16:00:15 <cdent> #startmeeting api_wg
16:00:15 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 11 16:00:15 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is cdent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:16 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:18 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg'
16:00:24 <cdent> #chair etoews elmiko
16:00:25 <openstack> Current chairs: cdent elmiko etoews
16:00:45 * mlavalle waves at cdent
16:00:51 <etoews> o/
16:00:54 <cdent> hey mlavalle
16:01:08 <cdent> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda
16:01:16 <elmiko> o/
16:01:31 <cdent> Is that a new agenda or last week's agenda?
16:02:00 <etoews> newish
16:02:15 <etoews> #topic start a "what's happening in the wide world of APIs" section of the newsletter?
16:02:25 <etoews> is this something we care to do?
16:02:48 <cdent> I recall discussing it a couple weeks ago, and there was enthusiasm in principle and concern in effort
16:03:07 <elmiko> seems nice
16:03:21 <etoews> do you folks see enough stuff on a weekly basis that might help fill out such a section?
16:03:22 <elmiko> are we talking about adding links to things outside of openstack?
16:03:26 <etoews> yes
16:03:46 <elmiko> i'm not confident that i could fill a section on a weekly basis
16:03:50 <cdent> I wish I did see enough stuff but at the moment that's not happening
16:04:46 <etoews> alright. let's not put something in there we're not confident we can care and feed
16:04:51 <cdent> It kind of feels like unless one of the three of us gets a good deal more time, such a section would be quite anaemic and might be better off waiting
16:04:54 <cdent> jinx
16:05:15 <elmiko> heh
16:05:27 <cdent> #topic open
16:05:33 <cdent> (open before we get into the regulars)
16:05:45 <cdent> any visitors who have things they want to bring up, or anything else from anyone?
16:06:14 <etoews> shall we add a new regular topic about bugs https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg ?
16:06:25 <cdent> I just wanted to report that I've committed my to do list to doing a weekly review of those bugs
16:06:29 <cdent> yeah that
16:06:48 <cdent> in my most recent review of them I added some comments
16:08:00 <etoews> i noticed that.
16:08:02 * cdent add bug review section to agenda template
16:08:30 <cdent> #topic bug review
16:09:23 <elmiko> oh man, we've got some triage to do
16:09:35 <etoews> i'm going address https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg/+bug/1593308 right now.
16:09:35 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1593308 in openstack-api-wg "The recommended way of transmitting error/fault information back to the user" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Everett Toews (everett-toews)
16:09:41 <cdent> my comments were mostly "what is this bug actually asking for"
16:10:01 <cdent> etoews, king of the workshop
16:13:19 <cdent> brb
16:13:58 <etoews> huh. for some reason my `Closes-Bug: 1593308` in https://github.com/openstack/api-wg/commit/e13a8f49bfac2593da29708f51690dfe56592f14 had no affect on https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg/+bug/1593308
16:13:58 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1593308 in openstack-api-wg "The recommended way of transmitting error/fault information back to the user" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Everett Toews (everett-toews)
16:15:00 <cdent> etoews: I think that's something that has to be configured and since we set up launchpad after setting up the repos that config isn't there. I don't remember the details on how to do it
16:15:11 <cdent> but I'll take the action of figuring it out
16:15:31 <cdent> #action (cdent) get api-wg gerrit and launchpad hooked up for closes-bug
16:16:21 <etoews> cdent: shall i add a link to errors.rst from http.rst? seems like a helpful thing to do.
16:16:38 <cdent> it does yes
16:16:56 <elmiko> brb
16:18:05 * etoews adds note to http.rst
16:21:44 <cdent> I reckon that can go on concurrently
16:21:54 <cdent> #topic previous meeting action items
16:22:11 <cdent> there were no actual action items in the log from the previous meeting, was there other stuff that should be followed up?
16:23:48 <etoews> https://review.openstack.org/354202
16:24:40 <etoews> cdent: elmiko: i think that can be a quick workflow+1 if you're amenable
16:25:08 <elmiko> yup, looking now
16:25:42 <elmiko> lgtm
16:26:26 <cdent> is the linking right? I have little faith in my rst
16:26:33 <cdent> it does look right
16:27:07 <etoews> works locally anyway...
16:28:30 <cdent> is there anything more to say about the capabilities stuff from last time?
16:28:37 <etoews> one less bug in the world https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg/+bug/1593308
16:28:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1593308 in openstack-api-wg "The recommended way of transmitting error/fault information back to the user" [Undecided,Fix released] - Assigned to Everett Toews (everett-toews)
16:29:04 <elmiko> cdent: i didn't have any more to add
16:29:06 <etoews> cdent: not really.
16:29:11 <cdent> k
16:29:20 <cdent> #topic guidelines
16:29:26 <cdent> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+AND+(message:ApiImpact+OR+message:APIImpact),n,z
16:29:35 <cdent> we might be able to freeze my uri advice
16:31:08 <cdent> sorry wrong link
16:31:11 <etoews> freezing now...
16:31:19 <cdent> #undo
16:31:20 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Link object at 0x7f5bc06f87d0>
16:31:31 <cdent> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z
16:33:15 <etoews> cdent: ran the liaison harassment script on the uri review
16:33:25 <elmiko> lol
16:33:27 <cdent> \o/
16:35:48 <etoews> do you think a links guideline should be its own top level links.rst or just part of http.rst? https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg/+bug/1562058
16:35:48 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1562058 in openstack-api-wg "Links guideline" [Undecided,New]
16:36:16 * elmiko looking
16:36:30 <cdent> i tink top level, because the http guideline has mostly turned into being about the protocol: headers, response codes, etc. Not bodies
16:36:48 <elmiko> i kinda like keeping the guidelines smaller and more digestable, that http guideline is already quite dense
16:37:03 <etoews> ++
16:37:51 <cdent> yeah at some point we could probably consider busting http into response codes, methods, other stuff
16:38:07 * etoews gets busy writing a links guideline
16:38:46 * cdent hopes etoews strives to be controversial and change the world ;)
16:38:54 <elmiko> hehe
16:39:05 <etoews> heh
16:39:24 <cdent> that reminds me of something: the errors.rst requires links in the jsonschema
16:39:54 <cdent> are we really expecting every error to have somewhere to go to describe that error, or is it going to turn out that people just always put some random help link for all errors?
16:40:30 <elmiko> ideally the former, realistically the latter
16:40:31 <cdent> further: do we expect that people will actually follow those links in the course of client-ing
16:41:10 <elmiko> i think it would be way cool if the projects produced detailed error pages that could be linked to (possibly in their docs). but i think this doesn't seem likely.
16:42:39 * cdent nods
16:42:48 <cdent> shall we move on to api impact?
16:43:13 <cdent> (mostly because of time)
16:43:22 <cdent> #topic APIImpact
16:43:28 <cdent> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+AND+(message:ApiImpact+OR+message:APIImpact),n,z
16:44:09 <cdent> Shall we continue our usual tradition of leaving these until someone comes calling?
16:44:42 <elmiko> i think so, it's tough to break some of these down without an advocate
16:44:56 * cdent nods
16:45:11 <elmiko> in theory, the APIImpact flag is great. in meat space, it doesn't seem to work out as we had hoped
16:45:42 <cdent> I think with sufficiently more time there could be a lot more productive engagement, but for the time being that's not really realistic
16:45:49 <elmiko> ++
16:45:50 <cdent> we can work on it, incremental
16:46:00 <cdent> we've already done bug review so:
16:46:07 <cdent> #topic weekly newsletter
16:46:12 <cdent> I've already started a bit at
16:46:26 <cdent> #link  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter
16:46:29 <cdent> please review for sanity and typos etc
16:46:41 <cdent> you may wish to note that I've got out of order footnotes, do we care?
16:47:40 <elmiko> i don't mind, i think i had them out of order on the one from last week
16:48:08 <elmiko> +1 from me on that copy, cdent
16:48:45 <cdent> etoews: any edits?
16:49:30 <etoews> cdent: if you give me 10 min, i might be able to get a link guideline out for review to include in there.
16:50:03 <etoews> your call. send now or later works for me.
16:50:04 <cdent> etoews: the other option, if you don't, is that you own sending the newsletter when you're done?
16:50:10 <etoews> can do
16:50:19 <cdent> rawk
16:50:25 <etoews> awk
16:50:34 * cdent looks at elmiko
16:50:50 * etoews looks at elmiko too just to be creepy
16:51:05 <elmiko> haha
16:51:26 <elmiko> i'm fine with waiting
16:51:46 <cdent> #topic new business
16:51:53 <elmiko> STOP STARING AT ME!!!! AAAaaaaa
16:51:56 <elmiko> ;)
16:52:21 <cdent> any other gossip, issues, problems, suppositions, fud, incentives,  or other miscellany?
16:52:39 <etoews> can we add a fud section to the newsletter?
16:52:49 <elmiko> lol ++
16:53:07 <elmiko> we could really make this a hot rag if we start dishing out openstack gossip
16:53:26 <cdent> the api wg has decided to stop using http, it's all grpc henceforth
16:53:36 <elmiko> nice
16:53:45 <elmiko> and everyone needs to start supporting QUIC, yesterday!
16:55:27 <cdent> actually I've got something:
16:56:05 * elmiko looks at cdent
16:56:26 <cdent> since I missed the capabilities stuff: is it something that would fit under the dome of cross-project-spec type stuff? that is, not just a guideline from us.
16:56:26 * cdent starts getting anxious
16:56:31 * cdent shuffles feet
16:56:33 * cdent points at etoews
16:56:42 <elmiko> i think it does
16:57:00 <etoews> sure.
16:57:17 <cdent> My main curiosity is because this is a thing coming on the horizon in nova and I'd really like it if for once nova rather than leading and expecting people to follow, collaborated
16:57:36 <cdent> (am I allowed to say that out loud?)
16:57:45 <etoews> yep
16:58:23 <elmiko> i think that seems entirely sensible
16:58:25 <etoews> that reminds me. we should really have something about the api-wg in dhellmann's new cross project repo .
16:58:44 * etoews can't find link for it...
16:58:47 <cdent> his goals thing, or something else?
16:58:56 <etoews> i think that's it.
16:59:05 <etoews> it's in review now right?
16:59:10 <cdent> yes
16:59:25 <etoews> ya. that thing. something for another day.
16:59:26 <cdent> we've reach the end of our scheduled time
16:59:35 <cdent> you got the newsletter, etoews
16:59:43 <etoews> yep. i'll send the newsletter once i'm done with this guideline.
16:59:54 <cdent> i'm going to add "more on capabilities" to agenda
16:59:57 <cdent> for next time
17:00:03 <etoews> ciao
17:00:06 <cdent> thanks everybody, it's always a good time
17:00:09 <cdent> #endmeeting