Tuesday, 2013-01-08

*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away00:05
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away00:06
*** sarob has quit IRC00:12
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley00:21
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting00:28
*** Mandell has quit IRC00:30
*** ijw1 has quit IRC00:31
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away00:33
*** Guest11434 is now known as annegentle00:34
*** annegentle is now known as Guest304300:35
*** vkmc has quit IRC00:37
*** sarob has quit IRC00:41
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting00:42
*** markmcclain has quit IRC00:42
*** Kaiwei has quit IRC00:47
*** b3nt_pin has joined #openstack-meeting00:47
*** markwash has quit IRC00:48
*** vipul|away is now known as vipul00:50
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley00:50
*** hemna is now known as hemnafk00:56
*** alexpilotti has quit IRC00:59
*** skiarxon has quit IRC01:10
*** terryw has quit IRC01:10
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting01:15
*** yaguang has joined #openstack-meeting01:19
*** vbannai has quit IRC01:23
*** lloydde has quit IRC01:25
*** skiarxon has joined #openstack-meeting01:29
*** rturk has quit IRC01:29
*** rturk has joined #openstack-meeting01:29
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC01:30
*** jgriffith has quit IRC01:31
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting01:31
*** juice has quit IRC01:32
*** Guest3043 is now known as annegentle01:36
*** annegentle is now known as Guest2547201:36
*** Nachi has joined #openstack-meeting01:44
*** dolphm has quit IRC01:45
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC01:46
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC01:47
*** jjm3lp has quit IRC01:54
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away01:54
*** bearovercloud has left #openstack-meeting01:55
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting01:58
*** juice has joined #openstack-meeting02:03
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC02:03
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting02:04
*** reed has joined #openstack-meeting02:05
*** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:07
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC02:08
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley02:11
*** sarob_ has quit IRC02:11
*** vishy is now known as vishy_zz02:19
*** ryanpetr_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:19
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC02:21
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away02:24
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net02:29
*** danwent has quit IRC02:30
*** juice has quit IRC02:33
*** juice has joined #openstack-meeting02:34
*** Guest25472 is now known as annegentle02:37
*** annegentle is now known as Guest7188702:38
*** ewindisch has quit IRC02:49
*** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting02:52
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting02:53
*** jog0 has quit IRC02:57
*** Nachi has quit IRC03:01
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting03:02
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting03:11
*** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting03:13
*** shang_ has quit IRC03:15
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:15
*** anniec has quit IRC03:16
*** anniec_ is now known as anniec03:16
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:17
*** ryanpetr_ has quit IRC03:19
*** anniec has quit IRC03:21
*** anniec_ has quit IRC03:23
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:32
*** Guest71887 is now known as annegentle03:39
*** annegentle is now known as Guest85403:39
*** ewindisch has quit IRC03:46
*** Nachi has joined #openstack-meeting03:50
*** shang_ has quit IRC03:51
*** huats has quit IRC03:52
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting03:52
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC03:53
*** AndyV has joined #openstack-meeting03:54
*** AndyV has quit IRC03:54
*** emagana has quit IRC03:55
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting04:01
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting04:01
*** Nachi has quit IRC04:01
*** bencherian has quit IRC04:04
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting04:08
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting04:08
*** huats has joined #openstack-meeting04:20
*** huats has quit IRC04:20
*** huats has joined #openstack-meeting04:20
*** anniec has quit IRC04:26
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting04:30
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting04:31
*** Guest854 is now known as annegentle04:40
*** annegentle is now known as Guest5118304:41
*** Nachi has joined #openstack-meeting04:49
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC04:52
*** shang_ has quit IRC05:04
*** vkmc has quit IRC05:14
*** shang_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:17
*** Guest51183 is now known as annegentle05:42
*** annegentle is now known as Guest8519605:42
*** bencherian has quit IRC05:44
*** garyk has quit IRC05:47
*** adjohn has quit IRC05:47
*** zg is now known as su06:03
*** su is now known as zg06:04
*** dhellmann_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:05
*** huats_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:08
*** huats_ has quit IRC06:08
*** huats_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:08
*** rturk` has joined #openstack-meeting06:12
*** obondarev has quit IRC06:13
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting06:14
*** huats has quit IRC06:14
*** rturk has quit IRC06:14
*** yaguang has quit IRC06:14
*** rkukura has quit IRC06:14
*** dhellmann has quit IRC06:14
*** dhellmann_ is now known as dhellmann06:14
*** Nachi has quit IRC06:15
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting06:15
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting06:16
*** yaguang has joined #openstack-meeting06:16
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting06:17
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting06:24
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley06:35
*** Guest85196 is now known as annegentle06:43
*** annegentle is now known as Guest9113806:44
*** almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan06:47
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting06:47
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting06:58
*** adjohn has quit IRC07:02
*** colinmcnamara has left #openstack-meeting07:08
*** Nachi has joined #openstack-meeting07:09
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC07:12
*** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting07:13
*** jamespage has quit IRC07:13
*** jamespage has joined #openstack-meeting07:13
*** danwent has quit IRC07:20
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting07:34
*** Guest91138 is now known as annegentle07:45
*** annegentle is now known as Guest9857907:45
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting07:50
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting07:51
*** mnewby has quit IRC07:56
*** Nachi has quit IRC08:01
*** rafaduran has joined #openstack-meeting08:03
*** EmilienM__ has joined #openstack-meeting08:17
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away08:18
*** Mandell has quit IRC08:27
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting08:30
*** ndipanov_gone is now known as ndipanov08:31
*** afazekas_ has joined #openstack-meeting08:35
*** jgriffith has quit IRC08:40
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting08:41
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting08:43
*** EmilienM__ has quit IRC08:46
*** Guest98579 is now known as annegentle08:46
*** EmilienM__ has joined #openstack-meeting08:47
*** annegentle is now known as Guest4883108:47
*** adjohn has quit IRC08:59
*** EmilienM__ has quit IRC09:02
*** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting09:05
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting09:18
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting09:27
*** ccorrigan has quit IRC09:34
*** mrunge has quit IRC09:36
*** danwent has quit IRC09:38
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting09:43
*** koolhead17 has joined #openstack-meeting09:46
*** roaet is now known as roaet-away09:46
*** Guest48831 is now known as annegentle09:48
*** annegentle is now known as Guest3659409:48
*** EmilienM__ has joined #openstack-meeting09:58
*** reed has quit IRC10:08
*** reed has joined #openstack-meeting10:08
*** markwash has quit IRC10:08
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting10:09
*** adjohn has quit IRC10:13
*** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting10:20
*** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting10:20
*** derekh has quit IRC10:24
*** derekh has joined #openstack-meeting10:24
*** flaper87 has joined #openstack-meeting10:28
*** Guest36594 is now known as annegentle10:49
*** annegentle is now known as Guest4960510:50
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting10:53
*** obondarev has quit IRC11:18
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting11:26
*** al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away11:35
*** fifieldt has joined #openstack-meeting11:35
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting11:50
*** Guest49605 is now known as annegentle11:51
*** annegentle is now known as Guest7223011:51
*** vkmc has quit IRC11:53
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting11:54
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting12:00
*** yaguang has quit IRC12:10
*** rkukura has quit IRC12:14
*** b3nt_pin has quit IRC12:30
*** b3nt_pin has joined #openstack-meeting12:40
*** b3nt_pin has quit IRC12:47
*** Guest72230 is now known as annegentle12:52
*** annegentle is now known as Guest9942812:53
*** Daisy_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:55
fifieldthi Daisy_12:56
fifieldthi Guest9942812:56
fifieldthi koolhead1712:56
koolhead17fifieldt: hi there12:57
fifieldthow'd life? ready for another excellent docmeeting? :)12:58
* fifieldt looks at clock13:00
Daisy_Hi, Tom !13:02
fifieldtHow are you?13:02
Daisy_I'm fine, just back from a vacation.13:02
fifieldtoh, cool13:02
Daisy_yes, the new years holidays in China.13:03
fifieldttwo new years for you - lucky :)13:03
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting13:04
*** ayoung has quit IRC13:04
fifieldtWe need Anne to start the meeting :)13:05
Daisy_That may be too early for her.13:08
fifieldtyeah, it is quite early13:08
fifieldtis there anything you wanted to discuss while we wait?13:10
Daisy_not exactly13:11
fifieldtoh well13:13
* fifieldt keeps waiting13:13
fifieldtI'm keen to hear what's happening with the wiki13:13
Daisy_Maybe we set the meeting time one hour later.13:16
Daisy_next time.13:16
Daisy_Now I'm 9pm and I'm OK with 10pm. How about you? Is it too late for you?13:16
fifieldtthat'd be 1am for me ... I'll try to stay up :)13:18
Daisy_oh..that's bad.13:18
EmilienM__koolhead17: hey13:18
fifieldtit's EmilienM__!13:19
koolhead17EmilienM__: did you get my last chat13:19
Daisy_that's not a good time for you.13:19
EmilienM__koolhead17: yep, I'll answer later ;)13:19
EmilienM__fifieldt: :)13:19
koolhead17EmilienM__: was going through it i wonder if i missed something :P13:19
*** spn has joined #openstack-meeting13:22
*** mrunge has quit IRC13:23
*** darraghb has quit IRC13:23
*** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting13:24
*** spn has quit IRC13:31
*** spn has joined #openstack-meeting13:32
*** spn has quit IRC13:35
*** spn has joined #openstack-meeting13:37
*** annegentle-web has joined #openstack-meeting13:39
fifieldthi annegentle-web13:39
*** maurosr has quit IRC13:39
annegentle-webhi fifieldt sorry to be soooo late13:39
annegentle-webno excuses13:39
fifieldtno worries - if it was me, I'd still be asleep too :P13:40
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting13:40
annegentle-webthe scary part was when even the web client wouldn't let me in13:40
* annegentle-web sighs and mumbles about technology13:40
fifieldtyes, computers13:40
annegentle-webfifieldt: let's keep going, where are you at in the agenda?13:40
fifieldtwe waited :)13:41
fifieldtso, over to you to #startmeeting DocWebTeam13:41
fifieldtDaisy_, koolhead17, EmilienM__ are around13:42
annegentle-web#startmeeting docwebteam13:42
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 13:42:09 2013 UTC.  The chair is annegentle-web. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.13:42
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.13:42
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: docwebteam)"13:42
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'docwebteam'13:42
annegentle-webwoo! I need to remember to be consistent so the eavesdrop directories line up13:42
annegentle-webLet's review action items13:42
fifieldt#info http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting13:42
EmilienM__hello :)13:42
fifieldt(nb - we forgot to use #action for action items last time)13:42
annegentle-webEmilienM__: hello!13:43
fifieldt13:04:18 * annegentle_ Anne to ask CI team if there's notification capability with a patch with DocImpact actually merges13:43
annegentle-webLooks like the one with #action was for me to write a proposal to Foundation requesting funding of Doc Sprint in Feb 2013 including Adam Hyde as facilitator13:43
fifieldtI am reading the previous previous meeting's action items13:43
fifieldtplease ignore me13:43
annegentle-webfifieldt: hee13:43
annegentle-webno worries13:43
annegentle-webso the proposal was written and funded, woo!13:43
*** markvoelker has quit IRC13:44
Daisy_great ! Do you have a link for that proposal?13:44
fifieldtfor my part I also sent the thank-you email re: docimpact13:44
annegentle-webI've been following up with the group and will keep working on travel and lodging arrangements13:44
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC13:44
fifieldtlooking forward to that13:44
annegentle-webDaisy_: it was in email but I could certainly put it into a etherpad13:44
annegentle-web#action annegentle-web to share the proposal for the book sprint13:44
annegentle-webmaybe even blog about it? Not sure.13:45
annegentle-webOh yeah usually I point to the agenda13:45
annegentle-web#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting13:45
fifieldtmight raise expectations too much :)13:45
annegentle-web#topic Action items13:45
*** openstack changes topic to "Action items (Meeting topic: docwebteam)"13:45
*** lorin1 has joined #openstack-meeting13:46
*** maurosr has joined #openstack-meeting13:46
fifieldthi lorin1!13:46
annegentle-webI think that's it for action items, I did send out a status report last week13:46
fifieldtgot it, yup13:46
annegentle-web#link https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg19757.html13:46
lorin1hi fifieldt13:46
annegentle-webLet's talk about the wiki migration briefly.13:47
annegentle-web#topic wiki migration13:47
*** openstack changes topic to "wiki migration (Meeting topic: docwebteam)"13:47
fifieldtso, what's going on?>13:47
annegentle-webI say briefly because I know little about the latest :)13:47
fifieldtah :)13:47
annegentle-webI understand that Stefano (reed) is going to work with a team going forward13:47
annegentle-webreed: did I hear that right on IRC yesterday?13:48
annegentle-webheh, hear. :)13:48
reedwiki migration?13:48
annegentle-webreed: moving to mediawiki13:48
reedI know nothing about that, sorry13:48
annegentle-webreed: wow, sorry, don't want to invent responsibilities :)13:49
annegentle-webso all I know is I have an email in to Ryan Lane to see if he found someone to work on the styling13:49
reedI've mentioned working on wikiPedia page about openstack13:49
annegentle-webreed: oh that was it!! Sorry.13:49
annegentle-webmy current sense of the mailing list posts is that people wanted it cleaner in the beginning13:50
annegentle-weband we need a plan to get it clean13:50
annegentle-webstyling, content, macros, etc.13:50
annegentle-webany other comments on the wiki migration?13:50
Daisy_who will do the wiki migration? doc team?13:50
annegentle-webDaisy_: Ryan Lane at Mediawiki already did it and has the scripts, and the CI team has puppet-ized the install13:50
fifieldtumm, content13:51
reedthe technical part of the migration will be done by ryan and the infra team13:51
annegentle-webDaisy_: so really it's more about CI than docs since we don't use the wiki for docs really13:51
reedthe content will have to be reviewed/fixed by all of us13:51
annegentle-webto me, the wiki is for project management13:51
fifieldtI've been wandering through http://wiki.openstack.org/TitleIndex13:51
annegentle-webreed: yep, exactly13:51
fifieldtand removing crap13:51
fifieldtis this a good time to do that?13:51
annegentle-webfifieldt: GOOD13:51
Daisy_so if migrating the existing content, why need a plan to get it clean?13:51
*** jhenner has quit IRC13:51
annegentle-webDaisy_: because https://wiki-staging.openstack.org/wiki/Main_Page is not very pretty13:51
annegentle-web#link https://wiki-staging.openstack.org/wiki/Main_Page13:52
annegentle-webfifieldt: well, the content migration happend the 3rd week of Dec, so deleting pages on the wiki now would have to be redone if I understand it13:52
fifieldtthat's not good13:52
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting13:52
fifieldtI just did A through C13:52
annegentle-webfifieldt: wah.13:52
annegentle-webfifieldt: but needed.13:53
Daisy_oh. the main page looks ugly.13:53
fifieldtI didn't think there was consensus yet on the content migration13:53
annegentle-webDaisy_: yeah and migrated content esp. tables and graphics need cleanup13:53
annegentle-webfifieldt: ah okay13:53
fifieldtthere was still some debate about the interim period of nonediting13:53
fifieldtcertainly I'm not the only one editing the wiki13:53
Daisy_does Doc team own the clean job?13:53
fifieldt#link http://wiki.openstack.org/RecentChanges13:54
annegentle-webDaisy_: I don't think so, and I'm not raising my hand :)13:54
fifieldtso I would say content migration needs to be redone13:54
annegentle-webbut, perhaps we could organize the day of cleanup13:54
*** Guest99428 is now known as annegentle13:54
annegentle-webI say "we" meaning "me" most likely13:54
*** jhenner has quit IRC13:54
annegentle-webgah the nickname crazies!13:54
annegentle-web#action annegentle-web to investigate wiki migration status13:54
*** annegentle is now known as Guest4168113:54
annegentle-webokay, good on wiki?13:55
Daisy_at least, we need to make sure the content about documentations are correct and right there.13:55
fifieldtclarity is good13:55
annegentle-webDaisy_: yep, I did ensure that was okay, but more eyes the better always13:55
fifieldtanne - when you get the info, perhaps email it out13:56
annegentle-webFor example, this page is correct: http://wiki.openstack.org/Documentation/13:56
fifieldtit seems there is confusion13:56
annegentle-webfifieldt: yeah I need to circle back to the mailing list for certain13:56
annegentle-web#topic doc tools update13:56
*** openstack changes topic to "doc tools update (Meeting topic: docwebteam)"13:56
annegentle-webSo I have a giant email ready to send to openstack-docs about what it takes to get to 1.6.2 of the Maven plugin13:56
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
annegentle-webBasically I've been investigating and testing13:56
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting13:57
annegentle-webthe difficulty is that we need to change doc jobs in the CI project at the same time we merge these pom.xml changes13:57
annegentle-webit's not impossible, just need to be careful and plan13:57
fifieldtyay, coordination13:57
annegentle-webI'll send that this morning so you all can review and ask questions13:57
annegentle-web#topic open discussion13:58
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: docwebteam)"13:58
annegentle-webDaisy_: do you want to talk about translation?13:58
fifieldtwant to make an action item for the last point, anne?13:58
fifieldti.e. send the email for all to review13:58
fifieldtjust for completeness13:58
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting13:59
Daisy_Firstly, I'd like to talk about the review in Transifex.13:59
Daisy_The review check box doesn't appear to common translators.13:59
Daisy_so translators cannot do the review. The only review can be done when it is merged into the main repository, which is not good.14:00
annegentle-webDaisy_: yep been seeing that on the mail thread14:00
annegentle-webDaisy_: So the centralized translation coordinator isn't quite right?14:01
Daisy_so the problem is if we want to use Transfifex to do the review, we need to manage the long list of coordinators.14:01
fifieldtis it possible to nominate a 'leader' per language, and that 'leader' can manage the list of people for that language?14:02
annegentle-webfifieldt: I think that is one idea floating around14:02
fifieldtI'm just not sure what kind of role management is possible within transifex14:02
annegentle-webDaisy_: so you sense the translators feel more "loyalty" and get more "points" in the transifex system than in review.openstack.org (Gerrit) (That's my sense of it.)14:02
Daisy_I only see project maintainer and coordinators.14:03
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting14:03
Daisy_project maintainer, coordinators, and translators.,14:03
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC14:03
Daisy_I just feel review in Transifex is more easy than in Gerrit for a reviewer.14:04
annegentle-webDaisy_: so I like the proposed idea that translators could act as "project technical leads" do14:04
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting14:04
annegentle-webDaisy_: yeah I think that's right also, that Transifex is their preferred review mechanism14:04
Daisy_Yes, if we regard translators as "project technical lead", they can review by Gerrit then.14:05
annegentle-webDaisy_: what about this: could you write up what the role of a lead translator would be? And what permissions they'd need where?14:05
annegentle-webDaisy_: perhaps then we can "recruit" for that role? For example, from the User Groups14:05
Daisy_ok, sure.14:05
Daisy_great idea !14:05
annegentle-webreed: any thoughts on translation coordination?14:06
Daisy_Let's recruit.. after the infrastucture is ready.14:06
annegentle-webDaisy_: yeah I think that's right also... timing matters.14:06
annegentle-webDaisy_: ok, thanks! Also do you need more CI help?14:06
Daisy_not now, I think.14:07
annegentle-webDaisy_: ok14:07
Daisy_I need to do ...14:07
Daisy_#action Daisy write up what the role of a lead translator would be? And what permissions they'd need where?14:07
annegentle-webDaisy_: yep, sounds right14:07
Daisy_then let's see what help we need from CI team.14:07
annegentle-webEmilienM__: what are your thoughts on the barrage of comments on the basic install?14:07
reedannegentle-web, I'd love to but it's not clear to me what the problem is14:07
annegentle-webreed: okay, I'll send you a LONG email thread :)14:08
* EmilienM__ reading comments14:08
reedannegentle-web, private or on the list?14:09
annegentle-webEmilienM__: basically "Thiago" never did get it set up? I guess?14:09
*** ewindisch has joined #openstack-meeting14:09
annegentle-webreed: to your stefano@openstack email14:09
EmilienM__annegentle-web: indeed14:10
annegentle-webEmilienM__: I tried to respond to Thiago as much as I could but he didn't really explain his setup14:10
EmilienM__annegentle-web: I'll work on that later toay.14:10
annegentle-webEmilienM__: that would be great, thanks14:10
EmilienM__annegentle-web: we definitly need more review on this work, and I'll do my best to improve it, with the help of other guys14:11
annegentle-webEmilienM__: I never figured out whether there are ubuntu bugs that prevent him14:11
annegentle-webEmilienM__: my concern was that this "blew up" right after you added Quantum -- maybe Quantum isn't basic :)14:11
EmilienM__nothing is basic, actually14:11
koolhead17EmilienM__: 3 node setup cannot be basic :)14:11
annegentle-webEmilienM__: Heh14:11
annegentle-webWell, maybe we need to revisit "Basic"14:11
annegentle-webSuch as -- if there is no such thing as Basic, do we even claim there to be14:12
koolhead17its called multinode :D14:12
EmilienM__believe me, it's nothing comparing to production ;)14:12
annegentle-webfifieldt: I'm not sure if you're moderator on the basic install comments, can I add you?14:12
EmilienM__#action EmilienM to reply to comments & fix bugs if they exist.14:13
EmilienM__annegentle-web: ok for you ?14:13
fifieldtI haven't been online much these few weeks - internet at folks place is iffy - apologies14:13
annegentle-web#info Our new intern starts this week, Laura Alves da Quinta (ladquin on IRC) from Buenos Aires, Argentina14:13
fifieldt[plus, there's a beach here :)]14:13
fifieldtwow, cool!14:13
annegentle-webfifieldt: hee14:13
annegentle-webWish she was here this morning! I didn't tell her about it, shoot.14:14
annegentle-webSo welcome her if you see her online.14:14
annegentle-webAnd if it's okay with you all, I'll have her ask you questions if she gets stuck.14:14
annegentle-webHer focus will be API docs and she's already patching.14:14
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting14:15
fifieldtgreat :)14:15
*** gongysh has quit IRC14:15
annegentle-webOkay, w'ere over time due to the late start, my apologies.14:15
annegentle-webAnything else?14:15
fifieldtone more14:16
fifieldtI think I'm going to start fixing grizzly bugs now14:16
fifieldtthe ones which are confirmed on launchpad seem stable enough14:16
fifieldtto write them in14:16
annegentle-webfifieldt: ok, feeling like the code is going in?14:16
annegentle-webfifieldt: GREAT14:16
annegentle-webfifieldt: go for it14:16
lorin1I've been adding the person who submitted the commit to the reviewers in the DocImpact-related doc stuff.14:17
lorin1They are usually pretty good about giving feedback.14:17
annegentle-weblorin1: good thinking14:17
annegentle-weblorin1: yeah approve that one for config drive14:18
fifieldtnice one14:18
annegentle-webOkay, see you all around on IRC I sure hope. :)14:18
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"14:18
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 14:18:32 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)14:18
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docwebteam/2013/docwebteam.2013-01-08-13.42.html14:18
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docwebteam/2013/docwebteam.2013-01-08-13.42.txt14:18
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docwebteam/2013/docwebteam.2013-01-08-13.42.log.html14:18
*** koolhead17 has left #openstack-meeting14:18
*** lorin1 has left #openstack-meeting14:18
* fifieldt zzz14:19
* annegentle-web drives to work :)14:19
* EmilienM__ thinking at a new word (basic)14:19
*** fifieldt has quit IRC14:20
*** Daisy_ has quit IRC14:21
*** annegentle-web has quit IRC14:25
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting14:30
*** spn has quit IRC14:31
*** srini_g has quit IRC14:31
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting14:36
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting14:46
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting14:48
*** anniec has quit IRC14:50
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting14:51
*** radez_g0n3 is now known as radez14:51
*** roaet-away is now known as roaet14:51
*** markwash has quit IRC14:51
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting14:54
*** Guest41681 is now known as annegentle14:55
*** annegentle is now known as Guest765114:56
*** Nachi has joined #openstack-meeting14:58
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC15:01
*** markvan has joined #openstack-meeting15:01
*** mtreinish has joined #openstack-meeting15:04
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley15:06
*** almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan15:08
*** srini_g has joined #openstack-meeting15:11
*** markwash has quit IRC15:18
*** lbragstad has quit IRC15:18
*** mestery_ has joined #openstack-meeting15:19
*** pvo has quit IRC15:20
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting15:21
*** mestery has quit IRC15:21
*** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting15:22
*** cp16net is now known as cp16net|away15:28
*** jgriffith has quit IRC15:29
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting15:33
*** terryw has joined #openstack-meeting15:34
*** terryw is now known as otherwiseguy15:35
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting15:36
*** ryanpetrello has quit IRC15:36
*** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting15:37
*** luis_fdez has joined #openstack-meeting15:42
*** KurtMartin has joined #openstack-meeting15:42
*** primeministerp has joined #openstack-meeting15:48
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting15:49
*** cp16net|away is now known as cp16net15:51
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting15:57
*** Guest7651 is now known as annegentle15:57
*** annegentle is now known as Guest8822415:57
*** Mandell has quit IRC15:58
primeministerp#startmeeting hyper-v15:58
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 15:58:55 2013 UTC.  The chair is primeministerp. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.15:58
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.15:58
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: hyper-v)"15:58
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'hyper_v'15:58
primeministerphi all15:59
primeministerpalexpilotti: pedro's not going to be able to make it today right?15:59
primeministerpalexpilotti: do we have any others?16:00
alexpilottiyep, pnavarro said that today he'll not be able to attend unfortunately16:00
*** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:00
primeministerpand I don't see the CERN folks16:00
primeministerpguess this will be quick then16:00
*** hanrahat has joined #openstack-meeting16:00
alexpilottiI guess too :-)16:00
primeministerphanrahat: hi tom16:01
luis_fdezhi primeministerp16:01
*** sarob_ has quit IRC16:01
primeministerpluis_fdez: hi luis16:01
alexpilottiNot a bad think considering that I have to send the Quantum review16:01
primeministerpluis_fdez: glad you made it16:01
hanrahatprimeministerp: hi16:01
luis_fdezmy first day after holidays break...16:01
alexpilottihi luis_fdez !16:01
primeministerpluis_fdez: great16:01
primeministerpluis_fdez: hopefully you had a good one!16:01
*** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:01
primeministerpluis_fdez: sure there's lots of email to catch up on16:01
primeministerpok let's begin16:02
primeministerp#topic quantum16:02
*** openstack changes topic to "quantum (Meeting topic: hyper-v)"16:02
luis_fdezprimeministerp: lots of email yes...16:02
primeministerpalexpilotti: you've been working like crazy on this so I'll let you have the floor16:02
*** sarob_ has quit IRC16:02
alexpilottigreat tx.16:02
primeministerpalexpilotti: would you care to share the current state of the hyper-v vlan driver etc16:02
alexpilottiSo, habemus pluginus. :-)16:03
alexpilottiIt's in the process of getting merged16:03
alexpilottimeaning that it's undergoing the usual microscopic review16:03
*** mrodden has quit IRC16:03
primeministerpalexpilotti: as expected16:03
alexpilottias bad as it was for Nova last year :-)16:03
alexpilottiwhich is good, as I like that they care about the code quality16:04
primeministerpalexpilotti: that is good16:04
alexpilottithey asked to keep it as simple as possible16:04
alexpilottiwhich means that this first release is going to be VLAN only16:04
alexpilottiI didn't push to have it in G-2 at any cost16:04
primeministerpluis_fdez: are you ready to test quantum bits on your side luis_fdez?16:05
alexpilottias due to this crazy G-2 scheduling the Quantum team has a lot of high priority stuff to review16:05
alexpilottiand it was pointless to force them to do it now, resulting in a sure refusal16:05
primeministerpalexpilotti: the short cycle w/ the holidays didn't help matters16:05
luis_fdezprimeministerp: yeah, let me some days catching up with other things and I'll try it16:05
alexpilottiyep, that was the main issue16:05
primeministerpluis_fdez: perfect16:06
alexpilottianyway, this are going very well I'd say, we need testers as usual :-)16:06
alexpilottiluis_fdez: do you volunteer? ;-)16:06
primeministerpluis_fdez: he just did   --------^16:06
luis_fdezalexpilotti: i'll do my best hehe16:07
primeministerpany of our IBM friends on the channel16:07
alexpilotticool! I as busy writing and didn't see it! lol16:07
alexpilottitx luis_fdez. Your beers credit (and your karma) will benefit!16:07
primeministerphopefully we can get them to take a look too16:07
luis_fdezalexpilotti: a recommended testing environment?16:08
primeministerpluis_fdez: hyper-v server 201216:08
primeministerpluis_fdez: devstack16:08
luis_fdezok, perfect then16:08
alexpilotti2 devstack nodes and 1-2 HyperV 201216:08
alexpilottiI usually run all the stuff in VMs (including the HyperVs)16:08
alexpilotti1 devstack: controller16:09
alexpilotti2 devstack: networking16:09
alexpilotti2 is needed for layer 3 tests only16:09
*** anniec has quit IRC16:09
*** KurtMartin has quit IRC16:09
primeministerpshall we discuss RDP16:10
*** hanrahat has quit IRC16:10
alexpilottiwhy not16:10
primeministerptom left16:10
primeministerpwas hoping to ask him the status of email request16:10
primeministerpfor help on the custom ssp provider16:10
primeministerpo well16:10
primeministerp#topic RDP16:10
*** openstack changes topic to "RDP (Meeting topic: hyper-v)"16:10
primeministerpSo I pushed on the custon SSP provider questioin with Neil internally16:11
primeministerpalexpilotti: I sent you the response16:11
primeministerpalexpilotti: I'm going to followup with him today16:11
alexpilottiprimeministerp: didnt get it16:11
primeministerpalexpilotti: you did, you responded16:12
alexpilottiah, that one16:12
*** dolphm has quit IRC16:12
primeministerpalexpilotti: that it was the information you had already looked at16:12
primeministerpalexpilotti: is there anything additional i should request?16:12
alexpilottiyeah, we need access to more than that16:12
alexpilottino, for SSH is everything clear IMO16:12
alexpilottithe RDP part is crucial now16:12
primeministerpalexpilotti: right but for the custom provider, do we still need assistance from msft internal?16:13
primeministerpisn't the custom provider needed for RDP16:13
alexpilottiwe need a decent sample16:13
alexpilottino the custom SSP is needed for SSH only16:13
primeministerpI thought the custom ssp was to use ssh keys for rdp auth16:13
primeministerpthen what is needed for rdp?16:14
alexpilottiyep, but not RDP as in clnsole RDP16:14
alexpilottiwe need to have FreeRDP connecting reliabily to the HyperV console16:14
alexpilottiand the latest version is not16:14
primeministerpdo you have additonal questions for console rdp, which I need involve others?16:14
alexpilottinot for now, as it is all fairly well documented16:15
*** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting16:15
alexpilottibut based on the FreeRDP work it might become necessary16:15
primeministerpmake sure you alert me asap if something comes up so I can push for help internally16:16
alexpilottisure, tx!16:16
primeministerpociuhandu: ping16:16
alexpilottinow the project is still in an early stage16:16
primeministerpalexpilotti: ok16:16
primeministerpalexpilotti: anything else to add?16:16
primeministerpon RDP16:16
alexpilottiwe are working on the HTML5 gateway16:16
primeministerpalexpilotti: o perfect16:17
alexpilottiunfortunately the guy who did the project is not mantaining it16:17
primeministerpalexpilotti: html5 -> rdp?16:17
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
alexpilottiwhich means that we are refactoring it to support the latest FreeRDP version16:17
alexpilottiyes, that one16:17
ociuhanduhi all, sorry for being late, just got back and was reading16:17
primeministerpociuhandu: TAVI!16:17
primeministerpociuhandu: glad you could join, I was just going to start picking on you16:18
primeministerpanything else on rdp?16:18
*** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting16:18
ociuhanduprimeministerp: was actually catching up with the things you talked on until now16:18
primeministerpociuhandu: no owwories16:18
primeministerper worries16:18
primeministerpso on that note16:18
primeministerp#topic ci16:18
*** openstack changes topic to "ci (Meeting topic: hyper-v)"16:19
primeministerpas usual the battle for more resources continues16:19
primeministerpcurrently working on getting more bandwidth for the pipe16:19
primeministerpociuhandu: to resolve your connectivity issues16:19
primeministerpociuhandu: I'm pushing for 50mb minimum16:20
primeministerpociuhandu: if they give me a green light I can prob have it w/in 2 weeks16:20
ociuhanduprimeministerp: i'm gong to create a pxe'd VM today to start testing all the scripts i've been writing16:20
primeministerpociuhandu: perfect16:20
primeministerpociuhandu: everything is pretty much updated16:20
primeministerpociuhandu: I'll be adding the hostname bits after this meeting16:21
primeministerpociuhandu: hoping to get back to the windows parts by end of week16:21
primeministerpociuhandu: i'll be here all day as well so let me know if you have any issues16:21
primeministerpociuhandu: I can be in the DC to assist16:21
ociuhanduprimeministerp: great, thanks16:22
primeministerpociuhandu: on that note with recent events regarding testing and such, this is becoming more and more critical16:22
ociuhanduprimeministerp: will let you know how it goes16:22
primeministerpociuhandu: right now there's a menu in palce16:22
primeministerpociuhandu: i can hard set it for your mac16:22
primeministerpif needed16:22
primeministerpbut use the vm preseed16:22
primeministerpwhen you deploy16:22
primeministerpit will do a clean install then 2 reboots after running the scripting16:23
primeministerpone after install and one after puppet16:23
ociuhanduprimeministerp: ok16:23
primeministerpstill need to get in touch w/ mordred to discuss the integration into the ci16:24
primeministerpociuhandu: however the delays w/ my move and holidays put us back a bit16:24
primeministerpociuhandu: hopefully we'll be back on track and having the first ring up by next week16:25
ociuhanduprimeministerp: i was working on the scripts locally so we have made progress16:25
primeministerpociuhandu: have you completed your puppet bits?16:25
primeministerpociuhandu: which ones?16:25
primeministerpociuhandu: you've made progress16:26
ociuhanduprimeministerp: for the controller and for creating a new VM16:26
primeministerpi've made a few baby steps16:26
primeministerpociuhandu: ok hopefully i can finish catching up this week16:26
primeministerpluis_fdez: have you puppetized your hyper-v bits?16:26
primeministerpluis_fdez: are you using the cloudbase installer or installing from source?16:27
*** hanrahat has joined #openstack-meeting16:27
luis_fdezno primeministerp, we don't have hyper-v puppetized...16:27
primeministerpluis_fdez: perfect then16:27
primeministerpluis_fdez: hopefully you can use some of our efforts16:27
luis_fdezthe rest (controller, kvm nodes are puppetized)16:27
primeministerpluis_fdez: ociuhandu did a great job refactoring my original bits16:28
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting16:28
primeministerphanrahat: ping16:28
luis_fdezyeah, one of the next steps should be to try to mix your puppet bits with the structure used here16:28
primeministerphanrahat: glad your back, is there any response on the custom ssp help?16:28
primeministerpalexpilotti: ^^16:29
luis_fdezI think your work could reduce my headaches hehe16:29
primeministerpluis_fdez: defaintely16:29
primeministerpluis_fdez: would you like to start an email thread to discuss further?16:29
luis_fdezprimeministerp: the last puppet bits are still on you github? or ociuhandu has other?16:30
primeministerpluis_fdez: there is entirely new ones16:30
primeministerpluis_fdez: i'll have to get cleared to share16:30
primeministerpluis_fdez: hence the email discussion16:30
ociuhanduluis_fdez: your puppet scripts for the controller use the latest git or install the stable release from the repos?16:30
luis_fdezociuhandu: our current system is an essex environment with some patchs to adapt to CERN.... we're starting a new one based on Folsom on February16:32
primeministerpluis_fdez: great16:32
ociuhanduluis_fdez: ok, great16:32
primeministerpluis_fdez: i'm assuming that's when the hyper-v integration will begin as well?16:33
luis_fdezyeah primeministerp, we hope an important boost on HyperV hypervisors for the next version16:33
primeministerpluis_fdez: please let jan and tim know i'm here to help in any way possible16:33
luis_fdezok, I'll let them know! thanks16:34
primeministerpanything else anyone would like to add16:34
primeministerphanrahat: ?16:34
luis_fdezprimeministerp: about RDP16:34
primeministerpluis_fdez: yes16:34
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC16:35
luis_fdezI know it's in an early stage but... is there a timelin aprox?16:35
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting16:35
primeministerpluis_fdez: we're shooting for the G release16:35
primeministerpluis_fdez: but not sure when bits will be there for testing16:36
luis_fdezdo you think it could be feasible to port it to folsom?16:36
primeministerpalexpilotti: any rough ideas?16:36
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting16:36
primeministerpluis_fdez: hmm16:36
primeministerpluis_fdez: I'll have to look into that16:36
*** tongli has joined #openstack-meeting16:36
primeministerpluis_fdez: it's pretty tight from a resource perspective, and we've not really thought about backporting16:37
primeministerpluis_fdez: however i can look into it16:37
luis_fdezok, I'd like to integrate it in our next release, as it's an attractive improvement for endusers on Wndows16:37
primeministerpluis_fdez: and see if we can put it on the radar16:37
primeministerpluis_fdez: definately16:38
primeministerpluis_fdez: it's key for windows workloads16:38
luis_fdezok, thank you :)16:38
primeministerpluis_fdez: no problem16:38
*** anniec has quit IRC16:38
primeministerpanything else?16:38
primeministerpalexpilotti: ?16:39
luis_fdezprimeministerp: another thing...16:39
alexpilottinothing new for the moment :-)16:39
primeministerpok then, I'll call the meeting, thanks everyone16:39
alexpilottibut G-3 is behind the corner, so I guess that we'll have quite a lot of news soon :-)16:39
luis_fdezwhat about the resizing of the instances on hyperv?16:39
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"16:39
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 16:39:39 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)16:39
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2013/hyper_v.2013-01-08-15.58.html16:39
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2013/hyper_v.2013-01-08-15.58.txt16:39
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/hyper_v/2013/hyper_v.2013-01-08-15.58.log.html16:39
*** hanrahat has quit IRC16:40
*** jhenner has quit IRC16:44
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting16:44
*** hemna_ has quit IRC16:44
primeministerpluis_fdez: ping16:46
primeministerpluis_fdez: one more question16:46
primeministerpluis_fdez: do you use vms for the controller infrastructure?16:47
*** garyk has quit IRC16:48
*** Mr_T has joined #openstack-meeting16:48
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting16:49
*** maoy has joined #openstack-meeting16:50
*** markmcclain has quit IRC16:50
*** joesavak has quit IRC16:50
*** obondarev has quit IRC16:50
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting16:53
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting16:53
*** hemna has joined #openstack-meeting16:54
*** aabes has joined #openstack-meeting16:56
*** markvan_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:58
*** Guest88224 is now known as annegentle16:58
*** annegentle is now known as Guest2452916:59
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting17:01
*** markvan has quit IRC17:01
*** markvan_ is now known as markvan17:01
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting17:01
*** EmilienM__ has quit IRC17:01
*** afazekas_ has quit IRC17:02
*** vishy_zz is now known as vishy17:05
*** al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away17:10
*** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting17:10
*** lloydde has joined #openstack-meeting17:13
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting17:14
*** bencherian has quit IRC17:23
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting17:26
*** rafaduran has quit IRC17:30
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting17:31
*** vishy is now known as vishy_zz17:33
*** vishy_zz is now known as vishy17:33
*** dosaboy has joined #openstack-meeting17:39
*** dosaboy has left #openstack-meeting17:39
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting17:43
*** flaper87 has quit IRC17:44
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting17:45
*** primeministerp has quit IRC17:45
*** vishy is now known as vishy_zz17:46
*** ndipanov has quit IRC17:47
*** adjohn has quit IRC17:50
*** sgordon has joined #openstack-meeting17:51
*** Nachi has quit IRC17:52
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting17:52
*** bencherian has left #openstack-meeting17:53
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** dwchadwick has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away17:55
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting17:55
*** nachi has joined #openstack-meeting17:55
*** vishy_zz is now known as vishy17:56
*** ksiu has joined #openstack-meeting17:56
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley17:57
*** john5223 has joined #openstack-meeting17:57
*** derekh has quit IRC17:59
*** ndipanov has joined #openstack-meeting17:59
ayoungKeystone!  heckj dolphm gyee dwchadwick ksiu henrynash sound off!18:00
henrynashhi there18:00
dolphm#startmeeting keystone18:00
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 18:00:28 2013 UTC.  The chair is dolphm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:00
*** Guest24529 is now known as annegentle18:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:00
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:00
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'keystone'18:00
dolphm#topic team membership updates18:00
*** openstack changes topic to "team membership updates (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:00
*** annegentle is now known as Guest5358118:00
ayoungheckj, I think this one is yours to address....18:01
dolphmheckj made a couple nominations for 'core' contributor status on the mailing list last week (guang-yee & henrynash)18:01
dolphmthis is definitely heckj's to address18:02
dolphmi'd also like to throw a belated +1 for henry-nash into the ring18:02
*** spzala has joined #openstack-meeting18:03
ayoungWell, for now, lets assume that it is a done deal.  I think we are all in agreement.18:03
dolphmi guess we can leave that topic at that until heckj shares the "verdict"18:03
dolphmgyee: /salute18:03
ayoungyep /O18:04
dolphm#topic High priority bugs or immediate issues18:04
*** openstack changes topic to "High priority bugs or immediate issues (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:04
dolphmanything exciting going on? i'm not aware of anything18:04
ayoung0 Critical18:04
gyeeI am working on separating out authentication, token validation18:04
ayoung16 High importance18:04
dolphmgyee: on the road for v3?18:04
gyeeI am hooking up google 2-factor auth as well18:05
gyeewith any luck, I should have a WIP review this week18:05
dolphmgyee: awesome, joesavak and chmouel will be thrilled :) they've both been asking about auth support on v3 recently18:05
dolphmgyee: i look forward to it18:05
ayounggyee, nice18:05
ayoungon multifactor, can you spec ouyt how it will look inside the token data?18:05
dolphm#topic multifactor18:05
*** openstack changes topic to "multifactor (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:05
ayoungspeaking of which18:05
gyeeso we have "password_credentials"18:05
gyeethat auth mechanism18:05
*** vkmc has quit IRC18:06
gyeewe are basically teeing off on the auth mechanism18:06
ayoung#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/multi-factor-authn18:06
gyeeso for google 2-factor, I'll have something like "google_2factor"18:06
dolphm#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/multi-factor-authn18:06
ayounggyee, so I would see it like18:06
gyeeauth mechanisms will be handler like backend drivers18:06
ayoungauth_mechs: ["google_2factor"]18:07
ayoungeach time you authenticate token to token, you add to that list18:07
gyeeright, so for v3 , there are two auth mechanisms by default18:07
gyeepassword_credentials and token18:07
ayoungmaybe we can just call that field "factors"?18:07
ayoungprobabl auth_factors18:07
egallen Design specs must be independent of the factor18:08
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting18:08
* heckj runs in and runs out - will promote the +1'd folks to core this afternoon & announce in release meeting & mailing list (congrats gyee & henrynash!)18:08
dolphmfactors is slightly more complicated than that, in that 2 "somethings you know" are still just 1 "factor" (something you know)18:08
ayoungheckj, you have something else you want to add?18:08
ayoungdolphm, so the idea was we list the factors in the token18:08
dolphmso ['password', 'mothers_maiden_name'] is 1 factor auth18:08
ayoungand then RBAC uses18:08
ayounger, policy18:08
ayounguses the factors to decide "This token is good enough"18:09
dolphm['password', 'mothers_maiden_name', 'rsa_token'] == 2 factor auth18:09
gyeegoogle 2factor supports both sequence-based hash or time-based hash18:09
dwchadwickthere is a better way than this. Its called level of assurance (LoA) if anyoone has heard of it18:09
gyeevery straight forward18:09
ayoungdwchadwick, yes.  I think that is what we are headed toward18:09
gyeeI tested it with my android phone, pretty easy to use18:09
dwchadwickThere is a NIST standard on it, and an ISO standard as well18:09
ayoungdwchadwick, the thing is, it needs to be enforced by the policy engine18:10
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting18:10
*** khaido has joined #openstack-meeting18:10
dwchadwickWe have already included this in our federation work18:10
dwchadwickExactly. That is what LOA is for. For over 5 years our PERMIS policy engine has support LOA18:10
ayoungdwchadwick, have you specified how it modifieds the data encapsulated in the signed token document?18:10
gyeefor multi-factor, we'll have something like "transitional" tokens18:11
dwchadwickLOA is an attribute assigned to the user, just like any other identity attribute18:11
dwchadwickso that the PDP makes decisions based on all the attributes18:11
ayoungdwchadwick, is that the name of the attribute "LOA"?18:11
gyeetransitional tokens are like unscoped tokens except you can't trade them in for a scope token18:11
ayoungI would like to avoid TLAs18:11
dwchadwickYes LOA (for level of assurance)18:11
dwchadwickThere are two ways you can handle it.18:11
dwchadwick1. As a subject attribute or18:11
dwchadwick2. As an environmental attribute18:12
ayounggyee, why not trade them in?18:12
dolphmgyee: would it make more sense to simply add an extra factor to *any* valid token you have?18:12
dwchadwickIt does not really matter as long as the policy writer and the authn engine in Keystone agree and put the attribute in the right place18:12
dolphmgyee: what's the problem with trading in a "transitional" token for one with authz?18:13
*** lloydde has quit IRC18:13
gyeewell, auth policies is a different issue18:13
ayoungso  in the auth dictionary of the token we have a field factors.  It will have an array.  I will write up the values that go in there based on existing mechanisms.  Any additional mechanisms will get reviewed when they get submitted as patch review18:13
dwchadwickgyee - please done use auth18:14
gyeefor 2factor, transitional token is an incomplete token18:14
gyeelike a half token18:14
dwchadwickuse either authn or authz then it is clear what you mean18:14
ayoungdwchadwick, I'll post a sample JSON doc.  1 sec18:14
gyeetoday, you can trade in an unscoped token for a scoped token18:14
ayounggyee, instead, it will be a token that would not pass the policy check on some servers.18:14
ayoungso if you auth with just uid/pw, you could trade that for a scoped token, but it still wouldn't make it pass the policy check.18:15
gyeetransitional token just holds the state of auth18:15
dwchadwickIf tokens are created by keystone and validated by keystone why does it matter to any other service what they contain18:15
ayounggyee, so my point is that we won't have explicit transitional tokens18:15
ayoungdwchadwick, because it is up to the other services to determine the LOA they require18:16
gyeeright, I am thinking about inventing one :)18:16
ayoungKeystone does not enforce policy18:16
ayounggyee, don't18:16
ayounggyee, we don't need them18:16
dwchadwickbut the token contains the loa buried secretly in it, and keystone tells the service what the loa is whe n the service asks keystone to validate the token18:16
gyeeso for auths that require multiple roundtrips, what token do we issue?18:16
dwchadwickso the LOA needs to be passed back in keystone's response but that is all you need to define to the outside world18:16
dolphmdwchadwick: why does it need to be buried / a secret?18:17
ayounggyee, a token that specifies what authorization mechanism was used to generate it18:17
dwchadwickdolph: because the format of the token is opaque to the service18:17
gyeeayoung, authentication mechanism?18:17
dwchadwickthe service is given a blob by the user and passes the blob to keystone for validation18:17
dwchadwickIn this way keystone can change the blob format and the service is unaffected by it18:18
dolphmdwchadwick: ah, didn't realize that's all you meant18:18
ayounggyee, OK,  say I need 2 factors:  uid/pw and  PKI  for example.18:18
ayoungFirst I auth with uid/pw and get a token.  Then I resubmit that token with PKI18:18
gyeeayoung, that's two "complete" auths18:19
ayoungnow I have a token with auth{ factors:[pki,pw]18:19
dwchadwickayoung. In your authz policy you say "in order to access this resource you need a role of X and an Loa of 4318:19
*** obondarev has quit IRC18:19
dolphmayoung: that's still 1 factor auth -- both are something you know18:19
dwchadwick43 should be 318:19
ayoungdolphm, please stop confusing the issue with facts.18:19
gyeesay we have a challenge-response auth mechanism18:19
gyeewhich require multiple roundtrips18:20
gyeehow do we issue something that holds the transitional state?18:20
dwchadwickyou guys need to separate out authz from auth. LOA is the perfect mechanism for this18:20
ayounggyee, that is outside of Keystone18:20
gyeewell, we have to issue/return something18:20
ayoungdwchadwick,  authZ from authN?18:20
dolphmgyee: can you start a mailing list discussion on this topic with the direction that you're headed? obviously there's a lot to be discussed that we won't be able to cover today :)18:21
ayoungdolphm, will do.18:21
gyeeyes sir18:21
dolphmmeeting agenda is crazy long today18:21
dolphm#topic mapping18:21
*** openstack changes topic to "mapping (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:21
dolphmayoung: ^?18:21
ayoungdolphm, what I am describing is the end result of the discussion from the summit.  I'll clean up the spec.18:21
ayoungdolphm, I assume you mean mapping for LDAP and groups?18:21
dwchadwickwe have posted one new spec for mapping and revised the existing spec18:22
ayoungas the Kent folk also have mapping stuff to discuss18:22
dolphm"mapping (groups? attributes? ldap? ?? ayoung)" full topic on the agenda18:22
ayoungOK.  one thing at a time18:22
ayoungfirst up is groups18:22
*** mestery_ is now known as mestery18:22
ayounghenrynash' sreview has been approved and will merge once Jenkin's issues are sorted18:22
henrynashit's merged18:23
henrynashgyee: indeed!18:23
ayoungthat has a SQL backend, but no LDAP.  henrynash and I will work through that offline18:23
henrynashayoung: yep, have some other IBM folks I can bring in to help on that too18:23
ayounghenrynash, cool.  Anything else that we need to discuss in this forum?18:24
dwchadwickif you make the group change to controllers shouldnt it be independent of the backend18:24
henrynashnot on this one18:24
ayoung dwchadwick this is where  the group information is stored18:24
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting18:24
dwchadwickI know, but when we are producing the attribute mapping code we are now doing it in the controllers18:25
ayoungdwchadwick, OK,  care to talk through your updated mapping spec?18:25
dwchadwickso that it does not matter what backend you have (or so Kristy informs me)18:25
dwchadwickYes can do18:25
ayoungdwchadwick, right, and for your code, that is the right place to do it, but even your code persists mapping, it just does it in a separate backend18:25
ksiudwchadwick, it still needs a backend interface18:25
henrynashdwchadwick….but you need to store it somewhere (or at least someone needs to)…18:26
dwchadwickTo the spec changes18:26
ayoungksiu, you are creating a new backend module called "mapping" right?18:26
dwchadwickThe original spec assumed that the keystone admin was in charge of everything18:26
ksiui think I may have created some confusion here, I may have mispoke, I was discussing moving some functionality18:26
dwchadwickalso the APIs were too low level for Henry to use18:26
henrynashdwchadwick…and need to decide which backends you need to support18:26
dolphmdwchadwick: the controllers consume an interface to a backend, but it doesn't matter what backend the user has configured (all backends should implement the interface equally); the backend driver still need to support whatever calls you need to make, such as "persist_new_mapping"18:26
dwchadwickSo the new spec does two things18:26
dwchadwicka) provides a mechanism for distributed administration of mappings18:27
dwchadwickb) provides a high level API for these admins to use which makes attribute mapping easy18:27
ayoungdwchadwick, so a) sounds like a general purpose problem solver18:27
*** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting18:27
dolphmdwchadwick: (a) is dependent on (b) i assume?18:28
henrynashdwchadwick/ksiu: do we have a proposal on the formal api doc on that?18:28
ayoungcan you talk through it in a little more detail18:28
dwchadwickdolph: I will leave you and Kristy to deal with these "implementation" issues if you dont mind18:28
dolphmdwchadwick: no problem18:28
ayoungOK, moving on then..18:28
dolphmnext topic?18:28
dolphm#topic register modules18:28
*** openstack changes topic to "register modules (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:29
dolphmi'm not really sure what this is -- anyone?18:29
dwchadwickit would be posssible for the keystone admin to distribute out the work and let the admins use the low level APIs, but it would be inconvenient to them18:29
henrynashdolphm: nope18:29
dwchadwickhenry: on what18:29
ayoungdolphm, ah, let me address18:29
henrynash(on knowing what register modules is)18:30
gyeeayoung, that's the lazy loading stuff you working on?18:30
ayounggyee, yes18:30
ayounghere is the issue18:30
*** srini_g has quit IRC18:30
ayoungcontrollers need backends18:30
ayoungrecently, we have made decent strides in cleaning this up18:30
*** srini_g has joined #openstack-meeting18:30
*** Jaxster has joined #openstack-meeting18:30
ayoungthanks dolphm18:30
ayoungbut there is still a little ugliness18:30
dolphmayoung: modules == concrete classes?18:31
*** darraghb has quit IRC18:31
ayoungIn order for a backend to fulfill a dependency it needs to have been created already18:31
gyeeayoung, any reason you can't use keystone.openstack.common.importutils?18:31
ayoungdolphm, well, I would say modules = identity, trusts, tokens...18:31
ayounggyee, hold on18:31
ayoungthere are 3 pieces in play, before we talk solutions18:31
dolphmgyee: i'm not sure that 'modules' == 'python modules'18:32
ayoung1) a class has to say what it needs18:32
ayoung2) the web server etc needs to specify what class fills what dependency18:32
ayoungand 3) that class needs to be loaded18:32
ayoungall that has to happen before we can resolve a dependency18:32
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting18:33
ayoungright now, we have this  managers() mechanism from termie's efforts18:33
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away18:33
ayoungit allows us to swap out the implementation based on the configu file18:33
ayoungwhich is basically what I want to be able to do, just in a more general way18:33
ayoungSo I'd like to drop "managers" and instead have code that iterates through the Drivers list in config and regsters which classes are used to resolve those depenedencies18:34
ayoungThis would be built on top of my strings->classes work18:34
ayoung#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18542/18:34
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC18:34
dolphmayoung: that would certainly work, but where would you put code that managers currently implement? (e.g. exception handling)18:35
ayoungOne thing it would clean up is that we wouldn't need to have code to explicitly create all of the Managers early on18:35
ayoungdolphm, let me post the link18:35
ayoungThat is all they do18:36
ayoungdolphm, there is also some real ugliness there18:36
ayoungin that we make calls with context used as the slef pointer.18:36
dolphmayoung: classes that extend keystone.common.manager.Manager have implementation details18:37
ayoungdolphm, Identity, for example18:37
dolphmayoung: the identity manager is relatively barren compared to https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/master/keystone/policy/core.py#L2918:38
ayoungso tokens is in here https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/master/keystone/token/core.py#L7018:38
ayoungAnd that code can easiler go into the Driver at the class level18:38
ayounglet me look18:38
dolphmayoung: then it must be replicated into every driver?18:38
ayoungdolphm, no18:39
ayoungDrivers are treated as abstract base classes, but they don't have to be pure abstract18:39
ayoungwe'd need to deconflict names, like get_policy18:39
*** Mr_T has left #openstack-meeting18:40
dolphmayoung: i see where you're going, but i think the rest of this conversation would be best suited in the context of the code review?18:40
dolphmayoung: i think everyone else is falling asleep18:40
gyeeI am still awake, barely :)18:40
ayoungdolphm, fair enough. I just wanted people aware of where I was going with this, and why.  Much easier up front.18:40
dolphmayoung: cool18:41
ayoungWe can move on18:41
gyeeayoung +118:41
dolphm#topic Test coverage18:41
*** openstack changes topic to "Test coverage (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:41
dolphmayoung: i assume you've been tracking our coverage?18:41
dolphmayoung: has it improved?18:41
ayoungHave not looked at it18:41
dolphm(why was this on the agenda then?)18:41
ayoungdolphm, let me regen the stats and hit this at the end of the meeting18:41
ayoungdolphm, because we said we were going to review18:42
dolphmayoung: cool, we need to get jenkins tracking our coverage again (it used to chart it for every commit)18:42
dolphmi think it got killed because it started recording 0% coverage all the time18:42
dolphmayoung: ah18:42
dolphm#link Discussion on proposed api changes for domain role grants18:43
dolphm#topic Discussion on proposed api changes for domain role grants18:43
*** openstack changes topic to "Discussion on proposed api changes for domain role grants (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:43
dolphm#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18706/18:43
henrynashhopefully can make this quick…Dolph - I changed the bp to just be the re-specifation of what it meant to assign a role to a domain18:43
henrynash..i.e. it means just to the container (not all the projects within it)18:43
dolphmso, for everyone else... to grant a user a role on all projects in a domain: you'll have to get the list of projects in the domain, and then make a grant call for each project you get back18:44
dolphmit's a bit more chatty, but lets us distinguish between grants on the domain itself and grants on the contents of the domain18:44
dolphmany objections?18:44
dolphmi assume only keystone will consume domain-grants18:44
henrynashfor now yes18:44
gyeeso what does granting a role to a domain mean?18:45
dwchadwickgood question18:45
dolphmgyee: absolutely nothing to other services18:45
henrynashe.g. give a user permission to manage user and drops for a given domain18:45
dolphmgyee: but to keystone, it means you have a role on the container, so you could (for example) create projects in that domain18:45
henrynashi.e. the keystone policy engine will process this18:45
gyeeoh, so its a domain admin role then?18:46
*** devananda has quit IRC18:46
ayounghenrynash, hrm.  Let me process that.  Not sure I like it, as it makes the implementation tricky.  I'm not saying "No"  just lets discuss in a couple days.18:46
dolphmgyee: yes18:46
dwchadwickthis is not granting a role to a domain. this is granting a role permission to perform ops on the domain18:46
dolphmgyee: could be more granular as well18:46
henrynashdwchadwick: yes18:46
dwchadwickso it would help to be more precise18:46
henrynashayoung: sure18:46
*** devananda has joined #openstack-meeting18:46
dolphmdwchadwick: "not granting a role to [the contents of] a domain" yes; however, i imagine that if you have some sort of admin role on the domain, nothing is stopping you from granting yourself roles on all the of contents of the domain18:47
gyeedolphm, I am fine with this18:47
dolphmgyee: cool18:47
dwchadwickcorrect. but this is still granting permissions to a role, isnt it? they are just diferent permissions18:47
dolphmgyee: checkout the linked review above if you have a chance18:48
ayoungdo we need domain level roles at all?  Don't groups support that use case better?18:48
dwchadwickgroups dont have permissions18:48
dwchadwickgroups map into roles and roles have permissions18:48
gyeeayoung, role definitions are global right now, you saying domain-level role definitions?18:49
ayounggyee, OK, let me be clearer18:49
ayoungdo we need domain specific role grants?18:49
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley18:49
dolphmayoung: i think they're sort of orthogonal concepts -- domains own users and projects, groups collect subsets of users from any domain as an administrative shortcut18:49
dwchadwickI would say yes18:49
dwchadwicksince domains are autonomous units arent they? so they should have different permissions18:50
ayounggyee, I can see where two domains might have different names for  their roles.18:50
henrynashayoung: how would I allow one user to only, day, manage the crud for users and groups in one particular domain, but they not have any project access18:50
henrynash(a very common enterprise job)18:50
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting18:50
dolphmayoung: when i wrote the spec for domain role grants, i failed to distinguish between having a role on the domain and having a role on the contents of the domain; this fixes that18:50
gyeeayoung, I would love to have role definitions own by domains18:50
gyeemeaning you can only grant domain-roles to users for projects within the domain only18:51
dwchadwickI thought we agreed months ago that roles could be both local and global18:51
ayoungdolphm, henrynash right, I can see the need to be able to administer the domain,  but why would I want to be able to use gratns to grant a role to au ser for all projects in that domain.18:51
ayoungThat, to me, is what groups are for.18:52
henrynashayoung: that's way we took out18:52
ayounghenrynash, then there should be no need for a flag18:52
ayoungthe role is never applied to the enclosed projects18:52
henrynashayoung: it's been removed, see the commit comment18:52
ayounghenrynash, ah, I was looking at the blueprint.  We are in violent agreement18:53
henrynashayoung: I should go update the bp as well, sorry18:53
henrynashayoung: +218:53
dolphm#topic Discussion on proposed api changes for domain token scoping18:53
*** openstack changes topic to "Discussion on proposed api changes for domain token scoping (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:53
dolphm#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18770/18:53
henrynashthis is kind of the partner in crime….so you can get a token that lets you do the admin role18:54
dolphmso, this ties into the previous conversation, and other services wouldn't support these tokens, as there's no project-level authorization18:55
ayoungdolphm, that may not be true.  It should not be up to Keystone to enforce18:55
henrynashdolphm: yes..one day I can imagine cases when the might (e.g. images that are common to a domain)18:55
ayounghenrynash, zacly18:55
henrynashbut they can do that in their own time…this lays the foundations18:56
ayounghenrynash, so the follow on work is "scope a token to a set of endpoints."18:56
ayoungFeel free to knock that out as well!18:57
henrynashayoung: I'll certainly take a look!18:57
ayounghenrynash, cool, we can talk about that offline18:57
dolphmhenrynash: if we implement this in auth_token middleware, we need to be very careful about what is exposed as DOMIAN_ID / DOMAIN_NAME to the underlying service (as we have both the user's owning domain and potentially the token's domain-scoped authz, which may not reflect the same domain)18:57
ayoung3 minutes remaining18:57
*** olaph has joined #openstack-meeting18:58
ayoungwe can skip Dependency injectsion18:58
henrynashdolphm: ok18:58
ayoungalready covered it18:58
dolphmUSER_DOMAIN_ID / USER_DOMAIN_NAME (user's owning domain) + DOMAIN_ID / DOMAIN_NAME (authz scope)18:58
dolphmayoung: k; i'll push the rest of the topic to next week18:58
gyeegood idea, need time to absorb this18:58
ayoungdolphm, migration, for the last minute?18:58
ayoung"Default" domain migration (dolphm)18:59
dolphmayoung: i don't have a code review up for that yet, so i'll push that as well18:59
ayoungIf anyone is willing to talk SQL, lets to that in #openstack-dev after this18:59
dolphm#topic open discussion18:59
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:59
dolphmsuper brief, we have like 10 seconds on my clock ;)18:59
gyeecan somebody review my memcache protection changes?18:59
ayoungSummit is in Portland this year19:00
dolphmgyee: link?19:00
gyeedolphm: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18909/19:00
dolphmalways wanted to go to portland (i've been to vancouver, which was fantastic)19:00
dolphm#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18909/19:00
ayounggyee, please add the core devs to the list of reviewes for important changes19:00
ayounglist of reviewers19:00
gyeeayoung, will do19:00
dolphmi get notified either way :)19:01
ayoungtimes up.  we all revert to mice and pumpkins19:01
dolphmhence my review queue moves slowly19:01
dolphmhack responsibly, everyone19:01
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"19:01
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 19:01:25 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:01
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-01-08-18.00.html19:01
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-01-08-18.00.txt19:01
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2013/keystone.2013-01-08-18.00.log.html19:01
jeblairci/infra people?19:01
*** Guest53581 is now known as annegentle19:01
*** annegentle is now known as Guest1915119:02
jeblairmordred, ttx: ping19:02
mordredhey jeblair !19:02
fungipleia2 said she can't make it, but she's lurking and planning to read scrollback19:02
funginew employee appointment stuff19:03
jeblairless cool19:03
jeblair#startmeeting ci19:03
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 19:03:13 2013 UTC.  The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:03
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:03
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: ci)"19:03
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'ci'19:03
jeblair#topic meeting name19:03
*** openstack changes topic to "meeting name (Meeting topic: ci)"19:03
jeblairshould we call this thing the "infra" meeting? :)19:03
jeblairi mean, it's longer to type, but seems more accurate to me.19:03
clarkbthat would make the naming consistent19:03
* fungi agrees19:04
fungimotion carried?19:04
jeblairmotion carried19:04
jeblair#topic CLA19:04
*** openstack changes topic to "CLA (Meeting topic: ci)"19:04
jeblairi just got the new cla text from jbryce19:04
clarkball your code is belong to the openstack foundation19:04
funginow my plans for what i'm working on this week change slightly ;)19:04
jeblairi just fwded it to fungi and mordred19:05
jeblairi haven't read it yet, so first order of business is make sure it's actually what we want19:05
*** jpich has joined #openstack-meeting19:05
fungiso we're basically ready to make it go. i'll touch up docs edits and rebase stuff accordingly19:05
fungiand yes, read the new cla of course19:06
jeblairfungi: cool, when you're done with that, let us all know.  i want to make another pass at reviewing all that19:06
fungiand assuming everything looks okay, we can agree on a date and announce stuff19:06
*** spzala has quit IRC19:06
fungijeblair: will do. second order of business after the meeting, once i fix the review expiration script19:07
clarkbis the foundation's server up and ready to return 200s?19:07
*** stevebake has joined #openstack-meeting19:07
fungiclarkb: yes, has been. i just have to give toddmorey the new keys i installed in heira for production19:07
clarkband we can put it in place on review-dev in the same way that will be deployed to review.o.o right?19:07
fungi#link https://review.openstack.org/1409919:08
fungifor reference19:08
jeblairfungi: btw, toddmorey is a foundation employee now (which probably doesn't change much)19:08
fungijeblair: so are you ;)19:08
jeblairyep.  just mentioning it in case he may have slightly less rackspace stuff to deal with (i'm hoping)19:09
fungioh, you mean in a good way!19:09
jeblairi like to think so.  :)19:09
fungiso that's all on that topic for the moment i think?19:09
jeblairhe's always been super busy (but does great work)19:09
jeblairi think so19:09
jeblair#topic review expiration19:10
*** openstack changes topic to "review expiration (Meeting topic: ci)"19:10
jeblairfungi: plan?19:10
clarkbwe should probably send an email nowish giving people a heads up19:10
*** spzala has joined #openstack-meeting19:10
clarkbotherwise the potential flood of gerrit email may be confusing to people19:10
fungiclarkb: good point19:10
fungii'll follow up to my pre-holiday e-mail on the -dev ml19:10
*** spzala_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:11
fungiand then give it an hour and approve the fix19:11
fungi#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18541/19:11
*** dwchadwick has quit IRC19:11
* mordred is going to be sad when several of his reviews expire...19:11
fungimordred: you and me both19:11
jeblair#topic rechecks19:12
*** openstack changes topic to "rechecks (Meeting topic: ci)"19:12
*** stevebake has quit IRC19:12
jeblairI'm not ready to announce the recheck bug linking yet...19:12
jeblairI'd like to write up wiki docs on the final syntax and make sure we can point to those before making an announcement19:12
fungisounds like a plan19:13
jeblairso I'll try to do that this week, and maybe we can announce the new syntax next week19:13
clarkbjeblair: have you decided on a way to handle the non bug rechecks?19:13
jeblairclarkb: no.  any suggestions?19:13
jeblairthe idea is most rechecks can be linked to a bug, but sometimes you just need to recheck something because master has moved on, and it really doesn't make sense to link to a bug in that case.19:14
clarkbmaybe a dummy bug so that the rechecks page tracks cases of that properly?19:14
*** eharney has quit IRC19:14
clarkbor some verb in place of a bug number19:14
jeblairclarkb: well, it's just not very interesting, so i don't think i want to collect data on it (and have a huge list of changes linked to it)19:14
jeblairso maybe just "recheck no bug" or something19:15
*** EmilienM__ has joined #openstack-meeting19:15
*** spzala has quit IRC19:15
*** spzala_ is now known as spzala19:15
jeblairwhich is, frankly, a weird thing to say, so i'd still love to find something better.  :)19:15
clarkbmy only worry with not tracking it is that it may be too easy to use that in place of a bug19:15
*** EmilienM__ has left #openstack-meeting19:15
fungirecheck kthxbye19:15
clarkbbut thats a social problem and not a technical one19:15
*** EmilienM__ has joined #openstack-meeting19:16
jeblairwe're trying to get useful data, and if people chose to be jerks about it, that's better solved with social pressure than tech19:16
mordredor with wolves19:16
jeblairi hadn't thought of that, but it just may work19:17
* mordred is occasionally helpful19:17
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC19:17
fungiso having a nonbug keyword still helps remind not-jerks that we appreciate bug numbers if they can dig one up for us19:17
jeblairfungi: yeah' and saying specifically "there is no bug" and lying about it reminds them they're jerks19:17
clarkbya I definitely think we shouldn't allow the old 'recheck'19:17
*** ksiu has quit IRC19:17
*** joshuamckenty has joined #openstack-meeting19:18
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting19:18
fungiand i agree there's not much to be done about people not caring. they need a reason to care and if we can't give then one, laziness will often prevail over helpfulness19:19
fungier, give them one19:19
*** spzala has quit IRC19:19
fungihaving a good stats page about that stuff counts as a good reason, in my view19:19
jeblairso i'd like to talk about the wiki and status page, and continue the ttx all-request hour, but I don't think Ryan_Lane or ttx are here now...19:19
*** spzala has joined #openstack-meeting19:19
*** dkehn has joined #openstack-meeting19:20
jeblairanyone else have topics while we wait a bit?19:20
clarkbjenkins upgrade19:20
*** Ryan_Lane has joined #openstack-meeting19:20
jeblair#topic jenkins upgrade19:20
*** openstack changes topic to "jenkins upgrade (Meeting topic: ci)"19:20
fungiwe upgraded jenkins?19:20
jeblairwe did that19:20
*** spzala has quit IRC19:20
jeblairwe still need to fix devstack-oneiric image builds19:20
clarkb#link https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/SECURITY/Jenkins+Security+Advisory+2013-01-0419:20
jeblairand then we also need to fix the scp plugin race19:20
jeblair(which is not related to the upgrade)19:21
clarkbI had to change hudson's authorized_keys file on tarballs.openstack.org19:21
jeblairclarkb: good catch.  we should work on moving tarballs.o.o to static.o.o19:21
jeblairanything else creep up since the upgrade?19:22
clarkbjeblair: http://paste.openstack.org/show/29012/ is a preliminary patch to fix scp19:22
jeblairclarkb: cool, thanks!19:22
clarkbwe may need to consider having more devstack nodes19:22
jeblairclarkb: we're still down because of the oneiric thing...19:23
fungipretty sure i got through all the rechecks/reverifies last night before i passed out, so should have been ready for most people by the time they saw the e-mail19:23
jeblairclarkb: the providers that have oneiric images aren't creating precise images19:23
clarkbwill non diablo make use of the oneiric devstack hosts?19:23
jeblairclarkb: no, it's just they both get built in the same job19:24
jeblairclarkb: and oneiric gets built first19:24
mordredwe could just fix it by dropping support for diablo19:24
fungior with rhel devstack slaves ;)19:24
mordredI was only half kidding .. anybody know when the last time we took a patch for diablo was?19:24
jeblairmordred: no, but if we're going to make a case for dropping diablo based on red bitrot jobs, i'd like the bitrot jobs to actually be running.  :/19:25
fungii'd like to think we'd still patch serious security issues in a year-old release19:26
jeblairfungi: i would like to think that but i'm far from sure19:26
mordredjust putting it out there - we've done 6 diablo patches since last april19:26
fungiright. would be great for missing slaves not to be the reason we don't get a security fix out though19:26
jeblairso anyway, the oneiric problem is a really weird apt/dpkg issue, so if anyone with expertise in that area has some time to pitch in this afternoon, that would be great.  :)19:27
clarkbjeblair: I had planned to take a second look at it, but I do not claim apt expertise19:27
funginow that i'm a little more awake, i can try to take a look19:27
jeblairi'm currently stuck at "but that number _is_ greater than that other number".19:27
mordredjeblair: what are the two numbers? (what's the problem?)19:28
fungii still think it has to do with the arch-specificness of the one version, but that's just a hunch. it was late19:28
mordredalso - I hear that zul might know something about packaging...19:28
jeblairmordred: it's yucky and detailed, let's work on it in #-infra after the meeting.. i'd like to move onto wiki...19:28
jeblair#topic wiki19:29
*** openstack changes topic to "wiki (Meeting topic: ci)"19:29
jeblairbtw, i saw some scrollback in #-infra... i did upgrade moin on wiki.o.o19:29
Ryan_Lanenot much has changed there19:29
Ryan_Lanefor mediawiki19:29
jeblairi _think_ i mentioned that in channel at the time19:29
jeblairRyan_Lane: so yeah, if possible, we're even more excited about moving to mediawiki...19:30
jeblairRyan_Lane: with, like, people paying attention to it and stuff.  :)19:30
Ryan_LaneI thought we had a volunteer for the skin, but I guess it was more work than he expected19:30
Ryan_Laneah. right19:30
jeblairolaph: are you volunteering to write a mediawiki skin?19:31
Ryan_Laneolaph: did you get a chance to look at it?19:31
olaphi essentially have a default skin with a openstack logo slaped in there19:31
fungithat's more than a default skin with no openstack logo19:31
olaphhow should it look?  should it be obvious it is mediawiki, or should it look like the openstack site as much as possible?19:31
Ryan_Laneit honestly may be enough to just change the logo and the css19:31
jeblairolaph: consider https://jenkins.openstack.org/19:31
*** gyee has quit IRC19:32
jeblairwhich is not responding for me right now...19:32
jeblairah there it goes..19:32
jeblairanyway, it's basically a logo, and some text colors changed to match19:32
fungieach release gets slower19:32
jeblairand it made a world of difference19:32
jeblairolaph, Ryan_Lane: so yeah, it may not take much more than that...19:32
*** danwent has quit IRC19:33
jeblairwhich is pretty much what the moin theme is like too19:33
*** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting19:33
jeblairit still looks like moinmoin19:33
Ryan_Lanethat's much easier, then. it may not even require a full skin19:33
clarkbis the other open item the column data?19:33
jeblair#action olaph to finish openstack skin19:33
Ryan_Lanecolumn data? for tables?19:34
clarkbRyan_Lane: ya19:34
clarkbforgive me if I am not describing it properl19:34
Ryan_Laneit would be ideal to fix that, but that perl script is frightening19:34
Ryan_Laneit may be best to just fix the spots its broken in the content19:34
Ryan_LaneI'd also like to have the mobile skin working, but that's really more of an enhancement19:35
Ryan_Laneif we do the skin and the redirects, I think the rest can be handled by a doc sprint19:36
jeblairRyan_Lane: are you taking a stab at redirects?19:36
jeblairI think ttx said he was going to try to make a nicer front page19:36
zulmordred: only a little19:36
Ryan_LaneI'll try to get that done soon. maybe I'll work on it tonight19:36
jeblair#action Ryan_Lane handle redirects19:37
jeblair#action ttx make nice front page19:37
jeblairso maybe we'll check back next week and see if we're at the point of scheduling a cutover date/sprint?19:38
Ryan_Lanesounds good19:38
olaphworks for me...19:38
*** stevebake has joined #openstack-meeting19:39
jeblaircool.  other topics while we wait and see if ttx shows up?19:39
jeblair#topic askbot19:39
*** openstack changes topic to "askbot (Meeting topic: ci)"19:39
jeblairreed: around?19:39
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting19:40
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting19:40
jeblairbased on the complexity of the system uncovered by the work clarkb has done so far...19:40
clarkbover the holidays I hacked on an askbot puppet module that would install askbot with apache, memcached, and mysql19:40
*** obondarev has quit IRC19:40
clarkbthose three pieces work, but lack performant search functionality which requires the use of haystack. unfortunately askbot's haystack support appears to currently be broken with circular imports due to django's i8ln support19:41
* ttx reads scrollback19:41
jeblair...i think if the askbot people are able to fully host an instance for us, that would be best.19:41
clarkbso we are taking a second look at the other options available to us19:41
clarkbwhat jeblair mentions is one potential option. Another option is running a server that they support. we would probably use postgres in that case to avoid search problems19:42
*** nachi has quit IRC19:43
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
clarkbreed is currently handling the communication with askbot as we sort out our options19:43
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
clarkbjeblair: anything else to add?19:43
jeblairyep.  i'm worried about who takes reponsibility for what aspects of managing that server, and us ending up with more work that we bargained for, which is why i prefer the other option first.19:43
jeblair#topic status page19:44
*** openstack changes topic to "status page (Meeting topic: ci)"19:45
*** obondarev has quit IRC19:45
jeblairttx: over the holidays, i threw together http://status.openstack.org/19:45
mordredit's purty19:45
*** joshuamckenty has quit IRC19:45
jeblairttx: it incorporates some zuul status stuff and your 3 things that currently are on the wiki server19:45
ttxSaw that. I'll use the same headers on the status pages19:45
jeblair(that you've been puppetizing)19:45
jeblairttx: you think that's a good general direction?19:46
jeblairalso, i think we can put things like outage notices, monitoring info, etc on the main page19:46
jeblaironce we get our act together on that sort of thing19:46
ttxI'll have to look into how to properly puppetize the scripts, now that they are poublished19:46
ttxjeblair: sure19:46
jeblaircool, then i think i'll reconfigure zuul to point there instead of zuul.o.o when it leaves comments19:47
ttxI have the following on my todo:19:47
ttxapply same theme to release status and bugday status19:47
jeblairand have zuul.o.o redirect19:47
ttxMake bugday run in a rolling fashion19:47
ttx(i.e. automatically have the past 48 hours activity19:47
ttx(rather than needing to start and top it manually)19:47
jeblairthat sounds good19:48
*** egallen has quit IRC19:48
ttxhttp://status.openstack.org/reviews/ is horribly stale19:48
ttxI think we should remove it and/or plug reviewday instead19:48
jeblairdprince: ping19:49
mordredwe have a todo list task which is "integrate reviewday"19:49
dprincejeblair: hi19:49
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1082785 in openstack-ci "Import reviewday into OpenStack infrastructure" [High,Triaged]19:49
jeblairdprince: we're putting together http://status.openstack.org/19:49
ttxjeblair: ideallly I'd just include your header with all the links, rather than copy it over19:49
jeblairdprince: as a point of integration for various project statusy things19:50
dprinceOkay. I like it.19:50
jeblairdprince: and were thinking that would be good to incorporate reviewday in there19:50
dprinceOkay. I'm up for helping here if you guys need it.19:51
dprinceThe ticket mentions projects.yml...19:52
jeblairdprince: great!  is reviewday cron -> static html?  or a web app?19:52
jeblairdprince: and is http://pypi.python.org/pypi/reviewday/0.1.0 current?19:52
dprincecron -> static.19:52
mordredyeah. as a second step, we could have reviewday grab the list of projects it monitors from projects.yaml19:52
ttxjeblair: it's a rewrite of my review code, so static generation19:53
dprincejeblair: I did push an initial release to Pypi.19:53
mordredbut I don't think we need to do that right off the bat19:53
dprincejeblair: But that is now stale19:53
ttxtakes.. a bit of time to extract all necessary data from lp :)19:53
dprincemost recent code is under git://github.com/dprince/reviewday19:53
jeblairdprince: want to make a gerrit project for it, and get automatic tag-based releases to pypi in the bargain?19:54
dprinceWe can move that elsewhere if it makes sense too.19:54
dprincefine by me19:54
jeblairwhy don't we make openstack-infra/reviewday, publish a new version to pypi from there...19:54
* dprince calls it a project promotion19:54
jeblair...then it should basically be a matter of writing some puppet to install it and cron it on static.o.o19:55
ttxjeblair: had two topics to raise before meeting end19:55
jeblairttx: go!19:55
*** vipul is now known as vipul|away19:55
dprinceIs openstack-infra stuff mirrored to github?19:55
jeblairdprince: yep, same as the rest19:55
ttxPrivate Gerrit for security reviews19:55
ttxare we making progress on that front ?19:55
jeblair#topic ttx all-request hour19:55
*** openstack changes topic to "ttx all-request hour (Meeting topic: ci)"19:55
jeblairno, i don't think anyone has started that yet19:55
mordredttx: we still think it's a good idea!19:55
jeblairyes, i consider it high priority19:56
ttxwe did not regress, that's still positive I guess19:56
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting19:56
fungithere were still questions around how to trigger jenkins tests for ir and keep it integrated with the pipeline, right?19:56
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting19:57
fungithe gate pipeline specifically19:57
jeblair#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/108310119:57
ttxthe second thing is mostly for mordred: he was supposed to send some requirements email to the Launchpad SSO folks19:57
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1083101 in openstack-ci "Set up private gerrit for security reviews" [High,Triaged]19:57
*** egallen has left #openstack-meeting19:57
ttxwith things they could improve for us to be happier19:57
*** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting19:58
mordredoh. right19:58
ttxlast thing, how is transfer of openstack.org website under our marvelous infrastructure going on so far ?19:58
mordredit's not19:59
jeblairwe need to bug todd and jbryce about it19:59
mordredbut I believe that now that todd is a foundation employee, he will have more time to give us love on that front19:59
jeblairboth of them support the idea in theory.  need to translate to practice.  :)19:59
ttxok, that was all19:59
*** vipul|away is now known as vipul19:59
mordredttx: the version/tarball stuff19:59
ttx(since you covered askbot and wikimove)19:59
jeblaircool, thanks everyone!19:59
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"20:00
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 20:00:07 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2013/ci.2013-01-08-19.03.html20:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2013/ci.2013-01-08-19.03.txt20:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2013/ci.2013-01-08-19.03.log.html20:00
ttxmordred: what about it ?20:00
mordredttx: have you looked at the proposed changes and/or is there anything blocking that from your perspective for go post G2 ?20:00
ttxno, post-G2 is fine20:00
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting20:00
ttxmordred: the code looks suspiciously simpke20:00
mordredttx: yup20:00
ttxbut i can't find why it's wrong. yet.20:01
mordredttx: that should make you happy, no?20:01
* mordred finds deleting code is always better20:01
ttxMy goal in life is to contribute a negative number of lines to openstack20:01
ttxWho is around for the TC meeting ?20:01
bcwaldonhey hey20:02
*** markmc has joined #openstack-meeting20:02
ttxyay, quorum20:02
ttx#startmeeting tc20:02
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 20:02:32 2013 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.20:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.20:02
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)"20:02
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'tc'20:02
*** eharney has quit IRC20:02
ttxAgenda for today @20:02
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/TechnicalCommittee20:02
*** olaph has left #openstack-meeting20:02
ttx#topic Motion: Distro & Python 2.6/3.x support policy20:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Motion: Distro & Python 2.6/3.x support policy (Meeting topic: tc)"20:02
ttxMotion was proposed by mordred and discussed at:20:03
ttx#link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-December/004052.html20:03
ttxThe only clear comment we had is that the "endeavor" clause could also include SLES.20:03
*** Guest19151 is now known as annegentle20:03
ttxmordred: should we amend the motion before voting ?20:03
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
*** eharney has quit IRC20:03
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
*** jsavak has quit IRC20:03
ttxor do you prefer we vote on the original form ?20:03
*** annegentle is now known as Guest221820:04
mordredttx: hrm. perhaps? what about "endeavor to not break latest stable releases of distros who show up and care about us?"20:04
* mordred trying to think how to be inclusive and not prescriptive now20:04
* ttx hands annegentle a RNG20:04
russellbthough it turns the policy into a bit more wide open, instead of specifically defined20:04
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away20:04
russellbnot that i'm necessarily opposed, just thinking out loud ...20:05
mordredyeah. how about we vote as is, and if it causes problems, we can always come back and talk about it20:05
*** gabrielhurley has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
ttxyeah, it's more about "supporting the current state of distros" (with the help of some specific distros to define it) than "supporting specific distros"20:06
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley20:06
markmcwell, "current state" is latest Ubuntu/Fedora20:06
notmynamewhat about the phrase "impossibly or unnaturally difficult"?20:06
markmcthe LTS/RHEL clause was about specific older distros20:06
ttx"latest Ubuntu/Fedora" is just a way to say "current", and "LTS/RHEL" a way to define "ancient but still around"20:07
mordredwell, I think impossibly gets vague - I'd like to define some threshold for why we care about things that aren't current20:07
*** jcooley is now known as jcooley|away20:07
russellbbut that's what it says now?20:08
ttxthough "latest Fedora" gets older as the day pass :P20:08
danwentyeah, "endeavor" and "unnaturally difficult" seem quite vauge, to the point where I'm having trouble imagining how this could be used to make a decision if two parties disagreed.20:08
markmcdoesn't "latest Ubuntu" too?20:08
*** jcooley|away is now known as jcooley20:08
ttxmarkmc: well, Ubuntu is released a bit more... regularly :P20:08
markmcttx, oh, you mean the fedora schedule slips?20:09
ttxyeah (just a release manager joke)20:09
russellbhar har har20:09
* markmc hadn't been paying attention to the slips :)20:09
mordredit's possible that ttx might have introduced a classic flame war20:09
mordredttx: emacs' release schedule is better than vi's!20:09
russellbso, vote?20:10
ttxdanwent: how about: "do our best to support" ?20:10
markmcok, do we really need to vote on this as if it's a policy for conflict resolution?20:10
russellbor are there specific changes needed?20:10
markmcmonty has stated well what the current consensus is IMHO20:10
markmcbut there's an element of "SLES is pretty close to the bar" too20:10
markmcit's always going to evolve20:10
markmcas more distros get more involved20:10
ttx"endeavor" and "unnaturally difficult" are quite vague because we don't commit to support them, it's only a best effort thing ?20:11
ttxI think kthe current wording is ok, personally20:11
danwentttx: i'm still stuck on how two disagreeing people would use that to make a decision.  what is a practical exampmle of when this policy would be applied?  for example, if someone wanted to use a python construct that was only compatible with 3.0?20:11
mordredttx: well, we don't commit to much of anything other than releasing every six months20:11
russellbcautious support, with an out :)20:11
mordreddanwent: yes20:11
danwentso i'm not sure what "do your best" tells me in this case.20:12
mordreddanwent: that's the particular case in point - "use 3.3 feature that isn't possible to backport to 2.6"20:12
mordredwhich clearly won't work for current RHEL - so it should be clear that we should not do that20:12
markmcdanwent, it's more "we will do our best" IMHO20:12
danwentmordred: yup, agree that its important to have a policy on that.  just trying to make sure its one that can be interpreted clearly by someone doing a code review.20:12
mordreddanwent: good point20:13
ttxand if breaking them is the only way to do it, I guess that could be brought to the TC again20:13
russellbhard to imagine that being the case, but who knows20:13
danwentmaybe something like avoid breaking compatibility if an alternate mechanism that doesn't break compatability is also available?20:13
ttxmordred motion says "it's an issue to break them, so we should avoid it" -- doesn't say 'we won't break it after careful consideration'20:13
*** ndipanov has quit IRC20:14
danwentor that we shouldn't break, unless doing so is the only way to achieve a key priority of the project?20:14
ttxI expect such cases to be brought back to the TC if it ever happened20:14
*** ravikumar_hp has quit IRC20:14
*** vipul is now known as vipul|away20:14
markmcyeah, careful consideration involving the rest of the project (i.e. mailing list) the TC is probably what we want20:14
ttxi.e. "you shalt not break them unless the TC agrees"20:14
*** ravikumar_hp has joined #openstack-meeting20:15
danwentok, that seems like a pretty clear rule.20:15
ttx"the TC" in that case being the appeals board if consensus could not be reached below20:15
notmynameI think a good point was raised in the mailing list thread. what does distro support actually mean? that we won't add features that aren't available in the default packages the distro provides?20:16
ttxmordred: maybe the wording could be adapted to reflect that20:16
mordrednotmyname: I don't think it means that20:16
notmynameme either20:16
ttxnotmyname: we already do that, forcing them to package stuff they don't have yet20:16
notmynamein reality, we're talking about python versions (and what distros ship with) and kernel versions20:16
mordrednotmyname: I think it means that we won't do things that would cause a situation where the distro could not backport something20:16
mordrednotmyname: yeah20:17
markmclibvirt versions too probably20:17
*** annegentle-itsme has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
*** patelna_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
notmynameso for swift, I can tell a deployer, "go get the LTS release, upgrade the kernel, and go"20:17
mordredI think canonical is even potentially willing to backport libvirt to their cloud archive ... markmc do you think redhat won't do that?20:17
mordrednotmyname: yeah. (or at worst, go get the LTS, add the cloud archive, upgrade the kernel and go)20:18
markmcmordred, it gets rebased pretty regularly, but there's still a lag20:18
markmcmordred, we wouldn't put a newer version of libvirt in RH OpenStack than the one that's in RHEL though, no20:18
markmcmordred, just wait for the next RHEL update to rebase libvirt20:18
notmynamemarkmc: with "upgrade the kernel" actually being optional20:18
mordredmarkmc: hrm. ok. good to know20:19
ttxmordred: how about s/will endeavor to not/won't (unless the TC grants an exception)/ to clarify language ?20:20
*** Guest2218 is now known as annegentle20:20
*** annegentle is now known as Guest6281320:21
markmcwell, if it's a TC policy just "won't" will do20:21
mordredttx: I'm ok with that20:21
markmcwe can always just change the policy if the need for an exception arises20:21
ttx"won't" it is then20:21
mordredyeah. what markmc said20:21
ttxReady to vote ? Or more discussion ?20:22
danwentone thought20:22
danwentadding the (unless…) says that it is OK and normal to grant exceptions.  removing implies otherwise.20:22
danwenti'm assuming we want to imply otherwise, which is why we remove?20:23
russellbso with this changed wording, does the motion have to be posted to the ML again, and vote next week?20:23
ttxrussellb: no20:23
ttxthe ML discussion is for input, fueling our decision20:23
russellbcan someone draft the full motion with changes before the vote then?  want to make sure i caught it all ...20:23
ttxnot to present the ultimate version of the text20:23
ttx(especially for a cosmetic clarification)20:24
* heckj could really use a synopsis of the latest version of the motion20:24
ttxsame, with s/but will endeavor to/and will/20:24
heckjmordred: thanks20:25
ttxanything else before we vote ?20:25
danwenti still think "unnaturally difficult" is pretty vague, but am fine abstaining :)20:26
mordredwe can fix that perhaps... what about just "impossible"?20:26
gabrielhurley"excessively difficult"? or "impossible" is good.20:26
danwentyeah, i think that would be more clear.20:26
*** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:26
russellbit's just software, almost anything is possible20:27
gabrielhurleyrussellb: +120:27
markmcthe devil is in the details20:27
mordredrussellb: so far it does not wash my dishes for me20:27
markmcif e.g. we wanted to require a newer version of libvirt than is in RHEL20:27
ttxok, ready to start vote unless someone objects20:27
notmynameis repackaging python3 as part of your deployment "impossible"? ;-)20:27
danwentmarkmc: i agree, which is what worries me20:27
markmcwe'd have a discussion20:27
markmcit wouldn't be about the definition of "unnaturally difficult"20:27
markmcit would just be about the impact on the RH distro folks if we required it20:27
russellbi could argue that it's possible, even if RHT doesn't ship newer libvirt :)20:28
ttx#startvote Approve proposed motion with paragraph changed as in etherpad? yes, no, abstain20:28
openstackBegin voting on: Approve proposed motion with paragraph changed as in etherpad? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain.20:28
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.20:28
danwenti don't really have a stake here, so if the people that do think the wording is sufficient, i'm ok with it.20:28
* russellb turns off -fpedantic20:28
markmc#vote yes20:28
mordredthis is a good point ... we aren't lawyers up in here :)20:28
notmynameI'd s/run/deploy/20:28
mordred#vote yes20:29
russellb#vote yes20:29
notmyname#vote yes20:29
ttx#vote yes20:29
bcwaldon#vote yes20:29
danwentmordred: sometimes i think code reveiewers are worse than lawyers20:29
vishy#vote yes20:29
jgriffith#vote yes20:29
danwent#vote abstain20:29
ttxEnding vote in 30 seconds20:29
mordreddanwent: ++20:29
annegentle-itsme#vote abstain20:29
gabrielhurley#vote yes20:30
openstackVoted on "Approve proposed motion with paragraph changed as in etherpad?" Results are20:30
openstackyes (9): markmc, bcwaldon, ttx, notmyname, vishy, russellb, jgriffith, mordred, gabrielhurley20:30
openstackabstain (2): annegentle-itsme, danwent20:30
ttx#agreed Motion accepted with paragraph rewrite20:30
ttxnow to go change that volatile etherpad20:30
ttx#topic Update on the "Future of Incubation / core" joint committee20:30
*** openstack changes topic to "Update on the "Future of Incubation / core" joint committee (Meeting topic: tc)"20:31
notmynameand paste it here for the logs20:31
markmcok, so we had another meeting before the break20:31
mordred#agreed "OpenStack will target its development efforts to latest Ubuntu/Fedora,20:31
mordredbut will not introduce any changes that would make it20:31
mordredimpossible to run on the latest Ubuntu LTS or latest RHEL."20:31
ttx#info OpenStack will target its development efforts to latest Ubuntu/Fedora, but will not introduce any changes that would make it impossible to run on the latest Ubuntu LTS or latest RHEL.20:31
mordredthanks. that worked better20:31
ttxSo we had a meeting on December 20, slow progress as always20:31
ttxmarkmc: quick update ?20:31
markmcfirst we talked about "who are our users", in the context of what we're trying to achieve with "Core status"20:31
markmcand agreed that it was about users of OpenStack clouds, rather than deployers20:32
markmci.e. the "core" status is about controlling their experience of the OpenStack brand20:32
markmc(IMHO, this is all board territory)20:32
*** markvoelker1 has quit IRC20:32
markmcwe talked about "the destination of Incubation" and agreed it is just "included in the co-ordinated release"20:32
markmci.e. you graduate from Incubation means you're included in the release20:33
markmcbut not necessarily in Core20:33
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting20:33
markmcwe came up with the working term "Integrated" to convey the distinction with "Core"20:33
* markmc consults https://etherpad.openstack.org/IncUp20:33
*** dprince has quit IRC20:33
mordredI agree with the above as reported so far20:33
markmcand we had a bunch more trademark/core related discussions20:33
mordred(both in substance, and that it is being reported accurately)20:34
markmcso not a whole lot in the TC territory, apart from "graduated from incubation" means "integrated in the release"20:34
ttxmarkmc: I think now we need to work on better separating what's TC territory and what's board territory20:34
mordredreally? hrm - I thought that was really clear actually20:34
markmcwell, I thought there was good consensus that the TC decides what is "Integrated" and the board decides what is "Core"20:35
ttxmordred: good then. I sometimes felt like everything was controoled by both entities20:35
mordredwhat I took away was that the idea that incubation and integrated release were all technical matters...20:35
mordredyeah - what markmc said20:35
ttxok then, all good20:35
mordredbecause integrated is about technical things, and core is about brand things20:35
*** aabes has left #openstack-meeting20:36
markmcthe TC can prevent a project from becoming Core by not allowing it to be Integrated20:36
ttxmordred: that's obvious to me, just wondered if it was clear to the other directors20:36
markmcbut apart from that, separate responsibilities20:36
russellbthanks for putting your time into this stuff, guys, and appreciate the update20:36
mordredthere was an interesting questoin that alan clark asked:20:36
mordredwhich was "are there specific quality metrics used by the TC to determine suitability for inclusion, such as defect counts, etc"20:36
ttxyes, we need to do a better job at defining what we require20:37
mordredyeah. one of those times where a question made me think for a bit20:37
ttxI tried to organize the discussion around key questions, like technical qualities etc.20:37
ttxbut some metrics couldn't hurt20:37
markmc#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/IncUp20:37
markmc#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/IncubationUpdate201320:37
markmc#info the TC decides what is "Integrated" and the board decides what is "Core"20:37
ttxthe other interesting question was "can an integrated project call itself "OpenStack X" ?"20:38
creihtif you had the right gates you could automate the incubation process through Jenkins >:)20:38
ttxbut I guess that's for next week's episode20:38
mordredcreiht: ++20:38
ttxquestions ?20:38
ttxnext meeting on Thursday, open to anyone interested and having an hour to kill20:39
ttx(invites not sent yet)20:39
mordredcreiht: we could make a TC group and do votes on motions by gerrit code review ...20:39
*** mikal has quit IRC20:39
russellbgerrit all the things?20:39
ttxok, no questions, then next topic...20:39
heckjmarkmc: thanks, good overview20:39
*** bearovercloud has joined #openstack-meeting20:39
ttx#topic Discussion: Evolution of the TC membership to support potential growth20:40
*** openstack changes topic to "Discussion: Evolution of the TC membership to support potential growth (Meeting topic: tc)"20:40
ttxI would like to kick off the discussion on how to best support further growth of the project while keeping the TC at reasonable size and reasonably representative20:40
ttxCurrently we do "all PTLs for core projects + 5 directly-elected", for a total of 13 members.20:40
ttxThis becomes a bit of a problem if we add more projects. The committee size grows, and it factors in people decision to accept those projects or not.20:40
markmcthere's a question20:40
markmcdo we still mean "Core"20:40
ttxIt's also an issue as we revisit our definition of "core" vs. "part of the integrated release"20:40
markmcor "Integrated" ?20:40
ttxmarkmc: ^20:40
ttxFor the Spring 2013 elections I'd like to see a system where the committee size doesn't increase if we accept more (integrated) projects.20:41
*** mikal has joined #openstack-meeting20:41
mordredttx: any idea what the average attendence percentage rate is?20:41
ttxOne obvious solution is to say the TC is 13 seats, make all seats elected, and have interested PTLs (from "part of the coordinated release" projects) run for election.20:41
ttxmordred: attendence ?20:41
ttxLast time we raised that solution it was objected that the TC could end up containing no PTL, creating various governance issues20:41
ttxThe middle-ground solution, which solves that perceived risk, would be to say:20:41
mordredttx: like, with 13 members, do we usually have 60% show up?20:41
*** dwchadwick has joined #openstack-meeting20:42
ttxmordred: I can do taht analysis20:42
ttxno idea20:42
ttx"TC is 13 seats, make all seats elected, have interested PTLs run for election, and guarantee that /at least/ 8 PTLs are present on the TC at any time"20:42
*** dwchadwick has quit IRC20:42
ttxThat way if PTLs fare well in the election you might just get more than 8 of them in the committee20:42
ttxBut if they don't fare that well, you still get the 8 most popular of them on the committee20:42
russellbseems fairly reasonable ...20:43
ttxthoughts ?20:43
mordredI actually think the first one is simpler20:43
jgriffithseems a bit odd to me, but I don't have a better solution20:43
russellbi feel pretty confident that lots of PTLs would be elected anyway20:43
mordredand I'm not too worried about the weird thing20:43
creihtSeems to marginalize projects that "may not fall in line with everyone else"20:43
markmcI prefer the first one20:43
ttxmordred: I like the first one, but can accept the mitigated version if that alkleviates concerns20:43
*** mnewby has quit IRC20:43
annegentle-itsmeI like all seats elected20:43
*** dims has joined #openstack-meeting20:43
markmcbut if a compromise is needed, the second is better than all PTLs having a guaranteed seat20:43
mordredsince the PTLs are elected from populace anyway20:43
annegentle-itsmeand is 13 ideal? for an odd number? More than a hung jury or some such?20:43
mordredbut yes, not strongly opposed to the compromise20:43
annegentle-itsmeor would 9 suffice?20:44
* annegentle-itsme just thinking aloud20:44
ttxcreiht: I'm not sure of that. That would marginalize smaller projects, I think20:44
mordredannegentle-itsme: that's kinda why I was asking theirry about the attendence numbers20:44
*** mnewby has joined #openstack-meeting20:44
annegentle-itsmemordred: okay, yup20:44
danwentwhat about the PTLs choosing the sub-set of their group that is on the TC?20:44
notmynamedanwent: PTLs chosen fromt he TC?20:44
danwentsome PTLs may not be interested, or may trust another PTL to represent their interests20:44
mordreddanwent: kind of like the foundatoin board does for gold members20:44
ttxcreiht: personally I like to have various opinions, so i'd certainly vote for someone that provides constructuve criticism20:44
danwentmordred: yeah20:44
gabrielhurleymy concern would be that an all-elected TC could easily skew in perspective, e.g. half the TC are Nova core, and nobody representinc the "higher level services" like Horizon, Ceilometer, etc. would be involved.20:45
notmynamedanwent: ah ok20:45
danwentgabrielhurley: i agree20:45
jgriffithgabrielhurley: +120:45
ttxgabrielhurley: good point, which the "mitigating" proposal addresses, I think20:45
mordredgabrielhurley: excellent point20:45
danwentgabrielhurley: but if the PTLs elected it themselves, two small projects could jointly agree on a candidate, and have a high probability of that person being selected.20:45
* creiht agrees with gabrielhurley's more constructive observation20:46
mordreddanwent: I betcha if we had the ptls elect their reps, we'd use condorcet or something :)20:46
markmcmoar elections plz, thur fun20:46
annegentle-itsmean all-elected is even more of a popularity contest to be gamed…20:47
gabrielhurleyyeah, the election process is gonna get *crazy*20:47
mordredmarkmc: we could do PTL elections via gerrit ...20:47
danwentmordred: :)20:47
markmcmordred, what would we gate on?20:47
mordredand then add condorcet voting to gerrit reviews!20:47
ttxWho is firmy against the "all elected with a minimum of 8 PTLs from integrated projects" solution ?20:47
*** dims has left #openstack-meeting20:47
annegentle-itsmettx it's hard to know until "integrated" is defined?20:47
notmynamettx: not sure yet, but I'm maybe firmly against that :-)20:48
ttxintegrated = what the TC wants20:48
*** vipul|away is now known as vipul20:48
annegentle-itsmettx: mkay20:48
notmynamettx: IOW, a self-selected group20:48
gabrielhurleyjust to throw out an idea, what if there were a couple of seats on the TC designated for certain functions that we deem important (a seat for docs, a seat for CI, at least one seat for "higher-in-the-stack projects")20:48
mordredin other words20:48
notmynamein other words20:48
ttxNo, I mean, "integrated" = the set of projects we decide. What we currently call "core"20:49
heckjgabrielhurley: I liek the idea of purposefully including some specific perspectives20:49
heckjand I can't type worth crap today20:49
gabrielhurleythen peopple could run for those seats specifically20:49
dhellmannWhat about limiting the TC members per project, like we do with classes of members on the board? Candidates could declare which projects they contribute to.20:49
ttxbut that we'll have to call something else once "core" becomes a trademark-use category20:49
ttxdhellmann: I contribute to all of them.20:49
jgriffithwhat about one elected member from each core/integrated plus CI, Docs etc and that's it?20:49
russellbbut that doesn't limit TC size20:50
ttxjgriffith: that's ever-growing20:50
annegentle-itsmejgriffith: I think that exposes the growth problem20:50
jgriffithrussellb: nope20:50
dhellmannttx, so have some seats for meta-contributors like you and annegentle-itsme20:50
annegentle-itsmeha like growth is a problem, it's not :)20:50
*** obondarev has quit IRC20:50
jgriffithwell personally I think wer'e going to have that regardless20:50
russellbi think growth can be a problem for a committee ...20:50
jgriffithespecially when we haven't defined how we address growth anywya and pass it on to the board20:50
ttxI think a 15-person TC doesn't make sense.20:50
jgriffithttx: fair20:51
markmcwe'll be better at making quick decisions if we get a few more members20:51
annegentle-itsmerussellb: yep20:51
ttxjgriffith: the problem will happen as soon as (if) we decide that heat and Ceilo pass incubation.20:51
* gabrielhurley isn't gonna bring up how many people are on the foundation board...20:51
ttxanyway, please think about it, we'll continue that discussion next time20:51
jgriffithttx: I would tend to agree, which leads back to concerns I have regarding the other issues (core/integrated status)20:51
mordredgabrielhurley: yeah. it's too many20:51
russellbgabrielhurley: too many :)20:51
markmcgabrielhurley, hehe, but they're ultra agile :)20:51
gabrielhurleyhaha, "ultra-agile". nice.20:52
ttxI'd like to have it nailed before we start the Spring election process20:52
gabrielhurleyttx: +1 to figuring it out before then.20:52
jgriffithI'm not disagreeing with it being too many ata ll20:52
ttxCredits to nijaba for suggesting the 'all elected with a minium number of PTLs' idea20:52
*** Ryan_Lane has left #openstack-meeting20:52
notmynamecan the charter of the TC be fulfilled without equal representation from each of the projects? our goal is to manage intra-project conflicts and the coordinated release. how can that be done without representation?20:52
jgriffithttx: I see that as the best alternative20:52
notmynameif the problem is the size of the TC, then perhaps the solution is to limit what's included in the release (managed by openstack)20:53
mordrednotmyname: by the directly elected folks?20:53
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
jgriffithnotmyname: ++++++++++++++20:53
*** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
mordredI think that's a thing I specifically want to avoid, personally20:53
ttxI don't think we should limit what's in the coordinated release based on committee bloat fear20:53
mordredif we limit it based on project scope bloat fear, I'm ok with that20:53
ttxwe should rather accept some loss of control20:54
jgriffithttx: but I argue there are bigger problems than comitte bloat20:54
creihtis it possible to categorize core projects, so that there is 1 TC seat per categroy, then the rest are elected?20:54
mordredI just want to actually argue those issues20:54
ttxi.e. trust some people to make the right decisions20:54
mordredand not pass the buck to the inability of a particular arbitrary committee organization to do things20:54
ttxAll PTLs would still be able to defend themselves20:54
ttxthey just might not have a vote in the final decision20:54
ttxhaving a vote doesn't prevent bad things from being decided for your project anyway20:55
markmcthe TC can't jut ignore PTLs20:55
ttxmarkmc: +120:55
notmynamettx: true ;-)20:55
mordredand not havint a vote has not prevented me from bitching in this meeting before20:55
annegentle-itsmemarkmc: agreed20:55
gabrielhurleyit's a two-way street, the PTLs need to respect the TC's decisions, but the TC has to weigh the opinion of the PTL very heavily, whether that PTL has a vote or ont20:55
notmynamebut then you have non-members who are effectively members anyway20:55
ttxchecks and balances20:56
*** whostheroot has joined #openstack-meeting20:56
russellbit's like a meritocracy or something20:56
gabrielhurleyor something20:56
markmcthe TC should be about driving discussions, encouraging consensus and calling what they see as the consensus20:56
mordredit's a somethingtocracy!20:56
markmcif a PTL adamantly disagrees, it's hardly consensus20:56
ttxalso TC pushing a decision against a project... that's a failure20:57
mordredttx: well, we've done it before20:57
mordredthere have been times where consensus was impossible20:57
annegentle-itsmeso about creiht and the category idea, can you float some categories?20:57
ttxmordred: refresh my memory ?20:57
annegentle-itsmecomputing, networking, storing, monitoring?20:58
*** whostheroot has left #openstack-meeting20:58
creihtsomething like that20:58
ttxannegentle-itsme: Not sure. one issue would be to let the Board of Directors end up controlling who is on the TC20:58
*** obondarev has quit IRC20:58
ttxsince they will define "core"20:58
mordredttx: I would like to veto that20:58
annegentle-itsmeI think the categories route stops "pet" projects -- and technical use cases become more central? Possibly?20:59
ttxanyway, time is up, think about it (and alternate solutions) and we'll continue discussion at the next meeting20:59
* annegentle-itsme thinks20:59
* heckj nods20:59
ttxThanks everyone, back on getting grizzly-2 out of the door21:00
* mordred dances a little bit21:00
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"21:00
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 21:00:04 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-01-08-20.02.html21:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-01-08-20.02.txt21:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2013/tc.2013-01-08-20.02.log.html21:00
mordredttx: dude. how do you do this meeting schedule weekly21:00
mordredttx: it's too late!21:00
notmynameannegentle-itsme: creiht: I think categories is the "least bad" idea I've heard so far that solves the claimed problem21:00
ttxmordred: no kidding21:00
ttxmordred: where are you ?21:00
*** SlickNik has joined #openstack-meeting21:00
mordrednotmyname: I agree - pending a set of categories21:00
ttx"Where is Monty" is a fun game to play21:00
mordredttx: bristol, uk21:00
ttxmordred: and you're one hour earlier than me21:01
ttxmarkmc, heckj, notmyname, bcwaldon, jgriffith, vishy, gabrielhurley, danwent: still around ?21:01
mordrednotmyname, creiht, annegentle-itsme: I actually wrote a draft email a while back suggesting a category approach to projects21:01
markmcmordred, condolences21:01
annegentle-itsmemordred: write 'er up!21:01
ttx#startmeeting project21:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 21:01:41 2013 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.21:01
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: project)"21:01
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'project'21:01
ttxAgenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting21:01
mordredannegentle-itsme: I'll go dig itup21:01
ttx#topic General announcements21:02
*** openstack changes topic to "General announcements (Meeting topic: project)"21:02
ttx#info Next OpenStack Summit will happen in Portland, OR the week of April 1521:02
bcwaldonttx: yes21:02
ttxyay west coast again21:02
ttxNote that it leaves only one full week between release and summit week.21:02
* heckj wishes it was Seattle21:02
danwentttx: yup yup21:02
ttxtried to avoid that but wasn't very successful as you can see21:02
bcwaldonttx: is there a conflict with the Open Networking Summit?21:02
ttxbcwaldon: yes21:02
annegentle-itsmespring is busy for conferences :)21:03
ttxmarkmc, mordred, annegentle, davidkranz: Anything to report from Stable/CI/QA/Docs land ?21:03
*** markvan has quit IRC21:03
ttxannegentle-itsme: shoot21:03
annegentle-itsmewe held our monthly meeting this morning21:03
*** eglynn has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
*** markvan has joined #openstack-meeting21:03
annegentle-itsmewanted to ask about the wiki migration, should we re-plan the plan?21:03
annegentle-itsme#link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/docwebteam/2013/docwebteam.2013-01-08-13.42.html21:04
ttxIt was mentioned during the CI meeting...21:04
ttxclarkb, mordred: ?21:04
ttxor jeblair ?21:04
annegentle-itsme#link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ci/2013/ci.2013-01-08-19.03.log.html21:05
ttx<jeblair> so maybe we'll check back next week and see if we're at the point of scheduling a cutover date/sprint?21:05
ttx<Ryan_Lane> sounds good21:05
annegentle-itsmeLooks like we need the updated skin for the wiki21:05
annegentle-itsmeI can send a mailing list update that we're rescheduling the cutover date21:05
annegentle-itsmeok that was all for me21:06
ttxannegentle-itsme: sounds safe. Coordinate with Ryan, he leads this21:06
annegentle-itsmettx: ok, on it21:06
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting21:06
ttxjeblair: is my summary of the wiki situation fair ?21:06
jeblairttx: lgtm21:06
ttxAnything to add before we move to project-specific topics ?21:06
markmc#info 2012.2.3 scheduled for January 31st21:07
ttx#topic Oslo status21:07
*** openstack changes topic to "Oslo status (Meeting topic: project)"21:07
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/oslo/+milestone/grizzly-221:07
ttxmarkmc: Looking good, only oslo-config-package left21:07
ttxAnd it's fine to be released post-g2 anyway... defer ?21:08
markmcright, sadly21:08
ttxI'll let you postpone it21:08
markmcI should have chased down more what needs doing for that release21:08
markmcwill do that after g221:08
ttxWe'll look at them next week, but your grizzly-3 goals look realistic given the velocity you achieved in the first two milestones21:08
markmcand aim to have all projects switched over to it for g321:08
ttxAgreed. Anything else on the oslo topic ?21:08
markmcthoughts on tagging a commit at g2 release time ?21:09
markmci.e. if we're closing bugs as fixed in g221:09
markmcthere should be a g2 tag to correspond to that, I guess21:09
ttxhmm, maybe at milestone-proposed cut time21:09
ttxthat's when I move bugs to FixReleased21:09
markmcsounds good21:09
ttxthat would be early tomorrow morning21:09
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
ttxwould that work for you ?21:10
ttx(we wouldn't cut any branch, obviously, just the tag)21:10
markmcI'll let you know if I think there's a late breaking issue21:10
ttxmarkmc: anything else ?21:10
markmcnope, thanks21:11
ttx#topic Keystone status21:11
*** openstack changes topic to "Keystone status (Meeting topic: project)"21:11
ttxheckj: hi!21:11
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/grizzly-221:11
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC21:11
ttxAll remaining are now implemented21:11
heckjyep, last one merged in earlier today21:11
ttxOK if I cut the milestone-proposed branch tomorrow morning ?21:11
heckjyep, I believe we're ready to go for a milestone branch21:12
ttxCool. My main concern here is more how much was deferred21:12
ttxNext week we'll review your G3 objectives...21:12
ttx...which sound a bit optimistic given the velocity you achieved in the first two milestones :)21:12
heckjsignificantly more than I would have liked - we're going to have to really trim down on expected output21:12
ttxwill do that next week21:12
heckjside note re: Keystone21:13
ttxAnything more about Keystone ?21:13
heckjwant to welcome gyee and henrynash to keystone-core as of today21:13
*** shardy has joined #openstack-meeting21:13
*** jog0 has quit IRC21:13
dolphmheckj: gyee: grats & welcome21:13
*** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting21:13
dolphmhenrynash: ^ ;)21:13
ttxheckj: anything else ?21:14
heckjthat's the big stuff21:14
ttxok, thx21:14
ttx#topic Swift status21:14
*** openstack changes topic to "Swift status (Meeting topic: project)"21:14
ttxnotmyname: o/21:14
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.7.621:14
ttxYou still need to update that with a feature list :)21:14
ttxDo you have a date in mind now ?21:15
notmynameno, not yet, but I should have a better idea tomorrow after our swift meeting21:15
notmynamewhich brings me to...21:15
notmynamewe now have a swift meeting21:15
notmynameevery other wednesday at 1900 UTC starting tomorrow21:15
notmynamein #openstack-meeting21:15
ttxnotmyname: Also don't forget to let me know what you think of my email on the proposed RC process21:16
notmynameya, I've still got it flagged21:16
ttx(from last year)21:16
ttxAnything more on Swift ?21:16
notmynamejust the meeting. that's all I have21:16
ttx#topic Glance status21:17
*** openstack changes topic to "Glance status (Meeting topic: project)"21:17
ttxbcwaldon: o/21:17
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/grizzly-221:17
bcwaldonttx: hey21:17
* ttx refreshes and prays for a miracle21:17
bcwaldonno miracles here21:17
ttxNope, it still doesn't look very good. Is there anything likely to make it today ?21:17
bcwaldonpushed off two BPs to g-321:17
bcwaldonI did have a chance to start multiple image locations21:18
bcwaldonand I'm triaging open bugs right now21:18
bcwaldonto answer your question: dont know yet21:18
ttxshould we just postpone all blueprints ? i suspect it's unlikely something will get merged before the end of the day ?21:18
bcwaldonfair enough21:18
ttxI'm happy to wait if you think there is a chance21:19
bcwaldonman, the holidays really took a toll on the glance developers21:19
bcwaldonI'll postpone them21:19
ttxI tried to warn you but you kept on being optimistic21:19
bcwaldonfine! I'll start being more of a jerk21:19
ttxThe glasses ARE ALL HALF-EMPTY21:19
bcwaldonno blueprints for you21:19
* ttx cries21:20
bcwaldonI will have some bugfixes up for review today21:20
bcwaldondon't worry about us21:20
ttxbcwaldon: shoudl I cut milestone-proposed with the state of master tomorrow morning ?21:20
bcwaldonsure, I'll email you with any blockers (which I don't expect to find)21:20
ttxand then we'll backport the remaining milestone-critical issues ?21:20
*** obondarev has quit IRC21:21
ttx..and I fear we'll have to reset goals and priorities for g3 because that will make too much21:21
ttx(next week)21:21
bcwaldonok, we can chat about it21:21
bcwaldonnothing else from me for release meeting21:22
*** Guest62813 is now known as annegentle21:22
ttxAny question on Glance ?21:22
*** annegentle is now known as Guest9785421:22
ttx#topic Quantum status21:22
*** openstack changes topic to "Quantum status (Meeting topic: project)"21:22
ttxdanwent: hi!21:22
danwentg'day sir21:22
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/grizzly-221:23
ttxOne left in review21:23
danwentlast BP is approved, just not merged21:23
danwentin the queue for merge21:23
ttxoh, great21:23
ttxThen I'll cut milestone-proposed tomorrow morning, should be merged by then21:23
danwentno known bugs that we plan to fix for G-221:23
danwentyes, cut away21:23
ttxsounds good21:24
ttxAnything else on Quantum ?21:24
danwentnot from me21:24
ttx#topic Cinder status21:25
*** openstack changes topic to "Cinder status (Meeting topic: project)"21:25
ttxjgriffith: hi!21:25
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/grizzly-221:25
ttx3 still in progress:21:25
ttxvolume-type-scheduler: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/14132/21:25
jgriffiththey're all in review21:25
*** SlickNik has left #openstack-meeting21:26
jgriffithttx: type-scheduler is having problems getting through gating21:26
ttxhp3par-volume-driver: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18351/21:26
*** markmc has quit IRC21:26
ttxupdate-vol-metadata: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19015/21:26
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting21:26
jgriffithI've got a fix for him that should put him in business and get merged today/tonight21:26
ttxOK.. let me know if for any reason I should defer cutting milestone-proposed by a few hours to let something else in21:27
ttxby default I'll assume I can cut and should defer what's not in yet21:27
jgriffithttx: You're shooting what time?21:27
ttxjgriffith: 09:00 UTC tomorrow21:28
jgriffithttx: K21:28
ttxbut can wait for you to get up21:28
ttxjust shoot me an email21:28
*** joshuamckenty has joined #openstack-meeting21:28
jgriffithif they don't get reviewed they don't get reviewed21:28
ttxbut deferring is OK. You had a busy milestone already, and your G3 is not really overcrowded21:28
jgriffithIt's pride :)21:28
*** dcramer_ has quit IRC21:29
ttxjgriffith: Anything else you wanted to mention ?21:29
jgriffithno thanks21:29
ttxjgriffith: what about your two g2-targeted bugs...21:30
ttxbug 108354021:30
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1083540 in cinder "RBD driver option rbd_user is confusing" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/108354021:30
ttxbug 108368421:30
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1083684 in cinder "No api parameter validation. " [High,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/108368421:30
*** bearovercloud_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:30
ttxif they are not milestone-critical you should postpone them as well21:30
jgriffithNo api paramter val is invalid, I'll untarget it21:30
*** obondarev has quit IRC21:30
ttxwhich makes me think...21:30
jgriffithI haven't heard what Florian wants to do so we'll move that one out too21:30
ttxbcwaldon: still around ?21:30
bcwaldonttx: yes21:31
ttxbcwaldon: should we keep bug 1020749 on the grizzly-2 list ?21:31
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1020749 in glance "Use Openstack-Common notifier" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/102074921:31
ttxi.e. do we want to backport it ?21:31
bcwaldonttx: already moved it to g321:31
bcwaldonttx: its technical debt21:32
ttxbcwaldon: ok21:32
ttxheckj: would be good to push https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19091/ -- that's the fix for your only grizzly-2 targeted bug21:32
ttxdolphm, keystone-core: ^21:33
ttxSorry about that interlude21:33
ttxback to our regular programme21:33
dolphmttx: reviewing21:33
ttxAnything more in Cinder ?21:33
*** sgordon has left #openstack-meeting21:33
ttx#topic Nova status21:34
*** openstack changes topic to "Nova status (Meeting topic: project)"21:34
ttxvishy: o/21:34
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/grizzly-221:34
*** bearovercloud has quit IRC21:34
*** bearovercloud_ is now known as bearovercloud21:34
ttxA *lot* is under review here, let's see what could make it:21:35
ttxvishy: around ?21:35
* russellb is around too fwiw21:35
ttxnova-compute-cells: 9 reviews left @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/nova-compute-cells,n,z21:36
ttxI'd really have liked to complete this before G2. How close is it ?21:36
russellbno reviews posted on almost all of those yet21:36
russellbnot likely to make it unless we rubber stamp21:36
russellb(which i'll admit is tempting sometimes...)21:37
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting21:37
ttxbeh, looks like it will be deferred then21:37
ttxvishy: ?21:37
ttxand maybe concentrate on easier targets21:38
russellbto clarify, deadline is tonight right?21:38
vishythe good news is the main part of the code went in21:38
*** anniec has quit IRC21:38
vishyso now it is just cleanup and fixes21:38
russellbyeah, so confidence for grizzly-3 for *all* of it is very high21:38
ttxyes, I can wait a few hours if it helps, but it seems a bit farther away21:38
russellbvishy: some more feature bits, but smaller ... API extension and such21:38
vishy+ we decided to make it very clear that cells is experimental for grizzly21:38
russellbaggregate based availability zones could make it21:39
ttxaggregate-based-availability-zones: 2 reviews left @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/aggregate-based-availability-zones,n,z21:39
russellb1 has been approved21:39
ttxok let's keep it in scope then21:39
ttxi'd like to refine the list so that you can apply review priority on it21:40
*** rkukura has quit IRC21:40
ttxversion-rpc-messages: missing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/17965/21:40
vishyrussellb: yes I think that will make it. A competing patch broke a couple of the tests but i think jog0 will have it fixed21:40
russellbvishy: awesome21:40
vishythat merged21:40
jog0working on it now21:40
russellbversion-rpc-messages should be done21:40
ttxmissing https://review.openstack.org/1922921:40
russellbah yes, good point21:41
russellbhas 2 +2s21:41
russellbvishy: want to hit approved?  :)21:41
vishyjust did21:41
ttxhyper-v-testing-serialization-improvements: 3 reviews left @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/hyper-v-testing-serialization-improvements,n,z21:41
russellbdefer that one IMO21:41
ttxrussellb: ok, please do21:42
*** obondarev has joined #openstack-meeting21:42
russellbdansmith gave him a lot of feedback, i think he's redoing it now21:42
ttxscope-config-opts: looks a bit far away, defer ?21:42
russellbttx: k, i'll do so21:42
russellbhow many patches left21:42
russellbwhiteboard says it's all up for review21:43
russellboh.  well then.21:43
ttxgeneral-bare-metal-provisioning-framework: I see 5 reviews left @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/general-bare-metal-provisioning-framework,n,z21:43
russellbi set it to needs code review at least, i'll defer it21:43
ttxwith a few -1s21:44
ttxlooks like a defer to me21:44
ttxvishy: is get-password implemented now ?21:45
russellbdeferred baremetal21:45
vishyin nova at least21:45
vishythe rest is python-novaclient21:45
vishyand cloud-init21:46
ttxThe rest (quota-instance-resource, vmware-compute-driver, rebuild-for-ha, libvirt-volume-multipath-iscsi) look a bit far away. All defer ?21:46
ttxMarking get-password implemented21:46
vishyi think so21:47
vishyrebuild-for-ha is close21:47
russellbdefer the rest is good with me ... i can mark them21:47
ttxSo the focus should be on "host aggregate based availability zones" for the rest of the day21:47
ttxUnless oen of you tell me otherwise before the end of the day, i'll cut ML based off master tomorrow morning21:47
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting21:48
*** egallen has quit IRC21:48
ttxif you see something that just needs a couple hours, flag me21:48
russellbvishy: i haven't looked at rebuild-for-ha lately, think it could make it?21:48
vishyin fact most of them are going in now21:48
ttxrussellb: 6 reviews in21:48
russellbnice, i'll leave that in g-2 then21:48
ttxAnything more on Nova ?21:48
russellbshould be all updated21:49
russellball implemented, 2 left needing review21:49
ttxrussellb, vishy: there are 3 g2-targeted bugs21:49
ttxplease review them and postpone any that you think we can't fix and backport by Thursday21:49
ttx#topic Horizon status21:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Horizon status (Meeting topic: project)"21:50
ttxgabrielhurley: still around ?21:50
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/grizzly-221:50
ttx2 still in progress:21:50
gabrielhurleyFile uploads is gonna be deferred21:50
ttxdon't look like they have code proposed yet ? Defer ?21:50
gabrielhurleyjust talked to david21:50
gabrielhurleythe other one I may get up this afternoon, if not I'll defer along with the associated bug down in the bugs section21:51
ttxgabrielhurley: sounds good.21:51
gabrielhurleyneither are critical as long as they're close21:51
gabrielhurleyI need to check in with a bunch of people about G3 blueprints they've committed to though21:51
ttxWill cut MP tomorrow morning unless you raise your arms and scream21:51
gabrielhurleysounds good21:51
ttxyes, G3 scoping should be a fun game to play now21:52
gabrielhurleyit's not looking awful since there's a broader spectrum of people assigned to the G3 blueprints21:52
ttxlast months meetings were kinda boring, but this is getting quickly more interesting21:52
gabrielhurleybut some stuff will undoubtedly go21:52
ttxnothing like a good cliff to raise the tension21:53
gabrielhurleyside note:21:53
ttxshoudl I defer the file upload thing ?21:53
gabrielhurleyI'll get it momentarily21:53
ttxAnything more on Horizon ?21:54
gabrielhurleyor that21:54
ttxany side note ?21:54
gabrielhurleyone thing21:54
gabrielhurleyI'd like to welcome mrunge as the newest member of horizon-core21:54
gabrielhurleythat's it for me21:54
ttx#topic Incubated projects21:54
*** openstack changes topic to "Incubated projects (Meeting topic: project)"21:54
ttxAnyone from Ceilometer team ?21:54
* nijaba waves21:54
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/grizzly-221:55
nijaba#link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/grizzly-221:55
nijabaWe have one oustanding bp, for which the review is stuck on a minor disagreement between a couple of our core devs.   I am not sure we are going to get resolution before the eod.  If that's the latest acceptable time, I'll retarget it for g3.21:55
nijaba#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/provide-meter-units21:55
nijaba#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18413/21:55
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting21:55
ttxsounds good21:55
ttxOK if I cut a milestone-proposed branch for you tomorrow morning ?21:55
*** tongli has quit IRC21:55
nijabaok for us21:55
nijabano outstnading known bugs21:55
ttxthat's all I had. We'll see if everything works when I push the big red button21:56
* nijaba crosses his fingers21:56
ttxI know where to ask if it doesn't21:56
ttxAnyone from Heat team ?21:56
ttx#link https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/grizzly-221:56
ttxAll done -- do I have your green light to cut a milestone-proposed branch from master tomorrow morning ?21:56
sdakeg2 good to go for a branch21:56
ttxQuestions about the whole shebang ?21:57
stevebakettx: could we get a rundown of the release process at some point? Maybe in #heat is better21:57
ttxsure, if we can make it quick21:57
ttxi'll close here first21:57
sdakeya - can guess based upon last experiences but more detail would help21:57
ttxso if nobody has anything to add...21:58
stevebakeI suspect a lot of our old release instructions will need updating21:58
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"21:58
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 21:58:23 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:58
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-01-08-21.01.html21:58
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-01-08-21.01.txt21:58
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2013/project.2013-01-08-21.01.log.html21:58
*** saurabhs has joined #openstack-meeting22:00
gabrielhurleylet's see here22:01
gabrielhurleyhorizon meeting...22:01
gabrielhurley#startmeeting horizon22:01
openstackMeeting started Tue Jan  8 22:01:21 2013 UTC.  The chair is gabrielhurley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.22:01
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.22:01
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: horizon)"22:01
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'horizon'22:01
gabrielhurleywe'll go through the updates on what's been happening since it's been a couple weeks, the usual blueprints and bugs, look forward to G3 a bit, and then open the floor22:02
gabrielhurley#topic General Horizon Status22:02
*** openstack changes topic to "General Horizon Status (Meeting topic: horizon)"22:02
gabrielhurleyG2 is just about closed. The milestone is pared down to mostly what's already happened. We got some great Quantum work in from amotoki and nachi in the last few hours, and jpich got the migrate instace BP done too. Great work.22:03
gabrielhurleyThe holidays were slow for OpenStack work for everybody, obviously, but that's okay22:03
gabrielhurleythings are back in full swing now22:03
gabrielhurleymrunge is now a horizon core reviewer (or will be once I can wrangle launchpad admin priveleges), so he'll help move things forward much more quickly.22:04
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
gabrielhurleycongrats and thank you for the continuing hard work22:04
jpichCongratulations mrunge \o/22:04
*** shardy has left #openstack-meeting22:04
mrungegabriel, thank you for your support22:04
*** kaganos has joined #openstack-meeting22:04
gabrielhurley#topic Blueprints and Bugs22:05
mrungeI'll try to do my very best here to support here22:05
*** openstack changes topic to "Blueprints and Bugs (Meeting topic: horizon)"22:05
gabrielhurleyabsolutely, it's appreciated by all of us22:05
gabrielhurleynot much to say on G2 blueprints beyond the kudos already noted. davidlenwell will have a demo of the file upload code up in the next day or so, he's polishing up interface bits currently.22:06
gabrielhurleybug reports are still quite low, which is fantastic.22:06
*** vishy is now known as vishy_zz22:06
gabrielhurleyI think the main thing to talk about blueprint-wise is to look at G3 a bit22:06
gabrielhurleythat's twice as many blueprints as we had in G2, but with twice as many contributors as well22:07
gabrielhurleyso it's not impossible, but also very aggressive22:07
gabrielhurleylet's just start from the top22:07
*** bencherian has quit IRC22:07
*** vishy_zz is now known as vishy22:07
gabrielhurleythe keystone RBAC stuff is in danger due to the slow-going for Keystone's work in being the source of truth for all the projects' policy files22:08
gabrielhurleyif that comes together I'll try to knock it out, but if it slips again so it goes. it's mostly outside our control22:08
* dolphm waves22:08
gabrielhurleyhi dolphm22:08
gabrielhurleyin terms of file upload and glance image creation, my understanding is that davidlenwell has already made good headway on those. I moved the swift multi-file upload out of Grizzly, but depending what the current file upload code looks like we'll see where that goes.22:09
mrungedoes anybody know, why the implementation of that rbac thing is slow?22:09
mrungeis there any feedback?22:10
gabrielhurleydolphm or heckj care to comment?22:10
mrungebecause it's great stuff22:10
gabrielhurleymy understanding is simply that it's a big cross-project issue and was also delayed by keystone v3 API work22:10
gabrielhurleyso it's just a matter of time, resources and interest22:10
mrungeah, I see22:10
dolphmgabrielhurley: +1 to what you said; although /policies is good to go, /tokens is not, so we're not going to be pushing anyone on to v3 anyway22:10
gabrielhurleydolphm: my understanding is that the API works, but that it doesn't aggregate all the projects' policy files yet22:11
gabrielhurleywhich is the critical bit Horizon needs22:11
dolphmgabrielhurley: correct22:12
gabrielhurleymoving down the list22:12
mrungethanks for the info!22:12
*** bencherian has joined #openstack-meeting22:12
gabrielhurleyPer-project flavors has been bumped a couple times, and I've been in email contact with Ray. He still indicates he's gonna work on it but it sounds like it still hasn't started. I'll follow up again and update the status accordingly. If anyone else really wants that feature, I'd be happy to reassign it, also.22:13
gabrielhurleyEverything quantum-related is being coordinated by danwent, nachi and amotoki and they've been doing great so I'm not worried there22:14
gabrielhurleyEvacuate Host is a tricky one. I need to follow up with the Nova team and see if that's suported across hypervisors now...22:15
gabrielhurleyif it is it's trivial22:15
gabrielhurleybut last I checked only Xen supported it22:15
gabrielhurleyJumping down past things I've already touched on, we've got the tenant deletion workflow, which our newest contributor vkmc is taking on22:16
gabrielhurleyI've laid out some ideas for her and I'm excited to have her starting22:16
vkmcHi! :)22:16
jpichyay vkmc :)22:17
vkmcWill work hard on that22:17
gabrielhurleywe're all happy to help if anything comes up22:17
vkmcThx, I'm really glad to work with all of you22:18
gabrielhurleynext on deck blueprint-wise is PKI support, which is entirely in ayoung's camp. It was something he proposed at the Grizzly summit and if he is motivated to get it in that's awesome. otherwise there hasn't been a driving concern for making it happen so it could easily move to the H release.22:18
gabrielhurleyI will follow up with him on his thoughts there22:18
gabrielhurleyNext is an unassigned one to add icons to all the action buttons.22:19
gabrielhurleyit's sort of a silly little blueprint but I think it would add a lot to the "feel" of horizon22:19
gabrielhurleythe classes mostly already exist, and we can use Bootstrap's built-in icon set22:19
gabrielhurleyit's mostly just a lot of CSS22:19
dolphmgabrielhurley: link?22:19
gabrielhurleyanyone who'd like to grab it is welcome to, or I may later on in the G3 cycle22:19
dolphmgabrielhurley: for pki blueprint22:19
gabrielhurleydolphm: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/pki-support22:20
gabrielhurleyit's not thorough22:20
dolphmgabrielhurley: thanks22:20
gabrielhurleyAdam had specific ideas for it22:20
gabrielhurleyI only caught the gist22:20
jpichgabrielhurley: I can take the iconify one on22:20
gabrielhurleyjpich: awesome!22:20
dolphmgabrielhurley: hmm, alright... i'm not sure what work needs to be done here, if any22:20
mrungejpich good to know :)22:21
gabrielhurleydolphm: I'll follow up with adam and at least capture a full scope of work. I'll cc you too.22:21
ayounggabrielhurley, yeah, Trusts has taken longer than I had hoped, leaving PKI support in the "questionable"22:22
gabrielhurleyayoung: no problem22:22
gabrielhurleyif you'd be open to at least outlining the full scope of work on the blueprint whiteboard that'd be handy22:22
ayounggabrielhurley, will do22:22
dolphmayoung: if that doesn't land in grizzly, do we need to revert the default back to uuid for release?22:22
gabrielhurleysince mostly that knowledge is all in your head22:22
ayoungdolphm, No22:22
gabrielhurleydolphm: no no, that part's fine22:22
ayoungthe PKI support I was referring to was the ongoing stuff22:23
gabrielhurleythis is about horizon being able ot utilize the PKI signing code22:23
ayoungif there is more for Horizon...22:23
dolphmgabrielhurley: ahh, taking advantage of offline validation22:23
*** Guest97854 is now known as annegentle22:23
ayounggabrielhurley, the only thing that I am aware of was the cookie size issue22:23
gabrielhurleyayoung: we fixed that22:23
*** annegentle is now known as Guest4192822:24
gabrielhurleywe're good for now22:24
ayounggabrielhurley, but do you hold on to the full PKI token or just the hash?22:24
gabrielhurleyjust the hash for now. When we get to full PKI support with offline validation and such we'll document that enabling that also requires using a non-cookie session backend22:24
ayounggabrielhurley, yes.  I don't think that there is much more I can do for you beyond that.22:25
*** rnirmal has quit IRC22:25
gabrielhurleyall good22:25
gabrielhurleyso, next BP... Orderable multiple choice field. This is on me to work with amotoki for specifying the vnic ordering. The two are related so we'll collaborate on a solution.22:25
jpichgabrielhurley: Someone mentioned a possible Javascript solution to that on the mailing list, using jquery UI I think22:26
jpichhttps://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg19738.html - http://quasipartikel.at/multiselect/22:26
gabrielhurleyyeah, there are definitely options22:26
gabrielhurleyit's just a matter of which one ends up being easiest to implement while meeting the needs there22:27
mrungeI think, I remember some multiselect package seen on pypi; Sadly, I don't remember exactly22:27
gabrielhurleyI looked around at ones for Django and didn't find anything that would work. We'll probably end up starting with something like that from the mailing list and/or rolling our own. It's not all that hard to build.22:28
gabrielhurleyI would like to keep jquery UI out of it though22:28
*** Jaxster has quit IRC22:28
gabrielhurleyI have personal preferences against it and it's a lot of code for a small feature22:28
gabrielhurleywe'll see22:28
gabrielhurleyI'll keep people posted on that one22:28
gabrielhurleyThe last blueprint... "Support themes for Horizon"... mrunge registered it and I agree with the idea. mrunge is that something you'd be interested in working on to make that easier?22:28
*** Mr_T has joined #openstack-meeting22:29
mrungeyes, I do22:29
*** markvoelker has quit IRC22:29
mrungebut, I don't necessarily target that one for g-322:29
gabrielhurleygotcha. I'm not 100% sure how it got targeted to there actually22:29
mrungebut that was the last one, I could register it22:29
gabrielhurley'cuz I don't recall doing it22:29
mrungeI targeted that22:30
mrungebut I think we should delay it before we started :-)22:30
gabrielhurleyLet's leave it for now and do some work on planning it out22:30
gabrielhurleythen decide on when to do the work once it's scoped22:30
mrungeyes, will do that22:30
*** Jaxster has joined #openstack-meeting22:31
gabrielhurleyexcellent! that's all the blueprints for G3, and it sounds like we're doin' alright22:31
gabrielhurleyso with that, I'll open it up...22:31
gabrielhurley#topic General Discussion22:31
*** openstack changes topic to "General Discussion (Meeting topic: horizon)"22:31
gabrielhurleyfeel free, anyone22:31
gabrielhurleyI'll give it another minute or two...22:32
gabrielhurleyalright then. meeting dismissed. see you all next week!22:33
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack meetings || Development in #openstack-dev || Help in #openstack"22:34
openstackMeeting ended Tue Jan  8 22:34:03 2013 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)22:34
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-01-08-22.01.html22:34
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-01-08-22.01.txt22:34
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/horizon/2013/horizon.2013-01-08-22.01.log.html22:34
vkmcThanks :) Nice to meet you all22:34
*** Mr_T has left #openstack-meeting22:34
*** radez is now known as radez_g0n322:35
*** jgriffith has quit IRC22:38
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting22:38
*** mrunge has quit IRC22:39
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting22:41
*** jpich has quit IRC22:42
*** dkehn is now known as dkehn_away22:44
*** adjohn has quit IRC22:45
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting22:46
*** mtreinish has quit IRC22:47
*** patelna_ has quit IRC22:48
*** eglynn has quit IRC22:51
*** heckj has quit IRC22:51
*** Jaxster has quit IRC22:53
*** markvan has quit IRC22:57
*** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann-afk22:58
*** maoy has quit IRC22:59
*** annegentle-itsme has quit IRC23:00
*** lbragstad has quit IRC23:01
*** Gordonz has quit IRC23:01
*** ayoung has quit IRC23:04
*** eglynn has joined #openstack-meeting23:04
*** ijw has quit IRC23:04
*** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:05
*** jog0_ has left #openstack-meeting23:06
*** dkehn_away is now known as dkehn23:06
*** joesavak has quit IRC23:06
*** b3nt_pin has joined #openstack-meeting23:08
*** john5223 has quit IRC23:09
*** anniec has quit IRC23:10
*** anniec_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:10
*** dcramer_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:10
*** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting23:11
*** dolphm has quit IRC23:11
*** henrynash has quit IRC23:12
*** reed has quit IRC23:15
*** dkehn has left #openstack-meeting23:15
*** joshuamckenty has quit IRC23:21
*** anniec has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** anniec_ has quit IRC23:24
*** Guest41928 is now known as annegentle23:25
*** annegentle is now known as Guest4514923:25
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting23:25
*** tasdomas has quit IRC23:34
*** gabrielhurley has quit IRC23:37
*** dolphm has quit IRC23:42
*** ijw has quit IRC23:44
*** ijw has joined #openstack-meeting23:44
*** mattray has quit IRC23:50
*** eharney has quit IRC23:55

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