| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 01:13 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 01:44 | |
| *** itisha has quit IRC | 01:53 | |
| *** akanksha_ has quit IRC | 02:28 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 03:32 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 03:44 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 03:48 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 03:53 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 04:02 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 04:06 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 04:22 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 04:29 | |
| *** TravT_away has quit IRC | 05:02 | |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-searchlight | 05:53 | |
| *** TravT is now known as TravT_away | 05:53 | |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 06:02 | |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 06:31 | |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 06:32 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 08:28 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/searchlight: Make use of config options for indexer plugins https://review.openstack.org/223318 | 08:41 |
|---|---|---|
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 08:51 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 09:00 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 09:07 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 09:23 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 09:30 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 09:54 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:01 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:19 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 10:29 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:32 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 10:42 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:49 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 10:53 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:56 | |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 11:06 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 11:07 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 11:08 | |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 11:16 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 11:18 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-searchlight | 11:25 | |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 11:35 | |
| *** itisha has joined #openstack-searchlight | 12:10 | |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 12:32 | |
| *** sigmavirus24_awa is now known as sigmavirus24 | 14:09 | |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 14:14 | |
| *** david-ly_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 14:56 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** david-ly_ is now known as david-lyle | 14:57 | |
| *** david-ly_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 15:03 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| *** david-ly_ is now known as david-lyle | 15:04 | |
| *** nikhil has quit IRC | 15:27 | |
| *** nikhil has joined #openstack-searchlight | 15:36 | |
| *** david-ly_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 15:48 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 15:48 | |
| *** david-ly_ is now known as david-lyle | 15:49 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 17:31 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-searchlight | 17:32 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-searchlight | 18:02 | |
| *** nikhil has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| *** akanksha_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 18:47 | |
| TravT_away | sjmc7: david-lyle: rosmaita: sigmavirus24: Can we have a quick chat on the version number for the searchlight release? | 19:09 |
| david-lyle | o/ | 19:09 |
| *** TravT_away is now known as TravT | 19:09 | |
| TravT | I exchanged an email with ttx this weekend on the release process. | 19:10 |
| TravT | i have a response drafted which I will include on the mailing list | 19:10 |
| TravT | but for the version number (ignoring RC / not RC / milestone, etc) | 19:11 |
| TravT | we do need to decide if we'd be pushing 0.x.0 or 1.0.0 | 19:11 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: I had asked about this when the new number scheme was announced | 19:11 |
| david-lyle | is 1.0.0 another service? | 19:11 |
| TravT | david-lyle: ? | 19:11 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: so if we say 0.x.0 we're saying "we can radically break things in the future" | 19:11 |
| sigmavirus24 | There's no commitment to stability and people might shy away from that | 19:12 |
| david-lyle | turns out for this release all services have a different release version | 19:12 |
| sigmavirus24 | david-lyle: yes | 19:12 |
| david-lyle | Horizon happens to be 8.0.0 | 19:12 |
| sigmavirus24 | david-lyle: this was announced earlier in the cycle | 19:12 |
| david-lyle | Nova might be 1.0.0 | 19:12 |
| sigmavirus24 | Glance is 9.0.0 iirc | 19:12 |
| TravT | i saw ironic is 4.something | 19:12 |
| sigmavirus24 | david-lyle: no nova is 11.0.0 or 12.0.0 | 19:12 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: is ironic udner the integrated release stuff? | 19:13 |
| david-lyle | just e.g. | 19:13 |
| david-lyle | so wondering about overlap, if it matters or are we 24.0.0 | 19:13 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: yeah the psychology of it all is what i'm most conflicted over | 19:13 |
| david-lyle | which makes us sound very mature | 19:13 |
| sigmavirus24 | david-lyle: no the number reflects the number of cycles we've been part of openstack | 19:13 |
| sigmavirus24 | nova -> 11 or 12 | 19:13 |
| sigmavirus24 | glance -> 9 | 19:13 |
| sigmavirus24 | searchlight -> 0 | 19:13 |
| TravT | 0.x.0 implies not ready for anything. | 19:13 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: right | 19:13 |
| david-lyle | sigmavirus24: ok, that was the part I was missing | 19:13 |
| TravT | but we are a new project so, we don't want to set too high of expectations either. | 19:14 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: is that how you all feel about searchlight? | 19:14 |
| TravT | no, i don't feel that way | 19:14 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: I dont' think it's just expectation setting about the maturity of the project | 19:14 |
| david-lyle | so 0.1.0 or 1.0.0? | 19:14 |
| sigmavirus24 | do we think we're going to break any APIs or need to before 2.0.0? | 19:14 |
| TravT | but we haven't had any battle testing yet... | 19:15 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: I think that might be easily conveyed when talking about/announcing 1.0.0 | 19:15 |
| sigmavirus24 | I'm okay with either one | 19:15 |
| TravT | ttx pointed me to this: | 19:15 |
| TravT | http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html | 19:15 |
| TravT | which i mostly am asking him about.. | 19:15 |
| TravT | because we went with Common cycle with intermediary releases | 19:16 |
| TravT | but the text for that one's intent doesn't quite line up with our intent, i think | 19:16 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: i think we would try really hard to NOT make backwards incompatible point releases between now and mitaka | 19:16 |
| david-lyle | why intermediary vs milestones? | 19:17 |
| TravT | i don't know of any that we currently have | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: so if we stick with that for now | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | 0.2.0 can come out before mitaka | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | and then 0.3.0 could be mitaka | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | that gives us time to iterate and then really get it out the door for battle testing | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | as things are found, we can then iterate quickly and get releases into people's hands | 19:17 |
| sigmavirus24 | make sense? | 19:17 |
| TravT | david-lyle: it seemed a little more agile. for example, we could release a .release when nova flavors are added or cinder volumes | 19:17 |
| david-lyle | makes sense | 19:18 |
| sigmavirus24 | I think it can fit us well if we're very conscientious about it | 19:18 |
| sigmavirus24 | If we release 0.1.0 and talk up searchlight people will dig into it | 19:18 |
| david-lyle | I lean towards 0.1.0 | 19:19 |
| sigmavirus24 | As it's a young project people will probably report bugs and if we identify any that we want to help people fix asap we can then create 0.2.0 | 19:19 |
| david-lyle | I'd really like to see it run outside a test enviroment | 19:19 |
| sigmavirus24 | All of this in mind I'm leaning towards 0.1.0 too | 19:19 |
| TravT | yeah and then if things look pretty solid in mitaka , it become 1.0. | 19:19 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: exactly | 19:19 |
| david-lyle | yup | 19:19 |
| TravT | 0.x implies more of a beta release | 19:19 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: sort of yeah | 19:20 |
| TravT | which is probably more correct at this stage without the battle testing... | 19:20 |
| david-lyle | I think that's fair | 19:20 |
| * sigmavirus24 nods | 19:20 | |
| david-lyle | it's worse to oversell expectations than undersell | 19:20 |
| TravT | ok, 0.1.0 leave me feeling pretty comfortable with it, and as you said sigmavirus24, we still can promote it. | 19:21 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: yep | 19:22 |
| sigmavirus24 | I also like the idea of working with any potential deployers to identify show stopping bugs and shipping 0.2.0/0.3.0/whatever to help them get Searchlight into production faster | 19:22 |
| TravT | gives us a bit more time to feel good about the solidity of the API as well. | 19:22 |
| TravT | and we really do need some rounds of deploying it to figure out what is there. | 19:22 |
| sigmavirus24 | It indicates a pretty good symbiotic relationship if we can do that for them | 19:22 |
| sigmavirus24 | We may want to write some posts for the openstack blog or whatever about this choice and such | 19:23 |
| TravT | yeah, being able to release revs quickly will be important | 19:23 |
| sigmavirus24 | it'll help people have some confidence in us | 19:23 |
| TravT | definitely... | 19:23 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: maybe we can tag team on a blog post. | 19:25 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: why not? | 19:26 |
| sigmavirus24 | Let me ask some people, if we co-author it appropriately we might even be able to get it onto the Rackspace/HP blogs? | 19:26 |
| TravT | yeah, that'd be cool | 19:26 |
| sigmavirus24 | (i.e., more coverage) | 19:27 |
| TravT | i am not well connected to the blogosphere, but i'll ask around in HP. | 19:27 |
| sjmc7 | ooo | 19:27 |
| sjmc7 | as a coincidence, i just got told to be prepared to write blog posts | 19:28 |
| TravT | oo | 19:28 |
| TravT | excellent | 19:28 |
| sjmc7 | i was going to write about different sand grades or something, but this would be better | 19:28 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: sjmc7: anybody interested: how about we co draft a joint blog on an etherpad to start with and then figure out how we can get it to openstack, rackspace, hp | 19:31 |
| david-lyle | openstack just needs a blog registered with openstack-planet | 19:34 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: david-lyle: sjmc7: rosmaita: FYI, i just sent a response back to ttx which includes the searchlight mailing list. | 19:52 |
| sjmc7 | sweet! | 19:52 |
| TravT | not intended to jump the gun, but just to help get release management blessing on our intentions | 19:53 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: cool | 19:53 |
| ekarlso | sososososo | 20:03 |
| ekarlso | what's up ? :D | 20:03 |
| TravT | howdy ekarlso! | 20:05 |
| TravT | config options patch landed. :) | 20:05 |
| ekarlso | at last :p | 20:06 |
| ekarlso | what did you end up with for a pattern? | 20:06 |
| TravT | i've spent most the morning reading mailing lists, blogs, and dev docs on release numbering in openstack so we can run a release. | 20:06 |
| ekarlso | :p | 20:07 |
| TravT | sigmavirus24: david-lyle: rosmaita: sjmc7: ekarlso: follow up on the earlier conversation. | 21:17 |
| TravT | if we go with 0.1 | 21:18 |
| TravT | then should we change the versions output to 0.1? | 21:18 |
| TravT | { | 21:18 |
| TravT | "versions": [ | 21:18 |
| TravT | { | 21:18 |
| TravT | "status": "CURRENT", | 21:18 |
| TravT | "id": "v1.0", | 21:18 |
| TravT | "links": [ | 21:18 |
| TravT | { | 21:18 |
| TravT | "href": "http://127.0.0.1:9393/v1/", | 21:18 |
| TravT | "rel": "self" | 21:18 |
| TravT | } | 21:18 |
| TravT | ] | 21:18 |
| TravT | } | 21:18 |
| TravT | ] | 21:18 |
| TravT | } | 21:18 |
| ekarlso | uhm, I dont think the API versioning follows the versioning of the project no | 21:18 |
| ekarlso | so def a nono :p | 21:19 |
| TravT | nova's microversioning seemed to do something along those lines. | 21:20 |
| TravT | GET / | 21:20 |
| TravT | { | 21:20 |
| TravT | "versions": [ | 21:20 |
| TravT | { | 21:20 |
| TravT | "id": "v2.1", | 21:20 |
| TravT | "links": [ | 21:20 |
| TravT | { | 21:20 |
| TravT | "href": "http://localhost:8774/v2/", | 21:20 |
| TravT | "rel": "self" | 21:20 |
| TravT | } | 21:20 |
| TravT | ], | 21:20 |
| TravT | "status": "CURRENT", | 21:20 |
| TravT | "version": "5.2" | 21:21 |
| TravT | "min_version": "2.1" | 21:21 |
| TravT | }, | 21:21 |
| TravT | ] | 21:21 |
| TravT | } | 21:21 |
| TravT | i'm fine with saying all the 0.x stuff is leading up to 1.0 | 21:21 |
| sigmavirus24 | TravT: I'm kind of in agreement with ekarlso here | 21:25 |
| sigmavirus24 | I'm not sure what you want to do with the endpoints but if you think we're going to make backwards incompatible changes to teh endpoints maybe it's better to stick to 0.1 | 21:25 |
| sjmc7 | it's an api version | 21:34 |
| sjmc7 | it doesn't have to match anything | 21:35 |
| ekarlso | +1 sjmc7 | 21:51 |
| *** nikhil has joined #openstack-searchlight | 21:56 | |
| *** sigmavirus24 is now known as sigmavirus24_awa | 22:06 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-searchlight | 22:17 | |
| *** david-ly_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 23:04 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** akanksha_ has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!