| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:10 | |
| *** spsurya has joined #openstack-tc | 01:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 01:35 | |
| *** mrjazzercise has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 01:44 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:35 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 03:12 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 03:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 03:39 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 04:01 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 04:31 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 04:35 | |
| *** ianw has quit IRC | 05:06 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 05:07 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 05:13 | |
| *** TheJulia has quit IRC | 05:15 | |
| *** hogepodge has quit IRC | 05:15 | |
| *** TheJulia has joined #openstack-tc | 05:15 | |
| *** hogepodge has joined #openstack-tc | 05:16 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 05:46 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 05:51 | |
| *** ianw has joined #openstack-tc | 05:55 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 06:19 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 06:25 | |
| *** dmsimard has quit IRC | 06:39 | |
| *** dmsimard has joined #openstack-tc | 06:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 07:21 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 07:26 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 07:28 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 07:34 | |
| *** bauzas is now known as bauwser | 07:37 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 07:43 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 07:48 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 07:51 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 08:01 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 08:05 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 08:32 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 08:37 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 08:45 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 08:45 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 09:07 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 09:12 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:33 | |
| *** spsurya has quit IRC | 10:56 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 11:19 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 11:21 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 11:25 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 11:53 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 11:55 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 12:00 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|brb | 12:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 12:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 12:45 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 12:52 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 12:52 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 12:53 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:06 | |
| *** dtantsur|brb is now known as dtantsur | 13:09 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 13:09 | |
| * ttx is back home from Copenhagen | 13:32 | |
| ttx | dhellmann: re the bylaws change -- last time I talked to Mark radcliffe about it, he said that was the right way of saying it in legalese | 13:33 |
|---|---|---|
| ttx | I had to cede since legalese not english are my native languages | 13:34 |
| ttx | nor* | 13:34 |
| dims | productive trip ttx ? (copenhagen) | 13:37 |
| ttx | yes! | 13:37 |
| dims | whew! | 13:37 |
| ttx | CNCF just reached Paris summit stage | 13:37 |
| mugsie | ttx: was there a HPE party? :P | 13:38 |
| ttx | (they had 4300 attendees, we had 4600) | 13:38 |
| ttx | mugsie: there was a party in an amusement park yes | 13:38 |
| dims | Tivoli? | 13:38 |
| ttx | yep | 13:38 |
| ttx | although the park was not really privatized (it' | 13:39 |
| ttx | s huge) | 13:39 |
| mugsie | ttx: how did the release / growing pains / community etc chat go? | 13:42 |
| smcginnis | mugsie: I thought they went well. | 13:48 |
| smcginnis | Hard getting a large turnout, just like us trying to do something extra at the Summit, but there was pretty good attendance. | 13:50 |
| mugsie | cool. yeah, it is not a topic that a huge amount of people would go out of their way to engage with | 13:50 |
| ttx | We discussed the trust scaling thing -- in particular the neat trick they have with horizontal SIGs and vertical local OWNER files... Apparently K8s wants to break that by letting SIGs own repos | 13:53 |
| ttx | Which may introduce the silo / lack of cross-coordination issues that we are encoutering | 13:54 |
| ttx | We touched on various other topics, but we just did not have enough time | 13:55 |
| zaneb | ttx: I don't speak legalese, but it clearly makes no sense in English fwiw | 13:57 |
| smcginnis | One difference with the SIG ownership is they have the OWNERS files that give them some finer grained control over areas of code. | 13:58 |
| smcginnis | At least until they break apart the mono-repo. | 13:58 |
| mugsie | they have started down that path, havent they? | 14:00 |
| smcginnis | Started, but still a lot of unknowns. | 14:01 |
| smcginnis | They know they need to do it, but not clear yet what the best way is to break it apart. | 14:01 |
| smcginnis | They are moving out things like drivers and cloud providers, but there's still a lot of code left after that. | 14:01 |
| ttx | dhellmann: are you planning to post a TC status update, or should I ? | 14:15 |
| ttx | Not much merged last week... | 14:15 |
| *** melwitt is now known as jgwentworth | 14:15 | |
| ttx | Also https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564075/ passed the required time for approval. I can W+1 it if you want | 14:16 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564830/ is pretty close too | 14:18 |
| jroll | lbragstad and I are having trouble tracking down approval process for the openstack-specs repo, does anyone remember or have a pointer to docs on that? | 14:23 |
| *** hrybacki has joined #openstack-tc | 14:27 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: if you have one last one ready to go that would be good; otherwise I can do it later today | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I need to get those scripts you have for identifying things that are ready to be approved so I don't have to do all of that date math by hand | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | jroll : there used to be a group led by thingee that managed that, but it's mostly defunct now. we might need to revive it if you think there's something that needs to go through a global specs process. | 14:34 |
| ttx | I have nothing ready to go :) | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok, I'll pull something together then | 14:35 |
| ttx | You could also totally decide that Friday is not the day you'll post that :) | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | that's true, maybe that should be a monday thing :-) | 14:36 |
| jroll | dhellmann: lbragstad had this spec, would be good to have buy-in, I'm not sure how formal we want it to be: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523973/18 | 14:37 |
| lbragstad | we contemplated the idea of making it a community goal, but it's a lot of work and not likely something a single project would get done in a release | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | hmm | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | I hate to derail you while we figure out what some sort of approval process might look like | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | the other option we have it tags | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | s/it/is/ | 14:40 |
| dhellmann | I'm coming to this cold (I saw that you were working on it, but haven't read it). Can you describe why you think it's a "global" spec instead of a keystone spec? | 14:40 |
| lbragstad | sure | 14:40 |
| * jroll has to run for a bit but will read back | 14:41 | |
| lbragstad | thanks for the assist jroll :) | 14:41 |
| jroll | no prob :) | 14:41 |
| lbragstad | we've had a bunch of efforts recently to move project policies into code and provide documentation | 14:41 |
| lbragstad | which let's projects leverage all the work we've been doing on oslo.policy | 14:42 |
| lbragstad | like being able to deprecate policies in favor of other ones, rename policy rules, and so one without breaking users or deployers | 14:42 |
| lbragstad | (pretty much the same process that we use for configuration values) | 14:42 |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 14:43 | |
| lbragstad | now that nearly all of the infrastructure is in place, we have the tools to introduce a set of default roles available out-of-the-box | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | that all sounds good | 14:43 |
| lbragstad | that should all behave consistently across services | 14:44 |
| lbragstad | which should hopefully lead to easier use for operators because they don't have to reinvent wheels just to get a read-only role =/ | 14:44 |
| lbragstad | and, ideally, inter-op would benefit, too | 14:44 |
| lbragstad | it also might make it easier for deployments with strict security requirements to adopt openstack because it offers things like this by default, and so on | 14:45 |
| dhellmann | all of that sounds good and like something we should be done. can the keystone team drive the changes needed? | 14:46 |
| lbragstad | so - the big drive in Dublin was to try and come up with a set of roles that we should offer by default | 14:46 |
| lbragstad | well - we've introduce a bunch of the tooling to oslo.policy and done most of the bits in keystone | 14:47 |
| lbragstad | (e.g. system scope and system role assignments) | 14:47 |
| lbragstad | now we're at the point where we need to start helping other projects consume it | 14:47 |
| lbragstad | (i have a few patches up to nova to get things started) | 14:47 |
| lbragstad | but - with that, i assume we'll need consensus on the overall approach and buy-in. | 14:48 |
| lbragstad | which is where the spec comes in | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | who do you imagine would be in the group who would approve that? | 14:48 |
| lbragstad | any project looking to offer those roles by default? | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'm trying to figure out a way to do this that doesn't rely on us setting up a group that will have trouble meeting and agreeing (as the global specs thing did in the past) | 14:49 |
| lbragstad | feel free to poke holes here | 14:49 |
| dhellmann | so I wonder if the keystone team just continues to own it, but goes to each of the other major teams looking for input, how well might that work? | 14:49 |
| lbragstad | that might work | 14:49 |
| lbragstad | the other approach that i thought was interesting was project tags | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | this would have been ideal as a forum topic | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | ttx, do we have space to add ^^ to the forum? | 14:50 |
| lbragstad | :) | 14:50 |
| lbragstad | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-keystone-forum-sessions | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | ah, good | 14:50 |
| lbragstad | http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/131 but it doesn't appear to be working | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | so then we need to make sure as many teams as possible end up represented in that room | 14:51 |
| lbragstad | ++ | 14:51 |
| lbragstad | i was also wondering if it would make sense to have a tag called asserts:basic-rbac | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | so I think a keystone-spec, with lots of solicited input, followed by implementation in at least one project and then a community goal is the way to push this through | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | a tag is a good intermediate step, sure | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | between getting 1 project done and having the goal | 14:52 |
| lbragstad | sure | 14:52 |
| lbragstad | i suppose if we end up making it a goal, then that defeats the purpose of the tag | 14:52 |
| hrybacki | lbragstad: can we submit a spec past freeze in this instance? | 14:52 |
| hrybacki | dhellmann: an initial goal is to do the work in Keystone and Barbican and use them as examples | 14:53 |
| lbragstad | hrybacki: i wouldn't have a problem with it because it's technically not a "new" specification in terms of the keystone team or buy-in from the keystone team | 14:53 |
| * hrybacki nods | 14:53 | |
| dhellmann | lbragstad : right, we would use the tag at first and then drop it when we have the goal done | 14:53 |
| lbragstad | but i'm inclined to open it up on the mailing like to make sure people are OK with it, and we can formally document the exception | 14:53 |
| zaneb | lbragstad: would getting it prototyped in some projects for Rocky and then community goal for Stein be achievable do you think | 14:53 |
| zaneb | ? | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | although going to the trouble of setting up the tag might be a waste if we're only going to drop it later | 14:54 |
| lbragstad | dhellmann: ++ the more you say that the more i agree | 14:54 |
| lbragstad | zaneb: i think a community goal is going to be an insane amount of work and it's going to require a lot of coordination | 14:54 |
| lbragstad | but... i wouldn't be opposed to trying it | 14:54 |
| lbragstad | i just fear that it would stretch multiple releases | 14:55 |
| zaneb | worse than mox? ;) | 14:55 |
| lbragstad | brb | 14:55 |
| hrybacki | lbragstad: so with regard to testing -- would we want to bring Felipe's spec back into keystone as well? | 14:55 |
| dhellmann | I think we want to hold back a bit on planning big goals for stein other than finishing the python 3 work. that deadline is looming large. | 14:55 |
| zaneb | true | 14:55 |
| zaneb | so maybe we publicise that this is likely to be a goal for T and try to get people working on it sooner if they can? | 14:56 |
| hrybacki | zaneb: I think that is a sane approach. It will give us time to work out proper testing w/ Patrole as well | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | yeah, we would want to settle on the roles and have a PoC before making it a goal, so that seems good | 14:57 |
| lbragstad | i'm basing most of my estimates on the work we did for the policy and docs in code goal | 15:04 |
| lbragstad | and i have a feeling changing default policies to be more sensible is going to be less trivia | 15:04 |
| lbragstad | 1.) because it involves changing things 2.) requires additional testing | 15:04 |
| lbragstad | where as the policy in code goal was really just porting things from a file to code | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | lbragstad : yeah, that seems like a reasonable assumption | 15:05 |
| ttx | dhellmann: we have a full room available all day on Tue/Wed/Thu for additional topics / continuation discussions | 15:08 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I think lbragstad pointed to a session already on the schedule, so we're set | 15:08 |
| ttx | so yes we can add, the trick being to find a time where people can | 15:08 |
| ttx | ok | 15:08 |
| mnaser | i think what lbragstad is bringing up is quite useful, just to throw in my operator hat, rbac right now is a bit of pain and has really weird issues | 15:23 |
| mnaser | especially when it affects things like this - https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/968696 - which renders the whole idea of domain/projects/sub-projects pretty much un-usable | 15:24 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 968696 in OpenStack Identity (keystone) ""admin"-ness not properly scoped" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Adam Young (ayoung) | 15:24 |
| mnaser | (fun bug to go through that's there since 2012 if anyone wants to have a look) | 15:24 |
| lbragstad | mnaser: :) | 15:29 |
| lbragstad | "fun" | 15:29 |
| lbragstad | yeah - i'm hoping the adoption of scope_types fixes that | 15:29 |
| mnaser | but the only way it can be really fixed is with by all projects adopting it, if a single project doesn't adopt it, then it makes this whole thing a bit useless unfortunately. | 15:30 |
| lbragstad | right | 15:30 |
| lbragstad | it's a massive amount of work | 15:30 |
| lbragstad | which is where the tooling helps | 15:31 |
| mnaser | how do we not break existing deployments is the hard thing as well | 15:32 |
| mnaser | i don't know how far you've gotten about nailing that down | 15:32 |
| lbragstad | ^ that's the one reason why i'm grateful we have policy in config | 15:32 |
| lbragstad | despite defining policy rules in json being a total pain and not very ergonomic | 15:32 |
| lbragstad | it gives operators a way to say | 15:33 |
| lbragstad | "nope, i don't want the new thing, i want my custom policy that i've developed over the last X years" | 15:33 |
| lbragstad | or whatever | 15:33 |
| lbragstad | so - they keep all of that in their policy files and they never turn on https://docs.openstack.org/oslo.policy/latest/configuration/index.html#oslo_policy.enforce_scope | 15:34 |
| mnaser | i guess the blocker is no one has put up the time to push these fixes down to projects? | 15:34 |
| lbragstad | kinda - ayoung did a bunch of work on this, but it's such a massive change that it's kind of a bear to do by yourself | 15:35 |
| lbragstad | so i'm hoping a PoC and clear documentation helps us make it easier for people to grasp | 15:36 |
| lbragstad | and enable them to work on it | 15:36 |
| lbragstad | we've also got a bunch of things available to make processing this stuff for consuming project easier (the hand off of token scope between keystonemiddleware and oslo.context) | 15:43 |
| *** dansmith is now known as superdan | 15:45 | |
| *** EmilienM is now known as EvilienM | 16:09 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:31 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 16:32 | |
| fungi | as someone popped up in the infra channel a little while ago asking, i ran some numbers to get an updated core reviewer count | 17:00 |
| fungi | at present count we have 760 distinct people with permission to approve changes to one or more of the 801 deliverable repositories for official openstack project teams | 17:00 |
| fungi | i don't have numbers on how many have actually exercised it over some recent period, that's just determined by analyzing permission via acls | 17:01 |
| dhellmann | fungi : do you have a script somewhere to pull those numbers? | 17:10 |
| dhellmann | I was considering adding info to my stats tool to indicate whether a person was a core reviewer on any project | 17:10 |
| fungi | dhellmann: it's https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/system-config/tree/tools/who-approves.py but needs https://review.openstack.org/566365 to work at the moment | 17:10 |
| dhellmann | although my current analysis doesn't really need to take that into account | 17:10 |
| dhellmann | thanks! | 17:11 |
| fungi | note that the term "core reviewer" is sort of a nebulous, social term we've been using which doesn't directly map to gerrit's configuration. the closet approximation i can analyze is accounts included (directly or transitively) in groups with the ability to approve changes on some branch of a deliverable repo for an official team | 17:12 |
| fungi | er, s/closet/closest/ | 17:13 |
| dhellmann | yeah, that's what I would have done, too | 17:13 |
| dhellmann | I'm trying to figure out how to count +1 votes in a useful way | 17:13 |
| dhellmann | I thought if the person giving +1 had +2 rights on *any* repo, then they have shown that they understand that spamming +1s doesn't gain trust | 17:14 |
| fungi | with that script and maybe some minor tweaks you could indeed map a specific vote to whether or not the reviewer has approval rights on the repo associated with it | 17:14 |
| dhellmann | I also thought if the person had previously given a -1 and followed up with a +1 that would indicate they had actually reviewed the change | 17:14 |
| fungi | yeah, that's a useful heuristic | 17:14 |
| dhellmann | although I haven't figured out if I can get the historical -1s out of the gerrit data, yet | 17:15 |
| fungi | perhaps only if the -1 and +1 don't appear on the same patchset | 17:15 |
| dhellmann | I need to experiement with that more | 17:15 |
| dhellmann | oh, yeah, that's a good check | 17:15 |
| fungi | and you can get historical patchset data out of the changes methods in the api, you just need to pass some extended options i think | 17:16 |
| fungi | also, that will probably slow down your queries by orders of magnitude | 17:16 |
| dhellmann | right now the tool works by running a query and storing copies of the results locally, then to process the results it loads everything from the local cache | 17:19 |
| dhellmann | the idea was that we might have a list of arbitrary review IDs, not linked by common topics or matching a query that was easy to express | 17:20 |
| dhellmann | so there are 2 steps in the process "download a bunch of data" and "process the data" | 17:20 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:00 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 19:00 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:01 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:12 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:33 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:34 | |
| mnaser | forgive me, still a little new for all of this. my travel plans shifted and i'm able to attend the leadership meeting, however, there's no listed location. has that not been decided yet or is it somewhere that I can't find -- https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/20May2018BoardMeeting ? | 19:38 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:38 | |
| clarkb | mnaser: it is typically in or near the conference venue | 19:38 |
| mnaser | clarkb: i see, will an email be sent out sometime to announce more details or is that listed somewhere that i can't find? | 19:39 |
| clarkb | mnaser: ya usually Alan Clark sends email iirc. I'll ask around about it | 19:39 |
| mnaser | clarkb: thank you | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : yeah, we have a location, let me find that info and share it with everyone | 19:42 |
| dhellmann | oh, wait, maybe that was something else | 19:42 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:42 | |
| clarkb | I've pinged foundation side too and asked if we can update the wiki if it is known | 19:42 |
| dhellmann | yeah, sorry, I was thinking of the diversity happy hour | 19:43 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:45 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:48 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:48 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:10 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 20:17 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 20:17 | |
| mugsie | Is there info on the BoD/TC/UC dinner yet? | 20:18 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:18 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 20:18 | |
| dims | mugsie : haven't seen anything yet | 20:43 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : ttx thought it was going to be saturday evening due to a conflict with a diversity event on sunday, but I don't think we have times or locations yet | 20:43 |
| dhellmann | I'm holding off on rebooking my flight until I have confirmation | 20:44 |
| EvilienM | I think ttx was expected me to help on the location | 20:44 |
| dhellmann | as it is I expect to land at 6:00 Saturday | 20:44 |
| EvilienM | and I was about to ask what kind of place we aim for | 20:44 |
| EvilienM | because I'm a bit of a foody here and I can really give different options | 20:44 |
| dhellmann | I would have thought the foundation would be organizing that | 20:45 |
| dhellmann | EvilienM : do you mean what sort of food? | 20:45 |
| EvilienM | yes | 20:45 |
| * dhellmann would prefer a place where seafood was not the only option | 20:46 | |
| EvilienM | if we're looking for a fancy place, I know http://www.wedgewoodhotel.com/bacchus-restaurant/ where the food (french) is amazing | 20:46 |
| EvilienM | and no loud music, really nice to speak | 20:46 |
| dhellmann | is that going to be good for a group of 50+? | 20:46 |
| dhellmann | 24 board members; 13 tc; ? UC; ? foundation staff | 20:47 |
| dhellmann | of course this late we don't know how many of those will be coming, do we | 20:47 |
| EvilienM | on my list there is also http://fivesails.ca/restaurant.html which is one of the best restaurants in town IMHO | 20:47 |
| EvilienM | for 50+ ?? wow. bacchus not sure then | 20:47 |
| *** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc | 20:49 | |
| dhellmann | you should get a head-count from ttx | 20:49 |
| dhellmann | I just know these have been big in the past | 20:49 |
| dhellmann | EvilienM : what's good for breakfast? | 20:49 |
| EvilienM | dhellmann: ahah I have what you need | 20:50 |
| EvilienM | http://jamcafes.com/vancouver/ | 20:51 |
| EvilienM | or http://www.medinacafe.com/ | 20:51 |
| EvilienM | both are my favorites | 20:51 |
| jroll | you can't post these links when I'm hungry already :| | 20:52 |
| EvilienM | http://www.bellaggiocafe.com/ is also really good, we loved it | 20:52 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| EvilienM | jroll: really I love the city for its food diversity | 20:52 |
| jroll | ++ | 20:53 |
| * dhellmann thinks he should have planned to stay further into the city so these places were on the way to the convention center | 20:53 | |
| EvilienM | dhellmann: you're fan of scotch iirc? | 20:55 |
| dhellmann | some, yes | 20:55 |
| EvilienM | there is a scotch place, let me find it, I went there one time it was really cool | 20:55 |
| dhellmann | it looks like the bar where we had the tc dinner last time is closed now; that's too bad | 20:57 |
| dhellmann | they were really cozy | 20:57 |
| EvilienM | https://www.rosewoodhotels.com/en/hotel-georgia-vancouver/dining/prohibition | 20:57 |
| EvilienM | this one, I really like the place too | 20:57 |
| EvilienM | they have all sorts of scotch afik | 20:57 |
| dhellmann | I'll just plan to follow you around all week :-) | 20:58 |
| EvilienM | we'll finish at my place opening bottle of french wine that I brought from home ;-) | 21:02 |
| dhellmann | sounds perfect | 21:02 |
| dhellmann | /me has to go figure out dinner for tonight now | 21:03 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_yard | 21:13 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has quit IRC | 22:26 | |
| * mugsie is landing at 17:30 on Sat - this should be fun :) | 22:39 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 22:41 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 23:02 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 23:03 | |
| *** mfedosin has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:58 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!