Tuesday, 2014-05-20

*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:00
*** emagana has quit IRC00:00
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting00:01
*** jmontemayor has quit IRC00:04
*** igor_ has quit IRC00:04
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting00:09
*** mattgriffin has quit IRC00:09
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting00:10
*** zz_keyvan is now known as keyvan00:10
*** eguz has quit IRC00:12
*** AntL has quit IRC00:13
*** kenhui has quit IRC00:14
*** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting00:14
*** rbowen has joined #openstack-meeting00:14
*** rbowen is now known as DrBacchus00:15
*** nlahouti_ has quit IRC00:16
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting00:16
*** sarob has quit IRC00:17
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting00:17
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting00:18
*** ArthurBerezin has left #openstack-meeting00:18
*** fbo has quit IRC00:18
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting00:19
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting00:20
*** sarob has quit IRC00:22
*** TravT has quit IRC00:22
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting00:24
*** mtanino has quit IRC00:24
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC00:25
*** cjellick has quit IRC00:26
*** DrBacchus has quit IRC00:26
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting00:26
*** fbo has joined #openstack-meeting00:28
*** arosen has quit IRC00:28
*** Mandell has quit IRC00:30
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC00:30
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting00:31
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting00:32
*** jackmccann has left #openstack-meeting00:32
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting00:33
*** ArthurBerezin has left #openstack-meeting00:34
*** banix has quit IRC00:35
*** jecarey has joined #openstack-meeting00:41
*** zhikunliu has joined #openstack-meeting00:41
*** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting00:41
*** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz00:42
*** arosen has quit IRC00:42
*** fnaval has quit IRC00:42
*** crc32 has quit IRC00:46
*** ayoung_dad_mode is now known as ayoung00:47
*** kayaliu_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:50
*** yingjun has joined #openstack-meeting00:51
*** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:51
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting00:52
*** keyvan is now known as zz_keyvan00:55
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting01:00
*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting01:00
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting01:00
*** jecarey_ has joined #openstack-meeting01:02
*** saschpe has quit IRC01:04
*** igor_ has quit IRC01:05
*** jecarey has quit IRC01:05
*** saschpe has joined #openstack-meeting01:06
*** zz_keyvan is now known as keyvan01:08
*** stevemar has joined #openstack-meeting01:09
*** krotscheck has quit IRC01:12
*** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting01:15
*** kenhui has quit IRC01:22
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC01:26
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC01:27
*** safchain has quit IRC01:27
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC01:30
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting01:32
*** jjmb has quit IRC01:33
*** assef has joined #openstack-meeting01:33
*** Mandell has quit IRC01:33
*** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting01:34
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting01:34
*** zhikunliu has quit IRC01:35
*** eghobo has quit IRC01:35
*** keyvan is now known as zz_keyvan01:38
*** zz_keyvan is now known as keyvan01:39
*** sbalukoff has quit IRC01:41
*** keyvan is now known as zz_keyvan01:41
*** assef has quit IRC01:42
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting01:44
*** gcb has joined #openstack-meeting01:46
*** nosnos has joined #openstack-meeting01:47
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC01:50
*** neelashah has joined #openstack-meeting01:51
*** epico has joined #openstack-meeting01:53
*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:01
*** saschpe has quit IRC02:01
*** saschpe has joined #openstack-meeting02:03
*** igor_ has quit IRC02:05
*** baoli has quit IRC02:07
*** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away02:07
*** marun has quit IRC02:09
*** erlon has quit IRC02:09
*** assef has joined #openstack-meeting02:11
*** lcheng has quit IRC02:11
*** xianghui_afk has joined #openstack-meeting02:15
*** pablosan has quit IRC02:15
*** pablosan has joined #openstack-meeting02:16
*** viveknarasimhan has joined #openstack-meeting02:16
*** rbowen has joined #openstack-meeting02:17
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting02:17
*** cody-somerville has joined #openstack-meeting02:17
*** IlyaE has quit IRC02:19
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting02:22
*** bgorski has quit IRC02:23
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting02:24
*** bill_az has quit IRC02:27
*** kenhui has quit IRC02:31
*** crc32 has joined #openstack-meeting02:33
*** crc32 has quit IRC02:33
*** noslzzp has quit IRC02:34
*** crc32 has joined #openstack-meeting02:34
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting02:34
*** viveknarasimhan has quit IRC02:35
*** amcrn has quit IRC02:37
*** vkmc has quit IRC02:37
*** whenry has quit IRC02:40
*** esker has quit IRC02:43
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting02:44
*** ayoung has quit IRC02:44
*** kayaliu_ has quit IRC02:46
*** esker has quit IRC02:48
*** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC02:48
*** rbowen has quit IRC02:49
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting02:58
*** mattgriffin has joined #openstack-meeting02:58
*** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting02:59
*** matiu has joined #openstack-meeting02:59
*** mattgriffin has quit IRC03:00
*** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting03:00
*** kayaliu_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:00
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting03:00
*** kayaliu_ has quit IRC03:01
*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting03:02
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting03:03
*** mattgriffin has joined #openstack-meeting03:04
*** pablosan is now known as zz_pablosan03:06
*** nosnos has quit IRC03:07
*** igor_ has quit IRC03:07
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting03:07
*** rbowen has joined #openstack-meeting03:10
*** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan03:13
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC03:14
*** baoli has quit IRC03:17
*** MaxV has quit IRC03:18
*** esker has quit IRC03:19
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting03:19
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting03:20
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC03:24
*** arnaud has joined #openstack-meeting03:25
*** esker has quit IRC03:25
*** ramishra has quit IRC03:25
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting03:26
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC03:26
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting03:27
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting03:29
*** arnaud has quit IRC03:29
*** rbowen has quit IRC03:29
*** kenhui has quit IRC03:31
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting03:33
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting03:35
*** bill_az has joined #openstack-meeting03:36
*** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap03:37
*** lcheng has quit IRC03:40
*** bill_az has quit IRC03:42
*** Mandell has quit IRC03:42
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting03:42
*** jecarey__ has joined #openstack-meeting03:44
*** jecarey_ has quit IRC03:47
*** nosnos has joined #openstack-meeting03:47
*** crc32 has quit IRC03:48
*** morganfainberg is now known as morganfainberg_Z03:49
*** jecarey__ has quit IRC03:49
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting03:50
*** gyee has quit IRC03:54
*** jjmb has quit IRC03:54
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC03:55
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting03:58
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting03:59
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting04:00
*** banix has quit IRC04:00
*** assef has quit IRC04:00
*** nosnos has quit IRC04:01
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC04:01
*** kenhui has quit IRC04:02
*** gokrokve has quit IRC04:03
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting04:05
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting04:05
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting04:05
*** esker has quit IRC04:06
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting04:07
*** yingjun has quit IRC04:07
*** esker has quit IRC04:11
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting04:12
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting04:13
*** egallen has quit IRC04:14
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting04:19
*** Mandell has quit IRC04:21
*** arosen has quit IRC04:29
*** nosnos has joined #openstack-meeting04:30
*** kenhui has quit IRC04:31
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting04:33
*** egallen has quit IRC04:33
*** mkoderer has joined #openstack-meeting04:34
*** IlyaE has quit IRC04:37
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting04:40
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting04:40
*** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-meeting04:41
*** SridharG has joined #openstack-meeting04:42
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting04:43
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting04:47
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC04:49
*** marcoemorais1 has joined #openstack-meeting04:49
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting04:50
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting04:50
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC04:52
*** ramishra has quit IRC04:55
*** Longgeek has quit IRC04:55
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting04:57
*** balajip has joined #openstack-meeting05:02
*** J_Robinson has joined #openstack-meeting05:02
*** Mandell has quit IRC05:02
balajipany guys from 'service vm' framework05:03
*** J_Robinson has quit IRC05:03
*** nshaikh has joined #openstack-meeting05:04
*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:04
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting05:04
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC05:07
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting05:07
*** igor_ has quit IRC05:08
*** MaxV has quit IRC05:09
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting05:10
*** balajip has left #openstack-meeting05:12
*** ramishra has quit IRC05:15
*** xuhanp has joined #openstack-meeting05:15
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting05:15
*** neelashah has quit IRC05:17
*** Mikhail_D_ltp has joined #openstack-meeting05:20
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC05:21
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting05:21
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC05:25
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting05:39
*** mrunge has quit IRC05:39
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting05:39
*** comay has quit IRC05:39
*** markvoelker has quit IRC05:43
*** changbl has quit IRC05:45
*** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:46
*** mattgriffin has quit IRC05:48
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC05:49
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC05:51
*** nati_uen_ has quit IRC05:52
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting05:53
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting05:54
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting05:56
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC05:59
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC05:59
*** Mikhail_D_ltp has quit IRC06:01
*** SridharG has quit IRC06:03
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting06:04
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting06:06
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting06:07
*** Macaveli has joined #openstack-meeting06:08
*** gokrokve has quit IRC06:09
*** igor has quit IRC06:10
*** kenhui has quit IRC06:11
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:12
*** SridharG has joined #openstack-meeting06:19
*** gcb has quit IRC06:19
*** doron_afk has joined #openstack-meeting06:21
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting06:24
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:25
*** igor has quit IRC06:26
*** xuhanp has quit IRC06:28
*** harlowja is now known as harlowja_away06:28
*** crc32 has joined #openstack-meeting06:28
*** crc32 has quit IRC06:29
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC06:29
*** rmk has quit IRC06:31
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC06:32
*** xuhanp has joined #openstack-meeting06:38
*** cody-somerville has quit IRC06:39
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting06:40
*** gokrokve_ has joined #openstack-meeting06:42
*** Fdot has joined #openstack-meeting06:44
*** gokrokve has quit IRC06:45
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC06:45
*** dkranz has quit IRC06:46
*** xianghui_afk has quit IRC06:47
*** gokrokve_ has quit IRC06:47
*** jjmb has quit IRC06:47
*** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting06:48
*** lcheng has quit IRC06:48
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC06:50
*** Mandell has quit IRC06:50
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting06:51
*** Michalik- has quit IRC06:51
*** rmk has joined #openstack-meeting06:53
*** rmk has joined #openstack-meeting06:53
*** SridharGaddam has joined #openstack-meeting06:53
*** SridharG has quit IRC06:53
*** uaberme has joined #openstack-meeting06:55
*** Mandell has quit IRC06:57
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting06:58
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting06:59
*** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting06:59
*** Mandell has quit IRC06:59
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting07:01
*** dkranz has joined #openstack-meeting07:02
*** xianghui_afk has joined #openstack-meeting07:03
*** yogeshmehra has joined #openstack-meeting07:03
*** bauzas has joined #openstack-meeting07:05
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting07:06
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting07:07
*** che-arne has quit IRC07:08
*** yingjun has joined #openstack-meeting07:08
*** yingjun has quit IRC07:08
*** yingjun has joined #openstack-meeting07:08
*** flaper87|afk is now known as flaper8707:10
*** ArthurBerezin has left #openstack-meeting07:11
*** kenhui has quit IRC07:11
*** f_rossigneux_ has quit IRC07:11
*** afazekas has quit IRC07:13
*** Michalik- has joined #openstack-meeting07:14
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting07:15
*** andreaf has quit IRC07:17
*** amandeep has joined #openstack-meeting07:17
*** amandeep is now known as Guest1344307:17
*** eghobo has quit IRC07:20
*** yamamoto has quit IRC07:23
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:25
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting07:28
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC07:29
*** IlyaE has quit IRC07:29
*** igor has quit IRC07:32
*** markvan_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:32
*** miqui__ has joined #openstack-meeting07:32
*** I159 has joined #openstack-meeting07:33
*** jgallard has joined #openstack-meeting07:33
*** SridharG has joined #openstack-meeting07:34
*** hashar has joined #openstack-meeting07:35
*** SridharGaddam has quit IRC07:37
*** markvan has quit IRC07:37
*** miqui_ has quit IRC07:37
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting07:42
*** luqas has joined #openstack-meeting07:43
*** ramishra has quit IRC07:44
*** luqas has quit IRC07:45
*** luqas has joined #openstack-meeting07:46
*** gokrokve has quit IRC07:47
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting07:48
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting07:49
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:50
*** ilyashakhat has quit IRC07:51
*** hughsaunders has quit IRC07:51
*** hyakuhei has quit IRC07:52
*** ygbo has joined #openstack-meeting07:52
*** esmute has quit IRC07:52
*** hughsaunders has joined #openstack-meeting07:52
*** ilyashakhat has joined #openstack-meeting07:52
*** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting07:54
*** hyakuhei has joined #openstack-meeting07:55
*** marcoemorais1 has quit IRC07:55
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC07:56
*** xianghui_afk has quit IRC07:57
*** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting07:58
*** esmute has joined #openstack-meeting07:58
*** nati_uen_ has joined #openstack-meeting07:58
*** derekh_ has joined #openstack-meeting08:00
*** stevemar has quit IRC08:01
*** paragan has quit IRC08:02
*** brucer has quit IRC08:03
*** pelix has joined #openstack-meeting08:03
*** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting08:05
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting08:07
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting08:09
*** xianghui_afk has joined #openstack-meeting08:09
*** uaberme has quit IRC08:11
*** kenhui has quit IRC08:12
*** MaxV has quit IRC08:13
*** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting08:16
*** paragan has quit IRC08:16
*** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting08:16
*** uberj has quit IRC08:21
*** uberj_ has joined #openstack-meeting08:21
*** xuhanp has quit IRC08:22
*** jbrogan has quit IRC08:23
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting08:23
*** ccorrigan has quit IRC08:24
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting08:25
*** jjmb has quit IRC08:26
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting08:26
*** rwsu has quit IRC08:26
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting08:28
*** belmoreira has joined #openstack-meeting08:28
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC08:30
*** belmoreira has quit IRC08:31
*** belmoreira has joined #openstack-meeting08:31
*** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk08:32
*** igor has quit IRC08:33
*** lewang has joined #openstack-meeting08:35
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting08:42
*** Mandell has quit IRC08:42
*** acoles_away is now known as acoles08:43
*** yamamoto has quit IRC08:45
*** gokrokve has quit IRC08:47
*** ccorrigan has joined #openstack-meeting08:48
*** yogeshmehra has quit IRC08:56
*** ominakov has joined #openstack-meeting08:56
*** doron_afk is now known as doron08:57
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting09:01
*** doron is now known as doron_afk09:06
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting09:08
*** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away09:09
*** tomoe_ has quit IRC09:10
*** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting09:10
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting09:10
*** nati_uen_ has quit IRC09:10
*** kenhui has quit IRC09:12
*** MaxV has quit IRC09:15
*** tomoe_ has quit IRC09:15
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting09:19
*** ArthurBerezin has left #openstack-meeting09:20
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting09:22
*** evgenyf has quit IRC09:23
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting09:24
*** xianghui_afk has quit IRC09:24
*** Guest13443 has quit IRC09:26
*** igor has quit IRC09:28
*** xianghui_afk has joined #openstack-meeting09:38
*** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting09:40
*** flaper87 has quit IRC09:41
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting09:42
*** luqas has quit IRC09:46
*** gokrokve has quit IRC09:47
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC09:50
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting09:52
*** che-arne has joined #openstack-meeting09:55
*** hashar has quit IRC09:55
*** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap09:55
*** igor has joined #openstack-meeting09:59
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting10:01
*** egallen has quit IRC10:06
*** doron_afk is now known as doron10:08
*** jcoufal has quit IRC10:09
*** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting10:09
*** xianghui_afk has quit IRC10:17
*** yingjun has quit IRC10:18
*** jgallard has quit IRC10:20
*** paragan has quit IRC10:21
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting10:23
*** ArthurBerezin1 has joined #openstack-meeting10:24
*** doron is now known as doron_afk10:26
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting10:27
*** jjmb has quit IRC10:27
*** Longgeek has quit IRC10:29
*** xianghui_afk has joined #openstack-meeting10:30
*** overlayer has joined #openstack-meeting10:31
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC10:31
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting10:32
*** lewang has left #openstack-meeting10:32
*** overlayer has quit IRC10:34
*** overlayer has joined #openstack-meeting10:35
*** SridharG has quit IRC10:35
*** kenhui has quit IRC10:36
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting10:39
*** haomaiwang has quit IRC10:39
*** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-meeting10:39
*** brucer has joined #openstack-meeting10:40
*** prad has quit IRC10:40
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting10:42
*** haomaiw__ has joined #openstack-meeting10:43
*** nithya_g has quit IRC10:44
*** haomaiwang has quit IRC10:45
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC10:45
*** mrunge has quit IRC10:46
*** gokrokve has quit IRC10:47
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting10:51
*** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-meeting10:54
*** yingjun has joined #openstack-meeting10:55
*** haomaiw__ has quit IRC10:55
*** rbowen has joined #openstack-meeting10:58
*** xianghui_afk has quit IRC10:59
*** baoli has quit IRC10:59
*** enikanorov has joined #openstack-meeting11:00
*** epico has quit IRC11:01
*** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan11:02
*** uaberme has joined #openstack-meeting11:04
*** luqas has joined #openstack-meeting11:10
*** uaberme has quit IRC11:11
*** Longgeek has quit IRC11:11
*** jjmb has joined #openstack-meeting11:12
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting11:15
*** jjmb has quit IRC11:15
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:16
*** enikanorov_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:16
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting11:18
*** enikanorov has quit IRC11:18
*** NithyaG has joined #openstack-meeting11:27
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:28
*** weshay has joined #openstack-meeting11:30
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC11:32
*** luqas has quit IRC11:32
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting11:32
*** overlayer has quit IRC11:35
*** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting11:35
*** ramishra has quit IRC11:36
*** kenhui has quit IRC11:37
*** NithyaG has quit IRC11:39
*** GheRivero has quit IRC11:39
*** nacim has quit IRC11:40
*** matsuhashi has quit IRC11:41
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting11:41
*** igordcard has quit IRC11:41
*** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting11:42
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting11:42
*** igordcard has quit IRC11:42
*** rbowen has quit IRC11:42
*** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting11:43
*** gokrokve has quit IRC11:47
*** jang has joined #openstack-meeting11:49
*** jimbobhickville has joined #openstack-meeting11:49
*** jimbobhickville has left #openstack-meeting11:49
*** GheRivero has joined #openstack-meeting11:50
*** doron_afk is now known as doron11:53
*** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting11:53
*** HenryG has quit IRC11:53
*** doron is now known as doron_afk11:56
*** hashar has joined #openstack-meeting11:57
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting12:01
*** ArthurBerezin1 has quit IRC12:02
*** jhenner1 has joined #openstack-meeting12:02
*** doron_afk is now known as doron12:03
*** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting12:03
*** pdmars has joined #openstack-meeting12:03
*** jhenner has quit IRC12:04
*** banix has quit IRC12:04
*** afazekas has quit IRC12:05
*** ArxCruz has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** ominakov_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** brucer has quit IRC12:07
*** sbauza has joined #openstack-meeting12:07
*** ominakov has quit IRC12:08
*** mrunge has quit IRC12:12
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting12:16
*** vkmc has quit IRC12:16
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting12:16
*** dhellmann_ is now known as dhellmann12:16
*** crandquist has joined #openstack-meeting12:16
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting12:17
*** paragan has joined #openstack-meeting12:18
*** kobier has quit IRC12:18
*** salv-orlando_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:18
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC12:20
*** salv-orlando_ is now known as salv-orlando12:20
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting12:20
*** aysyd has joined #openstack-meeting12:21
*** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk12:22
*** jdob has joined #openstack-meeting12:22
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting12:23
*** ominakov_ has quit IRC12:26
*** flaper87|afk has joined #openstack-meeting12:27
*** flaper87|afk is now known as flaper8712:27
*** ominakov has joined #openstack-meeting12:28
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:28
*** gcb has joined #openstack-meeting12:29
*** mattgriffin has joined #openstack-meeting12:29
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC12:32
*** ArthurBerezin has left #openstack-meeting12:33
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting12:33
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting12:36
*** neelashah has joined #openstack-meeting12:36
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting12:37
*** kenhui has quit IRC12:38
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting12:41
*** ramishra has quit IRC12:42
*** jecarey has joined #openstack-meeting12:42
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting12:42
*** flaper87 has quit IRC12:46
*** flaper87 has joined #openstack-meeting12:46
*** gokrokve has quit IRC12:47
*** baoli has quit IRC12:50
*** b3nt_pin has joined #openstack-meeting12:51
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting12:51
*** b3nt_pin is now known as beagles12:51
*** egallen has quit IRC12:52
*** doron is now known as doron_afk12:52
*** bauzas has quit IRC12:52
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting12:55
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting12:55
*** sbauza has quit IRC12:57
*** egallen has joined #openstack-meeting12:57
*** noslzzp has joined #openstack-meeting12:58
*** julim has joined #openstack-meeting12:58
*** egallen has quit IRC12:59
*** esker has quit IRC12:59
*** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting13:00
*** changbl has joined #openstack-meeting13:00
*** rbrady has joined #openstack-meeting13:01
*** nosnos has quit IRC13:02
*** bauzas has joined #openstack-meeting13:03
*** luqas has joined #openstack-meeting13:03
*** paragan has quit IRC13:04
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC13:04
*** changbl has quit IRC13:05
*** yingjun has quit IRC13:05
*** gcb has quit IRC13:06
*** xianghui has joined #openstack-meeting13:06
*** miqui__ is now known as miqui_13:07
*** japplewhite has joined #openstack-meeting13:08
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting13:11
*** mwagner_lap has quit IRC13:11
*** jhenner1 has quit IRC13:11
*** afazekas has quit IRC13:12
*** nacim has quit IRC13:13
*** bknudson has quit IRC13:17
*** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting13:17
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting13:17
*** ArthurBerezin has joined #openstack-meeting13:19
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting13:22
*** jhenner has joined #openstack-meeting13:23
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting13:23
*** varora- has left #openstack-meeting13:24
*** afazekas has joined #openstack-meeting13:25
*** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting13:26
*** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann_13:27
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting13:28
*** arnaud has joined #openstack-meeting13:29
*** vijendar has joined #openstack-meeting13:30
*** varora- has joined #openstack-meeting13:30
*** caleb_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:32
*** deklan has joined #openstack-meeting13:33
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC13:33
*** SridharG has joined #openstack-meeting13:33
*** arnaud has quit IRC13:33
*** varora- has left #openstack-meeting13:34
*** jgrimm has quit IRC13:35
*** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting13:36
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting13:38
*** bknudson has joined #openstack-meeting13:41
*** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:41
*** xuhanp has joined #openstack-meeting13:42
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting13:42
*** ramishra has quit IRC13:43
*** kenhui has quit IRC13:44
*** caleb_ has quit IRC13:44
*** lpabon has joined #openstack-meeting13:45
*** andreaf has quit IRC13:45
*** gokrokve has quit IRC13:46
*** caleb_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:46
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC13:49
*** coreywright is now known as coreywright_13:50
*** simon-AS5591 has joined #openstack-meeting13:50
*** ivasev has joined #openstack-meeting13:50
*** erecio_1 has joined #openstack-meeting13:51
*** aveiga has joined #openstack-meeting13:52
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting13:53
*** erecio has quit IRC13:54
sc68calhello everyone13:56
*** lpabon has left #openstack-meeting13:56
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
*** eddie_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:57
sc68cal#startmeeting neutron_ipv614:00
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 14:00:08 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sc68cal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.14:00
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.14:00
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: neutron_ipv6)"14:00
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'neutron_ipv6'14:00
*** dane_leblanc has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
xuhanphello everyone14:00
sc68cal#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-IPv6-Subteam#Agenda_for_May_20th Agenda14:00
*** carl_baldwin_m has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
sc68cal#topic blueprints14:00
*** openstack changes topic to "blueprints (Meeting topic: neutron_ipv6)"14:00
sc68calFirstly, thank you everyone who attended the summit and the design summit session - we had some good discussions14:01
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting14:01
sc68cal#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-ipv6-atlanta-summit Design summit etherpad14:02
*** pcm__ has joined #openstack-meeting14:02
*** Shixiong has joined #openstack-meeting14:02
sc68calWe had some good discussions about some of the blueprints that are on our roadmap - it was also nice to meet everyone in person14:03
*** BrianB__ has joined #openstack-meeting14:03
aveiga+1 - it was good to put faces to nicks14:03
*** dirk has joined #openstack-meeting14:03
Shixiongyah, glad to meet with everybody in person14:04
*** carl_baldwin_m has quit IRC14:04
*** bill_az has joined #openstack-meeting14:04
*** zz_pablosan is now known as pablosan14:04
*** Macaveli has quit IRC14:05
*** carl_baldwin_m has joined #openstack-meeting14:05
baoliit's great to see everyone in the summit14:05
xuhanpOh. I feel sorry for missing that :-) Really hope I can meet you all sometime.14:05
*** pablosan has quit IRC14:05
*** pablosan has joined #openstack-meeting14:06
*** stevemar has joined #openstack-meeting14:06
sc68calSo one of the things that came up at the summit was doing tempest tests14:06
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC14:06
*** miqui_ is now known as miqui14:06
sc68calI currently have filed a couple blueprints for Tempest for testing the attributes14:07
dane_leblancThose are API tests, rather than scenario tests?14:07
aveigathey have to be for now14:07
*** ygbo has quit IRC14:08
aveigasince the functionality isn't implemented14:08
aveigawe should do scenarios once the patches land14:08
*** dirk has left #openstack-meeting14:08
sc68cal+1 - currently API tests - scenario in the future14:08
*** cfriesen has joined #openstack-meeting14:08
sc68calSridharG filed a BP and both he and I have been adding patches linked to the bp14:08
sc68cal#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/ipv6-subnet-attributes Tempest IPv6 subnet attributes14:08
*** japplewhite has left #openstack-meeting14:09
pcarverI have a general question that goes well beyond IPv6. Are there test cases that run within a tenant VM to verify functionality?14:09
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting14:09
sc68calpcarver: I don't know to be honest. Probably worth asking in #openstack-qa14:10
dane_leblancThere is a basic network scenario (connectivity) test that does pings and SSH to VMs14:10
pcarvere.g (in an IPv6 context) testing that a couple of VMs can get spun up and can reach each other on their IPv6 interfaces14:10
sc68caldane_leblanc: right but those tests are from controller -> VMs14:10
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting14:10
*** erecio_2 has joined #openstack-meeting14:10
dane_leblancOh, don't know if that will test v6 yet.14:11
sc68calI think all the tests are from control node connecting to instance, not instance to instance, but I could be wrong14:11
pcarversc68cal: ok, researching that is on my (long) list of todos14:11
*** coreywright_ is now known as coreywright14:11
sc68calAlso- the scenario that is currently used for Tempest relies on the L3 agent14:11
*** ianw has quit IRC14:12
sc68calthere is a blueprint for more advanced scenarios, and I am working on adding a scenario test that reflects the way we deploy Neutron in production14:12
sc68cal#link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/neutron-provider-networking Tempest provider networking blueprint14:12
sc68calMostly because that's the quickest way for me to start doing ipv6 tests in tempest, in our lab14:12
*** dkehn_ is now known as dkehn14:13
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting14:13
*** ianw has quit IRC14:14
*** erecio_1 has quit IRC14:14
sc68calThere is also some pieces that need to land in DevStack and devstack-gate. For example, the tempest API tests for the ipv6 subnet attributes will fail in the icehouse branch of neutron since they disaled the attributes14:14
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting14:14
sc68calSo I am adding a config knob to tempest.conf to have those tests skip when running the icehouse job.14:14
*** ianw has quit IRC14:14
*** arosen has joined #openstack-meeting14:14
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting14:15
*** carl_baldwin_m has quit IRC14:15
*** carl_baldwin_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:15
*** ianw has quit IRC14:15
sc68calAnyway that's the blueprints I have been working on between summit sessions. Does anyone have new BPs to discuss?14:15
xuhanpsc68cal, I will restore my client code since I saw it's on the agenda14:15
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting14:15
baolishall we talk about the RA BP?14:16
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:17
sc68calI hesitate to discuss it, to be honest. My concern is that we will beg bogged down arguing the merits of a single ipv6 attribute vs. two attributes, when we struggled mightily to get the two attributes merged for Icehouse. But I won't stop people14:17
pcarversc68cal: no blueprints yet, and probably not for a while, but we've got several folks actively working on getting up to speed on current IPv6 status in OpenStack and figuring out what the gaps are for our use cases14:17
aveigaI'm actually writing a BP right now for getting IPv6-only networks to have a flaoting IPv4 address14:18
sc68cal#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92164/ "Add IPv6 RA support in neutron"14:18
aveiganot posted yet though14:18
dane_leblancI've started on the design spec for multiple v6 prefix per port.14:18
baolisc68cal, that's fine. But the openstack implementation for the two attributes seem to have a long way to go get reviewed.14:18
aveigadane_leblanc: thank you, as that will be a prereq for getting floats to work14:19
dane_leblancI've got a basic question re. if multiple subnets belong to a network, and port is created, how many subnets/prefixes should get assigned?14:19
*** jgallard has joined #openstack-meeting14:19
sc68calok - let's hang on to questions till open discussion14:19
dane_leblancsc68cal: Okay.14:19
*** gcb has joined #openstack-meeting14:19
*** carl_baldwin_ has quit IRC14:20
*** ianw has quit IRC14:20
sc68calOK - so we have baoli's bp that is posted, so please feel free to review - aveiga you said yours is WIP, and dane_leblanc is that the case as well?14:20
baolisc68cal, your BP to calculate SLAAC addr in neutron in the case of provider SLAAC is still under review14:20
Shixiongdane_leblanc, if you need anything, feel free to let me know14:21
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting14:21
dane_leblancshixiong: Thanks! :)14:21
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting14:21
ShixiongIt will be critical for us to work together, so the way IP address is assigned maintain consistent between single subnet and multiple subnets.14:21
sc68calif you guys have any of them in gerrit let me know so I can add links so they apppear in the minutes14:22
Shixiongbtw, seemed like you survived through the race. :D14:22
dane_leblancshixiong: yes, survived. :)14:22
*** Fdot has quit IRC14:22
sc68calbaoli: yes - it is still under review14:22
*** ygbo has joined #openstack-meeting14:23
sc68cal#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88043/ IPv6 provider networks14:23
baolisc68cal, one thing I want to mention is that there are a few methods out of there to generate the interface ID14:23
xuhanpsc68cal, before the summit, you mentioned we should split shixiong's code into several commits? is that still the plan?14:23
*** doron_afk is now known as doron14:23
baolisc68cal, modified eui64 is just one of those methods14:23
sc68calxuhanp: Yes - I mentioned it to Shixiong at the summit as well14:23
aveigabaoli: this came up already at the summit14:24
aveigait's very difficult to programmatically support them all, and some are impossible14:24
aveigaif you'd like to submit a patch to support mod-EUI64, please do14:24
aveigawe currently only support EUI6414:24
baoliaveiga, I thought that sc68cal's bp is doing do. I might be wrong14:25
aveigait only supports plain EUI64 right now14:25
baoliaveiga, thanks.14:25
*** mtanino has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
baoliaveiga, another thing, what we do if it's provider dhcp?14:26
*** venkatesh has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
aveigasame thing we do in IPv4 - nothing14:26
aveigaunless you want to suggest sniffing the neighbor table14:26
sc68calalso we wait for someone to have the usecase :)14:26
*** jmontemayor has joined #openstack-meeting14:26
sc68caland figure out if we need to change anything14:26
aveigain which case we should propose that as a whole to neutron in general, for v4 as well14:26
aveigait's doable if we have the l3 agent running14:27
sc68calI'm going to try and get through the rest of the agenda quick to give you guys half an our for open discussion - so bear with me14:27
aveigait's more complicated though for an l2-prov net14:27
Shixiongdane_leblanc, who is that gentleman from Cisco who used to work on Dashboard?14:27
aveigabut doable14:27
baoliaveiga, sc68cal, I thought we should have some idea how to support them.14:27
aveigabaoli: let's table it for open discussion14:28
aveigathere are bugs and such to cover14:28
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting14:28
sc68cal#topic code review14:28
*** openstack changes topic to "code review (Meeting topic: neutron_ipv6)"14:28
dane_leblancshixiong: Abishek, but don't know his IRC handle14:28
*** dims has joined #openstack-meeting14:28
sc68calxuhanp: thanks for the heads up on restoring the patch. I'll ping Mark to remove his -214:28
baolisc68cal, thanks for your review on the snat bug14:28
ShixiongOk, thanks. I think we need to involve him too, so he can continue the work on Dashboard14:29
xuhanpsc68cal, yes. I saw your note in the review.14:29
sc68cal#link https://review.openstack.org/88584 Install SNAT rules for ipv4 only14:29
sc68calbaoli: no problem14:29
*** arnaud has joined #openstack-meeting14:29
xuhanpsc68cal and Shixiong, BTW, we are testing Shixiong's patch in our lab recently, so let me know if I can help with splitting the dnsmasq big patch.14:30
xuhanpAnd we found some problems with that patch :-)14:30
ShixiongSure, thanks, xuhanp14:30
ShixiongOh, yah, bring it up, I would love to fix the problem. :D14:30
ShixiongBtw, I spent a lot of time with your boss in the Summit, :D14:30
*** doron is now known as doron_afk14:31
xuhanpShixiong, I will post the comment in your code review.14:31
*** toan-tran has joined #openstack-meeting14:31
ShixiongPlease, thanks a lot, xuhanp!14:31
xuhanpShixiong, you are welcome14:31
*** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting14:31
*** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC14:32
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
sc68cal#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ dnsmasq patch that needs to be split14:32
sc68calany other code reviews?14:32
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC14:32
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
*** jcoufal has quit IRC14:33
sc68cal#topic bugs14:33
*** openstack changes topic to "bugs (Meeting topic: neutron_ipv6)"14:33
*** simon-AS5591 has quit IRC14:33
sc68cal#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.tag=ipv6 bugs tagged with ipv614:33
*** arnaud has quit IRC14:33
*** rakhmero_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:33
sc68calanything to discuss in bugs, or is everyone ready for open discussion14:34
sc68calalrighty - thanks everyone for being patient14:35
sc68cal#topic open discussion14:35
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: neutron_ipv6)"14:35
*** enikanorov_ has quit IRC14:35
*** jay-lau-513 has joined #openstack-meeting14:35
*** uberj_ is now known as uberj14:35
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC14:37
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting14:37
dane_leblancI have a basic question re. multiple prefixes per port, if there are no other topics.14:37
sc68calsounds good to me - thank you for your patience14:38
dane_leblancQuestion is, if multiple subnets belong to a network, and a port is created, which subnets/prefixes should be associated by default?14:38
dane_leblancv4 model is that one subet is selected, and then others can be updated.14:38
*** rakhmero_ has quit IRC14:38
*** danielitus has left #openstack-meeting14:39
sc68calI'd assume an IP from each subnet that is linked to the network in the neutron API14:39
dane_leblancI think this makes sense for v6, although I'm not sure which of a list of subnets should be chosen first.14:39
baolidane_leblanc: one way is to allow all the v6 subnets, assuming that's what the user intended.14:39
Shixiongvery good question14:40
aveigaI'm trying to understand the use cae for not just getting one of each14:40
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting14:40
dane_leblancIf all v6 subnets are allowed, how can a user enable a given prefix on a subset of VMs?14:40
aveigaif you assigned a subnet to a network, I assume you want to use it?14:40
aveigathere's no attribute I know of for selectively enabling per-vm14:40
*** andreaf has quit IRC14:40
dane_leblancLet's say a user wants some VMs that don't have a public (globally addressable) prefix14:41
aveigaI think the issue there is that you'd have assumed topological reachability where it doesn't exist in practice14:41
aveigaso they don't provide a method for this14:41
dane_leblancIf that scenario makes sense, then we'd want to let's say disable SLAAC prefix assignment on some VMs14:42
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting14:42
baolidane_leblanc, that's a good question. So the question is how a neutron subnet is created, which is not associated with a neutron network, and you can get ips from it that can be assigned to some VMS14:42
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting14:42
aveigawhat you're asking for isn't selective subnets, it's flaoting IPs14:43
aveigagoing the other way, you'd setup a subneet for floating IPs for IPv6, and only assign to some hosts14:43
*** kevinconway has joined #openstack-meeting14:43
aveigaselectively doing slaac would mean a multicast filter per port14:43
aveigawhich breaks RFC, and may also break regular v6 rachability14:44
aveigasince neighbor solicits would also be blocked14:44
dane_leblancaveiga: Yes, this is looking towards floating-ip-like support.14:44
*** MaxV has quit IRC14:44
aveigaso instead of selectively filtering subnets, why not just work on floating IPs?14:44
*** oz_akan_ has joined #openstack-meeting14:44
aveigaI have some ideas in mind14:44
baoliaveiga, the name of floating ip in IPv6 would be confusing.14:44
sc68calbaoli: I disagree14:44
sc68calI think it's a decent openstack-ism14:45
*** ramishra has quit IRC14:45
sc68calI mean AWS has "elastic IP addresses"14:45
aveigawe'd still doa  float, just not with NAT14:45
aveigait would be done via unicasted RA or a routed IP14:45
baolisc68cal, those are coined for ipv414:45
pcarverbaoli: I disagree as well. I'm not an IPv6 guru, nor a huge fan of NAT but I don't see anything wrong with floating IP as a concept that applies equally to v4 and v614:45
sc68caltrue - but the principle is the same - IPs that can be rapidly allocated to instances14:45
baolisc68cal, in that sense, I agree.14:46
aveigayes, it would not be via NAT14:46
sc68caljust so happened in v4 land it's through nat - bleeech :)14:46
aveigawe would do floats as an extra addr14:46
dane_leblancWhat might be confusing is that the v4 floating ips are public, where with v6 the prefixes we get by default are public14:46
Shixiongaveiga and dane_leblance, by using floating ipv6 address, the VM needs to be associated with the pool, but not the subnet, in order to support the use case Dane mentioned, right?14:46
*** gokrokve has quit IRC14:46
aveiga either a second IA_NA in the Advertise, or unicasted RA14:47
aveigaand static route to /12814:47
aveigado an RA for the float net, but set A and M to 014:47
*** xianghui has quit IRC14:47
aveigaanother BP I want to submit if I ever get the time14:47
*** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting14:48
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting14:48
Shixiongthis is another question from my side. Usually the unicast RA is sent as response to RA solicit msg. Can we unwillingly initiate unicast RA to the VM without solicit msg?14:48
*** dprince has quit IRC14:48
*** esker has quit IRC14:48
ShixiongIf so, what VM is going to do with it?14:48
aveigawe have to write the packet ourselves though14:48
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting14:48
baolishixiong, yes14:48
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting14:49
aveigait's still an RA, it should just accept it14:49
baoliaveiga, the radvd supports unicast RA14:49
aveigayup :)14:49
aveigathis is why I had been suggesting using radvd in the wrouter namespace before14:49
ShixiongDoes IPv6 stack on VM side will do check and realize it is not the response to its own solicit msg?14:49
Shixiongand drop it?14:49
aveigaI had plans ;)14:49
aveigaShixiong: the RFC doesn't require that14:49
baoliaveiga, the RA BP would like to address that as well14:49
aveigaand I think we can file bugs where that happens14:49
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting14:50
*** MaxV has quit IRC14:50
ShixiongI see, this will be very interesting method14:50
ShixiongI like it14:50
aveigait makes it easy to inject at will, and remove at will by setting the preferred and valid lifetimes low14:50
ShixiongTrue. I have been thinking about it since last time we discussed it.14:51
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting14:51
ShixiongNow the question is, when will we implement it? :D14:51
baoliaveiga, yes14:51
*** TravT has quit IRC14:51
aveigaShixiong: as soon as I get 5 min to myself to write out the BP :)14:51
baolithe RA BP would pave the way for it to be implemented14:51
aveigabaoli: I don't see a reason why the existing BP would block it14:51
ShixiongDo you guys know whether dnsmasq has the same feature to send unicast RA?14:52
baoliaveiga, it just that the BP is trying to address that in a whole14:52
sc68calmarkmcclain had a interesting idea that he talked with aveiga nad I about on that note14:52
*** ramishra has joined #openstack-meeting14:52
Shixiongif the dependancy is on RADAD, then somebody wants to write the driver for RADAD first?14:52
aveigaShixiong: no need to rewrite, since dnsmasq still needs to do dhcpv614:53
dane_leblancMaybe someone can help me here: comparing v6 to v4, SLAAC (public) is similar to float IPs, ULA (private) is similar to fixed IPs, so in Openstack, the public/private assignments would happen in reverse?14:53
aveigawe need an extra set for radvd in qrouter14:53
baoliThe BP doesn't depend on RADVD. But the implementation would start with radvd14:53
sc68caldane_leblanc: fixed IPs is  sort of a carry over from nova14:53
aveigadane_leblanc: nope, slaac is no different thatn DHCPv6, it's a way to add an addr to a port14:53
sc68calthe way nova was structured, you *had* to do NAT14:53
Shixiongaveiga, if dnsmasq can send unicast RA, then we can continue working on it. If not, and we have to use RADAD, then we need to add driver, right?14:54
*** doron_afk is now known as doron14:54
aveigafor us, fixed IPs are already public14:54
*** megan_w|afk is now known as megan_w14:54
aveigaadding a float would be a way to do a reserved, semi-static public14:54
aveigathat you can shuffle around14:54
*** derekh_ has quit IRC14:54
aveigafor instance, as a VIP for an haproxy instance14:54
dane_leblancaveiga: Thanks for the clarification.14:54
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC14:55
*** esker has quit IRC14:55
aveigaShixiong: yes, or we can write a python RA generator14:55
aveigaRAs are damned simple14:55
aveigathey're completely stateless, too14:55
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting14:55
Shixiongagree, just want to make sure we don't reinvent the wheel if something already exists14:55
aveigajust worried about adding another dep14:56
sc68calyeah we talked with markmcclain about it14:56
sc68calif it's small, it's worth looking into14:56
*** vladikr has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
Shixionghe said he would code this part during his business trip, not sure what's the outcome.14:57
*** sarob has quit IRC14:57
baolijust want to mention that nova networking uses radvd14:57
*** Leonr has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting14:57
aveigaI was unaware that nova had v614:57
ShixiongI like this o.O14:58
baoliall that radvd does is from the RFC, pretty standard. So it can be replaced with any other implementation14:58
aveigathat's my raised eyebrow14:58
sc68calDoes nova still create a column in the database for each IP when you create a network via the nova api? Anyone allocate try allocating a /64?14:58
*** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting14:58
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** vladikr has left #openstack-meeting14:59
aveigatry allocating a /4814:59
*** cody-somerville has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
aveigawatch your DB cry14:59
*** kgriffs|afk is now known as kgriffs14:59
*** lcostantino has joined #openstack-meeting14:59
*** evgenyf has quit IRC14:59
baolisc68cal, aveiga, the first ipv6 experiment I had was using nova14:59
Shixiongbtw, sc68cal, I saw some errors when I run the patch to insert two attributes to DB in Icehouse release14:59
*** whenry has joined #openstack-meeting15:00
Shixiongdo u want me to send the logs to you?15:00
sc68caldo you mean when you try and apply the patch?15:00
ShixiongNo worry. I can email u offline.15:01
*** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting15:01
*** sarob has quit IRC15:01
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting15:01
sc68calIcehouse has the patch already15:02
sc68calthey just added another change to disable the attributes in the REST API15:02
*** simon-AS559 has joined #openstack-meeting15:02
bauzassc68cal: are you close to the end of the meeting ?15:02
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting15:02
sc68calbauzas: yep sorry15:02
sc68calalright everyone, till next week15:02
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"15:03
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 15:03:03 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)15:03
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_ipv6/2014/neutron_ipv6.2014-05-20-14.00.html15:03
*** Shixiong has quit IRC15:03
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_ipv6/2014/neutron_ipv6.2014-05-20-14.00.txt15:03
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_ipv6/2014/neutron_ipv6.2014-05-20-14.00.log.html15:03
*** cjellick has quit IRC15:03
n0ano#startmeeting gantt15:03
*** xuhanp has quit IRC15:03
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 15:03:37 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is n0ano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.15:03
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.15:03
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: gantt)"15:03
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'gantt'15:03
*** baoli has quit IRC15:03
*** aveiga has left #openstack-meeting15:03
n0anoanyone here to talk about the scheduler?15:03
*** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
*** rakhmero_ has joined #openstack-meeting15:04
bauzaswell, left-handed, so \o15:04
n0anobauzas, you beat me by aout 1 min. poking the neutron guys :-)15:04
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC15:04
bauzasI'm also lurking the #libvirt discussion15:05
*** simon-AS5591 has joined #openstack-meeting15:05
*** Longgeek has quit IRC15:05
n0anoreally, where's that, I thought the alt channel was doing Marconi right now15:05
*** zhangleiqiang has joined #openstack-meeting15:05
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC15:06
bauzasthat's in #openstack-meeting-315:06
*** simon-AS559 has quit IRC15:06
*** pcm__ has left #openstack-meeting15:06
n0anobad enought we had 5 parallel tracks at the summit, now we have 3 parallel IRC meeting lines15:07
*** Fdot has joined #openstack-meeting15:08
bauzassounds like libvirt meeting is beating gantt one by number of active participants :)15:08
*** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC15:08
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-meeting15:08
*** zhangleiqiang has quit IRC15:08
n0anoyeah, it it's just you & I today we can close this down, I think we're familiar with what happened at the summit (my main topic for today)15:09
n0anoI think what I'll do is send out an email with some links to the etherpads from the summit, just so people know where to look for what happened15:10
toan-tranhye guys15:10
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting15:10
toan-tranhere to talk about the summit :)15:10
n0anotoan-tran, hi, it's just bauzas you and I today, I'm thinking we should cancel today and try again next week.15:11
toan-tranno prob15:11
*** marun has joined #openstack-meeting15:11
*** zul has quit IRC15:11
*** zul has joined #openstack-meeting15:11
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC15:11
toan-trann0ano: I find the etherpad rather hard to read15:11
bauzasn0ano: well, just to inform you about the juno-1 timeline15:12
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting15:12
toan-tranno concrete actions15:12
*** rakhmero_ has quit IRC15:12
n0anotoan-tran, pretty typical, you have to try and read between the lines a lot.15:12
n0anobauzas, what about the timeline?15:12
toan-tranplus, we have several works in tight relation, like instance group + life-cyce, etc15:12
bauzastoan-tran: well, there were concrete results :)15:12
bauzasfor each sched related topic, I can give an overview15:12
bauzasjuno-1 is by June 12th IIRC15:13
bauzasso 3 weeks by now15:13
n0anobauzas, I suggest you reply to my email, that'll hit a lot more people than just the 3 of us15:13
bauzasok, sounds reasonable :)15:13
toan-trann0ano: +115:13
bauzasn0ano: I'm really sorry about the forklift session I held15:13
n0anobauzas, why, I thought it went as well as can be expected15:14
bauzasn0ano: sounds like my english accent made me out of game15:14
toan-tranbauzas: what are you talking about?15:14
n0anonah, I had no trouble understanding you15:14
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting15:14
toan-tranI participated in the session, you've done well I'd say15:14
bauzasn0ano: I wish I would have participated more15:15
n0anowithout putting a muzzle on some people that would have been difficult :-)15:15
bauzasanyway, let's wrap up in ML15:15
toan-tranwell, the role of presentator is to coordinate the discussion, and that you've done well15:15
bauzaswill provide feedback about all discussions15:15
toan-tranthey talked a lot :D15:15
n0anomy goal at those session are just to start a discussion, which you did15:15
bauzasthanks for these feedback, folks15:16
n0anoOK, follow up on email, talk to you next week15:16
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting15:16
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"15:16
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 15:16:11 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)15:16
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2014/gantt.2014-05-20-15.03.html15:16
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2014/gantt.2014-05-20-15.03.txt15:16
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2014/gantt.2014-05-20-15.03.log.html15:16
*** changbl has joined #openstack-meeting15:16
toan-tranhowever, I have to admit, I had difficult understanding all :)15:16
toan-trantoo technical details for me :)15:16
n0anotoan-tran, you can `neve` have too much technical :-)15:16
toan-tranme thump up15:17
* toan-tran thump up15:17
toan-tranok see you around15:17
*** Fdot has quit IRC15:17
bauzasn0ano: by saying that I have to reply to your email, you mean which email ?15:17
bauzasbecause I can't find one by today15:18
n0anohasn't been sent yet, I was going to talk about it at the IRC meeting, but now I'm send out an email15:18
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting15:18
n0anoexpect it in an hour or so15:18
*** zns has quit IRC15:18
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC15:19
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting15:19
*** AntL has joined #openstack-meeting15:21
*** fnaval has quit IRC15:21
bauzasn0ano: ok15:21
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting15:21
*** jtomasek has quit IRC15:21
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting15:22
*** fnaval has quit IRC15:23
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting15:23
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting15:24
*** dripton has quit IRC15:25
*** belmoreira has quit IRC15:25
*** mestery has quit IRC15:26
*** MaxV has quit IRC15:26
*** dripton has joined #openstack-meeting15:26
*** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting15:26
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting15:26
*** andreaf has quit IRC15:27
*** gcb has quit IRC15:28
*** atiwari has quit IRC15:28
*** luis_fdez has joined #openstack-meeting15:28
*** Fdot has joined #openstack-meeting15:28
*** cody-somerville has quit IRC15:29
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting15:30
*** samcdona has quit IRC15:30
*** resker has joined #openstack-meeting15:31
*** gcb has joined #openstack-meeting15:31
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting15:33
*** esker has quit IRC15:34
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC15:34
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC15:35
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting15:35
*** MaxV has quit IRC15:36
*** toan-tran has quit IRC15:40
*** afazekas has quit IRC15:40
*** ramishra has quit IRC15:40
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting15:41
*** zns has quit IRC15:41
*** mrodden has quit IRC15:43
*** neelashah has quit IRC15:43
*** AlanClark has quit IRC15:44
*** venkatesh has quit IRC15:44
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting15:45
*** Fdot has quit IRC15:45
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting15:45
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting15:46
*** pradipta has joined #openstack-meeting15:47
*** garyk has quit IRC15:48
*** atiwari has quit IRC15:48
*** virmitio has joined #openstack-meeting15:49
*** I159 has quit IRC15:49
*** paulmo has joined #openstack-meeting15:50
*** matiu has quit IRC15:50
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting15:54
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting15:54
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting15:58
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting15:58
*** yjiang5 has quit IRC15:58
*** maxdml has quit IRC15:59
*** amcrn has joined #openstack-meeting16:00
*** ali-mohsin has joined #openstack-meeting16:00
*** hashar is now known as hasharConfCall16:01
*** tomoe_ has quit IRC16:01
*** ygbo has quit IRC16:01
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting16:01
*** cody-somerville has joined #openstack-meeting16:01
*** andrew_plunk has joined #openstack-meeting16:01
*** MaxV has quit IRC16:01
*** andrew_plunk has left #openstack-meeting16:02
*** colinmcnamara has joined #openstack-meeting16:02
*** BrianB__ has quit IRC16:03
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC16:05
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting16:05
*** ominakov has quit IRC16:06
*** gcb has quit IRC16:06
*** nacim has quit IRC16:06
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting16:08
*** thomasbiege has joined #openstack-meeting16:08
*** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting16:09
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC16:09
*** comay has joined #openstack-meeting16:11
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC16:12
*** SridharG has quit IRC16:13
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting16:13
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting16:13
*** rbrady has quit IRC16:13
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting16:13
*** rbrady has joined #openstack-meeting16:14
*** pelix has quit IRC16:14
*** jgrimm has quit IRC16:14
*** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-meeting16:14
*** pelix has joined #openstack-meeting16:14
*** megan_w is now known as megan_w|afk16:14
*** ygbo has joined #openstack-meeting16:14
*** changbl has quit IRC16:15
*** samcdona has quit IRC16:15
*** acoles is now known as acoles_away16:17
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting16:17
*** baoli has quit IRC16:18
*** yamahata has quit IRC16:18
*** nshaikh has quit IRC16:18
*** yingjun has joined #openstack-meeting16:20
*** whenry has quit IRC16:20
*** haomaiwang has quit IRC16:24
*** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting16:24
*** ametts has quit IRC16:25
*** spzala has joined #openstack-meeting16:25
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting16:26
*** baoli has quit IRC16:27
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting16:27
*** IgorYozhikov is now known as iyozhikov16:28
*** rwsu has joined #openstack-meeting16:30
*** morganfainberg_Z is now known as morganfainberg16:30
*** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting16:30
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:31
*** yingjun has quit IRC16:31
*** neelashah has joined #openstack-meeting16:31
*** jmontemayor has quit IRC16:32
*** hasharConfCall has quit IRC16:32
*** vijendar has quit IRC16:33
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC16:34
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting16:34
*** lcostantino has quit IRC16:34
*** arnaud_ has quit IRC16:35
*** manishg has joined #openstack-meeting16:36
*** megan_w|afk is now known as megan_w16:36
*** simon-AS5591 has quit IRC16:36
*** vijendar has joined #openstack-meeting16:37
*** bgorski has joined #openstack-meeting16:37
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC16:39
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:39
*** rossk has joined #openstack-meeting16:41
*** sushils has quit IRC16:42
*** terriyu has joined #openstack-meeting16:42
*** pelix has quit IRC16:43
*** MaxV has quit IRC16:43
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC16:44
*** baoli has quit IRC16:45
*** jgallard has quit IRC16:46
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting16:49
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting16:50
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting16:51
*** coreywright is now known as coreywright_16:51
*** safchain has quit IRC16:52
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting16:52
*** whenry has joined #openstack-meeting16:52
*** simon-AS559 has joined #openstack-meeting16:52
*** aswadrangnekar1 has joined #openstack-meeting16:54
*** zz_keyvan is now known as keyvan16:54
*** mattoliverau has quit IRC16:56
*** garyk has joined #openstack-meeting16:57
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting16:59
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting16:59
*** chuckC has quit IRC16:59
*** pelix has joined #openstack-meeting16:59
*** mattoliverau has joined #openstack-meeting17:00
*** alexbarclay-orac has joined #openstack-meeting17:00
*** paulmo has left #openstack-meeting17:01
*** thinrichs has joined #openstack-meeting17:02
*** olkonami has joined #openstack-meeting17:02
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC17:02
*** terriyu has quit IRC17:02
*** lcheng has quit IRC17:02
*** caleb_ has quit IRC17:02
thinrichsHi all17:02
*** sarob has quit IRC17:02
thinrichs#startmeeting CongressTeamMeeting17:03
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 17:03:05 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is thinrichs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.17:03
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.17:03
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: CongressTeamMeeting)"17:03
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'congressteammeeting'17:03
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting17:03
sarobthinrichs: hey17:03
*** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting17:03
*** resker has quit IRC17:03
henrynashhi, sorry I’m late17:03
sarobthinrichs: still meeting on -3?17:03
thinrichsSorry--wrong room.  Should be in -3.17:04
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"17:04
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 17:04:10 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)17:04
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/congressteammeeting/2014/congressteammeeting.2014-05-20-17.03.html17:04
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/congressteammeeting/2014/congressteammeeting.2014-05-20-17.03.txt17:04
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/congressteammeeting/2014/congressteammeeting.2014-05-20-17.03.log.html17:04
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting17:04
*** amcrn has quit IRC17:04
*** baojg has quit IRC17:04
*** yogeshmehra has joined #openstack-meeting17:04
*** sarob has quit IRC17:04
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting17:05
*** radez_g0n3 is now known as radez17:05
*** ArthurBerezin has quit IRC17:05
*** atiwari has quit IRC17:07
boris-42msdubov ping17:08
boris-42marcoemorais harlowja_away ping17:08
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting17:08
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting17:08
*** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting17:09
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC17:09
*** baoli has quit IRC17:12
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC17:13
*** Julian has joined #openstack-meeting17:14
*** Julian is now known as Guest4558017:15
*** luqas has quit IRC17:15
*** arnaud_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:15
*** harlowja_away is now known as harlowja17:16
*** doron is now known as doron_afk17:16
harlowjaboris-42 sup17:16
marcoemoraisboris-42: pong17:17
*** Guest45580 has quit IRC17:17
*** ygbo has quit IRC17:18
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting17:18
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-meeting17:21
*** devlaps has quit IRC17:21
*** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting17:22
*** changbl has joined #openstack-meeting17:22
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting17:23
*** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting17:23
*** tris has quit IRC17:24
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting17:24
*** Mandell has quit IRC17:24
*** amcrn has joined #openstack-meeting17:25
*** crc32 has joined #openstack-meeting17:25
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting17:26
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting17:26
*** colinmcnamara has quit IRC17:29
*** eghobo has quit IRC17:29
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting17:30
*** doron_afk has quit IRC17:31
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC17:31
*** aswadrangnekar1 has left #openstack-meeting17:32
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting17:32
*** ali-mohsin has quit IRC17:33
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting17:34
*** clu_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:34
*** igor has quit IRC17:34
*** changbl has quit IRC17:35
*** igor_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:35
*** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting17:35
*** dane_leblanc has quit IRC17:36
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting17:36
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC17:37
*** zns has quit IRC17:38
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting17:40
*** crandquist has quit IRC17:42
*** krtaylor has quit IRC17:42
*** reed has joined #openstack-meeting17:43
*** peoplemerge has joined #openstack-meeting17:43
*** jcoufal has quit IRC17:44
*** rbertram has joined #openstack-meeting17:45
*** AlanClark has quit IRC17:46
*** crandquist has joined #openstack-meeting17:46
*** dane_leblanc has joined #openstack-meeting17:47
*** rbertram has quit IRC17:47
*** pelix has quit IRC17:49
*** aclark__ has joined #openstack-meeting17:49
*** sushils has quit IRC17:50
*** rbertram has joined #openstack-meeting17:50
*** crandquist has quit IRC17:51
*** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting17:51
*** andreaf has quit IRC17:51
*** markmcclain has quit IRC17:51
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC17:51
*** gokrokve has quit IRC17:52
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting17:52
*** pradipta is now known as pradipta_away17:52
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** changbl has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** kenhui has quit IRC17:54
*** bobt has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting17:54
*** ramashri has joined #openstack-meeting17:58
*** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting17:58
*** w__ has joined #openstack-meeting17:59
lbragstadKeith Stone?18:00
dolphmayoung, bknudson, dstanek, jamielennox, morganfainberg, stevemar, gyee, henrynash, topol, marekd, lbragstad, joesavak, shardy, fabiog, fmarco76, nkinder, lloydm: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting18:00
*** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting18:00
*** nkinder has joined #openstack-meeting18:01
dolphmgive me one sec, building a voting thingy18:01
dolphm#startmeeting keystone18:02
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 18:02:37 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is dolphm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:02
*** mfisch has joined #openstack-meeting18:02
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:02
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'keystone'18:02
*** caleb_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:02
dolphmwelcome back from the summit :)18:02
dolphmhopefully everyone besides btopol is decompressed enough for a meeting18:03
dolphm#topic identity-specs repo coming soon18:03
*** openstack changes topic to "identity-specs repo coming soon (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:03
*** jamielennox has joined #openstack-meeting18:03
dolphmso to kick off juno for real, we're starting an identity-specs repo, similar to nova-specs18:03
dolphm#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94119/18:03
bknudsonI'm assuming anything we have in flight now requires an identity-spec18:03
dolphmmorganfainberg: IIRC, we should have it available this friday?18:03
bknudsonany bps18:04
*** sarob has quit IRC18:04
dolphmbknudson: yes and no...18:04
morganfainbergdolphm, that is the idea. by next week i'll have the basic structure in place18:04
stevemargoing forward with this eh18:04
dolphmwe can introduce a hard requirement for -specs starting in j218:04
*** thinrichs has quit IRC18:04
morganfainbergdolphm, or well by monday of next week i should have all the supporting structure (like nova has) up for review18:04
morganfainbergor so18:04
*** pablosan is now known as zz_pablosan18:04
dolphmso if your feature is in flight, you have some hope of avoiding writing a full blown spec... and thus some encouragement to land your feature early in the juno cycle :)18:05
*** jlibosva has quit IRC18:05
dolphmstill, -specs highly appreciated for all blueprint-level changes18:05
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:05
dolphm#info Mandatory for feature proposals juno-2 onward18:05
ayoungI made a first hack of what the content will be based on the nova one18:05
dolphm#info Propose a feature spec first, and when it's approved/merged, keystone-drivers will create and manage a corresponding blueprint in LP18:05
*** beagles is now known as beagles_brb18:05
dolphmso, basically only keystone-drivers will be creating BP's18:05
morganfainbergdolphm, does this mean we will be evicting the current mess of BPs?18:06
jamielennoxhow does -specs affect client?18:06
ayoung#link https://github.com/admiyo/keystone-specs/18:06
morganfainbergfrom LP that is.18:06
*** browne has joined #openstack-meeting18:06
ayoungfeel free to clone and we can resolve differences when the real one gets up and running18:06
dolphmmorganfainberg: for the most part, that's what i'm thinking (mark them as obsolete?) not sure what the best approach is, or if it should be case by case18:06
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:06
morganfainbergdolphm, case-by-case but most should be obsolete18:07
dolphmjamielennox: nova's template includes a client impact section, but i'd like to have a discrete dir for client-specific work18:07
ayoungBP should not be obsolete if the work will still happen, but maybe someone to indicate "neeeds full spec"18:07
*** dprince has quit IRC18:07
jamielennoxdolphm: ok18:07
morganfainbergayoung, so we need to figure out the correct status.18:08
dolphmjamielennox: but since the release naming doesn't apply to the client, we'll have to create separate versioned directories as we go18:08
gyeedoes keystone spec have a cross-project impact section?18:08
morganfainberggyee, it can.18:08
morganfainberggyee, i'll make sure there is a section for that18:08
*** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting18:08
gyeemorganfainberg, ++18:08
nkinderwe could mark them as obsolete and ask for the person who proposed it to implement a full spec.  That should weed out old or non-important stuff18:08
*** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting18:09
lbragstadnkinder: that's a good diea18:09
dolphmmorganfainberg: i'd like to simply reference nova's template rather than ever maintaining our own18:09
ayoungHow about "if it does not have a full spec, it stays "new"  and "needs review" means it has a real spec?18:09
mfisch+1 to nkinder 's plan18:09
*** thomasbiege has quit IRC18:09
dolphmnkinder: that's what i was thinking18:09
dolphmnkinder: maybe stick a warning in the whiteboards until j2, and then do that?18:09
*** thomasbiege has joined #openstack-meeting18:09
dolphmhopefully that'll provide sufficient notice to those not here18:09
nkinderyeah, sort of a deprecation period18:09
dolphmnkinder: ++18:10
ayoungTag as "review" once there is a real spec, I think....ignore anything that is "new"  and weed out any that stay new for past j2?18:10
nkindermorganfainberg: do you have a security impact section in the template?18:10
morganfainbergnkinder, haven't built the template, but i belive that nova has that section, and if not, i want it18:10
ayoungtell people to move to "drafting" if they are actively working on it18:10
dolphmand fair warning... nova's experience with switching to -specs was that the community wasn't particularly good at doing design work up front. we've got some experience with identity-api, but i assume we'll see the same pain. so if you want to land a j2 feature, start working on the spec asap18:11
nkindermorganfainberg: yeah, they added one IIRC18:11
dolphm#link https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst nova's spec tempalte18:11
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting18:11
dolphmthere is no cross project impact section, but i think that would be valuable for nova as well18:12
dolphmgyee: ^18:12
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:12
ayoungThe security impact portion of the template is pretty decent18:12
morganfainbergthere will also be a python check job that will ensure all sections exist18:12
morganfainberg(similar to nova's)18:12
ayounghere it is slightly modified for Keystone https://github.com/admiyo/keystone-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst18:12
gyeedolphm, yes, I would imagine nova have some dependency on others as well18:12
*** ThiagoCMC has joined #openstack-meeting18:13
ayoungWe need to plus up the JSON-SPEC thing...18:13
ayoung JSON schema18:13
henrynash(oops, sorry I’m late)18:13
dstanekhow does the assignee stuff work? as things change will a new review need to be submitted? or do we not care?18:13
dolphmtheir API section overlaps our use of identity-api as well18:13
*** aclark__ has quit IRC18:13
*** coreywright_ is now known as coreywright18:13
bknudsondo we have separate spec directory for API as well as client?18:14
gyeeayoung, performance impact, nice!18:14
dolphmdstanek: i had the same question for the nova folks -- but i'm not sure they've been doing this long enough to have an answer yet18:14
*** HP_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:14
ayoungbknudson, I'd suggest no18:14
dolphmbknudson: we'll still have identity-api18:14
morganfainbergbknudson, i am not sure we need it for API, we already have the identity-api repo18:14
*** HP_ is now known as Guest3503918:14
dolphmthe REST API impact section could just link to one or more identity-api reviews :)18:14
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:15
ayoungbknudson, instead, under specs, we can have client subdir parallel with juno ....18:15
lbragstadespecially if the identity api docs need updates18:15
ayoungthe spec should write the identity-api18:15
*** olkonami has left #openstack-meeting18:15
stevemardoes this mean we stop creating new blueprints?18:16
*** coolsvap|afk has quit IRC18:16
ayoungpretty much everything you need to update the identity API is in the spec template, so don't approve a bp until the spec is close enough that you could at least submit an API review18:16
dolphmstevemar: for everyone but keystone-drivers, yes18:16
morganfainbergstevemar, and only create the BPs for approved specs18:16
dolphmstevemar: when a spec is approved and merged, keystone-drivers will create a corresponding BP to track the work18:16
dolphmi think most of these details we can work out in review as we get into the process, etc18:17
stevemaris there a way to lock down LP so only keystone-drivers can create BPs18:17
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:17
dolphmstevemar: i asked that question as well, and i think the answer is no :(18:17
*** dims has quit IRC18:17
dolphmstevemar: the bp priority attribute is the only one that is "protected" afaik18:17
dolphmthe only one we use, anyway18:18
dolphmeven "Approved" can be set by anyone18:18
stevemardolphm, so we're not really going to fix the clutter in LP18:18
dolphmor maybe i'm thinking of Approver18:18
lbragstadwe'll probably have to keep tabs to make sure any new bps coming in get redirected to specs.18:18
*** AlanClark has quit IRC18:18
dolphmstevemar: in the long run, i think we will18:18
* morganfainberg wants storyboard.18:18
*** coolsvap|afk has joined #openstack-meeting18:19
dstanekwhy even have blueprints it the info is in git? just to link against?18:19
*** Haneef has joined #openstack-meeting18:19
*** che-arne has quit IRC18:19
morganfainbergdstanek, release management18:19
morganfainbergdstanek, all the release management stuff still leverages LP18:20
lbragstadand we should still be able to tag bp in commits.18:20
dolphmmorganfainberg: ++18:20
*** fnaval has quit IRC18:20
*** alexbarclay-orac has quit IRC18:20
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting18:20
dolphmthe agenda is quite long today, so let's move on18:20
dolphm#topic Potential Keystone Hackathon dates in San Antonio, TX for Juno18:21
*** openstack changes topic to "Potential Keystone Hackathon dates in San Antonio, TX for Juno (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:21
dstanekmorganfainberg: ah, that sucks. hopefully that will change once everyone adopts this new methodology18:21
dolphm#link http://doodle.com/s4g7mm9n7qyu9inh vote for dates here if you're planning on attending18:21
stevemari think this will make it harder for new contributors ... (d'oh topic has changed)18:21
ayoungJust to motivate you all:  if we make it July 18th, you have to help me celebrate my Birthday18:22
dolphmwow, already a clear preference for 9, 10, 1118:22
*** varora- has joined #openstack-meeting18:22
stevemarthat was quick18:22
henrynash(give a core a button to click on…and they will)18:22
stevemarhenrynash ++18:23
*** baoli has quit IRC18:23
ayoungIf you give a core a button, he is going to want a review to go with it.  If you give him a review.....18:24
nkinderI've read too many of those books...18:24
ayoungthe people here with kids get it.18:24
*** mrodden has joined #openstack-meeting18:25
*** fnaval has quit IRC18:25
dstaneki'm good for either date - i originally thought PyOhio would overlap, but I'm good there18:25
dolphmi'll let this run until the end of the day or so, before i pursue event space more aggressively, etc18:25
ayoung Pagination and Filtering?18:25
gyeedstanek, PyOhio?18:25
dolphmhoping for http://www.geekdom.com/san-antonio/events or as a backup, rackspace headquarters again18:26
stevemarrax headquarters was nice enough18:26
* lbragstad wants to try the slide18:26
ayoungnkinder, we are not looking to piggyback the Security group meetup with the keystone one, right, just Barbican?18:27
bknudsontwo geeks enter one geek leaves18:27
dolphmoh, this'll also likely be a joint event, overlapping for a day or so with a barbican hackathon18:27
*** clu_ has quit IRC18:27
*** mrunge has quit IRC18:27
dolphmayoung: ++18:27
nkinderOSSG was talking about piggybacking, but I think it would be too much18:27
dolphmwe briefly discussed M-Tu-W barbican, W-Th-F keystone in the same space18:27
*** clu_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:27
ayoungI also heard August floated.18:27
clu_ayoung: wondering what is the state of pagination is at the moment as a follow-up to18:28
clu_this discussion a few months back -18:28
dstanekgyee http://www.pyohio.org/18:28
ayoungOSSG wanted it nearer to the release data IIRC18:28
nkinderI was thinking August for some cross-project security stuff around Jamie's common client, but August might be too late in the cycle18:28
*** casanch1 has joined #openstack-meeting18:28
ayoungclu_, I still think pagination is a UI antipattern18:29
nkinder...that's not really OSSG though, but more of a cross-project developer hackfest around security18:29
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting18:29
dolphm30 minutes and 3 topics left :)18:29
dolphm#topic Pagination and Filtering18:29
*** openstack changes topic to "Pagination and Filtering (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:29
clu_filtering then?18:29
dolphmso, there was a summit session on cross-project API consistency, wherein pagination and filtering was a highly relevant topic18:29
henrynashdolphm: ahh, didn’t see that one18:30
dolphmand the outcome was that we need a TC-blessed API conventions repo/document that spans cross projects18:30
gyeepagination is like a religion around here, extremist at both ends18:30
dolphmi threw my name down on a list of people to get that going18:30
morganfainbergdolphm, imagine my surprise18:30
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC18:30
morganfainbergdolphm, the tc bit that is18:30
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting18:30
*** caleb_ has quit IRC18:30
clu_+++ (to oblivion) dolphm18:30
bknudsonpagination and filtering of what?18:30
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting18:31
*** resker has joined #openstack-meeting18:31
bknudsonevery list api?18:31
morganfainbergbknudson, any place pagination/filtering is implemented18:31
gyeebknudson, it has to be consistent across the board if we are going to do it18:31
morganfainbergor is wanted.18:31
jamielennoxi was in that session, there was lots of talk of needing it - and no actual resolution to how it was to be done18:31
bknudsonhow do we know where it's needed?18:31
*** kenhui1 has joined #openstack-meeting18:31
stevemarhaving it for some resources, like domains seems silly18:31
jamielennoxare you signing up for another debate?18:32
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting18:32
bknudsonrole assignments?18:32
gyeesame with version discovery, extension discovery, etc18:32
dolphmbut with regard to pagination specifically, the only voice (that i was aware of) in the room in favor of a specific approach to pagination (jaypipes=marker/limit), agreed that server-specified next/previous links were generally more reliable across various backends (which is the problem that keystone has with ldap, sql, nosql, etc)18:32
bknudsonwe will hopefully not have users and groups and those are the obvious ones18:32
gyeethey are really stack-wide initiatives that should be driven by the TC18:32
henrynashbknudson: so when I implemented a version of this back in the day (Grizzly?), it pushed pagination into teh backends the way we pushed filtering into teh backends, using the driver_hints concept18:32
jaypipesdolphm: agreed.18:32
dolphms/more reliable/more implementable/ ?18:33
dolphmmost likely to not be unimplentium18:33
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting18:33
bknudsonwe could implement it would just be very slow anyways18:33
*** kenhui has quit IRC18:33
dolphmso not viable with any real scale18:34
henrynashdolphm: if we do decide to do it, I’m up for doing the implementation, since I attempted it before18:34
dstanekprev & next links are the right way to go18:34
gyeebut slow is not an API thing, its a backend thing18:34
*** esker has quit IRC18:34
gyeeso deployer have the options for different backends18:34
dolphmgyee: the problem with enforcing expectations of a specific approach like marker/limit is that it's exposing implementation details to the client, so an interface problem becomes a performance problem18:35
bknudsonif you want to be able to scroll to any page in a large table then following next links is going to be slow18:35
gyeedolphm, no where in the API spec mention anything about peformance18:36
gyeeor expected performance18:36
ayoungdolphm, I like your approach:  we return 200 results max.  Select 201.  If we get 201 "more results, please filter"18:36
gyeeit has always been a deployer enhancement18:36
dolphmbknudson: even the horizon guys agree that filtering is a better solution that a billion direct links to pages18:36
henrynashbknudson: and if you really ARE having to scroll lots an dlots of pages, you’re probably screwed anyway18:36
*** zz_pablosan is now known as pablosan18:36
clu_what type of filtering is in place today?18:37
henrynashclu_: I think we’re in good shape with filtering as far as the SQL backend is concrened18:37
dstanekthat's for GUI access - what about building tooling? i may really want a list of all 1000 of a customer's projects18:37
dolphmclu_: quite a bit https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/v3/src/markdown/identity-api-v3.md18:37
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC18:38
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC18:38
ayoungLDAP in general supportes pretty good filtering, but I have not tested our backend code with it.  I have a pretty hefty user-DB I can load it up with and see...18:38
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting18:38
dstaneki think filtering is a better solution in most cases, but can't replace everything18:38
bknudsonwe could do approximate filtering with LDAP18:38
lbragstadI thought jamielennox had a presentation at the summit about performance with LDAP?18:38
ayoungdstanek, why would you want that paged?18:38
gyeeayoung, LDAP is supposed to be optimize for lookup, if your LDAP is slow, always blame the configuration :)18:38
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting18:38
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting18:38
ayounggyee, I hear HP is really good at optimizing slow LDAP queries from Keystone.18:39
jamielennoxlbragstad: wasn't me18:39
henrynashayoung: :-)18:39
ayounglbragstad, it was  GoDaddy,  AD != LDAP18:39
gyeeayoung, I'd blame HP LDAP too18:39
dstanekayoung: paging is usually easier for the server (especially in cases where the process could monopolize the CPU) and it makes caching possible18:39
clu_henrynash, dolphm: wow, did not know that :) nice18:39
lbragstadayoung: jamielennox yep18:39
nkinderfiltering support/performance in LDAP is generally good, but you need to do things like define indexes on the LDAP servers (which is implementation dependent)18:40
*** peoplemerge has quit IRC18:40
dolphm20 minutes, 2 topics remaining :)18:40
*** krtaylor has joined #openstack-meeting18:40
*** akuznetsov has joined #openstack-meeting18:40
ayoungclu_, to be clear, pagination with LDAP is a bad thing...18:40
henrynashclu_: …..and for SQL we pass the filter into the SQL query itself, but for ldap (today) we post-process the filer18:40
ayoungLDAP does not return results in the same order for the same query18:41
ayoungso you need to maintain a connection...which quickly can overwhelm an LDAP server18:41
bknudsonSQL doesn't have to return results in the same order18:41
dolphmhenrynash: but we expose the desired filtering to the ldap driver, which ignores them, correct?18:41
*** kenhui1 has quit IRC18:41
*** kenhui2 has joined #openstack-meeting18:41
gyeefor pagination, its really about API consistency, implementation is a different matter18:41
henrynashdolphm: yes18:41
*** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:42
henrynashbknudson: you can ensure that by asking sqlalchemy to enforce that18:42
dolphmso, it sounds like we need to write a -spec for ldap filtering, and pursue the cross-project api conventions repo (ping me later if you'd like to be involved in that effort)18:42
dolphm#topic Split of middleware (auth_token, etc) out of keystoneclient to separate repo18:42
*** openstack changes topic to "Split of middleware (auth_token, etc) out of keystoneclient to separate repo (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:42
dolphmmorganfainberg: o/18:42
gyeedolphm, ++18:42
morganfainbergso i think generally speaking there is a desire to split the middleware from ksc.18:42
dstanekdolphm: pick me, pick me!18:42
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting18:42
ayoungDon't do it!18:42
ayoungYou will have to change everyones config file18:42
morganfainbergayoung, there has been more and more requests to make this happen.18:43
*** dims has joined #openstack-meeting18:43
dolphmmorganfainberg: someone also suggested building two packages out of the same repo, with different deps... is that viable? i feel like that's been shot down by infra before18:43
ayoungwhat is the justification for that request?18:43
morganfainbergdolphm, i don't think that works well18:43
dolphmor maybe that was when openstack built its own packages18:43
morganfainbergayoung, limiting extra requirements for the ksc installs.18:43
jamielennoxit can be done via RPM etc, i don't think it works well for pip packages18:43
ayoungjamielennox, ++18:43
dstanekdolphm: that's a bad idea and a pain long term18:43
dolphmjamielennox: ++ i bet that was it18:43
ayoungthat is why the repo is called python-keystoneclient...pip required that18:44
*** kenhui1 has joined #openstack-meeting18:44
gyeeisn't there an python-openstacksdk repo already, that's for all the clients right?18:44
*** resker has quit IRC18:44
dolphmdstanek: fair enough, i'm not advocating for it, just echoing a seemingly lazier solution18:44
*** kenhui has quit IRC18:44
jamielennoxso there are two things, 1st you are going to have a circular dependency between the two libs18:44
ayounglets discuss why...what do you think we are going to limit by splitting auth token from client:18:44
dstanekit would be very confusing me thinks18:44
gyeeso keystoneclient, the CRUD part, may eventually end up in there right?18:44
jamielennox2nd if we are going to make people change configs like that then let's fix it first18:44
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting18:44
morganfainbergayoung, it is to make it so we can release auth_token without KSC as well as limit deps on both sides.18:45
ayoung#link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/python-keystoneclient/tree/keystoneclient/middleware/auth_token.py#n14618:45
jamielennoxthis would be the time to get rid of all those deprecations and just general crap18:45
*** fnaval has joined #openstack-meeting18:45
*** gokrokve has quit IRC18:45
morganfainbergayoung, and i think those two arguments are valid alone. security issue in auth_token, release a new one doesn't affect KSC18:45
morganfainbergdirectly that is.18:45
*** oz_akan_ has quit IRC18:45
ayoungfrom oslo.config import cfg  is used by the CLI and by ATM, so if we split, and drop the CLI, we drop that one18:45
*** simon-AS559 has quit IRC18:45
ayoungfrom keystoneclient.middleware import memcache_crypt18:46
*** armax has quit IRC18:46
morganfainbergthe #1 request is to remove memcache from the dep in ksc18:46
*** kenhui2 has quit IRC18:46
ayoungOK, I can see that18:46
morganfainbergi'll be doing that w/ dogpile, but no reason to add dogpile to ksc18:46
*** dkranz has quit IRC18:46
bknudsonso ksc can't depend on auth_token?18:46
morganfainbergbknudson, correct.18:47
bknudsonbecause if it does than ksc will still require all the deps18:47
ayoungbknudson, dep should be the other way round18:47
bknudsonso we'd copy-paste auth_token rather than import it?18:47
bknudsonfor backwards-compat18:47
morganfainbergbknudson, ah yeah.18:47
*** mordred_ has joined #openstack-meeting18:47
bknudsonor do we import it without the dep?18:48
gyeehow do we do that?18:48
ayoungno copy-paste.  that bad18:48
bknudsonwe'd have to attempt to import and fail if it couldn't be imported18:48
morganfainbergayoung, circular imports = bad.18:48
*** sarob_ has quit IRC18:48
ayounglike crossing the streams18:48
*** rpodolyaka1 has joined #openstack-meeting18:49
ayoungso this new repo...python-keystonemiddleware?18:49
dolphmjust keystonemiddleware i'd assume18:49
*** megan_w is now known as megan_w|afk18:49
bknudsondoes it contain the other middleware?18:49
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:49
morganfainbergbknudson, it could.18:49
dolphmbknudson: yes18:49
ayoungbknudson, yeah, s318:49
dolphmmorganfainberg: let's write a spec for this to work out what belongs where if we introduce a new repo?18:50
ayoungThere is an ec2 version, too, which I think is still in Keystone18:50
bknudsonI think people are still importing s3_token middleware from keystone18:50
morganfainbergdolphm, sounds good18:50
dolphmmorganfainberg: and by "let's" i mean "you"18:50
gyeemorganfainberg, that cross-project section will be long :)18:50
morganfainbergdolphm, ++18:50
dolphm#action morganfainberg to write a -spec to introduce keystonemiddleware repo18:50
*** bcrochet has joined #openstack-meeting18:50
dolphm#topic Add LDAP connection pool18:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Add LDAP connection pool (Meeting topic: keystone)"18:50
*** sarob has quit IRC18:50
dolphm#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/132099718:51
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1320997 in keystone "Identity Ldap driver connection pooling" [Undecided,New]18:51
*** kenhui1 has quit IRC18:51
dolphmgyee: o/18:51
bknudsonI thought this was already proposed.18:51
gyeewhat do you guys think about this https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ldappool/1.018:51
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting18:51
*** beagles_brb is now known as beagles18:51
gyeebknudson, is there a review already?18:51
ayoungSo long as it is optional, I think we should provide a way to test out pooling.18:52
bknudsonoh, maybe I just saw the bug18:52
dolphmbknudson: ++ i recall connection pooling at some point18:52
dolphmbknudson: brand new bug18:52
ayoungthe LDAP pooling story might be different for Eventlet and Apache.  nkinder ?18:52
gyeek, we have some poc code and it seems to give us 30% improvement18:52
dolphmmy googling is not turning up any prior art18:52
dolphm#link https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ldappool/1.018:53
gyeeonly issue is that ldappool doesn't support client cert at the moment18:53
nkinderayoung: for using httpd to perform auth up front, sssd would handle pooling18:53
gyeebut I don't think 2-way SSL is required18:53
dolphmgyee: sounds like an upstream issue that can be solved :)18:53
gyeedolphm, yes18:53
ayoungnkinder, what about existing LDAP approach?18:53
nkinderldappool is something that Mozilla developed, which is the only Python implementation that I know of18:54
gyeeI can do a pull request for ldappool18:54
dolphmnkinder: is it in use? basically zero downloads on pypi18:54
nkinderayoung: We could have httpd use PAM for auth, which will call into sssd and go against LDAP18:54
nkinderdolphm: I've never seen it used18:54
*** chuckC has quit IRC18:54
nkinderonly heard about it via google searching18:54
dolphmworth evaluating at least18:55
henrynashayoung: you mean support for pooling via our “LDAP driver underneath keystone identity” approach?18:55
ayounghenrynash, yeah18:55
*** aveiga has joined #openstack-meeting18:55
gyeeayoung, I can make it configurable18:55
henrynashayoung: which I suspect will contiue to be the standard way for a while18:55
*** acoles_away is now known as acoles18:55
*** sarob has quit IRC18:55
henrynashstandard = most used18:56
nkinderwhy bother if we can just leverage httpd/sssd?18:56
*** jprovazn has joined #openstack-meeting18:56
gyeenkinder, is apache in devstack for keystone already?18:56
*** rcarrillocruz has joined #openstack-meeting18:56
nkinderI agree with henrynash that the LDAP driver will be the standard way for a while, but the more effort we put into it the less we put towards a better long term approach18:56
ayoungnkinder, cuz we are not there yet.  But I agree, that is the right long term approach.18:56
nkindergyee: yes, I believe so18:56
*** crc32 has quit IRC18:56
dolphmgyee: yes18:57
gyeeayoung, nkinder, I totally agree, but unless we standardize apache for keystone, we need something to improve performance right now18:57
henrynashnkinder: agreed, it wil be a balance, how much to we “backport” to the old way of doing things, standard dev problem!18:57
dolphmi don't think we gate on httpd anywhere, though?18:57
ayoungnkinder, could the OS provide us some sort of LDAP connection pool?18:57
nkindergyee: APACHE_ENABLED_SERVICES+=key18:57
dolphmnkinder: +++18:57
dstanekdolphm: afaik we do not18:57
nkinderwe should gate on httpd though18:58
mfischthanks nkinder I was wondering the same18:58
ayoungnkinder, morganfainberg is working on it18:58
dolphmdstanek: that's going to be super important, as we can't currently gate on a federation configuration otherwise18:58
nkinderayoung: I know18:58
nkinderwe should gate on httpd, and we should gate on LDAP18:58
morganfainbergnkinder, working on both18:58
dolphmnkinder: ++18:58
henrynashgyee, dolphm: I think at some point we are going to have to decide if we mandate apache for keystone or not…I’m a little leary of doing it, but I can see the advantages starting to stack up18:58
nkindermorganfainberg: ++18:58
dolphmmorganfainberg: link or anything?18:58
* dolphm 2 min18:59
mfisch+1 to gating on LDAP18:59
*** peoplemerge has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
ayoungwe currently have non voting job18:59
*** dkranz has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
gyeehenrynash, I totally agree18:59
morganfainbergdolphm, the LDAP one is not setup yet, working on apache_services now18:59
*** andersonvom has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
*** AlanClark has quit IRC18:59
morganfainbergdolphm, we already have a non-vote job18:59
*** yogeshmehra has quit IRC18:59
mfischenfranchise it18:59
morganfainbergdolphm, and compressed tokens should help fix the failures there18:59
dolphmhenrynash: i don't see any advantages for *not* using httpd, do you?18:59
*** yogeshmehra has joined #openstack-meeting18:59
dolphmexcept for pki tokens being large :)18:59
ayoungcheck-tempest-dsvm-full-apache-services   right morganfainberg ?19:00
morganfainbergdolphm, henrynash, if we mandate httpd, we shoudl ensure we can use unicorn/nginx/uwsgi/etc19:00
gyeeI am all for apache19:00
morganfainbergdolphm, henrynash, not just apache.19:00
morganfainbergayoung, yes19:00
henrynashdolphm: I think it’s more of a configuration in people’s products and/or deploymetns prolems19:00
gyeehow soon can we get it in there?19:00
bknudsonit's easier to keystone-all than set up apache19:00
*** amcrn has quit IRC19:00
*** ianw has quit IRC19:00
dolphmmorganfainberg: ++ but i'd like to choose a single container for doc purposes19:00
dolphmand testign19:00
ayoungbknudson, its easier to secure apache than keystone-all, though19:00
*** yogeshmehra has quit IRC19:00
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"19:00
*** yogeshmehra has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 19:00:54 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)19:00
*** ianw has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2014/keystone.2014-05-20-18.02.html19:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2014/keystone.2014-05-20-18.02.txt19:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2014/keystone.2014-05-20-18.02.log.html19:01
jeblairinfra people?19:01
morganfainbergdolphm, apache would be the default, the rest would be "supported" but done after apache19:01
dolphmmorganfainberg: ++19:01
*** lbragstad has left #openstack-meeting19:01
aveigahey infra, new face today :)19:01
jeblairaveiga: welcome!19:01
*** mfisch has left #openstack-meeting19:01
anteayahey aveiga19:01
*** rpodolyaka1 has left #openstack-meeting19:01
jeblair#startmeeting infra19:02
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 19:02:01 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.19:02
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:02
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: infra)"19:02
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'infra'19:02
jeblair#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_meeting19:02
*** gothicmindfood has joined #openstack-meeting19:02
jeblair#link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-05-06-19.01.txt19:02
*** ramashri has quit IRC19:02
*** deklan has quit IRC19:02
jeblair#topic  Actions from last meeting19:02
*** openstack changes topic to "Actions from last meeting (Meeting topic: infra)"19:02
*** jamielennox has left #openstack-meeting19:02
*** phschwartz has joined #openstack-meeting19:02
jeblairclarkb: did you have beer?19:02
*** deklan has joined #openstack-meeting19:02
jeblair  * clarkb fix tox over beer19:02
*** nkinder has left #openstack-meeting19:02
clarkbjeblair: well tox is fixed19:03
jeblairclose enough19:03
fungiindeed. it was tox-fixing-beering-maness19:03
jesusaurusclarkb: that implies beer, right?19:03
*** jang has quit IRC19:03
jeblairso we're waiting on a tox release, then we can unpin, right?19:03
*** dims has quit IRC19:03
clarkbjeblair: correct19:03
clarkbthe fix is unreleased but I installed from source and tested with zuul's tox.ini19:03
clarkband it was happy there19:04
*** AlanClark has joined #openstack-meeting19:04
*** bobt has quit IRC19:04
*** jungleboyj has joined #openstack-meeting19:04
jeblair#topic  manage-projects status (mordred)19:04
*** kgriffs is now known as kgriffs|afk19:04
*** openstack changes topic to "manage-projects status (mordred) (Meeting topic: infra)"19:04
jeblairso i would have assumed this topic was stale; but fungi found a borked project today19:04
mordred_yah. I saw that. I'm sad19:04
jeblairsdague thinks there may still be a race around gerrit creating the acl file19:05
fungiunfortunately syslog rotated into oblivion long enough ago that i can't see if it logged a reason19:05
*** jprovazn has quit IRC19:05
mordred_maybe we figure out an acl retry19:05
jeblairwe have a lot of new projects coming up.  can someone keep an eye on the logs for them?19:05
*** jprovazn has joined #openstack-meeting19:05
fungithat was the leading suggestion i thinkl19:06
fungijeblair: yeah, i'll try to keep tabs on anything which might touch an acl19:06
anteayahow close is sdague improved error handling patch to merging?19:06
fungibut the more eyes the better19:06
*** crc32 has joined #openstack-meeting19:07
*** akerr has joined #openstack-meeting19:07
*** erecio_1 has joined #openstack-meeting19:07
anteayathat might improve logged info19:07
*** rockyg has joined #openstack-meeting19:07
fungithe sooner someone can spot a failed project creation symptom, the better chance we have of spotting the cause19:07
jeblairwell, since my comments were ignored, not immediately19:08
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting19:08
clarkbjeblair: I thought your comments were handled19:09
* anteaya looks at the patch again19:09
clarkbit now returns true or false in that one place and the logic was flipped19:09
*** Mandell has quit IRC19:09
jeblairmy _inline_ comment was handled, not my cover letter19:09
*** erecio_2 has quit IRC19:10
jeblairwe want more data though we think we know what the problem is19:10
anteayaso sdague is not here right now, maybe we can pick this up when he returns19:10
jeblairanyone want to go ahead and fix the problem?19:11
clarkbI'm not sure I understand the problem otherwise I would volunteer19:11
fungii can work up a patch19:11
fungi#action fungi add a wait for acl file creation on gerrit project initialization19:12
jeblair#topic  OpenStack specific data in openstack_project module bug 1319746 (pleia2)19:12
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack specific data in openstack_project module bug 1319746 (pleia2) (Meeting topic: infra)"19:12
uvirtbotLaunchpad bug 1319746 in openstack-ci "review.pp manifest contains specific site data for SSLCertificate attributes" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/131974619:12
rcarrillocruz#info i'd like to raise that openstack_project manifests contain quite a bit of site specific data, e.g. hostnames. I noticed this while working on a gerrit-launchpad integration issue, had to tweak quite a lot of things and go back and forth between several layers of manifests to get a sane 'review' server in a VM. IMHO, the manifests need cleanup to put as much site specific stuff as possible in site.pp and leave opensta19:12
jeblairrcarrillocruz: i think you hit the irc 512 byte limit at "leave opensta"...19:13
pleia2we've had some discussion about it in the bug too, so it's worth a quick look if you haven't read it already19:13
rcarrillocruz#info IMHO, the manifests need cleanup to put as much site specific stuff as possible in site.pp and leave openstack_project/manifests/* stuff as generic as possible. I volunteer for this task, happy to help...19:13
clarkbso I am a bit resistant to that specifically because openstack_project is intended on being site specific19:13
clarkbsite.pp doesn't scale. That said a lot of the specific things we do can be generalized instead19:14
jeblairthough we have had a not-fully-consistent trend to put hostnames specifically in site.pp to make it easier for dev/testing our exact setup19:14
rcarrillocruzthen we should change the docs, since we say that openstack_project/modules/* shouldn't contain site specific stuff19:14
clarkbwe say that?19:14
*** jtomasek has quit IRC19:14
jesusaurusi think that openstack_project is exactly where the site-specific bits belong19:14
*** baojg has quit IRC19:15
fungi"no site-specific configuration such as hostnames or credentials should be included in these files"19:15
clarkbya I don't know that I compeltely agree with that19:15
jeblairand "This is what lets you easily test an OpenStack project manifest on your own server."19:15
fungi#link http://ci.openstack.org/sysadmin.html#making-a-change-in-puppet19:15
phschwartzI would love to see things like hostnames at least be moved to vars so they can be replaced using standard puppet methods. It would allow me to stop maintaining patches to config for our internal env and just set the vars.19:15
clarkbI agree with the intent which is to make things easily testable but that should be achieved by pushing things further down in the stack19:15
*** akerr has left #openstack-meeting19:16
clarkbanyways no need to derail the meeting. This is definitely a good subject to become more consistent on19:16
fungiconcur that we still have too much useful logic living in modules/openstack_project which should get moved into the separate modules19:16
jeblairthat may be, but we're not there yet, and our current/old plan, flawed as it is, was at least a workable plan...19:17
fungias optional behaviors or whatever19:17
*** browne has left #openstack-meeting19:17
*** UtahDave has joined #openstack-meeting19:17
jeblairi think rcarrillocruz correctly identifies some things out of alignment with that, and we can probably accept changes to clean that up a bit19:17
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC19:17
jeblairespecially if they make it easier to further refactor in the future (and don't interfere with it)19:18
fungisome of that may also dovetail into AaronGr's work19:18
*** resker has joined #openstack-meeting19:18
jeblairand jesusaurus's19:19
rcarrillocruzfungi: which work? is it a blueprint or something linkable?19:19
pleia2yeah AaronGr has commented on the associated review to that bug: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93687/19:19
*** mgagne has joined #openstack-meeting19:19
jeblairi think the upshot is that openstack_project holds a lot of "site specific" stuff in the since that it only makes sense if you are developing the openstack project...19:20
jeblairbut "site specific" in terms of the exact hostnames, keys, etc, should be in the next layer up so that we can actually test things on something other than the prod servers19:21
jeblairat least, until we have a better plan19:21
jeblairwhich i hope will end up in the specs repo soon :)19:21
*** esker has quit IRC19:21
*** dane_leblanc has quit IRC19:21
jesusaurusyeah, sounds like we have two different definitions of "site specific", one applies to site.pp and the other to the openstack_project module19:22
fungircarrillocruz: looks like they might have gotten auto-abandoned19:22
jesusauruswe should better define that19:22
fungi#link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:abandoned+owner:%22Aaron+Greengrass+%253Caaron%2540greenbtn.com%253E%22,n,z19:22
jeblairrcarrillocruz: best thing might be to search for patches authored by AaronGr and jesusaurus19:22
*** markwash has quit IRC19:22
jeblairoh there you go19:22
rcarrillocruzah ok19:23
*** garyk has quit IRC19:23
clarkbjesusaurus: ++19:23
rcarrillocruzthe way i see openstack_project and the way I think it should be is that it contains only layout stuff that specific to openstack project19:23
fungia lot of the massive refactoring was put on hold while we got puppetboard up and running19:23
rcarrillocruzanything that are paths, hostnames, etc19:23
fungibut should be open season now19:23
rcarrillocruzshould either be resolved by facter , passed on via hiera or at the last resort have a sane default in the parameterized class in question19:24
jesusaurusrcarrillocruz: ++19:24
rcarrillocruzi think it would also be beneficial to have some initial docs on how to setup a hiera for local development19:24
jeblairrcarrillocruz: so i think it's okay to go ahead and fix straightforward deviations like the one that triggered this19:24
*** amcrn has joined #openstack-meeting19:25
jeblairrcarrillocruz: since jesusaurus and AaronGr have ideas on refactoring, you might want to work with them on that; hopefully we can do so over a spec soon19:25
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting19:25
jesusaurusrcarrillocruz: i was thinking that instead of setting up a dev hiera, it would make sense for the hiera calls to have sane dev default values19:25
*** ctracey has quit IRC19:25
jeblair(i mean, for larger refactoring)19:25
rcarrillocruzi'm happy to help, so i will look into it and open bugs on this topic, will chat with AaronGr and jesusaurus about it19:25
*** ctracey has joined #openstack-meeting19:26
anteayarcarrillocruz: stories19:26
*** kaydo_ has quit IRC19:26
anteayasince the infra-specs repo uses storyboard19:26
*** resker has quit IRC19:26
jeblairanteaya: that's going to be a little tricky since config doesn't use storyboard yet; we might be able to flip it though.  we should take a look.19:26
rcarrillocruzanteaya: can you link me on that? not familiar on this stories workflow, i assume is some agile methodology stuff you use19:26
*** simonmcc has quit IRC19:27
anteayarcarrillocruz: we are just starting, as jeblair says there maybe some gotchas19:27
*** esker has joined #openstack-meeting19:27
anteayathis will be a guniea pig situation19:27
jeblairyup.  we're making this up as we go along.  :)19:27
jeblair#topic  Addition of elastic-recheck link 93610 & 93608 (pleia2)19:27
*** openstack changes topic to "Addition of elastic-recheck link 93610 & 93608 (pleia2) (Meeting topic: infra)"19:27
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting19:27
*** simonmcc has joined #openstack-meeting19:27
pleia2this should be quick, is it ok to have both rechecks commands on status.o.o for now so it's discoverable until we rm Rechecks?19:28
pleia2it's been 8 months or so since the page went live and it's still not easy to find19:28
*** whenry has quit IRC19:28
fungijogo: sdague: ^ ?19:28
jeblairi've resisted this in the past because i think we should only have one link19:28
fungi(noting that sdague may not be around just yet)19:29
jesusaurusi think it makes sense for status.o.o to have links to both rechecks and elastic-recheck19:29
*** gokrokve has joined #openstack-meeting19:29
jeblairi disagree -- the rechecks page needs to die.19:29
fungii think we should just have it link to elastic-recheck and at the moment the content on the new page is superior enough that it ought to be safe to do so19:29
anteayayes elastic-recheck is where the love is right now19:29
jeblairfungi: i agree but sdague does not, he still wants the old page19:30
*** kaydo_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:30
jeblairso here's the thing -- all the docs about what to do when your patch fails say to use the rechecks page and say nothing about e-r19:30
fungido we have a roadmap of what's still needed?19:30
anteayacan recheck be a link on the elastic-recheck page?19:30
jeblairwhich makes the rechecks page the current process19:30
jeblairi don't want that to be the case, but as long as it is, it's the thing that should be on the navigation bar19:31
anteayawhat is involved in changing the docs to point to elastic-recheck?19:31
anteayado we know?19:31
fungianteaya: changes submitted in gerrit, and wiki edits19:31
jeblairanteaya: yes, there was a summit session about it19:31
jeblairit was an infra session.  was i the only one of us there?19:31
rockygshould be pretty easy if it's just a link and some text19:31
pleia2https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-summit-elastic-recheck for reference19:32
fungii was there... just trying to dig up the etherpad now to referesh my memory19:32
*** hashar has joined #openstack-meeting19:32
fungiahh, thanks19:32
fungi#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-summit-elastic-recheck19:32
jeblair"sdague: Analysis of existing data for usefuleness of recheck bug # comments / filing "recheck bugs"" is the relevant thing19:32
*** deklan has quit IRC19:32
jeblairif sdague comes back and says it's useless, we just switch everything over19:33
*** andersonvom has left #openstack-meeting19:33
anteayaso line 26 in the etherpad19:33
jeblairif he says it's important, then we need to do more work19:33
*** andreaf has quit IRC19:33
fungiyup, so the stuff under the "Replace existing /rechecks/ page" bullet item essentially19:33
pleia2but in the meantime while we do more work, I kind of want to see ER in the header along with the other19:33
*** andreaf has joined #openstack-meeting19:33
jeblairi really hope he says it's useless, and we can just drop it, and even drop the "recheck bug ###" syntax.19:33
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting19:34
anteayapleia2: feels like that isn't a decision we can make right now19:34
rockygpleia2: ++19:34
clarkbjeblair: agreed19:34
pleia2anteaya: yes, this is after we hear from sdague :)19:34
anteayapleia2: kk19:34
jeblairpleia2: i'm really opposed to exposing the complexity of two systems to all of our developers.  i just want one or the other, and a plan to get there.19:34
*** kgriffs|afk is now known as kgriffs19:35
jeblairthe lack of a navigation link is a constant reminder that the new system is "experimental and not in production".19:35
fungii agree with the one-link sentiment19:35
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting19:35
*** aveiga has left #openstack-meeting19:35
*** aveiga has joined #openstack-meeting19:36
jeblair#topic  Single url for Third Party information (anteaya)19:36
*** meera has joined #openstack-meeting19:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Single url for Third Party information (anteaya) (Meeting topic: infra)"19:36
anteayaso in the summit session on third party testing19:36
*** gyee has quit IRC19:36
anteaya#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-infra-improving-3rd-party-testing19:36
anteayawe made it a requirement for ci accounts to have a wikipage19:37
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting19:37
anteayait would be nice if we could decide where these links could be indexed19:37
anteayaand also various programs have documentation around third party testing19:37
*** annegent^ has quit IRC19:37
aveigaSo I had some chats with folks about 3rd Party CI, is there any objecetion to running an environment for reasons other than testing out a product? We'd like to run tests against an IPv6-enabled environment19:37
anteayait would be great if we had one url for both19:37
*** andreaf_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:38
anteayaaveiga: we are addressing a single url for third party right now19:38
anteayait is okay, open discussion is coming up19:38
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC19:38
krtayloranteaya, both 3rd party service account wiki pages and ?19:38
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:38
jeblairanteaya: i think we should have a common prefix in the wiki; so wiki/ThirdPartySystems/NameOfSystem19:38
anteayaI like that19:39
jeblairi think you can easily get lists of things like that19:39
clarkbthen the requirements we formalized should go in infra docs so they re reviewed19:39
fungiyep, that all sounds great19:39
anteayado we want a single url for indexing all the wikipages?19:39
*** andreaf has quit IRC19:39
fungiincluding the acl changes we discussed (which means researching what projects different systems are voting on changes for as well)19:39
anteayafolks in the third party meeting yesterday indicated that would be favourable to them19:40
*** annegentle_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:40
fungianteaya: the prefix page should solve that19:40
clarkbyup so wiki/ThirdPartySystems/ would be the index19:40
fungianteaya: i'm pretty sure there's a mediawiki macro you can add to the parent page to list all child pages19:40
anteayaoh yes, I see it now, thanks19:40
rockygAgreed on prefix page asindex19:40
anteayacool, i will look at that19:40
jeblairanteaya: do you want to mock that up, maybe create a template page for people to copy?19:40
jeblairanteaya: then we can take a look at that before we send it out?19:41
anteayamight need to bug Ryan_Lane19:41
rockygIt's real easy.  I could help.19:41
anteayajeblair: I like it, I will mock it up on an etherpad19:41
jeblairanteaya: oh i think you should just use the wiki19:41
anteayarockyg: thanks that would be great19:41
fungiin fact, it's possible to create a mediawiki template (not just a template page) which can get included into a new page as a directive to prepopulate it19:41
jeblair(it is a wiki after all)19:41
anteayaoh I can do that too19:41
krtaylor+1 wiki19:41
anteayafungi: cool, I will look into that, I didn't know that19:41
fungiused to do that all the time at $oldjob19:41
anteayacool, I will bug you19:42
anteayaI think I have enough to make me happy19:42
fungii'll have to look the syntax back up, but it's great when you've got specific information you need people to put in new pages19:42
* anteaya nods19:42
anteayasounds like ti will fit the bill here19:42
jeblairi think we should get the wiki page/templates in order, update our docs with our new reqs and link in any project specific pages from the overview wiki page.  then when all of that is in order, send an announcement to the 3rd party folks asking them to update to the new requirements.19:42
anteayaI like it19:43
jeblair(i think that will be the most orderly way to handle this).19:43
*** whenry has joined #openstack-meeting19:43
anteayaI will try to get our stuff drafted up this week for review19:43
fungisounds good to me19:43
*** clu_ has quit IRC19:43
jeblairanteaya: thanks19:43
jeblair#action anteaya work on third party wiki pages and infra docs19:43
jeblair#topic infra-specs repo19:44
*** openstack changes topic to "infra-specs repo (Meeting topic: infra)"19:44
jeblairI'm abusing my position as meeting chair to insert a last minute topic; but it's important ;)19:44
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC19:44
jeblairwe're adoping a specs model as many of the other projects are19:45
*** _nadya_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:45
anteaya#link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/infra-specs/19:45
jeblairthere's a change here with the initial template: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94440/19:45
jeblairgive that a once over and see if there's anything missing...19:45
jeblairwe have a lot of unique concerns that other projects don't have (we run servers!)19:45
clarkbwill do19:45
jesusauruswhat exactly is the specs model?19:46
jeblairand we will be the first ones trying to use this with storyboard19:46
fungijeblair: was 94440 cookie-cuttered from the specs template as a starting point?19:46
jeblairjesusaurus: great question!19:46
fungi(mostly just curious)19:46
jeblairfungi: yes, but heavily altered19:46
jeblairjesusaurus: basically, it's early design review of proposed enhancements19:46
jeblairjesusaurus: so instead of showing up with a bunch of code and then having people say "why didn't you ...?"19:47
*** sarob has quit IRC19:47
rcarrillocruzjeblair:  how specs relates to blueprints?19:47
fungiwhich we already do a lot of in various ad-hoc manners (lp bug comments, irc logs, et cetera), so this actually should be easier overall for keeping track of what we decide19:47
jeblairjesusaurus: we get everyone on the same page by writing up a detailed proposal before starting major work19:47
rcarrillocruzthey seem similar to me19:47
*** samcdona has quit IRC19:47
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting19:47
jeblairrcarrillocruz: other openstack projects are using blueprints to track the implementation progress of specs19:48
jeblairrcarrillocruz: we'll be using storyboard to do that19:48
fungircarrillocruz: blueprints are generally fairly light on detail, and expect you to link to somewhere you've published the actual detail19:48
fungiand these would be that "somewhere"19:48
rcarrillocruzgotcha, thanks for the clarification19:48
jeblairrcarrillocruz: (the intent is that the rest of openstack will use storyboard when it's more robust, we're trying to use it early to work out the bugs)19:49
jesusaurusjeblair: cool. this sounds similar to the DESIGN file i try to put at the top level of my personal projects19:49
jeblairjesusaurus: quite likely so19:49
*** bauzas has quit IRC19:49
*** bauzas1 has joined #openstack-meeting19:49
*** krotscheck has quit IRC19:49
jeblairthough these are targeted at specific feature enhancements, not overall project philosophy19:49
fungithe hope is that if we're doing this right, it shouldn't be any more work than we currently put into discussing designs (potentially even less work)19:50
*** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting19:50
fungibut better aggregated into a workflow we already use for similar tasks19:50
fungiand easier to publish consistently too19:50
jeblairthose are the earliest adopters, so you can see some real examples there19:50
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC19:50
*** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:51
jeblairooh, we should add documentation impact...19:51
jeblairfungi: ++19:51
anteayayou also want to talk about specs naming conventions19:51
sc68caluh oh better shovel my blueprints from lp/tempest into qa-specs19:52
anteayathe more you know19:52
fungii'd like to see a security impact too (for similar reasons we have it in specs for other projects)19:52
fungistill hunting for where that gets stipulated19:52
anteayait isn't in that patchset19:53
clarkbwe can move that to review of the initial template :)19:53
fungiclarkb: agreed19:53
fungi(and to answer my question, i guess it would go into template.rst)19:54
*** erecio_2 has joined #openstack-meeting19:54
*** stevebaker has quit IRC19:54
*** stevebaker has joined #openstack-meeting19:54
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting19:54
rockygCorrect.  What about testing dependencies?19:54
sc68calHey, aveiga and I were hoping to get a chance to talk ipv6 - know that things are a bit hectic and bust19:54
*** IlyaE has quit IRC19:54
anteayadid we lose jeblair?19:55
sc68calbut we sort of got ping-ponged over to this meeting from yesterday's third party19:55
rockygCourse, I'll just leave a comment on the spec for the spec....19:55
*** jeblair_ has joined #openstack-meeting19:55
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting19:55
jeblair#topic project renames19:55
jeblairanyone want to schedule a gerrit downtime to deal with the accumulated backlog of renames?19:55
jeblairmaybe this friday?19:55
*** jeblair has quit IRC19:55
*** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting19:55
*** jeblair has quit IRC19:55
*** Guest81303 has quit IRC19:55
*** sarob has quit IRC19:55
*** openstack changes topic to "project renames (Meeting topic: infra)"19:55
clarkbpoor jeblair19:55
jeblair_that was from 5 mins ago :(19:56
clarkbI will be around friday and can do downtime. Weekend is a holiday weekend though so bad for me19:56
fungii could do it friday afternoon edt, but have an errand to knock out in the morning19:56
*** jeblair_ is now known as jeblair19:56
clarkbfungi: cool we can do it then19:56
jeblairsounds good19:56
anteayaI'm not much help during project renames but I will be around Friday aft19:56
fungiand yes, having people over this weekend for cookout stuff, but could probably work around that if needed19:56
jeblairi'll put together an email then19:56
*** Guest81303 has joined #openstack-meeting19:56
*** erecio_1 has quit IRC19:56
jeblair#topic open discussion19:56
*** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: infra)"19:56
clarkbaveiga: sc68cal whats up19:57
*** akuznetsov has quit IRC19:57
sc68calOK so quickly19:57
mordredaveiga: I don't think there is any specific requirement that 3rd party testing is only used for products BUT...19:57
zaroare we going to disable drafts?19:57
clarkbzaro: yes, I will draft an email today19:57
mordredI believe we'd love to test ipv6 in the main gate (although I may be wrong)19:57
jeblairsc68cal: so the general idea is that only things that physically _can't_ run in our upstream testing should be tested in a third party system.19:57
clarkband we can do more testing of it. disabling them does not require a downtime so we can do it whenever19:58
aveigamordred: we'd like to make sure the tests don't break gate first19:58
fungiaveiga: as far as ipv6-specific testing, is there anything you need tested which we should be testing upstream? do you have some details on what you're wanting to do?19:58
aveigahence 3rd party19:58
sc68calWe want to start doing a spike to help get more v6 tests in Tempest on the neutron side, as well as have a comcast Ci system that has our network layout19:58
jeblairsc68cal, mordred: and yeah, sounds like something we should test upstream.19:58
jeblairaveiga: we have a great way of bootstrapping new tests19:58
aveigaoffering it up since we have a prod setup, plus a lab19:58
jeblairaveiga: http://ci.openstack.org/test-infra-requirements.html#test-run-styles19:58
*** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting19:58
sc68calsince parts of Neutron are dependent on the physical network layout19:58
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
aveigawe need to point out that current IPv6 patches won't work with an l3 setup though19:59
aveigathey need a provider net19:59
aveigauntil the patches land to support l3 agent19:59
fungisc68cal: well, for our tests neutron is running within a vm along with the rest of devstack, so we can build out the virtual network devstack sits on however is needed to exercise that19:59
*** andersonvom has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
*** catohornet has quit IRC19:59
sc68calfungi: true - but we have a deployment model where the network is not virtual19:59
*** zehicle_at_dell has joined #openstack-meeting19:59
sc68caluses a hardware switch + provider network api ext20:00
sc68calSo that's the use case we'd use 3rd party ci to cover20:00
fungisc68cal: right, so a dependency on some specific hardware would make third-party testing a necessity20:00
fungisince what you're testing is how openstack works with that hardware20:00
*** baojg has quit IRC20:00
clarkbhowever we should be testing ipv6 upstream anyways20:00
aveigathis is why we'd like to run it as 3rd party until all patches land20:00
*** whenry has quit IRC20:00
jeblairsc68cal: however, i think we should really focus on upstream testing here -- we should be gating on this sort of thing20:00
anteayawe are at time20:00
sc68caljeblair: agree - we are attempting to make 99% upstream20:00
anteayacan we move to the -infra channel and continue?20:00
sc68caland our special 1% in 3rd party20:01
fungiaveiga: sc68cal: we can move to #opensatck-infra20:01
aveigajeblair: clarkb agreed, but until the RA daemon patches land you need something to initiate addressing20:01
fungier, #openstack-infra20:01
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"20:01
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 20:01:24 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:01
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-05-20-19.02.html20:01
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-05-20-19.02.txt20:01
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-05-20-19.02.log.html20:01
rcarrillocruzthanks guys20:01
*** aveiga has left #openstack-meeting20:01
ttxrussellb, markmc, annegentle, mordred, vishy, jaypipes, dhellmann : around ?20:02
ttxdhellmann is excused20:02
ttxOK, that is quorum20:02
ttx#startmeeting tc20:02
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 20:02:41 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  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
ttxHere is our agenda for today:20:02
*** andersonvom has left #openstack-meeting20:02
ttx#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee20:03
ttxdavid-lyle: around?20:03
*** eglynn has joined #openstack-meeting20:03
david-lylettx: o/20:03
ttx#topic Integrated projects and new requirements: Gap analysis for Horizon20:03
*** openstack changes topic to "Integrated projects and new requirements: Gap analysis for Horizon (Meeting topic: tc)"20:03
ttxdavid-lyle prepared a gap analysis:20:03
ttx#link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-gap-analysis20:03
ttxI picked Horizon on short notice, as i don't expect it to raise major issues20:03
*** erecio_1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:04
* mordred giggles20:04
ttxbut stil a few interesting things in there20:05
*** Mandell has quit IRC20:05
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting20:05
jeblairso the note about "Split of repo planned into toolkit and django application." is nice because it's one of the things that makes horizon difficult to deal with from an infra pov (having 2 projects in 1 repo requires special one-off tooling)20:05
ttx#info Scope needs to be documented20:05
annegentle_Actually horizon still needs a mission statement right?20:05
david-lyleannegentle_: yes20:05
*** balajiiyer1 has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
*** Penick has quit IRC20:06
ttx#info Major architectural change planned: split of repo into toolkit and django app20:06
*** erecio_2 has quit IRC20:06
david-lylethe repo essentially already contains two distinct pieces in one place20:06
*** kgriffs is now known as kgriffs|afk20:06
sdaguefor those of us less familiar with horizon code base, what's the toolkit contain roughly?20:06
david-lylethis is more a formalization of that split20:06
*** SlickNik has joined #openstack-meeting20:06
jaypipesdavid-lyle: timeframe around that split?20:07
*** balajiiyer1 has quit IRC20:07
david-lylethe toolkit is the widgets and framework for the dashboards, panels, tables, etc20:07
ttx#info Refresh of horizon-coresec needed20:07
jeblairAlso, django apparently necessitates non-standard translation tooling20:07
*** UtahDave has left #openstack-meeting20:07
*** balajiiyer has joined #openstack-meeting20:07
*** dims has joined #openstack-meeting20:07
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting20:08
ttxThat's all I spotted from the doc... TC members, feel free to add more #info20:08
david-lylethe openstack_dashboard component is the actual django application that implements the toolkit20:08
*** _nadya_ has quit IRC20:08
*** amcrn has quit IRC20:08
david-lylejeblair: I don't have admin on that, missed in transition20:08
*** jtomasek has quit IRC20:08
annegentle_#info Nice-to-have: listing of API calls not available in GUI per service20:08
david-lylejaypipes: juno-1 to juno-220:08
david-lylewe've been planning it since the icehouse summit, but got delayed20:09
ttxdavid-lyle: is horizon tested in the gate, does that make even sense ? Or is selenium/unittesting considered enough due to the consumer position ?20:09
annegentle_david-lyle: I'd also like to see a statement in your scope about the addition timing of integrated projects20:09
jaypipesdavid-lyle: k, thx20:09
*** balajiiyer has left #openstack-meeting20:10
david-lylettx: Horizon has one tempest job, that is a selenium test that tests login20:10
ttxdavid-lyle: ok20:10
david-lyleother than that it's purely unit test and selenium20:10
david-lylebeyond that we have started building an integration test framework and can run against devstack20:10
*** rcarrillocruz has left #openstack-meeting20:11
david-lylewe want to grow the test suite there and maybe eventually tie it into the gate, as we are uniquely positioned to insure non-breaking changes in the python-*clients20:11
*** Penick has quit IRC20:11
* mordred is in support of that20:11
mordredthat is - of "ensure non-breaking changes in python-*clients"20:12
ttxmordred: but would you consider that a "gap" ?20:12
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC20:12
david-lylethat obviously requires some work with infra once we have a better test suite20:12
devananda++ to integration test framework20:12
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting20:12
mordredyes. the level to which we've tested horizon thusfar I think is less than any of us are happy about20:12
*** whenry has joined #openstack-meeting20:12
mordredbut it seems the plans moving forward are good ones20:12
zanebdavid-lyle: uniquely? ;)20:13
ttx#info Integration test framework tied to gate20:13
mordreddavid-lyle: while we're on testing - has anyone done any thinking about testr and horizon?20:13
ttxOK, any other gap ?20:13
david-lylezaneb: maybe not as uniquely as we used to be, apologies20:13
mordredlast time I looked in to it, I gave up and deferred to later20:13
zanebdavid-lyle: no worries, I'm just kidding :)20:14
devanandadavid-lyle: i see the call out for docs on the developer site. what about in openstack-manuals?20:14
david-lylemordred, we looked into it briefly, there was some issues with nose, but that was early last cycle, we could revisit20:14
zanebheat has it's own issues with tempest coverage20:14
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting20:14
ttxzaneb: talking about which...20:15
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting20:15
*** sarob_ has quit IRC20:15
ttxWould you be up for next week ? :)20:15
mordreddavid-lyle: it's not urgent yet - main thing is we _want_ to do some subunit processing in the gate itself, so want to make sure we don't have blocker projects if we get to that point20:15
*** whenry has quit IRC20:15
annegentle_devananda: david-lyle: for integration, those are the minimum docs... for a core project also install/config docs (which are in openstack-manuals)20:15
ttxdavid-lyle: OK, I think we have all gaps documented in #info in the logs20:16
markmcclain+1 to subunit20:16
david-lylemordred, we'll look again20:16
devanandaannegentle_: that's what I thought, but I dont see any mention of those in the etherpad20:16
ttxdavid-lyle: would be good to have a coverage plan -- how you plan to address those in the future20:16
annegentle_devananda: yep, because those docs aren't listed as a requirement in this gap analysis20:16
ttxdavid-lyle: could you prepare one for next week ?20:16
zanebttx: you might have to twist my arm ;)20:16
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting20:16
david-lylettx: code coverage?20:17
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting20:17
ttxdavid-lyle: no, gap coverage20:17
ttxdavid-lyle: I listed gaps in #info in the meeting logs20:17
david-lylettx: sure20:17
ttxdavid-lyle: would be good to have a clear action plan on addressing those20:18
ttxSee https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Neutron_Gap_Coverage for an example20:18
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting20:18
ttxTC members: any other remark on that topic ? Other gaps ?20:18
markmcclainmy favorite line "Dashboard would be circular and thus frowned upon."20:19
*** jaypipes has quit IRC20:19
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting20:19
jeblairttx: did you note the non-standard tooling due to combined projects as a gap?20:19
ttxjeblair: nope, be my guest :)20:20
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting20:20
jeblair#info Non-standard test/packaging/translation tooling due to combined projects in one repo20:20
ttxOK, if that is all, let's move to next topic20:20
ttxdavid-lyle: thanks!20:20
*** rbertram has quit IRC20:21
annegentle_thanks david-lyle!20:21
david-lylemy pleasure20:21
mikalAgreed, thanks for coming along20:21
ttxon very short notice20:21
ttx#topic Defcore update: Scoring the Havana capabilities20:21
*** openstack changes topic to "Defcore update: Scoring the Havana capabilities (Meeting topic: tc)"20:21
ttxzehicle_at_dell: floor is temporarily yours20:21
zehicle_at_dellThe board approved the 12 scoring critieria in the last meeting20:21
zehicle_at_delland that let us post the advisory Havana score card20:22
zehicle_at_dellBUT it's got gaps and requests for TC input all over the place20:22
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting20:22
zehicle_at_dellso I was hoping to work with you to fill in the gaps20:22
zehicle_at_dellit's likely 2-4 hours of interactive work20:22
ttxzehicle_at_dell: link?20:22
zehicle_at_dell#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreCriteria20:23
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: what's the deadline?20:23
zehicle_at_dell#link http://robhirschfeld.com/2014/05/08/defcore-scorecard/20:23
zehicle_at_dellwe'd like to have the board adopt the Havana sc ore card at OSCON20:23
zehicle_at_dellit's ADVISORY for Havana20:24
zehicle_at_dellbut it's sets a trendline for the next I & J20:24
ttxzehicle_at_dell: so you need input on all the 0.5 in TC direction @ https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/e/e3/DefCore_Capabilities_Scoring.pdf ? Or more ?20:24
zehicle_at_delland we're still trying to complete those by Paris20:24
zehicle_at_dellttx, yes20:24
zehicle_at_delland also filling in the gaps20:24
ttxgap = red lines ?20:25
zehicle_at_dellwhich will then raise the question of % of designated code in Swift20:25
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: so July 20th or earlier than that to allow for formatting?20:25
zehicle_at_dellttx, the unscored ones in the center20:25
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, yes20:25
*** julim has quit IRC20:25
zehicle_at_dellwe could work on formatting earlier20:25
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: which?20:25
ttxzehicle_at_dell: I think for the red lines it would be good to get the PTL input first20:25
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: July 15?20:25
ttxTC can help with the 0.5 cells20:25
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, sorry.  yes 7/15.20:26
*** whenry has joined #openstack-meeting20:26
mikalttx: which PTL? The Havan PTL of the current one?20:26
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, we can get the formatting done in parallel20:26
ttxPTLs affectd by red lines are notmyname, jgriffith and mikal20:26
ttxI'd say current one20:26
annegentle_#link https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/e/e3/DefCore_Capabilities_Scoring.pdf20:26
zehicle_at_dellttx, yes.  would be good to ahve the relevant PTLs20:26
zehicle_at_dellwe are getting help from John D on Swift capabilities grouping too20:26
ttxzehicle_at_dell: if they fail to provide input we can help fill, but that seems like the logical first step20:26
zehicle_at_dellideally, PTLs would also help on cabilities groups, but that's another topic20:27
*** Penick has quit IRC20:27
annegentle_#info Request from board for TC input on the red rows in https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/e/e3/DefCore_Capabilities_Scoring.pdf by July 15th20:27
zehicle_at_dellttx, agree.  was hoping to have TC formalize the request20:27
ttxzehicle_at_dell: so I suggest we take those 0.5 home as homework for the week, and come up with proposals for next week meeting20:27
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: how should the input come back?20:27
ttxzehicle_at_dell: in the mean time I'll forward your request on red lines to affected PTLs20:27
annegentle_ttx: I don't see 0.5? where is that?20:27
zehicle_at_dellthe yellow cells20:27
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: ah got it20:28
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: is every project integrated in havana included in that matrix?20:28
*** jprovazn has quit IRC20:28
ttxannegentle_: 0.5 cells in Future Tc direction column20:28
zehicle_at_dell#link http://robhirschfeld.com/2014/05/09/openstack-defcore-matrix-cheet-sheet/20:28
zehicle_at_dellI made a cheat sheet to help understand the grid20:28
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: as in, you don't know if the 0.5 is accurate unless you ask more people?20:28
zehicle_at_dellwould accept help in formatting to make it easier to understand20:28
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting20:28
*** zns has quit IRC20:28
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: (I see orch-stacks for heat, but nothing obvious for ceilometer)20:28
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, there should be no .5s.  those are place holders20:28
*** rbrady is now known as rbrady-afk20:28
ttx#action TC members to look at 0.5 cells in "future TC direction" column in http://robhirschfeld.com/2014/05/09/openstack-defcore-matrix-cheet-sheet/ and prepare proposed score for next meeting20:28
zehicle_at_delleglynn, we can only score items with tests20:28
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: ok20:28
zehicle_at_dellso no tests = no capabililites20:29
ttx#action ttx to reach to affected PTLs for red lines at https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/e/e3/DefCore_Capabilities_Scoring.pdf20:29
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, would be good to have a new perspective to help explain it.  I'm way too close to the material20:29
zanebzehicle_at_dell: how old is the list of tests, just out of curiosity?20:29
annegentle_zehicle_at_dell: I'm good at asking dumb questions :)20:29
ttx#action ttx to schedule gap coverage plan approval for Horizon for next meeting20:29
*** krtaylor has quit IRC20:29
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: based on Tempest coverage?20:29
* zaneb was pretty sure we had more than one ;)20:29
zehicle_at_delleglynn, yes20:29
sdaguezaneb: not in havana :)20:30
mordredzehicle_at_dell: btw - have you guys been tracking branchless-tempest?20:30
*** spzala has quit IRC20:30
zehicle_at_dellmordred, yes!!! we are planning to move to that20:30
mordredgreat. it's just a thing that would clearly affect you :)20:30
jeblairthere was lots of refstack<->tempest discussion on that topic at the summit20:30
zehicle_at_dellmordred, even for Havana and just suck up that there's some slop20:30
ttxhmm fixing action link20:30
zanebsdague: oh, Havana was not the one we just released :)20:30
*** aclark_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:30
zanebtoo many releases20:30
sdaguezehicle_at_dell: have you guys started looking at the differential with branchless at icehouse and havana tempest?20:31
ttx#action TC members to look at 0.5 cells in "future TC direction" column in https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/e/e3/DefCore_Capabilities_Scoring.pdf and prepare proposed score for next meeting20:31
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC20:31
sdaguebecause the overall test count did double20:31
sdagueand I'm curious how much of the analysis is going to need to rev after those new functional areas come in20:31
zehicle_at_dellsdague, yes but I think thats OT for here20:31
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: another dumb question, why concentrate on Havana as opposed to Icehouse?20:31
*** stevebaker has quit IRC20:32
zehicle_at_delleglynn, so people can digest the impact20:32
* eglynn asks as the first ceilometer tempest coverage dates from the Icehouse cycle20:32
*** mxin has joined #openstack-meeting20:32
annegentle_eglynn: gives deployers some time to test and then act/iterate20:32
zehicle_at_delleglynn, this needs time to settle and get feedback - it will change commercial products20:32
zehicle_at_dellannegentle_, +120:32
*** zns has joined #openstack-meeting20:32
*** mxin has left #openstack-meeting20:32
*** dstanek is now known as dstanek_zzz20:33
zehicle_at_delleglynn, turning the ship...slowly20:33
ttxzehicle_at_dell: OK, I think we have an action plan here20:33
ttxzehicle_at_dell: anything else ?20:33
*** AlanClark has quit IRC20:33
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: fair enough, though /me is eager for the lack of tempest coverage for ceilo in Havana not to exclude ceilo completely from the analysis20:34
eglynn... just sayin'20:34
annegentle_eglynn: is your question aimed at whether ceilometer will be considered for core capability?20:34
eglynnannegentle_: yep20:34
zehicle_at_delleglynn, putting pressure on community to add tests is part of the objective20:34
zehicle_at_delleglynn, pressure on the commercial interests that pay people20:34
zanebzehicle_at_dell: perhaps the question is how often do we expect this analysis to be revised?20:34
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting20:35
zehicle_at_dellzaneb, every release20:35
vishyeglynn: is there a subset of ceilo api that is user facing?20:35
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: k, got it ... we plan to expand this further over Juno20:35
*** dstanek_zzz is now known as dstanek20:35
zanebbut with a 6 month lag?20:35
ttxeglynn, zaneb: feel free to continue discussion with zehicle off-meeting20:35
eglynnvishy: the API is in a sense, consumed by the metering dashboard for example20:35
*** baoli_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:35
eglynnttx: roger that!20:35
zehicle_at_dellzaneb, no.  we want to be zero day.  We are trying to get to 0.  will hopefully be there for K if not J20:35
zanebok, cool :)20:35
ttx#topic New requirements20:36
*** openstack changes topic to "New requirements (Meeting topic: tc)"20:36
vishyeglynn: seems like the surface is pretty small for users. Mostly used by admins operators20:36
ttx* add upgrade expectations (https://review.openstack.org/87234)20:36
eglynnvishy: fair point20:36
zehicle_at_dellthanks everyone!'20:36
eglynnzehicle_at_dell: thank you sir!20:36
ttxThis one could need another +1. There was a comment from lifeless tat was a -1 but he left the TC20:36
ttxzehicle_at_dell: thx!20:36
sdaguettx: I think lifeless and I are actually at violent agreement on the idea, it was a language clarity question20:37
ttxso now it's a random comment, but his question should still be adressed20:37
sdagueso basically I'd see if people find his language or mine more clear20:37
sdagueand I'll propose with whatever people believe20:37
ttxok, so all make a last pass on this one, will approve if it gets 7 +1s20:37
sdagueI think mine wasn't legally sealed, but I think less confusing20:37
*** baoli has quit IRC20:37
lifelesssdague: agreed20:37
ttxor more exactly..; if it still has 7 +1s by tomorrow :)20:38
annegentle_For upgrade expectations, did anyone address the "from first integrated release" expectation?20:38
annegentle_don't want to -1 unless I'm missing something20:38
mordredsdague, lifeless: I actually think both of you are wrong20:38
sdagueannegentle_: good point20:38
sdaguemordred: ok, alternate wording?20:38
lifelessmordred: yay!.20:39
annegentle_ok -1 from me20:39
devanandaon the "from any arbitrary point..." line, perhaps some wording that this doesn't imply a direct upgrade - which seems to be the point lifeless' comment is making20:39
mordredsdague: will work on it - I thnk you're closest20:39
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC20:39
sdaguemordred: ok. I think the intent between all of us is clear, but would be best to make it easy to understand by new projects20:40
ttxannegentle_: my reading is that "stable release" means integarted, but yes, more precision could help20:40
sdagueso they don't get surprised20:40
markmcclainhmmm… technically the item has passed20:40
sdagueI do think calling out "after initial integrated release" is fair point to make clear20:40
ttxOK, so this needs a few more iterations20:40
mordredsdague: perhaps we should enumerate what we expect to be testable20:40
markmcclaindo we need folks to switch their +1s to 0/-1?20:40
devanandasdague: +120:40
ttxmarkmcclain: well, sdague hasn't formally cast his vote :)20:40
sdaguettx: I vote on my own proposals?20:41
* markmcclain counts again20:41
ttxsdague: it's a grey area.20:41
*** eharney has quit IRC20:41
mordredbecause we dont' do anything with 'arbitrary' points in time - and if it's not tested, it's broken20:41
ttxi usually count the proposer in favor, yes20:41
markmcclain7 for -1 against20:41
sdaguemordred: fair, I was trying to capture the spirit of the CD case20:41
mordredsdague: yah20:41
* mordred may be wrong20:41
sdaguebecause we don't test it20:41
*** ThiagoCMC has quit IRC20:41
sdaguebut we do call people out on it20:41
*** ramashri has joined #openstack-meeting20:41
sdaguelike when they reorder db migrations20:41
*** varora- has left #openstack-meeting20:41
mordredgood point20:42
ttxmarkmcclain: oh, someone just added a +120:42
mordredsdague: maybe we should figure out how to test for that ...20:42
markmcclainI do think clarification is needed just wondering what the procedure is in this case… I assume voting it still open so folks can their positions20:42
mordredmaybe not in this meeting20:42
sdaguemordred: probably, though I doubt it will be this cycle20:42
ttxmarkmcclain: anyway, I only fasttrack approvals when there are 7 +1s and no objection. Everything else requires a 'final vote' to be called after two meetings of non consensus20:42
*** baojg has quit IRC20:42
markmcclainttx: ah good to know20:43
ttxmarkmcclain: agree that proposer can vote on his own20:43
ttxI usually count proposer as a +1, but we could be more formal20:43
sdagueso lets do this. annegentle_'s point is something we should fix, will do. I'm open to clearer language if someone proposes it.20:43
ttxok, let's give it another week then20:43
ttx* Add Ceilometer requirements (https://review.openstack.org/85978)20:43
annegentle_sdague: so shall I patch this one with different wording?20:43
sdagueI can honestly go less "legally", and more example oriented20:44
sdagueannegentle_: sure, or leave a comment with the proposed wording20:44
*** samcdona has quit IRC20:44
ttxThis one is pretty stuck20:44
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting20:44
*** samcdona has quit IRC20:44
ttxNot sure if we should ping proposer, vote -1 to remove it or just let it auto-abandon20:44
eglynnyeah seems no prospect of agreement on current version, shall I punt it back to jd for another round of wordsmithing?20:45
ttxeglynn: if it's still in same shape next week I'll probably cahse down -1s so that we kill it20:45
jeblairttx: oh we don't auto-abandon anymore; do you have an abandon button?20:45
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting20:45
eglynnttx: k, understood20:45
*** shakamunyi has joined #openstack-meeting20:46
ttxjeblair: we haven't set rules for such cases yet20:46
ttxjeblair: I'm fine with the ultimatum I just gave20:46
ttxi.e. give it another week, and kill it softly with a pack of -1s if it's still around20:46
jeblairttx: yeah, though i'm specifically asking if you personally have an abandon button in gerrit on the governance repo.  :)20:46
lifelessmordred: +1 on enumerating things that should work.20:46
lifelessmordred: and things that shouldn't.[6~20:46
ttxjeblair: yes I do20:46
*** ildikov has joined #openstack-meeting20:47
ttx#info If that one is not improved by next week, it will probably be abandoned20:47
ttx#topic Minor governance changes20:47
*** openstack changes topic to "Minor governance changes (Meeting topic: tc)"20:47
ttx* Render member list in HTML output (https://review.openstack.org/91450)20:47
ttxI guess I can approve that one as non-policy20:48
mordredttx: ^^ do we need full TC vote on patches like that? non-policy patches seem like something that 2 positive votes should be good on20:48
ttxunless someone complains rreally soon20:48
ttxmordred; yep20:49
jeblairdo the docs build now?  if so, we should start gating20:49
ttx#info will approve tomorrow unless someone -1s20:49
ttx* Update sphinx doc formatting and toctrees (https://review.openstack.org/91422)20:49
ttxSame for this one20:49
mordredjeblair: ++20:49
annegentle_I think two +2s should work for non-policy20:49
ttx#info will approve tomorrow unless someone -1s20:49
ttx* Add project mission statement for Ceilometer (https://review.openstack.org/87526)20:49
mordred(should we pep8 the python in the governance repo?)20:50
* mordred hides20:50
ttxI think that one just needs a few more +1s20:50
*** marcoemorais has joined #openstack-meeting20:50
ttxI prefer to have one in and have people suggest better words afterwards20:50
jeblairi think we gave ttx blanket non-policy rights (eg, i don't think he needs even 2 +2s, but can wait for them at his discretion)20:51
ttx#info Will approve whenever it reaches 7 +1s20:51
ttxjeblair: ok20:51
ttxjeblair: for those one I wanted to make sure this use of the governance repo was ok with everyone20:52
ttxbut I think they are20:52
*** deklan has joined #openstack-meeting20:52
ttx* Add oslo.db to the Oslo program (https://review.openstack.org/90127)20:52
ttxThis one depends on:20:52
ttx* add oslo.i18n to Oslo program (https://review.openstack.org/92429)20:52
ttxBoth are approved by PTL20:53
ttxno objection... OK if I approve them now ?20:53
annegentle_ttx: yeah go ahead20:53
*** ThiagoCMC has joined #openstack-meeting20:53
ttxI may trigger a few rebasees but hey, that's life20:53
*** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
vishydo it20:54
sdaguettx: +120:54
*** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting20:54
*** ArxCruz has quit IRC20:54
*** joesavak has quit IRC20:54
ttxok done20:55
ttxfor both20:55
ttx#topic Open discussion20:55
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: tc)"20:55
ttxanteaya: go for it20:55
anteayaso I just want folks to know that soon I want to talk about some election stuff20:56
anteayaone item is do we have the right criteria for the electorate?20:56
anteayathe ptl elections seem to be healthy with at least 43% voting20:56
annegentle_ttx: I have a q next20:56
ttxI hope I'll have my analysis of TC election ready soon, so that we can revisit the "proportional" option20:56
anteayathe tc election needs some evaluation20:56
anteayawe had 29.7% participation20:56
anteayaI think we need a better % of participation20:57
mikalDo we think that people had election fatigue at that point?20:57
anteayaso that is coming up20:57
mikalMany people had probably voted in several elections by then20:57
anteayano, I don't percieve fatigue20:57
anteayaI percieve long tail20:57
sdagueanteaya: do we have comparisons to past TC elections?20:57
ttxanteaya: I think it's a good topic. Ideally we would raise it on openstack-dev first to gather more input20:57
anteaya450 electorate for nova20:57
anteaya1500 electorate for tc20:57
ttxlike for all resolutions20:57
anteayayes, so just by way of heads up, I would like to have this discussion20:58
ttxsdague: it was around 30% last time as well20:58
anteayaI will get numbers and comparisons as they are requested20:58
ttxanteaya: ok, thxc for heads-up20:58
ttxannegentle_: go for your question20:58
anteayathe second item dealing with elections is campagn messageing20:58
* mordred has been thinking about revisiting the 1-vote==ATC criteria20:58
anteayawe don't have any and I think we should ahve some20:58
anteayaokay done20:58
ttxanteaya: ack20:58
annegentle_do we need to elect a tc chair? Or did we and I forgot it already?20:58
ttxmordred: yes, we may want to revisit that, but I wonder if bylwas let us do that20:59
sdagueannegentle_: we did it already20:59
mordredttx: I think it's in our charter, no?20:59
annegentle_sdague: ha I missed it20:59
sdagueannegentle_: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92461/20:59
ttxmordred: I'll have to check how much we are constrained by the ATC definition in the bylways20:59
mordredttx: we all think the foundation is crazy for having too-lax membership qualifications, so it seems like if we're having low voter turnout ...20:59
ttxwhich lives in some appendix20:59
mordredthen perhaps we should address qualifications for being part of the electorate20:59
ttxannegentle_: was last meeting21:00
mordredsince we have, you know, math at our disposal and are not afraid to use it21:00
* jeblair is a little afraid of math21:00
ttxbehold the power of math21:00
zanebmordred: if the uninformed voters are self-selecting out anyway... is there a need?21:00
markmcclainzaneb: quorum becomes a possible issue with low turnout21:00
ttxok, time is up21:00
ttxthanks everyone!21:01
zanebmarkmcclain: for the foundation yes; I don't think there is a quorum for TC elections though21:01
mordredzaneb: quoruum21:01
*** Haneef has quit IRC21:01
ttx#action ttx to check how much control we have on electorate definition for the Technical Committee21:01
anteayazaneb: it plays a role in the effectiveness of any election21:01
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"21:01
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 21:01:52 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)21:01
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-05-20-20.02.html21:01
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-05-20-20.02.txt21:01
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-05-20-20.02.log.html21:01
mordredzaneb: people get a year of free summit passes and votes in things for a single commit - we originally thought we'd need to incentivize participation21:02
mordredwe don't REALLY seem to need to incentivize that any more21:02
*** jdob has quit IRC21:02
zanebgood point21:02
mordredit's possibly not a problem21:02
* mikal takes a quick bio break before the release meeting21:02
mordredbut doing some math on figuring out who are ACTUALLY contributors would be maybe neat21:02
jeblairAmendments to this Technical Committee charter shall be proposed in a special motion, which needs to be approved by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the total number of TC members (rounded up: in a 13-member committee that means a minimum of 9 approvers).21:02
ttxdhellmann, dolphm, notmyname, eglynn, markwash, jgriffith, mikal, zaneb, david-lyle, mestery, SlickNik, SergeyLukjanov: around ?21:02
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting21:02
ttx#startmeeting project21:03
openstackMeeting started Tue May 20 21:03:38 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.21:03
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.21:03
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: project)"21:03
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'project'21:03
ttxFirst meeting from Juno era21:03
* SergeyLukjanov flying above Boston atm, lurking21:03
ttxSmallish agenda, should be quick21:03
*** marcoemorais has quit IRC21:04
ttxI sometimes wonder when Sergey sleeps or takes vacation21:04
*** manishg has quit IRC21:04
ttx#link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting21:04
*** simonmcc has quit IRC21:04
*** jraim has quit IRC21:04
ttxFollowing a suggestion from notmyname at the summit, here is the combined log of the 1:1s sync from today:21:04
ttx#link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ptl_sync/2014/ptl_sync.2014-05-20-11.45.html21:04
*** ramashri has quit IRC21:04
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
*** jraim has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
ttx#topic Juno Release Schedule21:05
*** openstack changes topic to "Juno Release Schedule (Meeting topic: project)"21:05
*** simonmcc has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
*** IlyaE has quit IRC21:05
ttx#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule21:05
ttxSo this is the proposal from the Design Summit21:05
SergeyLukjanovwow, combined log looks pretty nice21:05
*** manishg has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
ttxwhich we should officialize ASAP21:05
*** pdmars has quit IRC21:05
*** manishg has quit IRC21:05
*** jecarey has quit IRC21:05
ttxlet me check my emails for complains21:05
mesterySergeyLukjanov: +1 to that, it's quite nice!21:06
eglynnwhich weeks are shaping up for mid-cycle meetups?21:06
ttxok, no objection so far21:06
SlickNikttx: no complains here21:06
dolphmeglynn: July 9, 10, 11 for keystone21:06
ttxUnless something significant is raised that makes me reconsider, I'll probably set it in stone by Thursday21:06
notmynamewe've got a swift hackathon the first week of june21:07
ttxeglynn: first half of July is a popular option21:07
mesteryeglynn: Neutron has one June 17-19 (for LBaaS) and July 9-11 (nova-network parity)21:07
eglynnttx, dolphm: yep I was thinking along similar lines for ceilo21:07
*** markmcclain has quit IRC21:07
mikalttx: juno-2 clashes with OSCON21:07
mikalttx: do you see that being a problem?21:07
dolphmmikal: known issue, won't fix?21:07
mikalI'm ok with that, just checking21:08
ttxmikal: we discussed it. sdague proposed to run the milestone21:08
ttxwe don't expect that much of an impact... milestones are just point in time. Crazy ones, I'll admit it, but not so much of a big deal21:08
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC21:08
SlickNikeglynn: Trove is going later (Aug) due to some restrictions on the part of the organizers.21:08
ttxfeature freeze is more... challenging21:08
SergeyLukjanovno plans for running mid-cycle meetup re sahara atm21:09
*** w__ has left #openstack-meeting21:09
ttx#link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035340.html21:09
*** manishg has joined #openstack-meeting21:09
eglynnSlickNik: August more problematic for us lazy Europeans, peeps want to do crazy things like go off on vacation ;)21:09
dolphmare there any projects that *don't* want to participate at all in feature proposal freeze?21:09
ttxso if you see an issue with it, just reply to the thread while it's still time21:10
eglynndolphm: how slushy would it be?21:10
*** sarob has quit IRC21:10
dolphmeglynn: slushy?21:10
ttxdolphm: swift does not follow the common feature freeze, so doesn't follow FPF either21:10
*** stevebaker has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
zanebIME telling people there is a FPF is helpful even if you don't enforce it ;)21:10
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting21:10
eglynndolphm: slushy == not strictly enforced21:10
*** baoli_ has quit IRC21:10
ttxdolphm: I think ceilometer never followed FPF yet21:10
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
notmynamedolphm: yes, what zaneb said21:11
ttxthat's about it21:11
*** baoli has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
*** casanch1_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
zanebeglynn: it's not enforced centrally, so you can do what you like :)21:11
SlickNikzaneb: +121:11
*** ramashri has joined #openstack-meeting21:11
SergeyLukjanovttx, I'm planning to make soft FPF in Juno for sahara21:11
*** Guest35039 has quit IRC21:11
ttx"not enforced centrally" means I don't enforce anything21:11
eglynnhistorically, how strictly has it been enforced in projects for which it applies?21:11
*** acoles is now known as acoles_away21:11
eglynn(even if not centrally enforced)21:12
*** whenry has quit IRC21:12
ttxeglynn: like all freezes, it's a tool21:12
* eglynn is just wondering whether folks will tend to treat it as the dog that didn't bark21:12
ttxeglynn: it's not about preventing stuff, it's about focus and communication21:12
eglynnttx: cool enough, got it21:12
dolphmttx: ++21:12
zanebeglynn: just use your judgement. the value is being able to say 'I told you so' when your judgement is that it's too late21:12
eglynnzaneb: fair point21:13
ttxmake sure the change is worth late review disruption21:13
ttxif you don't have review contention, then FPF is useless21:13
*** Mandell has quit IRC21:13
*** aysyd has quit IRC21:13
*** casanch1 has quit IRC21:13
*** amcrn has joined #openstack-meeting21:13
ttxOK, anything else on that topic ?21:13
eglynnso just to clarify FPF is only ever applied to the *-3 milestone?21:13
eglynn... i.e. we go to the wire on j1 & j221:14
dolphmi'm also wondering how other projects envision FPF vs -specs repos -- does FPF still mean the implementation being *proposed* in gerrit? or does it mean the cutoff for -specs proposals to be *merged*?21:14
notmynameIMO mostly it comes down to communications. since there isn't a whole lot of enforcement that can actually be done in an open-source project like ours, it's mostly about setting expectations and getting people to focus on the "right" things at the right time21:14
dolphmeglynn: yes21:14
ttxeglynn: yes it's applied to feature freeze, which coincides with j-321:14
eglynnnotmyname: well put21:14
SlickNikeglynn: yes, correct.21:14
zanebnotmyname: +121:14
mesterynotmyname: Agree with that sentiment21:15
*** sarob has quit IRC21:15
* eglynn is thinking that we'll try FPF in ceilo this time, assuming prior buy-in from the core team21:15
notmynamedolphm: -specs are new, so that's TBD (at least for swift)21:15
ttxFWIW with the simple tagging process we'll be using for milestones, feature freeze might just happen on the Thursday rather than on the Tuesday21:15
ttxI still need to test the process21:15
*** jang has joined #openstack-meeting21:15
ttxso being on labor day week will have limited impact21:15
*** casanch1_ has quit IRC21:15
*** erecio_2 has joined #openstack-meeting21:16
dolphmnotmyname: ++ i just want devs to have consistent expectations across projects21:16
eglynndolphm: that's sane21:16
notmynamedolphm: specs are just ideas and design guidelines. the code is where the feature is, so I'd imagine that a feature freeze has to do with the code, not the specs repo21:17
ttxnotmyname: yes. For some freezes it's also about communicating to other teams. Like StringFreeze exceptions needing heads-up to translators team21:17
*** ildikov_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:17
dolphmnotmyname: agree, i'm just worried there's room for a conflicting interpretation this cycle21:17
eglynnsurely the churn in the specs repos will be naturally frontloaded to the start of the cycle?21:17
ttxdolphm: I'd say specs proposals to be merged -- but yeah that's a bit open to discussion21:18
*** ildikov has quit IRC21:18
*** erecio_1 has quit IRC21:18
eglynni.e. if it ain't in the specs repo by j1, or shortly thereafter, it's not realistically gonna land in Juno, or?21:18
ttxeglynn: you're new to the job, aren't you ?21:18
eglynnttx: touche!21:19
ttxeglynn: unfortunately, people propose stuff ALL THE TIME21:19
ttxwhich makes tracking incoming features so challenging21:19
zanebttx: I agree with notmyname; FPF should mean implementation patches posted21:19
*** mwagner_lap has quit IRC21:19
ttxzaneb: that's how we always did it yes21:19
*** jang has quit IRC21:20
ttxzaneb: so it should also mean design merged, obviously :)21:20
eglynnsure, but we effectively do a soft "lock down" on the specs repos after a certain point in the cycle?21:20
jgriffithI'm unsure what the big concern is?  Projects always have had exception process if needed?21:20
dolphm"Juno development is still open for another week, and here's a critical +10,000 line patch that will make suddenly OpenStack useful."21:20
zanebI don't actually care about blueprints at all ;)21:20
notmynamezaneb: +1 :-)21:20
dolphms/suddenly OpenStack/OpenStack suddenly/21:20
ttxeglynn: I'd say it's open for projects to choose. It's still very much an experiment at this point21:20
zanebspec repo is just a communication tool21:20
notmynameeglynn: I'd encourage you to not have strict rules about who or what can happen when. it's about setting expectations and guiding, not dictating who does what when21:21
*** rbertram has joined #openstack-meeting21:21
dolphmeglynn: i assume you'd just be landing specs to a K directory rather than Juno21:21
dolphmeglynn: if you even have time/interest to review them during the juno cycle21:21
* jgriffith prefers strict rules, chaos sucks21:21
ttxeglynn: we'll let projects play with options and maybe try to converge later21:21
sdaguehistorically FPF was an attempt to move the wild end rush that hits nova, neutron, and cinder back21:21
eglynndolphm: yep, that would work21:21
*** IlyaE has quit IRC21:21
sdagueso that code was actually landable by freeze21:21
eglynnnotmyname: yep, that makes sense21:21
*** rbertram has quit IRC21:22
notmynamettx: (et al): speaking of feature freezes, Swift will have one starting next week while we do the storage policy integration work (yay it's almost done and delivered!)21:22
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting21:22
ttxnotmyname: great!21:22
ttxOK, I think it's time to move to next topic, unless someone has another question about schedule21:22
*** marun has quit IRC21:23
ttx#topic One-to-one sync points with incubated projects21:23
*** openstack changes topic to "One-to-one sync points with incubated projects (Meeting topic: project)"21:23
*** deklan has quit IRC21:23
ttxAt the summit it was suggested that rather than having incubated projects have some time at the end of the meeting... (if any left)21:23
ttxthey should have their own 1:1s sync points21:24
jgriffithttx: 's calendar just became very booked21:24
ttxI'm fine with trying that, if we can do them on a day that is not Tuesday21:24
*** jecarey has joined #openstack-meeting21:24
ttxdevananda, kgriffs, jraim: if you are around, feel free to comment21:24
dolphmttx: so, monday?21:24
devanandamonday works for me21:25
*** Mandell has joined #openstack-meeting21:25
ttxMonday could work. Otherwise I was thinking wednesday or thursday :)21:25
ttxwill depend on which times are available21:25
ttxbut i'll try to have them all on same day21:25
ttxdevananda, kgriffs, jraim: i'll be in touch with each of you21:26
ttxto see if we can find a common day21:26
ttxthat would just be a 15-min slot21:26
ttx#action ttx to contact devananda, kgriffs, jraim to plan incubated project 1:1s sync21:26
ttxdevananda: makes sense to move to 1:1 sync rather than wait until meeting end ?21:27
*** deklan has joined #openstack-meeting21:27
devanandattx: it makes sense to me21:27
devanandattx: at least for ironic, which is tracking the release process closely now21:27
ttxwe might even be able to fit in a 10-min slot for each project21:27
ttxgiven the discussions we had last cycle21:27
ttxthey all fit is way less :)21:28
ttxOK, we'll try this21:28
ttx#topic Open discussion21:28
*** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: project)"21:28
jeblairdo people have thoughts on how should specs repos be named?  we decided they should be per-program, but many of them are named for the flagship project in that program.21:28
jeblairexamples: cinder, glance, neutron, nova, oslo -specs repos all exist today; swift, ceilometer, ironic are proposed.21:28
jeblairsome specs repos named for programs do exist: qa, tripleo, infra; though none of them have flagship projects21:28
jeblairthis came up because of a proposal to create the identity-specs repo21:28
devanandajeblair: hmm, good point21:29
ttxjeblair: I'd very much prefer some amount of convergence there21:29
devanandaironic has at least one substantial other-project, IPA21:29
mikalI'd prefer to defer renaming until we have fewer open reviews to be honest21:29
devanandatoday it's still fairly small, but it could grow to a size where it needs its own specs in a cycle21:29
eglynnjeblair: yep, I'd be happy with telemetry-specs21:29
devanandaor where ironic-specs might be confusing if we lump both together21:29
mesteryRenaming would be a mild pain at the moment, I agree with mikal.21:29
*** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting21:30
ttxjeblair: i can't wait until the program-concept-haters make us rename all of those because they conflict with openstack names21:30
SergeyLukjanovIMO program-based name works better for it, but launchpad project is named after the main project in program21:30
dolphmmarkwash: ttx: "ttx agrees with expanding the glance-ptl group to more than one person (ttx, 16:12:49)" ?21:30
notmynameobjectstorage-specs is more unwieldy than swift-specs21:30
mtreinishjeblair: we used qa-specs because it was supposed to be both tempest and grenade specs, but in practice it's just tempest :)21:30
jgriffithSergeyLukjanov: +121:30
dolphmany context there21:30
jeblairmikal: renaming doesn't affect open reviews, but we can ceirtanly defer21:30
markwashdolphm: for glanceclient releases21:30
ttxdolphm: the -ptl group is the one allowed to tag releases in Gerrit21:30
devanandanotmyname: how about bare-metal-provisioning-specs :)21:30
*** zns has quit IRC21:30
*** bgorski has quit IRC21:30
ttxdolphm: -releasers would be more accurate21:30
notmynamedevananda: now that's just crazy. unless you are naming it that ironically21:31
*** krtaylor has joined #openstack-meeting21:31
eglynnjeblair: were the -specs repo creation patch hasn't landed yet, best to rename sooner rather than later, or?21:31
ttxdolphm: so if you want to delegate that task, you add people to the -ptl group. Makes sense ?21:31
eglynnjeblair: ... /me thinking of https://review.openstack.org/94044 for ceilometer-specs21:31
dolphmttx: yeah21:31
devanandaalso on -specs, the question was raised on ironic's proposal. how do folks feel about separating -core from -specs-core?21:31
jeblaireglynn: yeah, we're holding off on the pending ones until at least now to see if we should change them21:31
notmynamedevananda: I'm pretty much against that21:31
*** hashar has quit IRC21:32
markwashI prefer a separate -core from -specs-core for glance21:32
dolphmdevananda: the implication being that you have a subset of -core that is -specs-core?21:32
eglynndevananda: we discussed this with the ceilo core team and didn't see the need for a smallish core group21:32
notmynamemarkwash: why?21:32
ttxjeblair: next time you have ideas for contentious topics like this, feel free to add to the agenda :)21:32
sdaguedevananda: nova has 2 separate groups21:32
markwashbut one can always add -core as an included group in -core-specs21:32
mikalnova already has different core groups for the two repos21:32
eglynndevananda: but that is the way nova do it (with nova-drivers << nova-core)21:32
mikalOne is currently a subset of the other though21:32
dolphmmikal: why bother?21:33
sdaguethere historically was always a nova-drivers that had the ability to target blueprints, which was a subset21:33
jeblairttx: indeed.  sorry.21:33
mikaldolphm: its historical mostly21:33
* ttx thought he could get to bed early :)21:33
markwashnotmyname: core is mostly about good code review, drivers is mostly about product sanity21:33
*** marun has joined #openstack-meeting21:33
devanandamikal: any plans for intersecting rather than subset-of groups?21:33
anteayattx heh21:33
SlickNikdevananda: FWIW trove has 2 separate groups too. (core and drivers)21:33
mikaldevananda: as in having people in specs-core who aren't nova-core?21:33
devanandamikal: right21:33
notmynamethose who have responsibility for managing the code itself (ie core) should still have the ability to discuss the stuff that will be proposed to the code (specs-core, ie drivers)21:34
ttxsdague: not a subset. a different group that usually was a subset21:34
zanebI wouldn't be comfortable choosing who from heat-core to kick out of heat-drivers21:34
markwashI have a glance-specs-core member who is not a glance-core21:34
mikaldevananda: I am not opposed to it, but I know some of the drivers members don't like the idea21:34
devanandamikal: might be crazy. but also might be good for folks with deep operational knowledge who aren't review core21:34
markwashits a good way to get product involvement from openstack companies21:34
markwashnot always just devs21:34
mikalThe counter arguement is that it sets expectations that a design is "ok to merge" when nova-core might not agree21:34
devanandai wouldn't want that involvement from companies (they'll just approve their own BPs) but rather from operators21:34
ttxmikal: yep, was about to say that21:35
dolphmmikal: ++ that's my concern21:35
mikali.e. a consistent bar is required across both21:35
devanandabut - that may be achievable merely by better socialization21:35
*** lcheng_ has joined #openstack-meeting21:35
sdaguedevananda: I think you can get plenty of feedback in the current system21:35
ttxmikal: and putting load on reviewers that may or may not agree with design21:35
markwashmikal: but of course, we already have that situation with part of nova core saying yes and part of nova core saying no21:35
sdagueoperators can +1 / -1 things21:35
mesteryNeutron has a separate group which currently encompasses neutron-core.21:35
mikalThe flip side is that I feel like we're failing to acknowledge the importance of ops reviews at the moment21:35
devanandasdague: gotcha21:35
mesteryI like the idea of adding operators outside the scope of -core though.21:35
ttxI'm fine with people experimenting with both options at this point21:35
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting21:35
ttxBUT we kinda need to chosse on the naming front21:35
jeblairback to bikeshedding on the name -- does anyone think that, in the long run, we should use project (eg nova) as opposed to program (compute)?21:36
eglynnhmmm, I'd hope such non-code-core specs approvers wouldn't morph into the commercial software world's concept of a "product manager"21:36
sdagueright, but having someone who isn't delivering code be able to approve in blueprints seems... pretty antithetical to our culture21:36
*** andreaf_ has quit IRC21:36
ttxbetween program-based naming and project-based naming21:36
mikalttx: I think ultimately some sort of openstack-wide guideline would be a good idea21:36
mikalttx: but perhaps that's a TC thing21:36
ttxmikal: right, but I'd wait for the end of the experiment :)21:36
mikalIts less confusing to newcomers if we're consistent21:36
*** samcdona has quit IRC21:36
jgriffithttx: project please... proliferation isn't going to be helpful in this case I don't think21:36
dolphmjeblair: for specs repos?21:36
jeblairdolphm: yes21:36
mikalttx: do you have a timeline for declaring the experiment done in mind?21:36
ttxat this point let's let a thousand (or a dozen) flowers bloom!21:36
mikalttx: "juno"?21:36
devanandaprogram-based makes much more sense if we're using specs for programs like infra and tripleo21:36
ttxmikal: yes21:37
eglynnwe should decide very quickly one way or the other on naming21:37
dolphmjeblair: nova chose nova-specs, keystone chose identity-specs21:37
*** ayoung has quit IRC21:37
eglynn... otherwsise we block the new -specs repos being created21:37
dolphmdevananda: ++ and for including the client in the -specs process21:37
eglynn... at a time when there should be a flood of specs21:37
*** TravT has quit IRC21:37
ttxyeah, without convergence, discovery will be sucky21:37
*** bgorski has joined #openstack-meeting21:37
mikalttx: what about handing ops -2 / +2, but not approve? Could that even be expressed in gerrit?21:37
ttxi.e. I woudn't necessarily find identity-specs21:37
sdaguemikal: you only need to hand folks -2 if their -1s are valid, and being ignored21:38
jeblairi almost think we should go with keystone-specs for now, and then if we want to rename the project-named ones later, do that21:38
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting21:38
sdagueculture really fixes most of this21:38
*** yogeshmehra has quit IRC21:38
jeblairbasically because so many programs went with the project name21:38
notmynameas awkward as it is in some cases, this should be {program}-specs21:38
ttxmikal: won't answer for gerrit. For the rest, try whatever you think will work for you, we'll converge later21:38
zanebsdague: and ditto for +1's if you leave out approve rights21:38
jeblairnotmyname: i agree21:38
dolphmsdague: mikal: how often do operators seriously oppose a change such that they would -2?21:39
notmynamebecause how else does one know where to look for client and other projects?21:39
*** vijendar has quit IRC21:39
ttxbut giving +2 without approve would sure be confusing21:39
markwashjeblair: keystone-specs is project-named, though, right?21:39
sdaguedolphm: but on the counter, how often are they -1ing things and getting run rough shot over?21:39
markwashoh nm21:39
mikalCan't we address naming confusion by putting the specs repo name in the contributing file for each project?21:39
jeblairmarkwash: yep.  okay, let me try again21:39
notmynamejeblair: so that being said, our current proposal should be renamed from swift-specs to objectstorage-specs21:39
ttxmikal: that's plan B if we can't converge on naming yes21:39
mikaldolphm: I have no data on that, but I am sure there are things core likes which ops don't21:39
dolphmmarkwash: identity-specs is what is proposed atm21:39
jeblairquestion 1) should the _end goal_ be to use project-name or program name?21:39
ttxA bit suboptimal imho21:39
dolphmsdague: i suppose that's what i'm asking - how often would a -2 come in handy21:40
annegentle_I like project-specs due to the speculative nature of the specs21:40
notmynamewhat's the reasoning for using {project}-specs? is it only for ease of speaking it (in English)?21:40
sdagueI've done the -1 override analysis a bunch of times, in different formats, we really don't override people's -1s very often21:40
annegentle_and you know me, usually I'd argue for "call it the thing it is" but in this case it's not official at all yet21:40
jeblairquostion 2) should we try to converge to the end goal now (and change the current pending proposals); or go with project for a bit then rename them all later?21:40
ttxjeblair: program-specs reflects the fact that we said "one repo per program"21:40
sdaguein the last 2 months nova overrode -1s ~ 3% of the time21:40
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC21:40
mikalsdague: oh interesting, I wasn't aware of any numbers on that21:40
eglynnjeblair: I'd prefer a decision now, that we then stick to21:41
sdaguemikal: I ran it this morning, on list, let me point21:41
ttxjeblair: but then for programs with a main project it creates mouthful specs repo name21:41
ttxwhere the project name can easily be used21:41
sdaguemikal: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035269.html21:41
mikalsdague: tahnks21:41
jeblairso actually, we do have "short" program names21:41
* mikal is still digging out of email backlog post summit21:41
sdaguebut similar things for CI systems. Smokestack only had 2 -1s in 2013 that were overridden21:41
jeblairwe have "object-api" rather than "object-storage-api"21:42
jeblairso we could go with "object-specs" for swift21:42
notmynamettx: except, there do tend to be people who focus on client side rather than server side, and I don't want to add psych barriers to contributions if they have to contribute to the "main" project specs repo. ie don't have classes of projects in the program21:42
notmynamejeblair: I'm good with that :-)21:42
mikalsdague: I am sure that's different for our current third party CIs21:42
sdaguemikal: it is21:42
annegentle_jeblair: but we don't want to keep maintaining object-api, netconn-api, we'd rather those act like specs too21:42
annegentle_jeblair: speculative21:42
sdaguebut this was counter to the fact that people ignore reliable CI systems21:42
sdaguethey don't21:43
ttxjeblair: I'd say 1) short program name should be the end goal but 2) some tolerance should be applied to programs with main projects because that would be more discoverable21:43
*** rbrady-afk has quit IRC21:43
sdaguewe are a concensus driven culture, and reasonable objects are very very rarely ignored21:43
dolphmannegentle_: identity-api is super useful to us - what do you propose we do with all those docs?21:43
ttxnotmyname: so you would have one repo per project under swift ?21:43
eglynnsdague: reasonable objections?21:43
notmynamettx: absolutely21:43
ttxi.e. python-swiftclient-specs ?21:43
sdagueeglynn: that too :)21:44
dolphmannegentle_: we also discussed identity-specs proposals linking to in-progress identity-api reviews to illustrate api impact21:44
annegentle_dolphm: you're the only project using it like a spec, and we also don't publish it. That's what we want, just inside either -specs or /projectname repos21:44
jgriffithnotmyname: why?21:44
annegentle_dolphm: yep that would be cool21:44
notmynamettx: one specs repo for swift, python-swiftclient, and swift-bench21:44
devanandai see no benefit to splitting the specs repositories for projects that are part of the same program apart21:44
ttxjeblair: looks like some programs want to go per-project for their specs repo anyway21:44
eglynnsdague: don't underestimate the power of inertia ;)21:44
eglynn... or "facts on the ground"21:44
zanebttx: on one hand, that's what we have with launchpad. OTOH that's what we have with launchpad and it is a pain21:44
dolphmannegentle_: i'd buy that as an argument for putting the api docs into -specs21:44
jeblairttx: who?21:44
notmynamejgriffith: because oftentimes a single feature is needed to be exposed in both the server and client projects21:44
annegentle_dolphm: would love that.21:45
devanandanotmyname: i think your "absolutely" was meant as "no"21:45
ttxjeblair: swift21:45
jgriffithnotmyname: sure, but the specs process now enables us to add that sort of thing21:45
jeblairttx: i believe notmyname wants 'object-specs' and it will encompass all 3 programs21:45
jeblairer projects21:45
notmynamedevananda: depends on your lag of when who said what :-)21:45
jeblairnotmyname: right?21:45
ttxNow I'm confused21:45
dolphmannegentle_: but then i want to take that a step further, and put all our user-facing documentation into -specs, so that you're required to show doc impact before your feature is approved :)21:45
jgriffithjeblair: no, he wants three specs repos21:45
notmynamejeblair: that is correct. I want one shared specs repo for swift, python-swiftclient, and swift-bench21:45
dolphmannegentle_: identity-api is essentially documentation driven design already21:45
jgriffithnotmyname: gahhh21:45
jeblairnotmyname: excellent idea, i fully support it.  ;)21:45
jgriffithok, everybody is apparantly saying the same thing21:46
annegentle_dolphm: yes21:46
devanandanotmyname: i think you win the the most-confusingly-timed-reply award today.21:46
jgriffithnotmyname: I agree21:46
annegentle_yes  please put all the specs in <proj>-specs21:46
ttxnotmyname: why would you answer "absolutely" to my "notmyname: so you would have one repo per project under swift ?" ?21:46
annegentle_including api specs21:46
eglynnnotmyname: /me similarly for telemetry (encompassing ceilo, ceiloclient & pycadf)21:46
dolphmannegentle_: (was that also a dig against <program>-specs?)21:46
jeblairokay, i'm not hearing any huge objection to program-specs; and some amount of consensus for it21:46
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC21:46
devananda++ program-specs21:46
annegentle_dolphm: jeblair I'm against program-specs21:47
ttxnotmyname: that's where my confusion stems from :)21:47
notmynamettx: either there was some miss timing or I was reading it as swift the program, not project (my own confusion)21:47
jeblairannegentle_: why?21:47
*** keyvan is now known as zz_keyvan21:47
annegentle_dolphm: jeblair: because we could one day have multiple repos in a single program -- like Deployment21:47
notmynamettx: also, I'm on pain meds today ;-)21:47
ttxwe still have 13 more minutes to violently agree21:47
jeblairannegentle_: we have lots of repos in single programs21:48
eglynnwould a non-binding vote clarify to see if there's any kind of rough consensus emerging?21:48
ttxnotmyname: oh right. get well soon, btw21:48
devanandaannegentle_: we already have that. and that's precisely why fokls want a single specs repo per project21:48
dolphmannegentle_: we already do: keystone, python-keystoneclient, and (soon) keystonemiddleware21:48
jeblairannegentle_: infra has 43 projects in one program.  :)21:48
devanandas/project/program/ in my previous sentence21:48
notmynameproposed vote: one repo per program. named as {program}-specs21:48
jeblairannegentle_: i think the single specs repo per program helps with that case21:49
*** balajiiyer has joined #openstack-meeting21:49
jeblairannegentle_: and notmyname gave a very good specific example21:49
*** gokrokve has quit IRC21:49
eglynnyep let's nail our colours to the mast21:49
ttxnotmyname: +121:49
dolphmttx: can you run a vote next week?21:49
annegentle_devananda: so how does the review process work if (again speculating) multiple solutions for deployment get proposed? Say chef and puppet people want to work on Deployment program, do they work in deployment-specs? or chef-specs and puppet-specs?21:49
zanebnotmyname: those are two separate questions imo21:49
dolphmttx: or now, if everyone is here21:49
*** jergerber has joined #openstack-meeting21:49
eglynnI'd prefer now21:49
ttxdolphm: I don't think we need to vote, every -specs user so far has +1ed it21:49
jeblairi asked at this meeting because i thought that getting ptl consensus was the most emportant21:50
notmynamejeblair: yes, that21:50
*** balajiiyer has left #openstack-meeting21:50
ttxAnne disagrees but hen she doesn't have a -specs repo :P21:50
markwashdiscoverability doesn't seem that hard to me to be honest21:50
annegentle_so my two concerns may be too futuristic: 1) naming as an "offical" program gives an officialness to the spec and publishing and 2) if there are multiple solutions within a program that may have different specs, how will reviews work?21:50
dolphmttx: i want to understand her argument though :)21:50
lifelessannegentle_: tripleo-specs, if they're getting involved in the tripleo program21:50
devanandaannegentle_: there's another question buried in there -- do chef and puppet tools have a place within the Deployment program? (and that's a much larger discussion)21:50
markwashso I don't see a really big need for consistency21:50
annegentle_ttx: :)21:51
devanandattx: I would rather not block the creation of ironic-specs another week waiting for a vote21:51
*** nikhil___ is now known as nikhil|afk21:51
annegentle_devananda: yeah that's why I may be either conflating or borrowing from the future21:51
ttxok let's record this21:51
eglynndevananda: +1 (s/ironic/ceilo/)21:51
annegentle_ttx: are you going to rename nova-specs to compute-specs?21:51
dolphmif a "program" has isolated communities with, let's say, non-converging interests, they should be separate programs IMO21:51
annegentle_perhaps I just misunderstand program names21:51
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting21:51
devanandadolphm: right21:52
jeblairannegentle_: i think we would want to rename nova-specs to compute-specs if we decide to go this way21:52
dolphmassuming they both have justifiable reasons to co-exist (which is obviously the case for the chef & puppet example)21:52
devanandadolphm: but let's not bikeshed on that now :)21:52
markwashconsidering how much work goes into writing a spec, I don't see how the cost of finding the right repo could possibly matter21:52
* dolphm is reels himself back in21:52
mikalI wouldn't have a problem with nova-specs being renamed compute-specs, but I don't see the rush either21:52
ttx#startvote End goal of one spec repo per program, named program-specs ? yes, no, abstain, i_want_all_options_opened21:52
openstackBegin voting on: End goal of one spec repo per program, named program-specs ? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain, i_want_all_options_opened.21:52
openstackVote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.21:52
jeblair#vote yes21:52
mikal#vote yes21:52
devananda#vote yes21:52
mtreinish#vote yes21:52
ttxmarkwash: your option is i_want_all_options_opened21:52
eglynn#note yes21:52
markwash#vote i_want_all_options_opened21:53
dolphm#vote yes21:53
mestery#vote yes21:53
notmyname#vote yes21:53
zaneb#vote yes21:53
jgriffith#vote yes21:53
SlickNik#vote yes21:53
markwashcould have just called it "vote 'markwash'"  :-)21:53
david-lyle#vote yes21:53
*** mrda-summit is now known as mrda21:53
devanandaeglynn: i think you typo'd s/n/v/21:53
zanebstrongly +1 on first part, genuinely don't care about naming21:53
markwasheglynn: did you mean note? or vote? :-)21:53
dolphmzaneb: vote markwash then21:53
eglynn#vote yes21:53
ttxdo we have all PTLs with specs projects in the vote ?21:53
eglynndevananda, markwash: thanks! /me has fat fingers :)21:54
SlickNikFWIW, trove isn't moving to a -specs workflow quite yet, but we'd like 1 {database|trove}-spec repo for all projects in the program when we do decide to move to it.21:54
*** ThiagoCMC has quit IRC21:54
ttxI think we do21:54
zanebdolphm: oh, is that what that meant21:54
openstackVoted on "End goal of one spec repo per program, named program-specs ?" Results are21:54
openstackyes (12): SlickNik, zaneb, mestery, notmyname, mtreinish, eglynn, jeblair, devananda, jgriffith, mikal, dolphm, david-lyle21:54
openstacki_want_all_options_opened (1): markwash21:54
jeblairokay, i will ask that pending specs repo reviews be updated with program-specs and will schedule renames of existing repos in a lazy manner (not too soon)21:54
ttxzaneb: too late! :)21:54
dolphmyes (11), i_want_all_options_opened (2) #zaneb21:54
annegentle_jeblair: ttx: ok thanks for hearing me out! I'm fine with the naming21:54
jeblairthanks everyone and ttx, sorry for keeping you up21:54
notmynamejeblair: can you push a new patch over the ones there?21:54
ttxmarkwash: feel free to be an outlier21:54
markwashI don't mind being renamed21:55
notmynamemarkwash: it's fun being an outlier ;-)21:55
annegentle_ttx: I have one other comment about -specs repos if I may21:55
markwashactually it would be easier to be renamed sooner jeblair21:55
*** jungleboyj has quit IRC21:55
* notmyname has experience from days on TC21:55
*** jsavak has quit IRC21:55
ttxannegentle_: you may21:55
markwashsince we just added our template review today21:55
zaneb#vote outlier21:55
eglynnjeblair: thank you for bringing it to the table in time to avoid needless renaming21:55
annegentle_pre-incubating projects, like barbican, shouldn't use an unaltered -spec template as it has some openstack branding apparently?21:55
markwashwhat will we call identity-specs when keystone is no longer an IdP ?21:55
jeblairmarkwash: we are scheduling a rename outage for friday, can do it then21:55
zanebnotmyname: pretty sure this is the first meeting where you and I have agreed on everything :D21:55
annegentle_so we might need to think about the migration of specs as programs move through incubation21:55
notmynamezaneb: :-)21:56
dolphmi'd also really like to see a single spec template -- i was just going to reference nova's existing template if possible21:56
ttxannegentle_: agree, they probably should not21:56
* ttx admits not having looked at specs template yet21:56
jeblairdolphm: there's lots of comonality, but some variation is needed i think21:56
annegentle_ttx: that's all I was going to note21:56
markwashdolphm: there are some nova-specific notes in it, which makes some sense to me21:56
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting21:56
ttxso much for a short meeting :)21:56
jeblairdolphm: (eg, horizion has some specific needs, and infra does too)21:56
markwashe.g. notes about conductor changes and periodics21:56
* ttx blames jeblair for messing with his meeting time management21:57
zanebttx: work expands to fill the time available21:57
dolphmmarkwash: all the ones i see could basically be s/nova/keystone/21:57
jeblairttx: you're totally going to finish on time.  ;)21:57
lifelessso is it nova-specs or compute-specs :)21:57
dolphmlifeless: compute-specs21:57
ttxjeblair: that's because I'm so good at it :)21:57
markwash/me lies21:57
lifelessso we need to rename the existing ones :/21:57
jeblairttx: you are21:57
jeblairlifeless: yes, it's our eternal burden in infra to rename projects21:58
mikaljeblair: you love it!21:58
ttxok... Anything else, anyone ?21:58
dolphmi thought that's what infra was for21:58
mikaldolphm: and restarting etherpad21:59
dolphmmikal: +++21:59
jeblairdolphm: we just haven't gotten around to renaming ourselves the 'project renaming project'21:59
eglynnLOL :)21:59
dolphmjeblair: ooh, +121:59
* anteaya adds that to infra agenda21:59
*** harlowja is now known as harlowja_away21:59
ttxyou should propose a rename-as-a-service for incubation21:59
jeblairttx: i would love that22:00
ttxbecause that process is really way too manual22:00
ttxnot self-service at all22:00
mikalWe have that though22:00
mikalJust send infra an email, they do the thing22:00
* devananda notes that ironic's program name "bare metal" also duplicates the colloquial reference for the nova "baremetal" driver22:00
mikalIts a meat based service22:00
ttxmikal: it's fanatical support.22:00
jeblairbacon as a service22:00
ttxon these last words...22:00
mikalttx: heh22:00
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"22:00
devanandajeblair: yes!22:00
openstackMeeting ended Tue May 20 22:00:47 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)22:00
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.html22:00
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.txt22:00
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.log.html22:00
ttxThanks everyone!22:00
mikalttx: thanks!22:00
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting22:01
eglynngood night folks!22:01
mesteryttx: thanks and good night!22:01
SlickNikttx: Thank you!22:01
*** neelashah has quit IRC22:01
SlickNikCatch you later.22:01
anteayanight ttx22:01
*** dstanek is now known as dstanek_zzz22:01
*** stevemar has quit IRC22:02
*** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov22:02
*** ivasev has quit IRC22:03
*** markwash has quit IRC22:03
*** Penick has quit IRC22:04
*** pablosan has quit IRC22:05
*** ThiagoCMC has joined #openstack-meeting22:06
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting22:06
*** pablosan has joined #openstack-meeting22:07
*** Penick has quit IRC22:08
*** harlowja_away is now known as harlowja22:08
*** IlyaE has quit IRC22:09
*** zehicle_at_dell has quit IRC22:09
*** deklan has quit IRC22:10
*** rockyg has quit IRC22:10
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting22:10
*** bknudson has quit IRC22:10
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting22:13
*** caleb_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:15
*** weshay has quit IRC22:15
*** Penick has quit IRC22:15
*** manishg has joined #openstack-meeting22:16
*** kayaliu_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:16
*** noslzzp has quit IRC22:19
*** sushils has quit IRC22:19
*** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz22:19
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting22:20
*** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov22:20
*** dstanek_zzz is now known as dstanek22:23
*** simon-AS559 has joined #openstack-meeting22:23
*** sushils has joined #openstack-meeting22:25
*** eglynn has quit IRC22:25
*** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting22:26
*** fnaval has quit IRC22:26
*** simon-AS559 has quit IRC22:28
*** Penick has joined #openstack-meeting22:28
*** sarob has quit IRC22:28
*** Leonr has quit IRC22:28
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting22:29
*** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting22:29
*** vuil has joined #openstack-meeting22:29
*** vuil has left #openstack-meeting22:30
*** kenhui has quit IRC22:31
*** dstanek is now known as dstanek_zzz22:33
*** kevinconway has quit IRC22:33
*** lcheng_ has quit IRC22:33
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting22:33
*** caleb_ has quit IRC22:34
*** dims has quit IRC22:35
*** virmitio has left #openstack-meeting22:35
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting22:36
*** ThiagoCMC has quit IRC22:36
*** changbl has quit IRC22:37
*** HenryG has quit IRC22:38
*** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting22:38
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting22:40
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC22:40
*** mtanino has quit IRC22:41
*** vuil has joined #openstack-meeting22:42
*** david-lyle has quit IRC22:43
*** zz_keyvan is now known as keyvan22:44
*** IlyaE has quit IRC22:45
*** banix has quit IRC22:46
*** kenhui has quit IRC22:46
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC22:49
*** atiwari has quit IRC22:51
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting22:51
*** samcdona has joined #openstack-meeting22:51
*** bknudson has joined #openstack-meeting22:54
*** coreywright is now known as coreywright_22:54
*** jaypipes has quit IRC22:54
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC22:54
*** sarob has quit IRC22:56
*** manishg has quit IRC22:56
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting22:58
*** arosen has quit IRC22:58
*** igordcard has quit IRC22:59
*** ayoung has quit IRC23:01
*** bill_az has quit IRC23:01
*** gatuus has joined #openstack-meeting23:04
*** amcrn_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:04
*** jecarey has quit IRC23:04
*** jgrimm has quit IRC23:06
*** amcrn has quit IRC23:06
*** armax has quit IRC23:07
*** IlyaE has quit IRC23:08
*** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting23:09
*** baoli has quit IRC23:11
*** MaxV_ has quit IRC23:12
*** mattgriffin has quit IRC23:12
*** eghobo has quit IRC23:12
*** IlyaE has joined #openstack-meeting23:14
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting23:14
*** mattgriffin has joined #openstack-meeting23:15
*** flaper87 is now known as flaper87|afk23:15
*** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting23:15
*** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting23:16
*** brucer has joined #openstack-meeting23:17
*** dstanek_zzz is now known as dstanek23:19
*** toshi has joined #openstack-meeting23:19
*** coreywright_ is now known as coreywright23:20
*** zehicle_at_dell has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting23:22
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting23:30
*** IlyaE has quit IRC23:31
*** toshi has quit IRC23:32
*** MarkAtwood has quit IRC23:33
*** kenhui has quit IRC23:35
*** kenhui has joined #openstack-meeting23:35
*** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting23:35
*** markwash has joined #openstack-meeting23:36
*** sushils has quit IRC23:36
*** eguz has quit IRC23:37
*** rakhmerov has joined #openstack-meeting23:37
*** ityaptin has quit IRC23:37
*** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting23:37
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC23:38
*** Penick has quit IRC23:38
*** rl has quit IRC23:38
*** ityaptin has joined #openstack-meeting23:38
*** kayaliu_ has quit IRC23:38
*** varora- has joined #openstack-meeting23:38
*** eghobo has quit IRC23:39
*** rakhmerov has quit IRC23:42
*** yamahata has quit IRC23:43
*** rl has joined #openstack-meeting23:43
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting23:46
*** meera has quit IRC23:48
*** kenhui has quit IRC23:49
*** nati_ueno has quit IRC23:50
*** chuckC has quit IRC23:50
*** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting23:51
*** keyvan is now known as zz_keyvan23:51

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