| *** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc | 00:04 | |
| *** ian_ott has quit IRC | 00:49 | |
| *** spotz has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 01:16 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 01:20 | |
| *** spotz has joined #openstack-tc | 01:20 | |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: re: writing it down, +++++ | 01:31 |
|---|---|---|
| TheJulia | I don't remember a verdict, but I believe I have scrambled brains | 01:33 |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 02:17 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 03:03 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 03:08 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 04:52 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 04:57 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 05:34 | |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 05:51 | |
| *** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-tc | 05:53 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus | 05:53 | |
| *** fanzhang has quit IRC | 06:04 | |
| *** fanzhang has joined #openstack-tc | 06:35 | |
| *** fanzhang has left #openstack-tc | 06:36 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 06:40 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 06:46 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:58 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 08:07 | |
| *** dansmith has quit IRC | 08:20 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-tc | 08:21 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest88823 | 08:21 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 08:29 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 08:34 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 09:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 09:41 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:42 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:49 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 10:17 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 10:22 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|brb | 11:32 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 12:06 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 12:11 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 12:13 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 12:18 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 12:21 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 12:29 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 12:34 | |
| *** dtantsur|brb is now known as dtantsur | 12:55 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 13:01 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 13:27 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:37 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 13:46 | |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 13:50 | |
| mnaser | quiet morning, hi everyone | 13:53 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 13:58 | |
| *** Guest88823 is now known as dansmith | 14:01 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 14:02 | |
| smcginnis | mnaser: o/ | 14:03 |
| * mnaser has been behind on health tracekr | 14:04 | |
| mnaser | smcginnis: does your bot still work? :p | 14:04 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 14:05 | |
| smcginnis | mnaser: Darn, looks like he died again. Need to look into why that happens. One moment. | 14:05 |
| *** guvnah has joined #openstack-tc | 14:06 | |
| smcginnis | ?ptl Puppet OpenStack | 14:06 |
| *** guvnah has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| mnaser | lol | 14:06 |
| *** guvnah has joined #openstack-tc | 14:06 | |
| smcginnis | ?ptl Puppet | 14:07 |
| *** guvnah has quit IRC | 14:07 | |
| smcginnis | Dang it. :) | 14:07 |
| *** guvnah has joined #openstack-tc | 14:07 | |
| smcginnis | ?mission senlin | 14:07 |
| guvnah | Senlin's mission statement is: To implement clustering services and libraries for the management of groups of homogeneous objects exposed by other OpenStack services. | 14:07 |
| smcginnis | Need to work on my error handling there. :) | 14:08 |
| mnaser | so now we know how to kill it | 14:08 |
| mnaser | :p | 14:08 |
| smcginnis | Haha, yep. | 14:08 |
| smcginnis | I need to write a bot to restart my bot when it dies. | 14:09 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 14:09 | |
| scas | use systemd to restart it | 14:09 |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 14:10 | |
| fungi | anybody happen to know why we use the term "core developer" instead of "core reviewer" in the project-team-guide chapters on bugs and stable-branches? | 14:13 |
| fungi | http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/project-team-guide/tree/doc/source/bugs.rst#n153 | 14:13 |
| fungi | http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/project-team-guide/tree/doc/source/stable-branches.rst#n270 | 14:13 |
| smcginnis | Reviewer seems a more accurate choice to me. | 14:18 |
| fungi | we've insisted in the past that "core developers" aren't a thing, so just making sure it's sensible for me to push up a change to correct those references | 14:23 |
| fungi | if we want to avoid continued propagation of that terminology then we should do our best to eradicate it in official documents | 14:23 |
| cdent | fungi: yes | 14:24 |
| fungi | one very trivial patch coming up! ;) | 14:24 |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 14:26 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: There are no core developers, only core reviewers https://review.openstack.org/578819 | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | zaneb , TheJulia : I'm still waiting to hear if we will have a room. It looks likely that we could at least do something informal for the afternoon if we can't get a conference room. | 14:28 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 14:31 | |
| zaneb | dhellmann: ack, I think I will probably just go ahead and book then | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I'll be there, so at least the 2 of us could hang out :-) | 14:32 |
| TheJulia | Ack, worst comes to worst there are some nearby places | 14:32 |
| * zaneb might have to arrive on Sat night | 14:32 | |
| dhellmann | yeah, kendall waters is looking into it for us, but apparently there is another event in the hotel over the weekend so we're not sure there's a conference room available | 14:33 |
| cdent | i have hotel booked already from saturday night, but no flights yet | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : at this point it looks like it would only be for the afternoon, so if you can arrive in the morning that should work. | 14:33 |
| smcginnis | Hotel on Saturday but no flights for me yet as well. | 14:34 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: I have to check again, but it looks like flight times are not conducive to that | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | ah, well | 14:34 |
| zaneb | I could leave the house at like 4.30am and make it, but I wouldn't be very popular | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | there's a 4:30 in the morning now? | 14:36 |
| dhellmann | when did we add that? | 14:36 |
| TheJulia | similarly, looks like I would have to get to the airport at 4:30 am as well.. | 14:36 |
| TheJulia | its about two hours after when I went to bed.. I think. | 14:36 |
| * TheJulia would like to request the end of time zones | 14:37 | |
| scas | there's an am? i never received the memo. | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | well, plan whatever travel makes the most sense for you, but don't rush to arrive by sunday morning | 14:37 |
| *** pabelanger has quit IRC | 14:37 | |
| *** pabelanger has joined #openstack-tc | 14:38 | |
| zaneb | there definitely is a 4.30am because I often hear a baby complaining around that time | 14:38 |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 14:38 | |
| dhellmann | your baby and my cat would get along swimmingly | 14:39 |
| scas | so would my three cats | 14:39 |
| scas | they would be more inquisitive and afraid of a tiny human than anything | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | we have 2. one is a professional sleeper. the other does parkour around the bedroom every morning. | 14:39 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: So my kitten is NOT the only one... interesting | 14:40 |
| zaneb | lol | 14:40 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 14:40 | |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : when we first brought them home we had them in a large crate and every morning I would find Duncan hanging upside down from the top. | 14:40 |
| scas | one likes to burrow in bed. one likes to walk across the midsection roughly every few hours. one likes to lay on heads. | 14:41 |
| TheJulia | Awesome! | 14:41 |
| * TheJulia wonders if there should be a "cat" track where every presentation features "cats" | 14:41 | |
| smcginnis | When I had long hair, our cat liked to burrow in and make a nest. | 14:41 |
| scas | i believe my project slides have at least one cat picture | 14:42 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: for some reason I recently looked back at the cat-ful talk you and ttx gave. | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : one of our previous cats used to creep up behind me on the sofa and grab my pony tail | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | ha, I forgot all about that | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : we could organize an entire conference with that theme | 14:44 |
| scas | i missed the opportunity to have a giant projected odin head at vancouver. not sure when that'll come around again | 14:44 |
| TheJulia | Presenter pics should include their cat insanity ;) | 14:44 |
| fungi | we basically don't let our cats in the bedroom, so as a result they alternate between clawing at the bedroom door or howling in the hallway | 14:44 |
| zaneb | I also have a dog who likes to get under the bed in the middle of the night | 14:45 |
| zaneb | it's about an 8 inch gap | 14:45 |
| dhellmann | how big is the dog? :-) | 14:45 |
| fungi | limber dog! | 14:45 |
| zaneb | the dog is a labrador-cross | 14:45 |
| zaneb | so you can imagine how that goes | 14:45 |
| dhellmann | sounds like a tight squeeze | 14:45 |
| scas | fungi: one of mine just had surgery and stayed in the bedroom for 2 weeks. his brother had separation anxiety and tore the carpet up from the other side of the door in my rental | 14:45 |
| dhellmann | scas :-( | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | I hope they've both recovered | 14:46 |
| scas | oh yeah. they're fighting. surgery cat is actually a bit more brazen now | 14:46 |
| scas | back to being brothers | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | heh | 14:46 |
| fungi | scas: oh, yes i had one cat some years back remove the trim around the doorframe toothpick at a time, and then removed a section of the carpet and padding and attempted to tunnel through the plywood subfloor | 14:47 |
| fungi | they're persistent when they want to be | 14:47 |
| smcginnis | s/persistent/neurotic/ | 14:48 |
| scas | my house panther was nothing short of neurotic. when i was outside the room, he constantly laid on me. it was so cute it was disgusting | 14:49 |
| scas | delivering an upstream change took extra coordination | 14:49 |
| TheJulia | heh | 14:49 |
| zaneb | oh hey there are flights available at sane times now | 14:50 |
| TheJulia | What time are we targetting time wise for sunday? | 14:56 |
| fungi | i can actually get directs to denver, however leaving the island to get to the airport in the morning on a weekend during tourist season can take upwards of 3-4 hours | 14:57 |
| fungi | so would still probably need to leave the day before or crazy early before sunrise | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : what time works for folks? it seemed like most folks wanted to make it a 1/2 day, so after lunch? | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | we could do a group lunch of folks are there for it, too | 14:58 |
| smcginnis | Optional group lunch, then.. yea | 14:58 |
| cdent | lunch is a always nice | 14:58 |
| *** alex_xu has quit IRC | 14:58 | |
| smcginnis | Food good | 14:58 |
| cdent | smcginnis shot the food! | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | I hear some folks like the BBQ in Denver | 14:59 |
| ttx | ++ | 14:59 |
| ttx | The taco truck near the hotel was a pretty good deal | 14:59 |
| smcginnis | There were some OK ones across the street or not too far away as well. | 14:59 |
| dhellmann | I expect to be eating there a lot during the rest of the week, so it might be nice to do something different, too. | 14:59 |
| dhellmann | since there would, presumably, be more time to travel to and fro | 15:00 |
| fungi | tc-members: office hour is upon us | 15:00 |
| mnaser | o/ | 15:00 |
| fungi | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Jun 28 15:00:31 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is fungi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| fungi | #topic Office Hour | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Office Hour (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| mnaser | bonjour o/ | 15:00 |
| *** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc | 15:00 | |
| fungi | #chair mnaser dhellmann ttx smcginnis cdent TheJulia zaneb | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 15:01 |
| openstack | Current chairs: TheJulia cdent dhellmann fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx zaneb | 15:01 |
| pabelanger | o/ | 15:01 |
| TheJulia | o/ | 15:01 |
| fungi | #chair pabelanger | 15:01 |
| openstack | Current chairs: TheJulia cdent dhellmann fungi mnaser pabelanger smcginnis ttx zaneb | 15:01 |
| mugsie | o/ | 15:01 |
| fungi | #chair mugsie | 15:01 |
| openstack | Current chairs: TheJulia cdent dhellmann fungi mnaser mugsie pabelanger smcginnis ttx zaneb | 15:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | for those just joining, we were discussing the pre-PTG meeting plans | 15:01 |
| jroll | late on the food topic, but before things get busy, just wanna point out denver seems to have thousands of microbreweries :) | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | I am waiting to hear if we have a conference room, but have been reassured that we could likely use the lounge if we have to. | 15:01 |
| ttx | dhellmann: where do we stand on an "additional workshop around an established conference" ? | 15:02 |
| ttx | Was that abandoned ? | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | the general trend seemed to be for an afternoon-only meeting, so plan your travel accordingly | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | ttx: good question | 15:02 |
| ttx | CFP for Open Source Summit in Edimburgh closes Sunday iirc | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | I had thought maybe this pre-PTG thing would make that unnecessary, but that wasn't really clear. | 15:02 |
| ttx | Maybe we can postpone | 15:03 |
| smcginnis | My impression was that while a lot of us would like to have a workshop, there didn't sound like there was a good time or place for everyone to meet. | 15:03 |
| ttx | ok | 15:03 |
| dhellmann | Alan Clark did ask to join us on Sunday in Denver, and I thought it might be a good opportunity. Does anyone have any objections to including him? | 15:03 |
| smcginnis | Not saying I don't think we should try for it, but there were some challenges to work through yet if we do. | 15:03 |
| ttx | In September we'll have a better idea of teh early-2019 conference landscape and could pick one | 15:03 |
| fungi | i'd welcome his presence | 15:03 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: That would be great! | 15:03 |
| mnaser | likewise | 15:03 |
| fungi | or anyone from the community really | 15:03 |
| cdent | alan showing up would be great | 15:03 |
| mugsie | yeah, that seems like a good idea | 15:03 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : yeah, I think we might have a better chance scheduling something off-peak conference season | 15:04 |
| dhellmann | ok, I will relay the current vague plans | 15:04 |
| dtroyer | fwiw, I plan to be there… (Sunday PTG) | 15:04 |
| smcginnis | Q1 2019 might give us enough time and be a good time of year to try to do something. | 15:04 |
| cdent | we could consider doing some virtual video conferencing if people were up for it, but that night be a pain | 15:04 |
| smcginnis | Leaving MN in February to go to Cancun or Hawaii works for me. | 15:04 |
| dhellmann | which are, we'll meet some time after lunch, so as not to try to make anyone take really early flights to get there first thing | 15:04 |
| ttx | ok, noted. i might still go to Edinburgh :P | 15:04 |
| scas | there may be an opportunity for me to be attend the ptg on behalf of chef openstack. i suspect it'll be more for me to whip my deceased equine than talk about chef itself | 15:05 |
| * jroll <3 edinburgh | 15:05 | |
| cdent | ttx I'm still thinking about it as well, but I'm struggling with seeing the future well | 15:05 |
| scas | s/words/words/ | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | ttx : I will be there for EuroPython so opted not to make 2 trips to the same place so close together. | 15:05 |
| ttx | I'll apply for CFP -- usually mentioning OpenStack in the abstract is a good way to get rejected | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | le sigh | 15:05 |
| smcginnis | Hah, that does seem to be the case these days. | 15:05 |
| fungi | yeah, i avoid mentioning openstack in any cfp submission due to openstack fatigue | 15:06 |
| ttx | I also wanted to discuss diversity tracking, if nobody else has anything more urgent | 15:06 |
| fungi | i liked the "bus factor" recharacterization | 15:07 |
| ttx | It feels like we have several options on the table | 15:07 |
| dhellmann | I was going to ask where things stood with the work on "job descriptions" but I didn't see dims sign in | 15:07 |
| fungi | helps focus on the actual concern rather than the abstract measurement | 15:07 |
| ttx | 1- try to adjust the metrics and continue to do tags | 15:07 |
| ttx | 2- try to adjust the metrics but use them to feed questions to teh health Tracker for deeper dive into data | 15:07 |
| ttx | 3- drop tracking altogether | 15:08 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: There are no core developers, only core reviewers https://review.openstack.org/578819 | 15:08 |
| ttx | 4- Produce a comprehensive report every cycle | 15:08 |
| ttx | I' not convinced 4 is worth the effort | 15:08 |
| ttx | I'm convinced (1) is more destructive than useful | 15:08 |
| smcginnis | Agree re: 4 | 15:08 |
| ttx | so I'm somewhere between 2 and 3 at this point | 15:09 |
| fungi | 2 seems like a reasonable compromise | 15:09 |
| cdent | I think we should stop publishing the data, but produce it regularly to use it to inform human interactions | 15:09 |
| ttx | cdent: ++ | 15:09 |
| smcginnis | I was just going to say the same - somewhere between 2 and 3. | 15:09 |
| ttx | that's where I am | 15:09 |
| ttx | Have teh data, but don't make it more significant than it actually is | 15:09 |
| ttx | because the more i look into it, the more brittle I see it is | 15:10 |
| scas | measuring the thing but not having it published is where i'd go, too. better to measure and not need | 15:10 |
| TheJulia | 2 seems reasonable and the lesser lift work wise to implement. | 15:10 |
| scas | it does give a rough idea as to where things stand, but it's not something i'd want to plaster on the wall | 15:11 |
| ttx | And as I mentioned in a recent remark on this channel, 67% corporate bus factor on swift due to commit % is less critical than 67% for Masakari. | 15:11 |
| ttx | As one is more featurecomplete than the other | 15:11 |
| fungi | yeah, and i agree fully that badgifying it via governance tags just turns it into something teams will complain is unfairly casting them in a poor light | 15:12 |
| ttx | If Swiftstack abandoned Swift I feel like Swift would survive ok. If NTT abandoned Maskari, it would be a walking dead | 15:12 |
| scas | it brought me out of my foxhole since chef is pretty relevant there | 15:12 |
| ttx | due to lack of an ecosystem of users | 15:12 |
| ttx | The only drawback of 2/3 is that you don't communicate that information on project health to consumers anymore | 15:13 |
| dhellmann | do we know if consumers were actually using that information? | 15:13 |
| ttx | except if they find the not-so-secret wiki url | 15:13 |
| cdent | we should care most about openstack health, not individual projects? | 15:13 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: ++ | 15:13 |
| fungi | if ntt abandoned masakari it would be a zombie at least until some other interested party picked it back up (a la blazar) | 15:14 |
| dhellmann | of course, they can't use it if we don't publish it | 15:14 |
| ttx | Trove is actually my favorite example :) | 15:14 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yeah, I'm not sure how much corporate diversity actually plays a role in deployment decisions | 15:15 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:15 | |
| cdent | sorry, I gotta run, will catch up | 15:16 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| ttx | But I feel like it's a more positive message to post "you can use Barbican now, the TC says it's solid" rather than "don't use TripleO, only Red Hat contributes to it" | 15:16 |
| mugsie | ttx: I would suggest it doent at all | 15:16 |
| scas | 'does it blend without cutting me to shreds' is the general sentiment that i've seen from various interactions with my downstreams in the deploy space | 15:16 |
| ttx | scas: but it's a more complex statement than a diversity tag, right | 15:17 |
| mugsie | ttx: but we don't make judgements on the code - we can't say Barbican is solid, just that more than one company works on it | 15:17 |
| scas | ttx: very much so | 15:17 |
| ttx | mugsie: well maybe that needs to change | 15:17 |
| scas | ttx: for core openstack, swift the big exception, you could say that chef is fairly stable | 15:17 |
| mugsie | quite possibly | 15:17 |
| * mugsie is just imagining the wall of flames from the first TC code review | 15:18 | |
| ttx | mugsie: right... I'm just suggesting we somehow communicate that it's time for people to rely more on Designate for example | 15:18 |
| fungi | fireproof pants mode *on* | 15:19 |
| scas | so long as 'someone' is keeping up with build failures and extra-community developments, diversity is a third or fourth degree factor. the user survey metrics for chef are fairly stable because the main use case is 'fairly stable', to overuse the phrase. but that's a complex thing to measure | 15:19 |
| mugsie | well, bolding us in the project map would help :P | 15:19 |
| ttx | not saying that the others are less ready :) | 15:19 |
| ttx | Bold is the new core | 15:19 |
| ttx | anyway, that's a bit of a tangent | 15:20 |
| ttx | OK! so: I will refine my busfactor scripts and post them to governance repo | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | ++ | 15:21 |
| ttx | I will highlight the most disturbign stats in the HealthCheck page so taht those can be raised in future health checks | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | that sounds good, too | 15:21 |
| ttx | and I will propose a removal of the existing diversity tags | 15:21 |
| ttx | mnaser: if you want to take some of those work items, feel free :) | 15:22 |
| fungi | it would be nice, in a bikesheddy sort of way i suppose, to come up with a less morbid term than "bus factor" to describe this concept | 15:22 |
| ttx | but I'm probably in a better position to push those | 15:22 |
| TheJulia | So what if a team actually doesn't care about the diversity tag? | 15:23 |
| ttx | hah | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : if it's going away, that doesn't really matter, right? do you mean affiliation diversity in general? | 15:23 |
| ttx | fungi: "diversity brittleness" ? | 15:23 |
| mugsie | TheJulia: most of us don't really care, apart from the kiss of death from the single-vendor one | 15:23 |
| TheJulia | well, I think my mind is going towards tags in general | 15:23 |
| ttx | The problem is that diversity has more dimensions | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | ttx: "diversity" has so many meanings, I think we always need to include "affiliation" when we talk about it in this way | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | to be clear | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 15:24 |
| ttx | fungi: I'll take any suggestion that works both for corporate busfactor and individual busfactor | 15:24 |
| TheJulia | mugsie: that was kind of what I was expecting the answer to be, and that is my perception as well. | 15:24 |
| fungi | though also affiliation may be irrelevant in the single-contributor case | 15:24 |
| ttx | although I'll regret my busfactor.py | 15:24 |
| scas | perhaps 'key person risk', to dredge from the old school | 15:25 |
| fungi | to be clear, i don't object to it but some people may find the imagery of contributors getting hit by a bus unsettling | 15:25 |
| TheJulia | ttx: it can always be renamed ;) | 15:25 |
| * ttx cries in a corner | 15:25 | |
| TheJulia | :( | 15:25 |
| zaneb | anybody want to talk Adjutant? | 15:25 |
| * dhellmann would like to hear some other opinions on adjutant | 15:26 | |
| ttx | fungi: less unsettling than being forked, right | 15:26 |
| * ttx shuts up | 15:26 | |
| fungi | heh | 15:26 |
| ttx | Adjutant++ | 15:26 |
| ttx | I was leaning towards +1ing it but didn't want to influence anyone | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | I'm still a bit on the fence and am looking for someone to tip me one direction or the other. | 15:27 |
| jroll | ttx: fungi: I like "lottery factor", winning the lottery is a much happier scenario where people might just stop working on things :) | 15:27 |
| fungi | jroll: or retirement ;) | 15:27 |
| jroll | retirement usually isn't so sudden :P | 15:28 |
| cmurphy | oops i'm late | 15:28 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: I'm pretty relaxed about voting for it, so I'd like to hear more about your concern that its flexible architecture could prove to be a Bad Thing if it results in people writing lots of non-interoperable plugins | 15:28 |
| ttx | For Adjutant, I'm fine adding it, because it's easy to remove it afterwards if it ends up being destructive after all | 15:28 |
| TheJulia | yeah, retirement seems to be more of a trickledown from what I've seen so far | 15:28 |
| TheJulia | "tableflip factor"? | 15:28 |
| fungi | jroll: fair. also working on free software already feels like retirement to me at least ;) | 15:28 |
| ttx | I think we expressed our concerns | 15:28 |
| smcginnis | rage quit factor | 15:28 |
| dhellmann | ttx: Is it "easy" to remove? When was the last time we removed a project? | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | I wouldn't consider it "easy", but maybe in relation to the work getting it added it would be. :) | 15:29 |
| ttx | That would be Fuel and the App catalog.. 2017? | 15:29 |
| fungi | we removed fuel, app catalog, akanda | 15:29 |
| mugsie | cue? | 15:29 |
| fungi | yup | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : We've done so much work on interoperability with other projects, and place so much value and emphasis on it now, that I'm having trouble just letting go of that. | 15:30 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: specifically, in what ways could making it an official project make the downstream plugin problem worse? | 15:30 |
| ttx | It's easier than most due to where it would end up in the map | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : it wouldn't be any different, at a technical level. It would be different because we would be saying "yeah, we don't care about the lack of interop with this one project" | 15:30 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I would definitely not accept it if it ended up in the "main" bucket | 15:30 |
| fungi | the app catalog removal is probably the most similar, since it was "we're retiring this active effort because it is not the direction we want to take openstack" | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | and I guess I prefer not to make exceptions | 15:30 |
| ttx | I think that needs clear APIs | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | at the same time, I've wished we had the user onboarding features for *ages* (the thing we built at Dreamhost wasn't reusable in any way) | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | and to be clear, I will support the decision of the group, whichever way it goes | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | *this group | 15:32 |
| mugsie | yeah. and the info I would take for onboarding into my cloud is completely different to the info collected by vexxhost for example | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | I'm talking post-signup onboarding | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | stuff like "welcome! next we're going to create some default networks for you" | 15:33 |
| dhellmann | some of what we had to do was driven by our choice of networking architecture and backend | 15:33 |
| ttx | dhellmann: re: Adjutant if we add them now they won't be in Rocky anyway, forit release would be Stein | 15:33 |
| ttx | first* | 15:33 |
| smcginnis | I forget where I read it recently, bit there was some wording around the desire for interop with OpenStack not meaning it's something you can easily switch between providers with absolutely no changes, but rather having a base level of expected compatibility. | 15:33 |
| smcginnis | I see adjutant as being outside of that base level and something more on the provider level where it's perfectly fine if vendor a works slightly differently than vendor b. | 15:34 |
| zaneb | it's not like we don't have non-interoperable ways of doing it now, it seems like Adjutant is at least a step in the right direction | 15:34 |
| smcginnis | But at least both vendors can use a tool supported by the community and not some home grown widely divergent thing. | 15:34 |
| mnaser | ttx: i can take on some of these tasks if you want to assign any | 15:35 |
| mnaser | i'm still trying to grasp most of the diversity stuff but i'll take any action items | 15:35 |
| ttx | mnaser: I'll see if I end up needing help, You have plenty on your plate | 15:35 |
| zaneb | smcginnis: and tbh I am less concerned with interop when the interface is Horizon (which anybody can relearn pretty quick) vs. a bunch of scripts that have to be rewritten | 15:35 |
| mnaser | ttx: thanks, i've had some unexpected surprises of extra work on my way.. | 15:36 |
| zaneb | not unconcerned, but definitely less concerned | 15:36 |
| smcginnis | zaneb: Same here. | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | there is an API, right? | 15:36 |
| ttx | zaneb: depending on how much prevalent those sorts of APIs already are, one could even consider that Adjutant is helping standardize overall | 15:36 |
| * mnaser doesn't like the fact some providers build their own control panels and not use horizon instead | 15:36 | |
| zaneb | dhellmann: AIUI yes, but mostly for the purposes of exposing it through horizon | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | ah, ok | 15:37 |
| smcginnis | Even if it's scripted for some reason, I don't see a problem with that. | 15:37 |
| scas | mnaser: ++ | 15:37 |
| ttx | I guess that's a good question -- how many of the OpenStack public clouds already use some sort of proprietary API to integrate with their business logic on $stuff | 15:37 |
| smcginnis | As a user, if I've scripted something for working with Vexxhost, I would assume I need to redo some things if I then go to some other provider. | 15:37 |
| ttx | If all of tehm do, then Adjutant is a win | 15:37 |
| ttx | If none of them do, then Adjutant is likely to increase divergence | 15:38 |
| smcginnis | I would assume at least 90+% of them do. | 15:38 |
| fungi | in previous discussions, adjutant developers were quite clear the api is and is meant to be user-facign and not merely for web integration | 15:38 |
| mnaser | smcginnis: i like to think that what you run against our cloud should be the same as any other cloud | 15:39 |
| mnaser | the only thing i'd expect to change are things like.. image id.. flavor.. | 15:39 |
| mnaser | network id.. | 15:39 |
| *** lxkong has quit IRC | 15:39 | |
| mnaser | that's how i think it should be anyways | 15:39 |
| mnaser | my view is that: each company can do it's own thing in a way, but at some point, you will end up with a set of openstack credentials and the experience from that point onwards should always be consistent | 15:41 |
| fungi | i expect it was more like for self-service sign-up the information you collect from new customers is likely to be at least somewhat different from the information some other provider might collect | 15:41 |
| ttx | fungi: in a lot of cases they piggyback on an existing system | 15:41 |
| cmurphy | mnaser: technically some of what adjutant handles is the part before you get the openstack credentials | 15:41 |
| fungi | ttx: agreed. especially if cloud services are not the only product/service so they already have a crm and billing system | 15:42 |
| mnaser | this might be a bit ignorant of me to ask, but do you *have* to be interop-able to be an official project? | 15:42 |
| mugsie | nope | 15:43 |
| cmurphy | the deployment tools are an example of projects with no interoperability guarantees because that wouldn't make sense | 15:43 |
| ttx | depends what you mean by operop-able | 15:43 |
| mugsie | it is a goal of our though | 15:43 |
| fungi | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html | 15:43 |
| mnaser | so the way i imagine adjutant is just a collaboration across different providers who would like to stop duplicating their logic and work together to implement their common business logic | 15:43 |
| fungi | has some things to say about "basic interoperability with the rest of OpenStack: User-facing API services should support Keystone for discovery and authentication" | 15:43 |
| mnaser | and extend it with their own business logic on top, rather than each provider having their own set of onboarding stuff | 15:44 |
| mnaser | as long as that is limited to logic that isn't user facing imho | 15:45 |
| mnaser | user facing and touching other openstack api services | 15:45 |
| mnaser | but anyways, i might be late to this whole convo. i'll follow the review and comment | 15:45 |
| fungi | mnaser: yeah, in adjutant's case rather than wanting to have interchangeable backend drivers with a consistent api, they want the backends to change the api conditionally | 15:45 |
| ttx | mnaser: that would be the ideal scenario yes | 15:46 |
| mnaser | yeah that's a no bueno imho. work with other providers and come up with the set of common shared api calls you want to work on: ex.. reset password, etc | 15:47 |
| fungi | for me what it boils down to is that we've had examples of dynamic apis in openstack, and our experience to date is that you can't really build redistributable tools around those | 15:47 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 15:47 | |
| mnaser | i do feel like at that point it's a bit odd | 15:47 |
| fungi | so instead you end up with provider-specific clients and sdks | 15:47 |
| fungi | which we've also had a proliferation of in the past | 15:47 |
| mnaser | like it has it's own queueing and task management tooling | 15:47 |
| mnaser | we have tools that do that in openstack which it would be nice to depend on and help the overall ecosystem | 15:48 |
| zaneb | one thing we haven't discussed: is there actually interest from other vendors? I only see one email on openstack-dev to that effect | 15:49 |
| mugsie | No - we covered that a long time ago, there is no relation between Mistral and Adjutant | 15:49 |
| dhellmann | yeah, adjutant "tasks" are not at all like mistral's | 15:49 |
| ttx | zaneb: that's a good question yes. If there is no hope of open collaboration aroudn Adjutant, the overall value add is limited | 15:50 |
| mugsie | mnaser: every project has it own internal queuing and task managment system | 15:50 |
| fungi | (perhaps more like glance's "tasks"?) | 15:50 |
| mugsie | yeah, that's pretty close fungi | 15:50 |
| mnaser | zaneb: i dont want to speak on their behalf but i think citycloud might be using parts of it | 15:50 |
| mugsie | or designate's workers / tasks | 15:50 |
| mnaser | tobberydberg: ^ ? | 15:50 |
| zaneb | I guess I should check the operators list | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | if we can go back to the PTG meeting for a second, Alan asked if it would be appropriate to invite the rest of the board members who may be in town to join us. I don't have a problem with that, except that I don't know how much space we have yet. Is there any other reason not to include them? | 15:52 |
| fungi | zaneb: i want to say there was some discussion of it on the operators list last year, but i'll need to find my old notes from the last time i researched it | 15:52 |
| zaneb | http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2018-April/015106.html | 15:52 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yeah, maybe wait until we know if we have a room... The bar won't be enough if the board comes | 15:52 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: I dont think there is an issue, apart from space | 15:52 |
| fungi | dhellmann: assuming space is not an issue, i'm cool inviting anyone from the community, even board members | 15:52 |
| cdent | dhellmann: only if we want to talk about them behind their backs. I reckon we want to talk about them to their faces | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | ttx: yeah, that's what I was thinking. I only asked for space for 13 to start | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | I will ping Kendall again today to see where things stand | 15:53 |
| fungi | cdent: i certainly prefer to talk about people to their faces ;) | 15:53 |
| smcginnis | Maybe we can get the lunch area? It would be great to have the board there if possible. | 15:54 |
| * mnaser is totally in support of that idea | 15:55 | |
| smcginnis | Maybe instead of bemoaning not getting invited to board meetings, we just need to invite the board to our meetings. | 15:55 |
| mnaser | ++ | 15:55 |
| dhellmann | there's some other big event going on over that weekend, so space is going to be tight | 15:55 |
| mnaser | i think the only thing is as long as it stays a 'tc meeting', but i'm sure we won't have a problem with that | 15:56 |
| dhellmann | that was my other question: what do we actually want to talk about? | 15:56 |
| smcginnis | Maybe we can all get train tickets and just take over a car and ride around the city all day. | 15:56 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Technical_Committee_Tracker i think is a good start | 15:56 |
| fungi | cue train ascii art | 15:56 |
| cdent | dhellmann: isn't september too far away to be agenda building? | 15:56 |
| mnaser | we can get a lot of that hashed out imho | 15:56 |
| cdent | I reckon it depends on how far we've got on some things | 15:57 |
| smcginnis | With the board, I would like more discussion about FOundation direction for expanding to other areas and what projects we're bringing on board. | 15:57 |
| mugsie | smcginnis: ++ | 15:57 |
| cdent | but if we haven't finished it yet, I reckon two things: tech vision and board interaction | 15:57 |
| zaneb | smcginnis: AIUI wherever the board has quorum it becomes a Board Meeting and then it's a whole Thing | 15:57 |
| smcginnis | True | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | this would be "other board members who will be at the PTG" so not necessarily enough people to trigger quorum | 15:58 |
| fungi | yeah, i don't anticipate a majority of the board will travel to the ptg | 15:58 |
| fungi | most of the elected individual directors likely will | 15:58 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: yeah, I think this is fine, just thinking about why 'just invite the board to our meetings' might not be a solution in general | 15:59 |
| fungi | and a few of the appointed directors are also active contributors in the trenches as well | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | I've suggested we wait to invite anyone else until we have more details about space, and I've pinged Kendall to see what the status on that is. I'll let you all know when I have more info. | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | and I need to drop offline for a while, unfortunately, but please do carry on without me | 16:00 |
| ttx | I think we are done :) | 16:00 |
| fungi | thanks everyone! | 16:01 |
| fungi | #endmeeting | 16:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/ | channel logs http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/" | 16:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Jun 28 16:01:05 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-28-15.00.html | 16:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-28-15.00.txt | 16:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-28-15.00.log.html | 16:01 |
| fungi | nice to close that one out at the hour mark for the first time in a few weeks | 16:01 |
| smcginnis | *obligatory meeting format grumble | 16:01 |
| fungi | yup | 16:01 |
| fungi | i mean, i'm glad that it's not actually a formal meeting and we're cool with discussing things for longer than a rigid one-hour slot | 16:02 |
| fungi | but i do agree the meetbot usage makes it feel more formal and less inviting | 16:02 |
| smcginnis | Not much response that I've seen the ML post asking about usefulness. | 16:03 |
| mugsie | yeah. did we find out if the people looking for the logs are finding it useful? | 16:03 |
| smcginnis | Maybe I'll respond there with my opinion. | 16:03 |
| smcginnis | I have not heard anything one way or another. Could be not many people care one way or the other. | 16:03 |
| mugsie | yeah, there was one or two people in YVR who asked | 16:03 |
| fungi | rocky was one | 16:04 |
| fungi | i don't recall who else | 16:04 |
| mugsie | anita i think? | 16:05 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 16:11 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 16:16 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: There are no core developers, only core reviewers https://review.openstack.org/578819 | 16:22 |
| jroll | ttx | zaneb: depending on how much prevalent those sorts of APIs already are, one could even consider that Adjutant is helping standardize overall <- I've been leaning toward yes on adjutant for this reason, but I don't have data on the prevalence of those APIs | 16:44 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| smcginnis | I do think it at least provides a place for de facto standardization to occur. | 17:13 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 17:15 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:22 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:25 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:28 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 17:29 | |
| dhellmann | cdent : we're paired up to do the health check for telemetry, so I thought it would be good to coordinate before I try to get in touch with them. Have you started looking into the team yet? | 17:37 |
| cdent | yeah, I talked to jd a couple days ago and asked him if there was anything he was concerned about other than what I had written on the tracker already | 17:38 |
| cdent | he said that was a good start | 17:38 |
| dhellmann | oh, somehow I didn't see what you'd written in the tracker | 17:38 |
| * dhellmann reloads the page | 17:38 | |
| cdent | I asked if there were any other regular contributors besides the two cores and he said no, but we both expressed some degree of interest/positivity about monasca's promise to help out | 17:39 |
| dhellmann | is "more to come" based on more research you had planned? | 17:39 |
| cdent | which has born a bit of fruit | 17:39 |
| dhellmann | oh, nice | 17:39 |
| dhellmann | that's a positive thing to include | 17:39 |
| cdent | the "more to come" was written before I spoke to jd recently , and I haven't been back to the page yet | 17:39 |
| dhellmann | ah, ok | 17:40 |
| dhellmann | it sounds like you have that one handled, so I'll leave it to you to fill in the rest of your notes when you have time. I guess let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. | 17:40 |
| cdent | will do, thanks. I agree that it's in hand. | 17:41 |
| dhellmann | cmurphy : have you had a chance to reach out to dtroyer about the OSC team, yet? we're paired on that one and I don't want to duplicate effort you've already done. | 17:52 |
| cmurphy | dhellmann: no I have not yet | 17:56 |
| dhellmann | ok. do you want to try to schedule a time for the 3 of us to talk? | 17:56 |
| dhellmann | I suppose email works, too | 17:56 |
| dtroyer | :) I shouldn't be too hard to find these days outside of a bit of travel in 2 weeks | 17:57 |
| dhellmann | dtroyer : somehow I always assume you're buried under work :-) | 17:58 |
| dtroyer | it has lightened up a bit finally | 17:58 |
| dhellmann | we're talking about https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker | 17:58 |
| dhellmann | and trying to get a sense of how our various project teams are all doing | 17:58 |
| dtroyer | I'm even debugging a flakey OSC functional test right now! \o/ | 17:58 |
| dhellmann | how many people are actively doing reviews on OSC these days? | 17:59 |
| dtroyer | I'd have to count but there are a handful, a couple of which I think are possibilities for core | 18:00 |
| dhellmann | ah, good, that's better than I expected | 18:00 |
| cmurphy | that's exciting news | 18:00 |
| dtroyer | stevemar has been doing some reviews too again, but we can't plan for his time at all | 18:00 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I count him as a bonus | 18:00 |
| dhellmann | does the team hold regular meetings? or do you mostly rely on the mailing list for communication? | 18:01 |
| dhellmann | I see a pretty good backlog of open reviews. Maybe some of those folks you're looking at for core will be able to help with that. | 18:02 |
| dtroyer | it's all -sdks and ML for communication, we don't do meetings anymore | 18:02 |
| dhellmann | ok, that's what I thought | 18:02 |
| dtroyer | I'm poking through the backlog for things that ought to be in the next release, then we'll cut one and re-attack it | 18:03 |
| dhellmann | that seems like a reasonable plan | 18:03 |
| dhellmann | OSC came up at one point as a candidate for the "help wanted" list. do you still want to be added there? | 18:03 |
| dtroyer | That might be helpful in getting a bit wider variety of projects represented? | 18:04 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I think that was the idea | 18:04 |
| dhellmann | I'm happy to sponsor that (you need a TC sponsor) and we can talk about the write-up another time | 18:04 |
| dtroyer | that sounds good, thanks | 18:05 |
| dhellmann | are there any issues you'd like to bring up? things that are causing the team friction or that you could just use help with? | 18:05 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:05 | |
| dtroyer | not really, it is just time and helping people find a way to not have to work on OSC in free time. Resource managers tend to not have buckets for CLIs unless they don't have one and need it | 18:07 |
| dhellmann | yeah :-/ | 18:07 |
| dhellmann | cmurphy : did you have any questions to ask dtroyer that I haven't already covered? | 18:08 |
| cmurphy | no, sounds like things are headed in a good direction | 18:10 |
| dhellmann | ok, I recorded some notes in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#OpenStack_Client | 18:11 |
| dtroyer | Thanks for doing this (the whole liason thing), in retrospect it seems obvious and I wonder why we didn't do it sooner | 18:11 |
| dhellmann | please let me know if I missed something there | 18:11 |
| * dhellmann is the king of obvious ideas | 18:11 | |
| dhellmann | here's another: | 18:12 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : if/when we approve Adjutant's application, we should go ahead and have 2 liaisons attached at the same time. | 18:12 |
| zaneb | ah, yep | 18:12 |
| smcginnis | Did we ever start a newly governed project checklist? | 18:12 |
| dhellmann | I assume you'll want to be 1 (but maybe not). Maybe you can help find the other for us? | 18:13 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : no, we didn't | 18:13 |
| cmurphy | I can volunteer | 18:13 |
| smcginnis | Assign TC liaisons, remove tagging ACL, etc. | 18:13 |
| dtroyer | that looks good except for the space :) I fixed it | 18:13 |
| dhellmann | dtroyer : thanks | 18:13 |
| cdent | I have to say that a) I _really_ like having some of the TC duties more fully defined and visible because it makes it easier to desire chunk out the time, b) desire and actually pulling it off are not quiet the same thing | 18:14 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: happy to take that one (or leave it, if there are other volunteers) | 18:14 |
| dhellmann | 21 team reviews are already done, so that's pretty good | 18:14 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : can I leave it to you to recruit 1 (or 2) people, then? | 18:15 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: I believe cmurphy just volunteered | 18:15 |
| dhellmann | oh, I missed that, sorry cmurphy | 18:15 |
| dhellmann | so that's 2, then, I'll make a note for when that application is approved | 18:15 |
| dhellmann | thank you both! | 18:15 |
| * zaneb should probably start on this health tracking task | 18:16 | |
| * cmurphy is glad to realize she's not the last one to start | 18:16 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Update WSGI goal status for Monasca https://review.openstack.org/577087 | 18:16 |
| dhellmann | I've found they only take 10-15 minutes, so far | 18:17 |
| dhellmann | the trick is finding a time when the PTL has a chance to chat | 18:17 |
| dhellmann | and that's less time than I expected, so I'm pretty pleased | 18:18 |
| mnaser | tc-members: i'd like to update everyone that it looks like the starlingx team seems to be starting their work | 18:22 |
| mnaser | cmurphy: we're supposed to pair up on one and i was holding back on sending an email, not sure if you had already :p | 18:23 |
| smcginnis | Thanks, I was wondering when we would start to see more activity out of that. | 18:23 |
| mnaser | if not i was going to send an email and cc you out of it | 18:23 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : oh, good, thanks. I saw them on the agenda for the PTG | 18:23 |
| smcginnis | mnaser: Do you know if there are certain areas they are focusing on to start? | 18:23 |
| smcginnis | Or dtroyer ^ | 18:23 |
| smcginnis | Not important, just curious. | 18:23 |
| mnaser | i like actual healthy review activity too -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/578912/ | 18:23 |
| mnaser | i don't really know, i should have reached out, this is just me looking around and monitoring thing | 18:23 |
| mnaser | s/thing/things/ | 18:23 |
| dhellmann | it looks like they're not really following the 2-reviewer rule, yet: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:%255Eopenstack/stx-.*+is:merged | 18:25 |
| dhellmann | although I shouldn't complain (look at the goal-tools repo lately) | 18:25 |
| cmurphy | mnaser: I think you're paired up with EmilienM on starlingx, not me https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Technical_Committee_Tracker#StarlingX | 18:25 |
| smcginnis | Hmm, approving their own patches even. | 18:26 |
| smcginnis | Hah, and then three +W's on others. | 18:26 |
| mnaser | cmurphy: oh i meant like on following up with projects (health tracker) | 18:26 |
| smcginnis | Maybe just getting used to gerrit. | 18:26 |
| fungi | they're still very new to this arrangement, i'm sure | 18:27 |
| mnaser | generally if someone is going out of their way to use a workflow that's new to them, i'm totally okay with them making a few things here and there | 18:27 |
| mnaser | with time they'll realize some of the values and start seeing the way we do things | 18:27 |
| dtroyer | At this point stx still has no governance so we're kinds working on consensus, and things liek the 2 reviewer rule I've suggested we default to OpenStack practices seems to be generally accepted. | 18:28 |
| zaneb | we've also started to land some of the patches from the fork in Heat | 18:28 |
| dtroyer | I'm not surprise it isn't perfect yet | 18:28 |
| mnaser | zaneb: that's awesome. | 18:28 |
| fungi | there are other (not openstack official) projects in our gerrit where the team mails around patches to each other or puts them on test servers, and then designates someone to push them into gerrit and approve them once they're done reviewing and testing them | 18:28 |
| mnaser | this is so far shaping up to be in a really cool direction | 18:28 |
| dtroyer | most of the activity in stx-* in Gerrit is the dev work WRS did between when we got their R5 release (late match) and now | 18:28 |
| zaneb | there's a lack of detail on what the reason for some of them was, but the original author from windriver has been helping out with comments so that's been helpful | 18:29 |
| dhellmann | so it seems like they're learning and adapting to the community practices, which seems good | 18:29 |
| zaneb | fungi: wow, I feel sad for those people who don't know what they're missing out on | 18:29 |
| mnaser | the one thing where i'd like to keep in mind is: as more projects come, if they use the openstack infra but don't "identify" as openstack, not under governance, etc | 18:29 |
| dtroyer | zaneb: thanks for your help and patience, yes we started the upstream bits with heat wo work out processes. I do think some of our more established teams (network, storage in China) have also started | 18:29 |
| fungi | yeah, i figure if they're submitting patches to openstack projects, then the reviewers are going to demand good explanations in commit messages and they're going to learn from our reviewing example | 18:29 |
| mnaser | the resources that we have in CI might start going towards some of those other projects | 18:30 |
| mnaser | and slow down the dev cycles in "openstack" world | 18:30 |
| mnaser | *maybe* it would be nice if the board encouraged coming on-board with some sort of resources for ci when joining, or figuring out a way to 'fairly' split things up | 18:30 |
| clarkb | mnaser: i've aid this repreatedly before I am not concerned about that currently with tripleo being our biggest resource consumer | 18:31 |
| clarkb | nova and neutron closely followfor about 80% of our resource consumption between the three of them | 18:31 |
| fungi | i have a feeling those "other" projects won't represent but a small fraction of our overall load for the foreseeable future. they don't have the thousands of developers and hundreds of repos openstack does | 18:31 |
| dtroyer | part of our problem with the upstream stuff, like in heat, is we don't have the original documentation (Jira tickets, etc) that drove the change. We have encouraged those who did the original commits to jump in,a nd I see Al did so that was a good start | 18:31 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add note about tracking cycle goals post-cycle https://review.openstack.org/577149 | 18:31 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Fix doc output path in PTI reference https://review.openstack.org/578573 | 18:31 |
| zaneb | clarkb: testing a whole distro could theoretically be as expensive as TripleO though. but I agree let's wait until it's a problem | 18:32 |
| clarkb | zaneb: and more importantly if this is a real issue why are we not looking at tripleo? | 18:32 |
| mnaser | it'd be nice if redhat funded some CI resources | 18:32 |
| zaneb | tbh I thought TripleO CI was mostly running on rdo-cloud, but I haven't been paying attention | 18:33 |
| clarkb | (I don't think it is currently an issue but there has been some tension in the past with tripleo being slow to accomodate upstream needs) | 18:33 |
| * mnaser would be open to talking with redhat and providing at-cost infrastructure | 18:34 | |
| mnaser | so if anyone wants to make that conversation :x | 18:34 |
| mnaser | clarkb: though, thinking about it, redhat does put a lot of dev resources so i think it's also a matter of pitching into helping in openstack all in different ways | 18:41 |
| * mnaser probably doesn't have as much dev resources but can help with servers | 18:41 | |
| mnaser | give and take i guess | 18:41 |
| clarkb | mnaser: ya, I think where it has been painful in the past with tripleo is when there has been a lack of willingness to work with the group/whole/community | 18:41 |
| clarkb | (like when we ran out of log server disk space due to tripleo jobs) | 18:42 |
| clarkb | we've gotten past that, but those are the sorts of things I worry about more so than does this project using .001% of our test resources create problems | 18:42 |
| dhellmann | sometimes it's hard to tell what changes to CI are going to have a big impact on resources | 18:42 |
| mnaser | clarkb: ah yes, i think overall the team has switched things up more recently to work more with infra such as figuring out mirroring, even abandoning patches when their gates are broken (not to disturb ci) | 18:43 |
| clarkb | mnaser: yup its much better today | 18:43 |
| mnaser | so i'm hoping that this was maybe a case of the past and now things are much more stable and they're a lot more aware of the overall infra | 18:43 |
| clarkb | but in the context of "we are adding new prjects we need to worry about resource consumption" I still think you have to look at tripleo before anything else | 18:44 |
| clarkb | and if tripleo isconsidered ok then everyone else is fine imo | 18:44 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 18:44 | |
| mnaser | yeah :x | 18:44 |
| mnaser | i know we're up to 60 vms or so but we are almost done setting up a new az which means we can bump that significantly, maybe to ~150 or so, i'm hoping. | 18:45 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: yes, particularly with log disk consumption that wasn't exposed very well to people. We have gotten better at that (I think zuul even has a per job limit now too) | 18:45 |
| mnaser | possibly more if we have a way to calm things down relatively quickly when we get extra load | 18:45 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: we have also made it easier to run multinode jobs so everyone thinks they need 5 node jobs now instad of working it out on 2 first | 18:45 |
| clarkb | little things like that can add up, but in aggregate still tend to be low compared to our large consumers, tripleo, nova, neutron | 18:46 |
| dhellmann | clarkb : yeah, I was thinking in general, but that's a good specific example. Like if I want to add a job that runs on every patch, I worry "do we have the nodes for that? how much slower will things be if I do that?" and maybe it's not a big deal but I have no idea what sorts of things make it a big deal (job length? frequency? both?) | 18:46 |
| dhellmann | I'm sure it's complicated to figure out, but I don't even have a heuristic right now | 18:46 |
| mnaser | yeah i think having awareness and maybe even a whitelist to be able to get multinodes | 18:47 |
| dhellmann | and log space isn't something I had ever really thought about, so, I'm sure there are other things like that | 18:47 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:47 | |
| mnaser | yeah i'm thinking log space was just not something anyone ever thought of :P | 18:47 |
| dhellmann | it's not so much about "permission" to do something as "transparency" so that people can make good decisions | 18:47 |
| dhellmann | not that the information is being hidden, of course | 18:48 |
| dhellmann | most people seem very concerned about using community resources well | 18:48 |
| clarkb | The struggle iwth multnode for me is less about control and more that it is difficult to have reliable multinode jobs because races are now far more likely as you have introduced significant latency between tasks (network) | 18:50 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:50 | |
| clarkb | and so few multinode jobs tend to run reliably overtime unless a project stays on top of it | 18:50 |
| clarkb | it is more about getting people to unerstand that this isn't trivial before they jump into thedeep end | 18:51 |
| mnaser | yeah also i think having long term non voting jobs too is smoething i find we would need to address | 18:51 |
| fungi | the ci quota consumption for a job mostly boils down to the product of frequency by which it's run, average runtime duration, and number of nodes it needs | 18:52 |
| dhellmann | I wonder how much resources we actually use in non-voting jobs? :-) | 18:52 |
| mnaser | OSA is a bit bad at this, we have some non voting jobs that have been failing for a while that i'm still trying to bring them back to life | 18:52 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: I'll have to see if we can compile finer grained data of resource usage out of the zuul db now that we have that. It should have project, job, node, and runtime info all in one place | 18:52 |
| dhellmann | that would be very interesting to see | 18:53 |
| openstackgerrit | Sam Doran proposed openstack/governance master: Add ansible-role-openstack-operations to governance https://review.openstack.org/578963 | 18:53 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:53 | |
| dhellmann | we want to be careful about how it's interpreted so we don't end up pointing fingers at projects on the top of the list | 18:53 |
| dhellmann | but just like with the team health checks, it would be good to know where we actually stand | 18:54 |
| fungi | we've used similar sorts of calculations in the past not to point fingers, but to figure out who we should approach to find out ways we can help make their utilization more efficient | 18:55 |
| dhellmann | right | 18:55 |
| fungi | i.e., where we get the biggest wins in capacity for the time we spend helping them | 18:55 |
| dhellmann | if we keep that as a goal in mind, it should be fine | 18:55 |
| clarkb | I actually think our base openstack tempest job should be a multinode job fwiw (because it finds so many more bugs than the single node job). But few want to deal with fixing it all the time | 18:56 |
| dhellmann | heh | 18:57 |
| clarkb | the piece of data the zuul db lacks is the nodeset scaling factor | 19:06 |
| clarkb | we can get that from the zuul api separately once those changes to list job configs go in I expect | 19:06 |
| cdent | as usual kevin makes some astute comments in the thread following the latest tc report | 19:14 |
| clarkb | I particularly like the first point (speaking of tripleo :) ) | 19:14 |
| cdent | nothing that hasn't really been said before, but it is nicely aggregated in one place | 19:15 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, some good points there. | 19:17 |
| smcginnis | Only thing that didn't sit quite right with me was the statement "Fundamentally, there isn't huge differences in what Kubernetes and OpenStack tries to provide users" | 19:17 |
| smcginnis | And not so much that statement, because I think that part is true. | 19:17 |
| smcginnis | But the other end of it is where things are widely different. | 19:17 |
| cdent | right | 19:18 |
| cdent | probably | 19:18 |
| cdent | rather than talking about it here | 19:18 |
| cdent | we should just make the thread go ballistic | 19:18 |
| fungi | yes, that | 19:22 |
| cdent | it is possible we'll be able to extract some really excellent stuff for the tech vision (we already can, but more is even better) | 19:25 |
| mriedem | btw, people that don't care or don't pay attention might not realize they are running heavy CI jobs on changes that don't need it, e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/578878/ | 20:11 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 20:23 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 20:23 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 20:33 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 21:04 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| *** lxkong has joined #openstack-tc | 22:04 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 23:07 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 23:17 | |
| *** gagehugo has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!