:05
*** KurtMartin has joined #openstack-meeting17:06
*** anniec has quit IRC17:06
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting17:07
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting17:08
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting17:10
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting17:11
*** ywu has quit IRC17:11
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC17:17
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting17:18
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting17:20
*** hemna has quit IRC17:21
*** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting17:23
*** roampune has joined #openstack-meeting17:24
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away17:27
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:27
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting17:28
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting17:29
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net17:30
*** shang has quit IRC17:30
*** primeministerp has quit IRC17:33
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting17:36
*** ywu has joined #openstack-meeting17:39
*** shang_ has quit IRC17:40
*** darraghb has quit IRC17:51
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting17:51
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting17:51
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC17:52
*** rafaduran has quit IRC17:56
*** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting17:57
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC17:58
*** boden has joined #openstack-meeting17:58
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:00
bodenhi guys... Boden Russell from IBM here18:01
gyeeayoung, scoped token is on the agenda I imagine? :)18:02
*** BradKlein has joined #openstack-meeting18:03
ayounggyee, nah.  It is out of scope18:04
henrynashgyee, I assume you mean to continue the discussion on coping a token to multiple projects or domains?18:04
ayounggyee, we should probably review the major decisions from last week18:04
* heckj waves18:04
heckj#startmeeting keystone18:04
openstackMeeting started Tue Oct 23 18:04:47 2012 UTC.  The chair is heckj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:04
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:04
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'keystone'18:04
heckjhey boden! welcome all!18:04
ayoungheckj, I did a little bit of damage^H^H^H modified the agenda a bit18:05
*** afazekas has quit IRC18:06
heckjWarning - I've got a viscious headcold, so operating at significantly less capacity than normal18:06
heckjayoung: word18:06
ayoungviscous even18:07
heckjyeah, yucky18:07
heckjyou were busy18:07
heckj#topic high priority bugs18:08
*** openstack changes topic to "high priority bugs"18:08
heckjhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/14281/3 vs https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14208/18:08
ayoungSo, to make sure everyone is aware, unit tests on checkins were failing due to an expired cert for the SSL tests18:08
ayoungI was going through and rechecking all of the the ones that I knew of that failed due to that18:08
ayoungheckj, yea, I thought those were the same ticket dual submitted18:09
ayounglooks like you distinguished between them18:09
heckjthere was a pile of those backing on the SSL certs18:09
ayoung"please reset after https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14208/ has been approved and applied"18:09
ayoungcomment on 1428118:09
ayoungbut on 1420818:09
ayoungThis seems the same as https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14281/318:10
ayoungdolphm, ^^any comments?18:11
heckjthey functionally solve the same issue - I was leaning towards Dolph's patch, but mostly because I saw it first18:11
ayoungI think it is a duplicate patch submission18:11
ayoungjust one has a unit test.  Pick one to go in.18:12
gyeemaybe its too late for this, but I am not sure about this "if not ..." checks18:12
gyeewhy don't we do the schema check in one place?18:12
heckjdolph had a comment on 14281 wanting a change to the message, and 14281 had useful additional tests, so I'd like both in place18:12
ayounggyee, what do you mean?18:13
gyeeI understand dolph have the json schema18:13
gyeewe can check the json request against the schema for any missing parts18:13
gyeerather than having these "if not ..." all over the place18:14
heckjgyee: good point - but significantly deeper than this patch. If it covers all the back-use cases as well, I think that would be a great patch18:15
gyeemuch cleaner to have schema check in one place18:15
heckjgyee: agreed, without a doubt18:15
ayounggyee, +1  Care to open a ticket for that?18:15
heckjactually, a blueprint would be more appropriate - please open a BP for it18:16
heckj(rather than a bug)18:16
*** anniec has quit IRC18:16
heckjThierry keeps yelling at me...18:16
gyeeok :)18:16
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting18:16
heckjayoung: any qualms with approving https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14208/ and then requesting Alvaro to rebase on latest and get in the tests on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/1428118:17
*** mordred is now known as mtaylor18:17
*** mtaylor is now known as mordred18:17
ayoungheckj, none18:17
ayoungwill do18:17
heckjOkay - next topic: moving auth_token into keystoneclient18:18
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1039567 in keystone "auth_token middleware should be stand alone" [High,Triaged]18:18
heckjwe've got it prioritized high, and the impact will be changes to everyone's "paste" file as a part of the upgrade process to this18:18
heckjIt will resolve the issue of wanting auth_token middleware packaged separately, albiet at the cost of changing the namespace (which looked to be happening anyway)18:19
heckjayoung: anything else on that?18:19
ayoungheckj, agreed.  Think we need to get moving on this.  Who is going to take it.18:19
heckjayoung: you're most familiar with the signing code. gyee? henrynash? any interest in jumping into assist with some of this - very well constrained.18:20
henrynashI'd be happy to take it18:20
henrynashgood thing to start with18:21
ayounghenrynash, thanks18:21
ayoungIt is moving into Keystone Client18:21
ayoungand then the paste files for each of the projects need to be modified18:21
ayounglots of juggling18:21
henrynashok, I'll study and one back if I have questions :-)18:21
ayoungheckj, how do we reassign bugs?18:22
heckjhenrynash - what's your launchpad ID? I'll assign it over. Also, will hook you up with dtroyer, who can help review any changes to devstack to verify the switchover as we do that dance.18:22
henrynashhenry-nash (I think)18:22
gyeeayoung, paste file, you mean like nova api-paste.conf?18:22
ayounggyee, yes18:22
gyeewhat about devstack etc18:22
heckjgyee: that will need updating as well18:22
gyeeI wonder if we can setup a pointer/reference in Keystone18:23
heckjthe general two-step for this process is to replicate all the relevant code into keystoneclient, then update devstack to use keystoneclient, then submit patches to all the remaining projects to update their same paste.ini files18:23
ayoung this will need to be done in stages, keeping the exisiting setups working so devstack passes, and eventually removing the file keystone/middleware/auth_token.py  as a last step18:23
heckjAt the tail end, pull out the code from keystone when nothing is referencing it18:24
henrynashok, yep18:24
ayoungProbably should create a ticket for each of the other projects18:24
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:24
ayoungLets get the keystoneclient piece working first18:24
ayoungonce that change has been made, I will queue up the work on PKI that allows other services to sign tokens18:25
ayoungto keep too many hands from changing the same code18:25
ayoungactually, until the keystoneclient changes, lets have a moritorium on all changes to auth_token18:25
heckjhenrynash: don't hesitate to holler if things get tricky or you get stuc in process somewhere18:25
henrynashwill do, not known for being shy...18:26
heckjayoung: good idea on lockdown on auth_token, concider that enabled - core will keep an eye and pause any changes heading in there18:26
heckj#topic https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14167/ Should go before PKI Default gets rechecked18:26
*** openstack changes topic to "https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14167/ Should go before PKI Default gets rechecked"18:26
*** littleidea has quit IRC18:27
heckjayoung: I think this just needs reviews, but thank you for the head's up on prior to PKI changover18:27
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC18:27
ayoungheckj, are you OK with approving https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14167/  ?18:27
heckjayoung - yeah, based on prior - will do now18:28
*** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting18:28
ayoungI can do a follow on for any documentation18:28
heckjapproved and rolling in now18:28
heckjalso available for backport to folsom stable18:28
gyeewhy do we need issue time if id is unique?18:29
ayounggyee, ID is not unique18:29
ayoungin PKI tokens, SQL ID is the hash of the signed CMS message18:29
ayoungSo  issue-revoke-reissue could have an identical body.18:30
gyeeso salted hash :)18:30
heckjrequest for reviews: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14328/ <-- please review18:30
ayoungwith issue time, it makes sure the body is different for each one.  Since time out is 1 minute.18:30
ayoungheckj, should really be dolphm on 14328 since he objected.  I think his points were covered, but would prefer him to say himself.18:32
ayoungMaybe if I keep referring to dolphm the screen beeps will attract his attention18:32
bodenas noted in the agenda -- I have a REMOTE_USER change which is waiting for 14328 so would be nice to see that one resolved18:32
heckjdolphm: please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14328/18:32
ayoungboden, you can do the following18:33
ayounggit fetch https://ayoung@review.openstack.org/openstack/keystone refs/changes/28/14328/2 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD18:33
ayoungthen, in your branch, cherry pick that commit18:33
ayoungand rebase -i so it is in front of your change.  Then, when you submit your patch, it should show "depends on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14328/"18:34
bodenayoung - fair enough.. git n00b here so was hoping to not get into extensive workflows for this one, even though I need to learn them I have limited bandwidth right now18:35
heckjboden: yeah, the other option is to just wait, but that puts the wait and check burden on you18:36
heckj#topic Overview of Sessions/Decisions from Summit18:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Overview of Sessions/Decisions from Summit"18:36
ayoungheckj, not really an option, as he needs to work up some unit tests, and that can be done up front.  Waiting will delay.18:37
ayoungheckj, ah decisions!18:37
bodenayoung -- unti tests are done18:37
ayoungboden, rock on!18:37
ayoungso one decision that I think people will find interesting is from multi factor18:37
heckjayoung has been anxiously awaiting those tests18:37
ayoungwe will start encoding what form of authN was used to generate the token18:38
ayoungso to do multi factor,  submit for one token,  then use that token to get another, and the authN set grows18:38
ayoungI think it is an elegant solution, and then it puts the onus on the policy writers to consume that18:39
*** EmilienM has quit IRC18:39
heckjayoung: resolved to leaving it to end services to validate multi-factor based on the authN annotations?18:39
heckjOr is there an expected auth_token middleware update to count for 2+ assertions, etc.18:39
ayoungheckj, possibly, but could even be on the authenticate method in Keystone18:39
heckj(or variation on that theme)18:40
ayoungheckj, I think first step is getting the mechanism in18:40
ayoungsecond is figureing out how people want it enforced.18:40
heckjmechanism = adding assertions onto token with AuthN usage18:40
ayoungI could see an argument that you don't want to hand out tenant-scoped tokens until all the multi-factor rules are met18:40
heckjsounds good - I'm with that18:40
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_afk18:40
heckjseems like my dream of killing unscoped tokens is dying away :-)18:41
ayoungheckj, no, they are just getting renamed to "starting tokens"18:41
heckjdavid's point of assertions on the tokens is a good one though18:41
ayoungheckj, we need them to make sure we reimplement *all* of Kerberos in Keystone18:42
gyeeayoung, is mechanism going to baked into the token string?18:42
ayounggyee, I don't think so18:42
gyeein token access?18:42
*** kindaopsdevy has joined #openstack-meeting18:42
ayoungmechanism is probably going to be a swappable function, with the default being "get starting token with user Id an password, and use that to get tenant/endpoint scoped tokens.:18:43
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting18:44
ayounggyee, authenticate has been in desperate need for a refactor for some time.  Maybe as part of this effort, we'll break it apart into a series of rules that we can then mix and match.  Separate functions, and some way of saying "rules apply in this order"18:44
gyeeI was thinking PAM/JAAS style18:44
gyeeabstracting authentication and token validation, like like driver/manager backend18:45
ayounggyee, that would tie in with the Pluggable Auth Blueprint, too18:45
heckjgyee: what's PAM/JAAS?18:45
ayoungheckj, a typo.  He meant Pajamas18:45
ayoungheckj, PAM is Unit18:45
ayoungJAAS is Java18:45
gyeePAM = Pluggable Authentication Module18:45
gyeeI think18:45
heckjyep, ok18:45
ayoungJava Authentication and Authorization Services18:46
ayoungin both case, pluggable modules registered with the system18:46
ayoungin the case of PAM, in /etc/pam.d18:46
ayoungJAAS is in A JDK specific location.18:46
* heckj updated the blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/multi-factor-authn with some of the above detail on plan of attack18:46
gyeeI was going to do it as part of generic access key authentication18:47
*** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:47
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC18:47
*** salv-orlando_ is now known as salv-orlando18:47
gyeeI can take another crack at it if you guys want18:48
ayounggyee, yeah.  Make sure you get boden's change in there18:48
heckjsounds good18:48
ayounghttp://fpaste.org/UvUH/  is the heart of the Java security configuration from my system18:49
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates18:49
ayoungfrom /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-openjdk.x86_64/jre/lib/security/java.security18:49
ayoungbascially says, try each of these classes in order.  Then, something like Tomcat can modify when authenticating.18:49
gyeeayoung, sorry I miss the first part, which one is boden's change?18:49
ayounggyee, REMOTE_USER18:50
ayoungthat is going to be one of the auth mechanisms allowed.18:50
gyeewhich review?18:50
bodenayee -- its not submitted for review yet, but its ready to go including unit tests.. I'm waiting on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14328/18:50
gyeeok thanks18:50
ayoungthat is from18:51
ayounggyee, I'd say the PAM format is probably the clearer of the two18:52
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting18:52
gyeeyeah, that should give us authn18:52
heckjgyee: assigned you to the blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/pluggable-identity-authentication-handlers, which I think covers this work (boden, you wrote it up, so correct me if I'm wrong)18:52
ayounggyee, I would really like it if the default configuration was in Python code, for debugging/clarity, with the overload being specified in something like paste18:52
gyeeayoung, everything will be in Python18:53
gyeeI promise18:53
ayounggyee, I would also allow for configuration in paste18:53
ayoungthere are places where they can't change python code, but they can edit config files18:53
ayoung5 minutes lefrt18:54
ayoungOK  other decisions from summit18:54
gyeeresource collections18:55
gyeeaka, groups18:55
ayoungwe are going to indicate on a token which user signed it.  Then, the X509 certs will be associated with a user18:55
gyeebout time18:55
*** EmilienM has joined #openstack-meeting18:55
*** hemna has quit IRC18:55
henrynashso on groups….are we aiming at something more broad, or just UserGroups?18:55
ayoungthis will provide enough info to someone that is trying to validate a token as far as who signed the token18:56
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting18:56
henrynashayoung: sorry, finish your topic first18:56
gyeehenrynash, we can start with user groups, then expend it if needed18:56
heckjthe user groups have a very clear and immediate use case, and make a good first-step starting point there18:57
gyeeI agree18:57
henrynashagreed.  I suggest i put together a bp for disussion18:57
ayoungonce we have Id of "who signed" we can distribute the load of signing tokens18:57
gyeeayoung, +1 on signer identifier18:58
ayoungso in the cases where user auth's to Horizon18:58
ayoungthe horizon user will sign the starting tokens18:58
heckjwhcih means it'll be dependent on getting the signing code into keystoneclient to allow that client code to sign?18:58
dolphm(sorry i completely missed the meeting -- i'm catching up)18:58
ayoungheckj, yes18:58
ayoungheckj, that is my intent, I'll wait until I am just modifying client code before making any changes18:58
*** fungi has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
*** rafaduran has quit IRC18:59
heckjayoung: sounds good - we'll want to marry that with a convience method in policy to react to that information to allow policy files to be crafter to support it18:59
ayoungheckj, yes, and may need to indicate it in the set of signing credentials, too19:00
*** pabelanger has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
*** olaph has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
heckjhenrynash: definitely +1 to putting together a blueprint for usergroups19:00
gyeehenrynash, I can help as well19:01
ayoungdolphm we were trying to untangle a few reviews due to cross communication etc.  One for you is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14328/19:01
*** pabelanger has joined #openstack-meeting19:01
heckjGoing to wrap this so CI can have the room19:01
ayoungSince you had the -1 comments before, we felt is fair to wait for you to say it was OK to submit19:01
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"19:02
openstackMeeting ended Tue Oct 23 19:02:04 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:02
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2012/keystone.2012-10-23-18.04.html19:02
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2012/keystone.2012-10-23-18.04.txt19:02
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2012/keystone.2012-10-23-18.04.log.html19:02
dolphmayoung: thanks19:02
clarkbmordred: jeblair fungi19:02
fungiit's that time again!19:02
fungiolaph appears to be present as well19:03
heckjgyee: henrynash thanks!!!19:03
fungiand pabelanger19:03
fungisounds like a quorum19:03
pabelangerfor a bit, on a mobile connection19:03
russellbon my mobile connection.19:04
russellbpabelanger: it's going to cost you19:04
clarkbhmm have we lost jeblair and mordred?19:04
pabelangerrussellb, lies... kicked me off for burning up your bandwidth19:04
jeblair1 sec19:05
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC19:05
*** anniec has quit IRC19:06
*** dkehn_afk is now known as dkehn19:07
*** ywu_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:08
*** BradKlein has quit IRC19:08
jeblairvery sorry about that19:08
jeblair#startmeeting ci19:08
openstackMeeting started Tue Oct 23 19:08:45 2012 UTC.  The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:08
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:08
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'ci'19:08
jeblair#topic actions from last meeting19:09
*** openstack changes topic to "actions from last meeting"19:09
jeblairfungi: we're still waiting on the foundation server for the CLA thing, yeah?19:10
*** rnirmal has quit IRC19:11
fungiyes, toddmorey e-mailed me last week to say that he has something mostly working but was too busy to meet up with the summit going on19:11
fungiso i'm waiting to hear back from him now that things are hopefully cooling down again19:11
jeblair#action toddmorey provide a test foundation server19:11
*** gatuus has quit IRC19:11
*** ywu_ has quit IRC19:12
jeblair#topic summit19:12
*** openstack changes topic to "summit"19:12
jeblairSo we were all pretty busy at the summit19:12
clarkb#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/state-of-ci19:12
mordredwait, we were all at the summit?19:13
pabelangerclarkb: Thanks for the link19:13
*** s0mik has quit IRC19:13
jeblairMonty is going to translate those items into bugs19:13
mordredI am19:13
mordredI'm so happy about it19:13
jeblair#action mordred bugify summit actions19:13
mordredif people could go through other todo list items they got from the summit19:13
mordredand add them to that (or just make bugs from them)19:13
mordredI'd appreciate it19:13
mordredI'm also going through the current grizzly list and getting rid of or re-prioritizing cruft19:14
jeblair#action everyone collect action items from other summit session etherpads and register as bugs19:14
pabelangerlook at that 1 commit behind all of redhat for CI commits19:14
pabelangerrussellb: ^19:14
jeblairpabelanger: nice showing!19:15
jeblairany particular summit-related topics we should discuss here?19:15
fungii've renewed work on the continuously updating tags for branches on gerrit19:16
fungibased on (brief) discussions at the summit19:16
fungimore or less people agreeing with what jeblair and i already talked through19:16
clarkbjeblair: the idea for a hosted log server might be worth bringing up19:17
jeblairfungi: +1, and i saw you updated the bug19:17
fungiclarkb: YES PLEASE19:17
jeblairclarkb: yeah, why don't you give an overview?19:17
clarkbeveryone is testing openstack, but other than smokestack and us no one is reporting test results. Apparently companies make it hard to host their own results, but it was suggested that if we could provide a place to put logs people could just upload them there19:18
pabelangerI'd be interested in getting more information about salt and puppet from the summit.  If somebody has a URL / presentation handy19:19
clarkbalso, we really need to make logs.o.o more easily consumed. The potential is there to fix these two problems with one handy log server setup19:19
clarkbcurrently I am looking at logstash because it seems fairly configurable and there aer puppet modules to make it go (also their logo is awesome)19:20
fungiahh, i remember the testlog server discussions now. i was confusing that with the proposal for a central logserver for our infrastructure19:20
jeblairfungi: perhaps those needs overlap a bit.19:20
*** jaypipes has quit IRC19:20
mordredjeblair: ++19:21
fungijeblair: potentially19:21
clarkbif anyone has had experience with logstash or similar I am definitely interested in chatting19:21
fungilast time i set up logservers it was rsyslogd and tenshi19:22
jeblairpabelanger: nothing's coming to mind.  i'm sure lots of people were talking about those things, but i wasn't there.19:22
jeblairpabelanger: other than some nice conversations we had with Ryan_Lane, but i think you know most of that.19:22
fungipabelanger: my only recollection of salt/puppet getting mentioned from a ci perspective was in the "state of ci" session19:22
mordredyeah - the only thing is what we've talked about in channel19:23
mordredthat being, we'd like to start using salt to orchestrate our puppet runs19:23
mordredso that we can make zuul trigger salt to immediately make changes on merge, rather than waiting for a double cron19:23
pabelangerjeblair: cool.19:24
pabelangerfungi: /nods19:24
jeblairobjections to moving on to server status/upgrades?19:25
olaphpabelanger: the only slides I can find are from a demonstration Dan Bode gave: http://www.slideshare.net/bodepd/openstack-grizzley-puppettalk19:25
jeblair#topic server upgrades19:25
*** openstack changes topic to "server upgrades"19:25
jeblairSo, we upgraded servers!19:25
clarkbwe did! it was awesome and we got 99% of it all working19:26
pabelangerolaph: Ooo, checking it out. Thanks19:26
clarkbthe gerrit and jenkins master servers (all four) are now on rackspace nova19:26
pabelangerjeblair: clarkb congrats19:26
clarkband have been upgraded to precise19:26
jeblairas is etherpad.o.o, which was also migrated from a sekrit rackspace server to one publicly managed by the infra team19:27
fungiat this point there are no known regressions, right? just some new features we can't implement quite yet19:27
clarkbin theory this also gives us ipv6 connectivity but openssh server apparently tickles a bug in ovs so as a precaution we have not created AAAA records for the two production servers yet19:27
clarkbfungi: yup. I haven't heard any screaming. jgriffith did lose a pad but the link had the wrong url19:28
fungisaw that. didn't sound like a bug, just a typo19:28
clarkband the new etherpad hasn't melted down yet which is good19:29
fungiaside from the usual jenkins bugginess, since reverted19:29
jeblairclarkb: and we have system-level monitoring of it with cacti!19:29
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting19:29
* fungi is very excited about cacti19:29
jeblair#link http://cacti.openstack.org/cacti/graph_view.php19:29
*** gatuus has joined #openstack-meeting19:30
jeblairbtw, for ram, i just pulled a number out of a hat when i made the etherpad host. it said 4g.19:30
jeblairit looks like that was generous.19:30
fungiis cacti running on a dedicated vm?19:30
jeblairfungi: yes19:31
fungiso if we also wanted to throw nagios or something on it down the road, that would probably be doable19:31
jeblairfungi: yep19:31
jeblair#topic grenade / quantum19:32
*** openstack changes topic to "grenade / quantum"19:32
pabelangerfungi: shouldn't be too hard.  I'd be able to help with that.  Use it with our asterisk instances19:32
fungipabelanger: cool. used it a ton myself over the years (long before it changed its name)19:32
jeblairtwo devstack variants have been requested: grenade upgrade testing, and quantum.19:33
*** afazekas has quit IRC19:33
jeblairi'm very close to being able to run grenade (next step: move the grenade project into openstack-dev)19:33
jeblairand i have set up a silent job for quantum so that nachi can finish getting that working19:33
*** rkukura has quit IRC19:34
*** arbrandes has quit IRC19:34
jeblairon a related note, we should find out if people are okay with us not running n-vol tests for master, since n-vol and cinder are in folsom, i think n-vol may be deprecated now?19:34
jeblairjgriffith, vishy: ^ do you have an opinion on that?19:35
mordredanotherjesse said that we could go ahead and till that19:35
fungibut continue running them for stable/folsom and stable/essex updates right?19:36
jgriffithjeblair: I'm ok with it (I think)19:36
jeblairfungi: i reckon so.19:36
jgriffithjeblair: we shouldn't be making changes to nova-vol any longer so...19:36
jeblair#action jeblair deconfigure n-vol testing on master19:37
jeblair#topic testr and friends19:38
*** openstack changes topic to "testr and friends"19:38
clarkb#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14611/19:38
clarkbI figured we needed to do a small proof of concept for testr and friends on a project that would be easy enough that this whole thing won't lose traction19:39
mordredtestr and testtools and fixtures are super cool19:39
clarkbso with lifeless' help I hacked the above change for python-novaclient to use testr instead of nose19:39
jeblairclarkb: good plan19:39
*** koolhead17 has joined #openstack-meeting19:40
mordredlifeless: we like your libraries19:40
fungilifeless is an awesome librarian19:40
clarkbI had to switch from unittest2 to testtools, update the base test class to capture stdout and save it in the subunit stream, correct setUp and tearDown methods (need to call parent class methods)19:40
clarkband some boilerplate config stuff in tox.ini and testr.conf19:41
clarkbThe current things we are missing are coverage, realtime output of test results, and human readable test logs19:41
mordredclarkb: the changes to do testtools and setUp/tearDown should be landable without testr yeah?19:41
lifelessclarkb: technically you get realtime output19:42
*** annegentle-nz has joined #openstack-meeting19:42
lifelessclarkb: its just less IN YOUR FACE19:42
clarkbmordred: yes, I think I should pull those out into another change and rebase things19:42
mordredlifeless: s/realtime/IN YOUR FACE ANSI COLOR realtime output/19:42
*** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz19:42
jeblairlifeless: what realtime output is there currently?19:42
lifelessjeblair: it outputs errors as they happen.19:42
clarkband failures19:42
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting19:42
mordredjeblair: it does what standard nose/unittest runs do without the openstack nose plugin19:43
lifelessall classes of things going wrong.19:43
mordredjeblair: ....F...E... etc19:43
lifelessmordred: nope19:43
lifelessmordred: it doesn't19:43
*** arbrandes has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
mordredI thought I saw .'s yesterday19:43
lifelessjeblair: it outputs anything outcome that will make the run be considered not-ok, as and when it happens.19:43
lifelesswith all its attachments etc.19:43
jeblairso what other requirements are there driving the desire to implement something else?19:44
jeblairi'm not sure blindly re-implementing openstack-nose-plugin without targeting specific goals is the best idea.19:44
mordredprior experience I had trying to get us to plain nose before19:44
*** pabelanger has quit IRC19:44
*** EugeneNikanorov has joined #openstack-meeting19:45
mordredthe people who have approval access have keeping that output as a requirement before they'd merge the change19:45
*** pabelanger has joined #openstack-meeting19:45
mordredit's possible that we can convince them that the new features outweight the loss19:45
*** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting19:45
jeblairmordred: yeah, but i seem to recall one specific objection was, eg, outputting either a "." or a test description rather than the test name.19:45
jeblairmordred: so since testr-default-output != plain-nose-default-output, we should re-evaluate.  :)19:46
mordredindeed ... and I think super-quick test runs might please people ... but I also think that writing an ansi color filter for subunit output shouldn't be terrible19:46
mordredHOWEVER, you make a good point19:46
mordredso when we have the rest of everything working, we'll have a chat with people to determine whether or not the color thing is important to them19:47
jeblairi think identification of slow tests may have been a use-case too.19:47
lifelesstestr slowest19:47
clarkbfor the other two issues: we can potentially get away with nose for coverage and subunit logs as the log files in the short term19:47
jeblair(and that one in particular driving the color thing)19:47
lifelessjust run that :)19:47
jeblairyeah, so lets see what the actual issues are, and perhaps there might be a more intelligent way to solve them other than expecting nova devs to stare at a screen identifying colors for 11 minutes while 3800 tests run.19:48
mordredyeah ... the more we have to teach them how to run something new ...19:48
mordredvishy: ping19:48
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting19:49
jeblairmordred: we can tack on things like "testr slowest" in the tox config, right?19:49
clarkbjeblair: yes, however tox short circuits on failure19:49
mordredvishy: if we could reduce test run time by 10x or more and still had sensible output for slow things and failures, but lost the current color output formatting, would that be a non-starter?19:49
clarkbjeblair: so we may need a lightweight wrapper like 'bash -c 'testr run --parallel ; testr slowest'19:50
lifelessclarkb: you probably want pipefail there19:50
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:50
lifelessclarkb: or perhaps something a little more sophisticated - preserve $? from testr run --parallel19:50
koolhead17danwent, around?19:50
jeblairclarkb: _if_ people care about slow test runs on failure (they might?)19:50
clarkblifeless: good point19:50
clarkbjeblair: I think they should care on each run19:50
mordredthere is also the possibility that if hte system is sane and all, we can just show people how to do stuff with testr directly ...19:51
mordredI just don't want to get bogged down in perception of regression19:51
clarkbthe tl;dr is yes we can add it to tox. it will just be a little ugly19:51
clarkbhowever you don't see that ugly when running tox -efoo19:51
danwentkoolhead17: what's up?19:52
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC19:52
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting19:52
*** anniec has quit IRC19:53
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec19:53
koolhead17danwent, i changed the doc repo to released ubuntu cloud repo, it was testing at time guide was written.19:53
jeblairkoolhead17: we're having a ci meeting in this channel19:53
koolhead17jeblair, srry :(19:53
jeblairanyone else have something to say about testr?19:54
jeblair#topic open discussion19:54
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion"19:54
jeblair5 mins left!19:54
fungiany bacon shortage updates?19:54
mordredI currently have no bacon19:55
fungithat sounds like a bug19:55
*** pabelanger has quit IRC19:55
jeblairi am fresh out.  but i will be eating more iberian ham soon, which makes me happy.19:55
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting19:55
* clarkb is going to try and take the afternoon off if mordred doesn't scream about it19:55
fungii hope to have the commit-merged hook module for gerrit to update tags on review-dev checked in for review later this afternoon19:56
fungithen you can all kick it around19:56
jeblairi'm playing around with graphite for collecting and displaying stats for devstack jobs (and maybe later, all jenkins jobs).19:56
fungii'm changing commit-merged into a .erb though so we can pass vars into it. hopefully that doesn't meet with concern19:57
jeblairfungi: that should be fine in principle.19:57
fungisince it will technically affect both review and review-dev from that perspective19:57
jeblairoh, and jenkins-job-builder is getting more contributors!19:58
fungisaw that. very exciting19:58
jeblairfungi: and loops and loops and loops...19:58
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"19:59
openstackMeeting ended Tue Oct 23 19:59:16 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:59
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2012/ci.2012-10-23-19.08.html19:59
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2012/ci.2012-10-23-19.08.txt19:59
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2012/ci.2012-10-23-19.08.log.html19:59
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
ttxTC members: who's around ?20:00
*** jhenner has quit IRC20:00
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC20:00
* russellb waves20:00
ttx(we need a minimum of 7 members to hold the meeting)20:00
ttxand... 720:00
ttxheckj, vishy, markmc, jaypipes, bcwaldon ?20:01
heckjheckj o/ (sorta)20:01
russellbmarkmc is out all week, not sure if he was planning to join ...20:01
ttx#startmeeting tc20:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Oct 23 20:01:42 2012 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.20:01
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'tc'20:01
*** olaph has left #openstack-meeting20:01
ttxThe agenda for the meeting is at:20:01
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/TechnicalCommittee20:01
ttxWe have a bit of ground to cover today so let's start20:02
ttx#topic Motion: Nomination of Ryan Lane to the User committee20:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Motion: Nomination of Ryan Lane to the User committee"20:02
ttxSo this is just a formal confirmation that we nominated Ryan Lane to set up the user committee together with Tim Bell (nominated by the BoD)20:02
* heckj seconds20:02
ttxI went to all of you last week to get your agreement, so this should just be a matter of making it part of our first meeting minutes...20:02
ttxAnyone with a last-minute objection ?20:02
russellbsounds good to me.20:03
jgriffithnone here20:03
gabrielhurleyno objections20:03
annegentle-nzsounds great20:03
ttx#agreed Ryan Lane nominated to the original self-bootstrapping user committee20:03
*** Ryan_Lane has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
ttxRyan_Lane: you just missed your coronation20:03
*** hemna has quit IRC20:03
ttx#topic Motion: Ceilometer application for incubation20:03
*** openstack changes topic to "Motion: Ceilometer application for incubation"20:03
* nijaba waves20:03
ttx#link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2012-October/000016.html20:03
* dhellmann o/20:03
ttxA few preliminary remarks on Incubation before we start the discussion...20:03
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC20:04
ttxThere is an upcoming discussion to have on the Incubation / Core promotion process, together with the Board of Directors20:04
ttxThey should file a request to see the topic discussed soon20:04
ttxIn particular, we'd like to avoid that projects follow the full incubation track only to be vetoed by the BoD at the very end of the process20:04
ttxThat said I see no reason to delay the decision on Ceilometer incubation20:04
russellbthey can veto it?20:04
ttxIncubation is about pushing common resources to a project that we think is promising20:04
*** s0mik has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
ttxrussellb: they can veto a project that we recommend for core yes. They can't veto Incubation per se20:05
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
*** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
notmynamettx: it's more than a nursery, though20:05
ttxSo Incubation is about asking CI, QA and release management to work together with the incubated project20:05
ttxso that it can be ready to become a core project for the next cycle20:05
* bcwaldon and vishy join the party20:05
ttxSo it's necessary to become a core project, but it's not sufficient20:05
* nijaba notes that they have been very helpful already20:05
mordredwe missed bcwaldon and vishy20:05
ttxWe'll have to clarify this with the BoD, but if the project is deemed out of the scope of OpenStack then it might just drop off Incubation status20:06
ttx...and if that happens I'd rather have it happen early rather than late20:06
mordredor is it possible that a project stays in an incubated state indefinitely?20:06
notmynamemordred: I hope not20:06
ttxmordred: well then the drain on common resources is unwarranted20:06
ttxWith that in mind, let's open the discussion on this application20:06
gabrielhurleyMy impression is that the incubation period is also somewhat about holding the project accountable to a higher standard, e.g. they're ready to play nice with the ecosystem... right?20:06
mordredok. just clarifying20:06
ttxHow about discussing Technical qualities and readiness first, then Project management, then Core scope20:06
ttxgabrielhurley: yes20:07
ttxit's about proving you can align, given the help20:07
ttxOn the technical qualities, the design and code looks generally good to me...20:07
jgriffithFrom my perspective they have demonstrated that pretty well already20:07
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC20:07
ttxOpinions on the technical side ?20:07
gabrielhurleyThey're pushing in the right directions in terms of their integration with other core projects and helping standardize things, which is a big + for me.20:08
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting20:08
russellbno objections here.20:08
vishyI don't have any complaints about the technical choices or direction20:08
russellbinterfacing at the right level, working hard to help move openstack-common forward to help address their use cases, ... good stuff.20:08
vishyfor me it is whether or not metering fits in with core iaas components20:08
gabrielhurleythe only thing I'd like to see them focus on technically is fleshing out their API a bit more20:08
ttxOK, let's switch to project management then, if it makes sense technically for everyone20:09
ttxFrom a project organization perspective, I think Ceilometer was a good example of how it should be done "the openstack way". Starting from scratch...20:09
mordredsame as above, project management they've been responsive and interactive20:09
ttxlooking for integration points, using common, etc20:09
*** colinmcnamara2 has joined #openstack-meeting20:09
gabrielhurleyno objections on project management20:09
russellbyep, seem to have been working hard to do things the openstack way20:09
russellbgood openness, communication20:09
annegentle-nzTechnically they are sound for devs to contribute and in interacting with common, but I haven't seen much about interaction with operators or a roadmap for H? Is that forthcoming?20:10
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC20:10
gabrielhurleyI heard some informal roadmap talk from them at the summit20:10
gabrielhurleyI think if prompted it would be forthcoming in a more formal way20:10
ttxnijaba: care to expand on that ?20:10
dhellmannannegentle-nz: we had a lot of conversations with potential users during the summit, and are working on our roadmap20:10
nijabaannegentle-nz: our roadmap was at http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering/RoadMap but we exepanded quite a bit our scope at the summit, so we'll have to update it soon20:11
nijabaNew objective since the Grizzly summit: The project aims to become the infrastructure for all measurements within OpenStack.20:11
annegentle-nznijaba: Awesome. The goals for the project are highly desired in operations as far as I can tell from doc search data.20:11
*** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting20:11
nijabaand lots of good discussions have happened that way20:11
ttxOK, any more comment on the project management/integration side before we discuss Core scope ?20:11
koolhead17annegentle-nz, i see a good document in place already :)20:12
markmcsorry I'm late20:12
* markmc very happy with ceilometer technically and project management wise20:12
russellbhey markmc20:12
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC20:12
ttxOK then the less obvious part, core scope20:12
*** colinmcnamara2 has quit IRC20:12
markmcimho, you can't run a cloud without billing20:12
ttxPersonally, with the extended scope of the project (metering and monitoring), having a central place to collect metrics about your running cloud infra sounds like a good addition to any cloud20:13
markmcseems pretty essential20:13
mordredsame here20:13
russellbso, one way i think about this part is, how many people operating openstack need it?20:13
russellb(most of them, IMO)20:13
ttxIt's definitely a supporting service...20:13
gabrielhurleyIn my mind the objective of "measuring" is much more aligned with Core than "metering" and having been looking at what it currently takes to measure things in any one project let alone all of them I think it's very valuable. As Horizon PTL I can say that having another project in core that experiences the pain of consuming *all* the projects is a plus to me.20:13
*** boden has quit IRC20:13
ttxEven if it doesn't fall in to the "necessary" category of supporting services (like Keystone), it seems to fall into the "best practice" category (like Horizon)20:13
*** dprince has quit IRC20:13
ttxAnd since it's more of a collection service than an action service, it doesn't stretch the definition of openstack core that much20:13
ttx(for most definitions of it :)20:13
ttxOther opinions on that ?20:14
russellbwell most people using openstack probably have to invent their own version of this right now20:14
* russellb didn't read any objections ...20:14
bcwaldonrussellb: multi-tenant clouds, yes, what about private clouds?20:14
jd__russellb: this is the case from what we heard and was one of our initial motivation, indeed20:14
ttxOr let me know if you're all ready to vote20:14
russellbi think private clouds too, for doing chargeback20:14
nijababcwaldon: Ryan_Lanecould advocate the need for metering without billing20:15
mordredI think the horizon example is a good one20:15
annegentle-nzI think it's a good project to scope to enable adoption without having everyone re-invent the wheel20:15
markmcbcwaldon, billing/metering is pretty essential for private clouds too20:15
russellbholding groups accountable for the resources they consume20:15
ttxor have more questions for the Ceilometer crowd first20:15
koolhead17markmc, +120:15
bcwaldonok, just wanted to hear the thinking20:15
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting20:15
mordredin terms of it being 'best-practice' but not required20:15
vishyone other thing we should consider20:15
gabrielhurleyyeah, "showback" even if not "chargeback" is definitely a want for private clouds20:15
russellbgood way to look at it20:15
annegentle-nzJust heard that you're also working on Operators docs? It's seriously the most searched for topic so the demand for docs is high.20:15
vishywe have to be careful with moving projects to core in the case that it will kill the ecosystem20:16
ttx.. and good measurement is key to healtg monitoring as well20:16
*** arbrandes_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:16
jgriffithvishy: can you explain a bit for me?20:16
*** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting20:16
vishyso if there are competing projects for example we need to be careful about giving a stamp of approval to one20:16
ttxvishy: that's a good argument, but I don't think that's the case here. It actually enables an ecosystem in my view20:16
markmcpeople might be upset if ceilometer is blessed but their billing project isn't20:16
vishybefore it has been fought out in the market.20:16
jgriffithvishy: ahhh20:16
markmchow many other billing projects are are as mature and openstack-like?20:16
*** arbrandes has quit IRC20:16
russellbthat's an interesting point.20:17
gabrielhurleygiven the pain involved in extracting measurements right now, the only way an ecosystem could form to fill this gap is if all the projects uniformly adopt much better mechanisms for exposing data that needs measuring.20:17
mordredthat is an interesting point - although I am not currently aware of any competing projects20:17
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
ttxmarkmc: ceilometer doesn't do billing though.20:17
dhellmannmarkmc: we've been very careful to limit ourselves to *measuring* things without actually billing for them, because there are a lot of billing tools20:17
nijababut since we do not do billing, only measurment, that shold be help for them, not threat20:17
mordredI think it's a good thing to keep in mind in general though20:17
vishyconsidering there goal of being pluggable to billing systems I think we are ok in that department20:17
gabrielhurleyI'd see a "billing" project sitting on top of ceilometer20:17
russellbso what else exists that is comparable then?20:17
vishybut there is definitely some overlap with synapse and heat20:17
markmcthere was a nova-billing thing20:17
markmcthere are proprietary solutions20:17
koolhead17gabrielhurley, +120:17
markmcno overlap with heat, for sure20:17
dhellmannvishy: we're talking with the heat folks about sharing code, and are looking at synaps now, too20:18
ttxwell synaps overlaps with heat quite a bit, that's for sure20:18
notmynamemarkmc: but proprietary systems are part of the ecosystem too20:18
russellbis there code out for synaps yet?20:18
vishymarkmc: cloudwatch and ceilometer monitoring overlaps doesn't it?20:18
russellbif not, it doesn't exist IMO.20:18
nijabamarkmc: indeed, heat even triggered a very heathly discusison and change of scope20:18
ttxrussellb: now yes20:18
vishyrussellb: yes the code is out20:18
russellbok cool.20:18
markmcnotmyname, as are proprietary object stores :)20:18
nijabajd__: did a good analysis of the synaps code20:18
jaypipesvishy: not really... heat and cloudwatch overlap, IIRC20:18
mordrednotmyname: totally - but I think if it's something that needs interfaces with things - having an open source bit that fills the spot enables the proprietary systems20:18
ttxanyway, that doesn't seem to be an objection, mpore of a concern to add to our checklist20:18
vishyI actually don't see any reasonable conflicts, I just want to make sure that we consider all of these things20:19
*** joesavak has quit IRC20:19
vishyit should be something that we consider whenever we are promoting20:19
ttxReady to vote ? More comments or questions ?20:19
mordredvishy: ++20:19
russellbdefinitely a good point for when heat comes up, more overlap there right now20:19
markmcvishy, ok, yeah - cloudwatch is an extension of ceilometer's current scope20:19
markmcvishy, I'm pretty happy that the heat and ceilometer guys have been working well together on monitoring20:19
jd__FYI http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2012/openstack-synaps-exploration talks about the overlaps20:19
vishymarkmc: ++20:19
markmcvishy, and monitoring makes more sense in ceilometer than heat20:19
* russellb is ready to vote ...20:20
annegentle-nzI think ceilometer's limited scope is their proof they'll make OpenStack stronger20:20
ttxannegentle: interesting way to look at it, but quite true20:21
*** tongli has quit IRC20:21
ttxStarting the vote in 30 seconds unless someone objects20:21
*** arbrandes_ has quit IRC20:21
ttxNote that according to our charter we need strictly more "yes" than "no" for approving20:21
ttxand at least 5 "yes" (or "no") to come to a permanent approval/rejection20:21
danwentdo we have a final statement on scope?20:21
annegentle-nzttx do you have instructions for voting for newbies? :)20:21
uvirtbotgabrielhurley: Error: "^^that" is not a valid command.20:22
jgriffithdanwent: good question... ?20:22
markmcdanwent makes a good point20:22
danwentjust that it seems like many people running openstack might also use this?  I think we're setting a standard that will be used to judge other projects as well.20:22
markmchow do we ensure projects don't grow unlimited in scope?20:22
danwentso i'd like to be a bit more crisp if possible.20:22
ttxdanwent: it's in the incubation application. "The project aims to become the infrastructure for all measurements within OpenStack."20:22
markmcdo we say "come back to us if you want to grow your scope dramatically?"20:22
notmynameso if "many people running openstack" use something, does it get to be in core? is that the guideline now?20:23
ttxwell, any change of scope should be submitted to the TC20:23
ttxdropping large amounts of functionality is also not ok20:23
russellbttx: is that formalized anywhere?20:23
mordredalso, I thnk if someone else thinks that they (or anyone) are exceeding their mandate, that can also always be raised ...20:23
ttxrussellb: except in PPB pre-history ? Not really20:23
markmc"measurements" seems like an overly broad scope, at first glance20:23
gabrielhurley"dropping large amounts of functionality"... so Nova should be dropped from Core for excising the volumes code, right? ;-)20:24
danwentsorry, I thought we were going to talk about the scope of what should or should not be a core project.  or ttx, did I misunderstand your earlier comment?20:24
markmce.g. precluding other services for monitoring or performance analysis20:24
bcwaldonI'm actually curious about the stated vs implemented scope of the existing projects - does that exist somewhere?20:24
ttxdanwent: we've been doing that for the last 10 minutes ?20:24
ttxstarting at: <ttx> OK then the less obvious part, core scope20:24
danwentyes, but I'd like to see an actual statement summarizing what we decided.20:24
nijabaPrevious mission statement: The project aims to deliver a unique point of contact for billing systems to aquire all meters they need to establish customer billing, across all current and future OpenStack core components.  <-- this is what we are more or less covering at the moment20:24
dhellmannmarkmc: We don't do a lot of analysis of the things we're measuring now. We leave that up to the consumers.20:24
markmcdhellmann, right, but even collecting performance measurements20:25
ttxdanwent: a definitive answer on what should or should not be a core project is out of scope (haha) for this meeting20:25
dhellmannmarkmc: I see20:25
markmcdhellmann, current statement of scope would make it sounds we won't allow other new projects to do such things, that ceilometer should do all that20:25
danwenti.e., is our measuring stick "it seems like many openstack clouds would need this", how we measure if something should become a core project?20:25
ttxdanwent: we can work on that but I expect it will take a few meetings ;)20:25
markmcdhellmann, why 'measurements' and not 'metering' as the project's scope?20:25
danwentttx: ok20:26
russellbmetering implies usage data, right?  measurements much more broad, includes anything and everything?20:26
nijabamarkmc: because of the extension we discussed with heat and other project to allow for a generic infrastructure for monitoring and alerting20:26
dhellmannmarkmc: Based on our conversations at the summit with the Heat and StackTach folks, we thought it made sense to collaborate beyond metering for billing and cover measuring things for other purposes, too. We discovered areas we could reuse code, data, etc.20:26
danwenti'm personally very happy with the ceilometer stuff, just concerned about approving it without a more clear statement that would give us guidence on any other project.20:26
notmynamedanwent: there is no formalized "scope of openstack" doc anywhere20:26
ttxdanwent: that's work in progress20:27
markmcnijaba, that conversation to extend the scope seems to be in progress though, vs ceilometer being well proven for metering20:27
ttxnijaba: so would you call your official name.. OpenStack Metering ? Measuring ?20:27
russellbright now it's gut feeling?  heh.20:27
nijabamarkmc: true indeed20:27
mordredalthough I agree with danwent that having such a scope doc would be nice20:27
ttxrussellb: it's always been that way so far :P20:27
gabrielhurley+1 to eventually getting a clear definition of scope, but not today20:27
russellbgotta start somewhere, it's all good.20:27
* mordred also interested in ttx's 'official name' question20:27
nijabattx: at the moment metering, if all goes well for grizzly, measurement20:28
notmynamelikewise, I think the project is solving a real need, but I don't know that it's good as a core project20:28
danwentmy gut feeling is that the ceilometer team is doing a good job, and that it will be useful to many deployments, so I guess i'll go with that for now :)20:28
ttxor maybe "OpenStack Metrics"20:28
*** zykes- has joined #openstack-meeting20:28
* annegentle-nz likes metrics service20:28
nijabattx: nice20:28
* jaypipes notes that when he hears "metering", he thinks of rate limiting20:28
russellbmetrics implies analysis though20:28
russellbmeasurements does not20:28
markmcmetrics precludes another service doing performance or monitoring metrics20:28
mordredOpenStack numbers collection and stuff?20:29
annegentle-nzmordred: nice20:29
russellbmordred: awesome.20:29
jaypipeshow about "metric collection and aggregation"20:29
ttxyay bikeshedding20:29
markmcwhy do we not like 'metering'?20:29
markmcextend the scope later if it works out20:29
annegentle-nzif the project is voted for core today, is it grizzly they'll first be in?20:29
ttxMarkAtwood: no need to come up with final name before core inclusion request anyway20:29
annegentle-nzif so we can just go to measurement20:30
russellbannegentle: maybe or maybe not, that's another step20:30
ttxannegentle: no20:30
ttxwon't be core until H anyway20:30
nijabaour hope is that our future agent model shold precludes having to rewrite agents for collecting metrics in other projects20:30
annegentle-nzttx: ok20:30
russellbah right..20:30
ttxhas to go through the whole dev cycle20:30
ttxok, ready to vote for Incubation ? Not core.20:30
* heckj ready20:30
* jgriffith has been ready20:30
mordredso ready20:30
* annegentle-nz ready20:31
gabrielhurleylet's do this20:31
russellbgo go go20:31
ttxOk Dope, let's do this20:31
ttx#startvote Approve Ceilometer application for incubation? yes, no, abstain20:31
openstackBegin voting on: Approve Ceilometer application for incubation? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain.20:31
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.20:31
markmc#vote yes20:31
mordred#vote yes20:31
gabrielhurley#vote yes20:31
ttx#vote yes20:31
heckj#vote yes20:31
russellb#vote yes20:31
danwent#vote yes20:31
annegentle-nz#vote yes20:31
jgriffith#vote yes20:31
jaypipes#vote abstain20:31
notmyname#vote abstain20:31
ttxvishy, bcwaldon...20:32
bcwaldon#vote abstain20:32
vishy#vote yes20:32
* ttx wonders if he missed anyone20:32
notmyname#vote no20:32
ttxclosing in 30 seconds20:32
openstackVoted on "Approve Ceilometer application for incubation?" Results are20:33
openstackyes (10): markmc, ttx, vishy, annegentle-nz, heckj, russellb, jgriffith, mordred, gabrielhurley, danwent20:33
openstackabstain (2): bcwaldon, jaypipes20:33
openstackno (1): notmyname20:33
ttxbcwaldon, jaypipes, notmyname: care to expand ? Could be useful for ceilometer folks to improve in the future ?20:33
ttxnot clear from previous discussion why20:34
dhellmannor for future applicants20:34
ttxthough "lack of clear definition of core and good separation of power with BoD" certainly qualifies IMHO20:34
russellbi'd like to see the scope solidified during incubation20:35
russellbof Ceilometer that is20:35
danwentI for one would like to see more clarity on what we think belongs in core.20:35
ttxBoth we should address in the next months20:35
notmynameI don't think we should be adding new projects before we have a good definition of what openstack core is. we are in a huge danger of scope creep (not to mention the raised issues of ecosystem development). I think they are working on solving a very real need, but I can vote +1 on that alone20:35
ttxnotmyname: fair enough20:35
russellbi guess i was banking on the fact that incubation doesn't mean they'll become core20:35
notmynamerussellb: it always has in the past20:35
russellband i sure hope we clarify that before anything else becomes core20:35
* markmc thinks we need to discuss the meaning of incubation/core/core etc. outside of the context of any particular application20:35
ttxrussellb: same here, that's why I did that long intro20:35
danwentI voted yes in that I didn't want to slow down the process of them eventually becoming core, assuming the definition of core puts ceilometer in scope20:35
annegentle-nzdanwent: good summary20:36
russellbttx: *nod*20:36
danwentmarkmc: +120:36
ttxmarkmc +120:36
ttxOK, next topic20:36
ttx#topic Discussion: Third-party APIs20:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Discussion: Third-party APIs"20:36
nijabathanks guys20:36
gabrielhurleyyep, incubation very well may *not* mean core if we clarify what "core" means before the incubation period is up.20:36
ttxvishy: want to kick this one?20:36
dhellmannthanks, everyone!20:37
vishyso way back in the day20:37
vishywe voted that 3rd party apis did not belong in the core projects20:37
russellbdhellmann: nijaba etc, nice work, guys20:37
vishybut that the projects should attempt to enable 3rd party apis20:37
*** markvan has quit IRC20:38
vishyso we have made steps in nova towards the end of eventually being able to split out ec220:38
vishyawsome seems to be totally dead20:38
mordred(and agpl)20:38
vishyand now there is a new api ready to be proposed for nova (google compute engine)20:38
ttxPlease note that no formal decision can be made today on this, per our charter -- but the discussion will help vishy draft a proper motion20:39
russellbat least one, if not one or two others ...20:39
*** joeswaminathan has quit IRC20:39
ttxMotion = push it to openstack-dev + openstack-tc for community discussion 4 business days before the next meeting20:39
vishyduring the summit we had a discussion about whether it was worth it to continue to block apis20:39
vishyconsidering the greater cost of testing and integration if we split them out20:39
vishyand the consensus in the meeting was that it would be much easier to just leave them in20:39
vishyso the question is, should we revisit the decision20:40
bcwaldonI'm more interested in doing it *right* rather than fast, especially when it means we're blessing more APIs20:40
bcwaldonand throwing everything in the repo lets us get sloppy20:40
vishybcwaldon: but what is right? forcing them to talk through the public api?20:40
vishyand adding a bunch of extensions for extra functionality?20:40
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC20:40
markmcthere were two benefits to keeping internal - performance and not needing to make a stable public performant API20:40
* jaypipes really not a fan of adding these things to Nova... they below as extensions/middleware IMHO20:41
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting20:41
markmcthere's the ideal theory, and the reality of what work folks are actually showing up with20:41
bcwaldonvishy: I'm not specifying implementation20:41
russellbi'm assuming the burden to keep them up to date is on the submitter/maintainer of the API20:41
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting20:41
ttxIIRC Swift used the current decision to separate some parts out -- would reversing the decision mean it could be put back in ?20:41
bcwaldonvishy: just assuming we will have more solid internal APIs if we don't throw everything into the repo20:41
jgriffithPersonally I feel the Openstack API should be the first class citizen, others should be outside of core20:41
markmce.g. folks showing up with internally implemented gce code, no-one showing up with a public stable performant api for building other apis on20:41
vishyi don't think we'd be asking for a revert, just the option of either way20:41
*** mikal has quit IRC20:41
gabrielhurleyI like solid APIs, and I'm not a fan of them being in nova, but I'm also not a fan of letting each 3rd=party API project halfass their own implementations externally. neither option seems great.20:42
bcwaldonI also don't want third-party APIs driving us to implement orthogonal things20:42
gabrielhurleythough I suppose bitrot in core is as likely as outside20:42
bcwaldonlike file injection or passwords20:42
russellband if it bitrots, we rip it out (like hyper-v)20:42
*** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting20:42
vishyI think if we decide that outside is the right way to go, the only way we can prove that architecture works is putting ec2 outside and making it talk through the openstack api and ensuring it works20:43
notmynamethe cost to swift of implementing additional APIs comes mostly at the cost of additional developer and review time (and the mismatch of one api for a different implementation). I'm still opposed to adding things like CDMI and S3 into swift itself20:43
bcwaldon+1 to both vishy and notmyname20:43
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting20:43
vishyessentially I think we have 3 paths forward in nova20:43
vishy1) make a stable internal version ov compute.api and provide a way for 3rd parties to talk to it (via rpc?) and make ec2 use that20:44
markmcnotmyname, that assumes the developers of that api don't become part of the project's developer team20:44
vishy2) make 3rd parties speak through the rest api and port ec2 to use that20:44
vishy3) allow 3rd party apis into core20:44
russellbmarkmc: i'm thinking that's a requirement to have a new API in20:44
vishyall 3 of those are painful, so the question is which is the least painful.20:44
ttx(3) is clearly the path of least resist=ance, but not a big fan of it20:44
mordredI like 2 the best, but I'm not doing any of the work20:44
annegentle-nzvishy: what does "port ec2 to use that" entail?20:44
notmynamevishy: what's the difference in 1 and 2?20:45
*** ijw1 has quit IRC20:45
vishy1 is a stable api that already exists20:45
* markmc thinks (3) gives a nice new feature, new developers, no additional work with no volunteers, ...20:45
*** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk20:45
vishyall of the existing api consumers use the internal implementation though20:45
lifelesswin 6220:45
vishyso there is a lot more work to port things in 220:45
markmccompute.api is not a stable api20:45
bcwaldonmarkmc: should it be?20:45
russellbvishy: and i'm not really comfortable signing up for all of that to be considered a stable public API20:45
markmcbcwaldon, yes, if we're telling external projects to build on it20:46
*** arbrandes has joined #openstack-meeting20:46
jog0how do options 1,2 handle metadata services?20:46
gabrielhurleyI'm a fan of #1 because it doesn't proliferate HTTP calls all over the place.20:46
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting20:46
markmcjog0, annoying little details aren't welcome here :)20:46
bcwaldonmaking compute.api stable has several benefits20:46
russellbbut i don't know how practical it is20:46
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting20:47
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting20:47
notmynamegabrielhurley: that's an implementation detail that may not apply to all projects20:47
vishyjog0: that is a solvable problem i think but yes it is a little tricky20:47
vishynotmyname: note that I'm not suggesting in any of the options that we require 3rd party apis be allowed in20:47
vishynotmyname: 3rd party apis remaining outside makes perfect sense for swift20:48
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:48
notmynamevishy: no, the arguments can be made both ways. seems that a good argument to include a 3rd party API is a good argument because it can be applied to all projects20:49
*** jsavak has quit IRC20:49
jgriffithAt some point I think the notion of a *stable* api is going to have to be addressed20:49
jgriffithThe only question for me given the options is if now is the right time20:49
ttxjgriffith: if that's where we are heading anyway, implementing another option in the mean time sounds like wasted effort ?20:50
* ttx doesn't like when there is no good solution20:50
*** colinmcnamara2 has joined #openstack-meeting20:50
vishyso can we get a quick show of hands on whether a proposal to revert the ppb decision is worth it?20:50
annegentle-nzvishy: can your proposal include a draft roadmap?20:50
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC20:50
annegentle-nzvishy: I think a proposal will help20:50
vishyannegentle-nz: for what as the goal?20:51
annegentle-nzvishy: to help clarify timing20:51
vishyI don't want to temporarily move these things into core20:51
annegentle-nzvishy: right, but wondering if it's a G thing or an H thing, that sort of timing20:51
vishyif they are coming in then I don't think there will be a good reason to remove them.20:51
markmcvishy, perhaps the proposal should be to add 'nuance' to the previous decisions :)20:51
vishyannegentle-nz: well number 3 which i'm proposing doesn't take any time at all20:51
vishyI can't do number 3 without violating the ppb edict20:52
annegentle-nzvishy: heh, true that20:52
markmcvishy, e.g. the previous decision said that projects should aim to provide a public stable performant api for 3rd party apis to build on20:52
ttxit just adds technical debt in a more obvious way than the others20:52
markmcvishy, we're IMHO really saying that if no-one shows up to do that work, we shouldn't reject new 3rd party apis20:52
notmynamethe choice between 1 and 2 should be made internal to nova. the question of [(1 || 2) || 3] should be made by the TC, IMO20:52
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC20:53
ttxLooks like this is not crystallizing into a clear choice yet20:53
mordrednotmyname: ++20:53
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
jaypipesttx: does it ever? :)20:53
vishynotmyname: well the question of wether to allow 1&2 or 3 is tc20:53
vishyso far it has decided only 1||2 not 320:54
*** ameade has quit IRC20:54
notmynamevishy: right20:54
*** ameade has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
ttxtime is running out, I propose we continue that discussion in next meeting20:55
vishynotmyname: ok I will put together a real proposal for this, although I'm still wondering if it is worth the time20:55
ttxor decide on a motion if it's proposed by then20:55
* russellb thinks it is20:55
ttxvishy: there definitely is a need, there just isn't lazy consensus around any particular solution20:55
*** colinmcnamara2 has quit IRC20:55
markmcIMHO discussion should be on openstack-dev20:56
ttxOther topics are postponed to next meeting as well, which brings us to the next topic20:56
markmcand folks with strong opinions should bring them up there20:56
*** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting20:56
*** dolphm has quit IRC20:56
russellbmarkmc: +120:56
ttxmarkmc: yeah, hasting the discussion there should definitely give us more input20:56
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting20:56
markmcrather than just vote against any motion rather than taking part in the discussion20:56
*** koolhead17 has quit IRC20:56
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting20:56
ttxmarkmc: well motions need to be discussed on openstack-dev, but in this case, it sounds useful to gather input even before proposing motion20:57
ttx#topic Date/time for next meeting20:57
*** openstack changes topic to "Date/time for next meeting"20:57
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:57
ttxSo... I won't be around for next week meeting20:57
russellbsame time next week works for me.20:57
markmcttx, yep20:57
ttxLeaving us with 3 options:20:57
ttx1/ Skip it and have the next one on November 620:57
ttx2/ Have it at the regular time, without me (volunteer chair ?)20:57
ttx3/ Have it next week, but on a different day (suggestion: Wed at 2100 UTC)20:57
ttx(on another note, Europe abandons DST next Sunday, so we enter confusion zone)20:57
markmcall 3 work for me20:57
mordred3 is halloween, just for people who  care20:58
ttxwould prefer 1 or 320:58
gabrielhurley1 or 220:58
*** iccha has joined #openstack-meeting20:58
annegentle-nz2 or 3 for me20:58
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC20:58
annegentle-nzspooky TC meeting?20:58
heckj1 or 2 better for me20:58
ttxmordred: how fast do you need discussion on your topics ? Can wait Nov 6 ?20:58
mordredI cannot be here nov 6 at 2100 UTC20:58
ttxthat simplifies20:58
ttxso 2 or 320:59
mordredso if we don't do it next week, we'll do it nov 1320:59
ttxI prefer 320:59
mordredI mean, we could wait until nov 1320:59
ttxmordred: that would create a bit of backlog20:59
mordredit just means we're going to be not changing anything about build slaves until then20:59
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting20:59
ttxanyone that says 2 needs to volunteer for chairing :)20:59
mordredI can chair, since I've got the contentious issue?21:00
ttx[I'll still organize the agenda]21:00
* jgriffith will vote for 2 now :)21:00
ttxok then - 2 with mordred chairing. Objections ?21:00
annegentle-nzmordred: ttx: I can chair since mordred has to discuss? If needed.21:00
*** famao has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
heckjworks for me21:00
mordredcool by me21:00
*** dolphm has quit IRC21:00
ttxmordred: that's 21:00 local time for you21:01
ttx(where you'll be)21:01
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"21:01
openstackMeeting ended Tue Oct 23 21:01:18 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:01
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2012/tc.2012-10-23-20.01.html21:01
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2012/tc.2012-10-23-20.01.txt21:01
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2012/tc.2012-10-23-20.01.log.html21:01
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:01
*** markmc has quit IRC21:01
ttxAnd now ttx realizes he chairs two consecutive meetings21:01
ttxmarkmc, heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, jgriffith, vishy, gabrielhurley, danwent: still around ?21:02
russellbttx: because you're awesome like that21:02
russellbmarkmc is out, but i can be his openstack-common rep.21:02
danwentheckj +121:02
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
ttx#startmeeting project21:02
openstackMeeting started Tue Oct 23 21:02:31 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
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'project'21:02
ttxAgenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting21:02
ttx#topic Design Summit feedback21:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Design Summit feedback"21:02
ttxWhile it's hot, any comment on the OpenStack Summit in general, and the Design Summit track in particular ?21:03
notmynamethe content/audience match was off for me21:03
ttxDid the format work OK ? (4 days with 4 parallel topics + 1 unconference, running parallel to rest of Summit)21:03
MarkAtwoodi enjoyed being there, but i was notincg a scaling issue with the design meetings21:03
*** koolhead17 has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:04
jgriffithI think paralell introduced some challenges in the design sessions21:04
ttxMarkAtwood: as in too many people in design summit sessions ?21:04
russellbby day 4 of design summit sessions i was fried.21:04
gabrielhurleyI missed being able to attend more of the "use case"-type talks, but otherwise didn't mind the format.21:04
*** annegentle-nz has quit IRC21:04
ttxMy voice was fried on day 121:04
danwentyeah, i felt like there were a lot of "conference" people in the "summit" session.  Also, after 3 days of sessions, I was fried.21:04
heckjmore user feedback during sessions == goodness, but less brainstorming/design that didn't go off the rails with lots of relatively uninformed voices21:04
russellbyeah, i didn't get to any of the non-design sessions, which would have been nice21:04
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting21:04
vishy4 days was pretty brutal for nova21:04
jgriffithBut having people asking how object store in cinder works in design sessions was wasteful21:05
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
ttxvishy: could you have done with less ?21:05
russellbsome of the nova sessions could have been vetted more and then not done at all21:05
* vishy didn't notice the issue that danwent and notmyname are mentioning21:05
gabrielhurleythough I agree on the occasional audience mismatch, I also found I ended up talking to people who otherwise wouldn't have been in design sessions and that's (occasionally) good for growing the base.21:05
vishymaybe they flocked to quantum and swift :)21:05
russellbso we probably could have done 3 days of good sessions21:05
jeblairquantum had a huge number of quiet people in the room...21:05
russellbzomg networkz21:06
ttxthe trick is that there is no good way of refining attendance, short of making the design summit invite-only..; which sends the wrong message21:06
heckjquantum was attrociously packed21:06
jgriffithttx: I think splitting helped with some of that21:06
lloyddethe user sessions were over cap too21:06
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:06
ttxso plan B (try to attract business types in other rooms) kinda worked21:06
MarkAtwoodit may be worth social engeineering, put in the conference schedule, the guids, and in signs on the doors to the sessions21:06
danwentwell, i think its really that there's the overlap between the conference and the summit, and conference people decided to hang out in sessions, even though there was no intent to contribute code, and no experience using openstack.21:06
jgriffithdanwent: ++++121:07
MarkAtwood"this is an advanced session, not a training session, please contribute if you are up to speed"21:07
MarkAtwoodrewritten for grace and diplomacy, of course21:07
danwentif this happened for jgriffith but not vishy, perhaps its more for the newer projects where people are more curious21:07
ttxMarkAtwood: there were pretty obvious signs that they were entering development zone21:07
jeblairsince "ci" topics were on a separate track, it meant that we often didn't get people we would have liked.  having more PTLs to talk about testr and distribution support would have been esuful.21:07
ttxbut maybe we can separate the events more21:07
*** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:07
danwentttx: that is my thinking21:07
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:07
ttxNext time, 4th floor !21:07
ttxOr solve a riddle to get there21:08
jgriffithNo escalator!21:08
russellbwith a scary entrance21:08
danwenthaha… time separation > space separation21:08
gabrielhurleyEven just marking how "advanced" a particular session is might be helpful21:08
*** ywu_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:08
ttxtime separation won't work. They will come21:08
danwentit was better before we combined days21:08
MarkAtwoodrequire foundation membership and/or signed contributoir agreement?21:08
jgriffithRegardless, it was workable but I was done by Thursday for sure21:09
danwent(at least from my perspective)21:09
vishyhow about a terminal where you have to do a series of git commands to unlock the door21:09
danwentvishy: ++21:09
jgriffithvishy: Nice!!!21:09
koolhead17vishy, :P21:09
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:09
jeblairvishy: a lot of devs would fail that.  :(21:09
jgriffithI say we vote!21:09
*** ywu_ has quit IRC21:09
ttxok, well if you've a good suggestion, please send it my way21:09
jgriffithcan you clone the nova repo?  You're in21:09
*** joesavak has quit IRC21:09
russellbor a simple python task ...21:10
ttxsince format on the next one should be decided pretty quickly21:10
ttxby default, the same format will be done again21:10
ttxthough we can discuss separation / special badges21:10
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
* jgriffith will start training for it21:10
ttxand/or reducing days / parallel tracks21:10
ttx#topic Grizzly release schedule21:10
*** openstack changes topic to "Grizzly release schedule"21:10
ttxWe looked into the proposed schedule at the Design Summit21:11
ttxHere is the final proposal:21:11
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/GrizzlyReleaseSchedule21:11
ttx(no change since Friday)21:11
* gabrielhurley likes special badges21:11
ttxerr Thursday21:11
ttxBusiness summary: It is the same as the Folsom schedule, with one additional week in the second milestone to account for the Christmas holidays.21:11
ttxAny comment before we officialize it ?21:11
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:12
ttxI guess not.21:12
*** hemna has quit IRC21:12
ttx#agreed http://wiki.openstack.org/GrizzlyReleaseSchedule21:13
ttx#topic Oslo status21:13
*** openstack changes topic to "Oslo status"21:13
ttxrussellb: hey21:13
ttxSo I added Oslo (openstack-common library name) as a regular status report in this meeting21:13
russellbsounds good.21:13
ttxrussellb: does markmc want to track the blueprint work at launchpad.net/openstack-common or launchpad.net/oslo ?21:13
russellbso out of the summit, moving forward with libraryification is the #1 priority21:13
ttxneed to create a grizzly series wherever you prefer21:14
russellbgood question.  we already have a lot of history in openstack-common ... can be it be moved?21:14
ttxit.. can. Might be shorter to rename project though21:14
ttx#action ttx to see with markmc to move openstack-common to oslo21:14
*** roampune has left #openstack-meeting21:14
ttx#action ttx to create grizzly series wherever needed21:15
ttx(and milestones)21:15
russellblooks like oslo-cfg is the targeted first library release21:15
ttxThe idea is to come up, in the next two weeks, with a good roadmap for Grizzly objectives21:15
ttxGet people to file blueprints, set series goal to "grizzly" where appropriate... prioritize them and target to a given milestone21:15
russellbk, markmc will be back next week, i don't think it will be a problem to work through the roadmap before 2 weeks from now based on summit output21:16
ttxwe might need to clarify the versioning question first21:16
ttx#action ttx to discuss oslo versioning with mordred and markmc21:16
russellbcool, don't think I have anything else to report21:16
ttxrussellb: Anything else you wanted to mention ?21:16
ttxQuestions on Oslo ?21:16
ttxbcwaldon: go for it21:17
bcwaldonI'd like to hear an explanation of the scope of Oslo21:17
bcwaldonand what code should live there21:17
russellbcode useful for multiple openstack projects, but not necessarily generally useful outside of openstack21:18
bcwaldonrussellb: thats still rather generic, no?21:18
russellbit is, indeed.21:18
russellbbut Oslo will not be one library21:18
bcwaldonrussellb: ok, if thats then intention, then ok21:18
russellbthe plan is to have multiple libraries released under the oslo namespace21:18
ttxhttp://wiki.openstack.org/CommonLibrary has a good set of rules of thumb21:18
bcwaldonrussellb: and I'd love to hear when we can consume Oslo as an importable library rather than carrying it everywhere21:18
bcwaldoni might just be out of ze loop21:19
russellbasap basically, but it's one API at a time21:19
heckjbcwaldon: +1 - I know it's the top priority21:19
russellbso oslo-cfg will be the first library21:19
bcwaldonok, carry on then21:19
ttxAny other question ?21:19
russellbunderstand the managed copy-paste thing is a pain, but hopefully it's better overall than unmanaged copying around21:19
bcwaldonrussellb: yes, but only slightly21:20
ttxmarkmc had a good list of library candidates at the summit session, he should be able to publicize it more clearly21:20
ttx#topic Keystone status21:20
*** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status"21:20
ttxheckj: o/21:20
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/grizzly21:20
ttx#action ttx to create milestones according to Release Schedule21:20
heckjcollating blueprints from the summit and starting to work out who's going to do what21:20
ttxheckj: you should already be able to target the ones that will land in grizzly-121:20
ttxheckj: same as oslo, the idea is to come up with a good roadmap in the next two weeks21:21
heckjttx: agreed21:21
*** colinmcnamara has left #openstack-meeting21:21
ttxSet the series goal for all the relevant ones to "grizzly"21:21
ttxYou can also clean up https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone by setting some of them obsolete/superseded21:21
ttxNote that there is one that was "proposed" for Grizzly, that you may want to review @ https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/grizzly/+setgoals21:22
heckjstarted, but not complete in both spaces, as well as generally prioritizing them all21:22
ttxheckj: Cool. Anything else ?21:22
ttxDid your sessions go well ?21:22
heckjgreat feedback at the summit, looking to take the general interest into solid implementation over the next couple of months21:22
ttxQuestions about Keystone ?21:22
ttx#topic Swift status21:23
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status"21:23
ttxnotmyname: hi!21:23
ttxAny idea what your next version should be called ? 1.8.0 ? 1.7.6 ?21:23
ttxI'd like to create the first Grizzly milestone for you so that stuff can be targeted to it -- maybe we can pick a name and rename it later if you change your mind ?21:23
notmynamewe're still tracking for 1.7.5 on trunk21:23
ttxmaybe I should just call it 1.7.5 and rename it if needed later ?21:24
notmynameso far, I expect this one to be 1.7.421:24
ttx#action ttx to create 1.7.5 milestone in swift/grizzly21:24
ttxAlso you have one "proposed for Grizzly" blueprint in https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/grizzly/+setgoals that you may want to review21:24
ttxnotmyname: anything else ? How were the Swift sessions at the Design Summit ?21:24
notmynamethe sessions were ok. lot's on interested but uninformed people at the design sessions. but we had some good discussions at times21:25
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting21:25
notmynameoverall I'm excited about what things will be added in grizzly21:26
ttxRe: uninformed people: be sure to mention that in the official survey that should come out soon -- will give us more leverage to negociate more separation21:26
ttxQuestions on Swift ?21:26
*** mtreinish has quit IRC21:26
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting21:26
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:26
ttx#topic Glance status21:27
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status"21:27
ttxbcwaldon: o/21:27
bcwaldonhey hey21:27
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/grizzly21:27
ttxLooks well advanced already...21:27
*** Ryan_Lane has left #openstack-meeting21:27
bcwaldonwhy thank you21:27
ttxYou might want to parse https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance and mark obsolete/superseded accordingly21:27
bcwaldonhavent been able to do the first pass of tactical planning after the summit yet21:27
ttxand try to come up with a reasonable grizzly plan two weeks from now21:28
ttxdoes that sound doable ?21:28
bcwaldonset the bar low21:28
ttxWell, I'll skip next week's meeting, so ... ;)21:28
ttxbcwaldon: Anything else ?21:28
bcwaldonI did want to thank all those that attended the Glance summit sessions21:29
bcwaldonthey were very targeted21:29
bcwaldonwe had all the discussions we needed to21:29
ttxI missed them all, hope you wren't alone in those21:29
bcwaldonnot at all21:29
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:29
ttxnot too much noise / people without a clue ?21:29
bcwaldonnope, Glance is rather small and unintersting21:29
ttxLooks like it's only Swift/Quantum that were invaded21:30
ttxopenstack-common and Process were alright21:30
ttxQuestions on Glance ?21:30
bcwaldonGlance only had 3 sessions, so we didnt give the masses much of a chance21:30
ttxPick boring titles, that's the key21:30
bcwaldonyou've figured me out!21:30
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:30
ttx"Stable branch maintenance"21:30
bcwaldonImage Workers21:30
ttxbcwaldon: lol21:31
bcwaldonthat was for you, markwash21:31
bcwaldon...moving on21:31
ttx#topic Quantum status21:31
*** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status"21:31
ttxdanwent: hey21:31
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/grizzly21:31
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting21:31
ttxDon't forget to set priorities when you add a blueprint to the "grizzly" series goal21:31
danwentat team meeting yesterday we went over all key blueprints that need to be filed for g-121:32
ttxSame as others, now is a good time to go through https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum and mark obsolete/superseded accordingly21:32
danwentbut i'd say about 2/3 have not yet been filed21:32
ttxA number of blueprints have been "proposed" for grizzly, so you might want to review them at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/grizzly/+setgoals21:32
danwentyup, makes sense21:32
ttx8 in there21:32
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:33
ttxSo yeah, start with G1 objectives, and try to come up with a longer grizzly roadmap in two weeks time21:33
ttxdanwent: Anything else ?21:33
ttxQuestions on Quantum ?21:33
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:33
ttxEven if we don't have a meeting next week, expect me to push for blueprints by IRC pings... just no need to have another meeting to say "one more week!"21:34
ttx#topic Cinder status21:34
*** openstack changes topic to "Cinder status"21:34
ttxjgriffith: o/21:34
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/grizzly21:34
jgriffithhey there21:34
ttxNothing in there yet :)21:34
jgriffithI have 2 weeks to clean this up :)21:35
ttxThere are two proposed @ https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/grizzly/+setgoals21:35
ttxLooks like you can also parse https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder for good grizzly candidates21:35
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:35
ttxand obsolete/supersede the others21:35
ttxHow dod the Cinder sessions go ?21:35
jgriffithYep, we're in the process of creating session outcomes to bp's21:35
*** ijw1 has quit IRC21:35
jgriffithReally well for the first Cinder summit (IMO)21:35
jgriffithsome sessions had the looky-lou problem21:36
jgriffithbut all in all21:36
ttxGot enough time to discuss what you needed ?21:36
jgriffithyes, I think any more time would've just caused more trouble21:36
ttxjgriffith: Anything else ?21:36
ttxQuestions on Cinder ?21:36
ttx#topic Nova status21:37
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status"21:37
ttxvishy: o/21:37
creihtcinder rooms could have been larger :)21:37
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:37
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/grizzly21:37
ttxAlso 7 proposed at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/grizzly/+setgoals21:38
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:38
vishythere will be a lot more in there21:38
ttxand loads of potential cleanup in https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova as always :)21:38
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting21:38
vishyI'm currently going through session notes and trying to crystalize them into decisions and blueprints21:38
vishyprobably will take me until next week21:38
ttxvishy: is two weeks reasonable to come up with a realatively sane grizzly roadmap ?21:38
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:39
vishytwo weeks seems reasonable21:39
ttxvishy: you mentioned you could have done with less Nova at the summit ?21:39
vishywell i just was fried by the end21:40
ttxwhat would have been the good length ? 3 days ?21:40
vishyI think 3 days for nova21:40
vishyand a day off to peruse other tracks or sleep21:40
vishywould be good :)21:40
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:40
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:40
ttxthen have other connected topics on the 4th day (process/qa/common etc)21:40
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates21:40
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:40
* ttx tries to internalize all feedback21:40
ttxvishy: Anything else ?21:41
*** Dorogs has joined #openstack-meeting21:41
vishynothing for me21:41
ttxvishfacts: Vish can attend all sessions of the Design Summit.21:41
ttxQuestions on Nova ?21:41
gabrielhurleyvish doesn't attend the design summit, the design summit attends vish.21:41
ttx#topic Horizon status21:42
*** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status"21:42
*** littleidea has quit IRC21:42
ttxgabrielhurley: I didn't follow, were you Dope or Stack ?21:42
gabrielhurleyI was Terrence Dope21:42
ttxyou'll always be Terrence Dope now21:42
ttx#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/grizzly21:43
*** henrynash has quit IRC21:43
ttxLooks pretty good to me already :)21:43
gabrielhurleyyeah, I've been grooming it21:43
ttxYou might want to parse https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon and mark obsolete/superseded the ones that are polluting the view, if any21:43
gabrielhurleyI opened a whole slew of new blueprints after the sumit21:43
ttxrather than let them pile up21:43
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:43
gabrielhurleythey're actually more-or-less all correct21:44
gabrielhurleyand should be targeted to either G or H21:44
ttxgabrielhurley: did you end up having enough, or too much time on the Horizon topic for the summit ?21:44
*** patelna has joined #openstack-meeting21:44
gabrielhurleyjust about right. I spend most of my Horizon time talking about cross-project stuff anyhow.21:44
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:44
ttxgabrielhurley: anything else ?21:45
gabrielhurleyattendance was good, and the sessions were excellent. thanks for everyone involved!21:45
gabrielhurleycan't think of anything urgent. I've got some stuff to bring tothe mailing list in the next week or so.21:45
ttxI really enjoyed the process ones I attended. For some reason there were not tha many people around and we had good discussions21:45
ttx+1 for being boring21:45
ttxQuestions for Horizon ?21:45
*** colinmcnamara1 has joined #openstack-meeting21:46
ttx#topic Other Team reports21:46
*** openstack changes topic to "Other Team reports"21:46
ttxQA, CI: anyone ?21:46
ttxdavidkranz: want to give some feedback from QA topic at the Summit, if around ?21:46
davidkranzttx: Sure.21:47
ttxdavidkranz: how did that go ?21:47
davidkranzPretty well I think. The trick is the follow through.21:47
davidkranzRackspace is going to upload all their tests soon.21:48
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:48
ttxdavidkranz: did you get the people you needed on those sessions ?21:48
ttxand not too many of the people you didn't need ?21:48
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting21:48
davidkranzWe didn't have many ptls, but we used one of Dan's sessions for the quantum stuff which was the most important.21:48
mordreddavidkranz: we've already made progress on testtools/testr and I think you're going to like it21:48
ttxI think it's easier this way around21:48
davidkranzDan Prince was interested in more use of SmokeStack.21:49
davidkranzmordred: That's great.21:49
ttxdavidkranz: anything else ?21:49
davidkranzttx: We also had some in-person QA meetings with summaries posted to the qa list.21:49
davidkranzttx: That's about it.21:50
ttxAny other team lead with a status report ?21:50
mordredtons of sessions involved cI21:50
mordredthere's what we collected overall21:50
mordredfor those who are interested21:50
mordredalso, if you didn't notice, we have a new etherpad server21:50
ttxmordred: I think the Process topic went well overall, what do you think ?21:50
mordredI agree too21:50
ttxmordred: people too fried to disagree with moderator21:50
mordredI do not really remember any contentious topics21:51
ttxmordred: I just rememberd that we need to discuss oslo versioning once markmc will be back21:51
ttxi.e. aligned vs. tag vs. forward vs. pip21:51
russellbttx: you set that as an action back in the oslo topic21:51
*** ijw11 has joined #openstack-meeting21:52
ttx#topic Open discussion21:52
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion"21:52
ttx#info We'll skip the meeting next week21:52
*** colinmcnamara1 has quit IRC21:52
ttxAs mordred knows, i'll have better things to do21:52
ttxand I don't expect the plans to be finalized anyway21:52
*** Dorogs has quit IRC21:52
ttxSo not so much to discuss in-meeting21:52
mordredsee you all at UDS next week...21:52
* mordred cries21:52
*** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC21:52
ttxI'll bug you all in the next two weeks so that we make progress on that though.21:52
* russellb won't be there :-p21:53
ttx(that being, grizzly plans)21:53
ttxAnything else, anyone ?21:53
*** mnewby_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:53
ttxNext meeting on Nov 621:53
ttxWARNING WARNING we are entering DST confusion zone21:54
ttxEurope drops DST this weekend21:54
ttxPlease triple-check meeting times (they are in UTC!) before going to one21:54
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"21:54
openstackMeeting ended Tue Oct 23 21:54:57 2012 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:54
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2012/project.2012-10-23-21.02.html21:55
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2012/project.2012-10-23-21.02.txt21:55
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2012/project.2012-10-23-21.02.log.html21:55
*** jcooley has joined #openstack-meeting21:55
*** gabrielhurley has quit IRC21:56
*** mnewby has quit IRC21:56
*** mnewby_ is now known as mnewby21:56
*** jaypipes has quit IRC21:58
*** littleidea has quit IRC21:59
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_brb22:01
*** EmilienM has left #openstack-meeting22:01
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting22:02
*** littleidea has left #openstack-meeting22:02
*** ijw11 has quit IRC22:03
*** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
*** tgall_foo has quit IRC22:05
*** markmcclain has quit IRC22:06
*** gyee has quit IRC22:06
*** heckj has quit IRC22:06
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC22:07
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting22:07
*** littleidea has left #openstack-meeting22:09
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting22:10
*** colinmcnamara has left #openstack-meeting22:10
*** jcooley has quit IRC22:12
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting22:12
*** kmartin has joined #openstack-meeting22:15
*** KurtMartin has quit IRC22:16
*** dkehn_brb is now known as dkehn22:20
*** lloydde has quit IRC22:27
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting22:28
*** ywu_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:28
*** shang_ has quit IRC22:30
*** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting22:31
*** Gordonz has quit IRC22:32
*** jcooley has joined #openstack-meeting22:36
*** rnirmal has quit IRC22:42
*** ijw1 has quit IRC22:50
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk22:52
*** lloydde has quit IRC22:57
*** MarkAtwood has quit IRC22:58
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_afk23:02
*** kindaopsdevy has quit IRC23:04
*** gatuus has quit IRC23:04
*** arbrandes has quit IRC23:09
*** henrynash has quit IRC23:09
*** the8thbit has joined #openstack-meeting23:15
the8thbitWhat is two syllables, rhymes with 'game', and is a word for a disease you can get from eating bad pork?23:16
*** ijw1 has joined #openstack-meeting23:16
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:18
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting23:18
*** dolphm has quit IRC23:18
*** littleidea has quit IRC23:23
*** jcooley has quit IRC23:23
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting23:24
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting23:28
*** tgall_foo has joined #openstack-meeting23:28
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates23:30
*** dolphm has quit IRC23:33
*** metral has quit IRC23:36
*** blamar has quit IRC23:36
*** metral has joined #openstack-meeting23:36
*** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting23:39
*** ijw1 has quit IRC23:40
*** afazekas has quit IRC23:43
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting23:49
*** blamar has quit IRC23:54
*** lloydde has quit IRC23:57

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