16:00:16 <cdent> #startmeeting api-wg
16:00:17 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Nov  3 16:00:16 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is cdent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:18 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg'
16:00:34 <etoews> o/
16:00:52 <gouthamr> hello o/
16:01:06 <cdent> hmmm
16:01:22 <elmiko> hi
16:01:24 <gouthamr> i missed the meeting in the summit due to a conflict :/
16:01:28 <etoews> not seeing the usual meetbot notices
16:01:56 <cdent> #chair etoews elmiko
16:01:57 <openstack> Current chairs: cdent elmiko etoews
16:02:10 <cdent> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda
16:02:10 <elmiko> meetbot is slow today ;)
16:02:37 <elmiko> fyi, i'm gonna miss the next 3 meeting. i'm at 2xconferences then vacation
16:02:49 <cdent> no meeting last week, no action items from the meeting the week prior
16:03:05 * cdent wags finger at elmiko
16:03:13 <elmiko> lol
16:03:22 <cdent> #topic open mic
16:03:45 <cdent> summit report: we had a bof and it was good
16:03:47 <cdent> #link: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-ocata-bof
16:04:21 <cdent> not a lot of active input but was good to see interested people. There were somewhere between 10 and 15 people there. Probably would have been more but we were in a hard to find spot (again)
16:04:37 <elmiko> nice turnout, bummer about the space issue
16:05:02 <cdent> Many of the attendees were there out of curiosity, not with any active desire to write guidelines. More of a "what does this group do" kind of thing. So I, with a good bit of help from edleafe, told them.
16:05:47 <elmiko> sweet
16:05:53 <cdent> The main point I made was pointing out how nearly all the words in the api-wg mission statement are subject to (mis)interpretation
16:05:59 <elmiko> i'm curious about the pushback you mentioned from the arch-wg
16:06:19 <etoews> ya. that seems strange to me too
16:06:35 <cdent> you mean the people responding negtaively to the arch-wg?
16:07:49 <cdent> it's the same thing as ever: People not wanting to be told what to do and thinking that such groups want to do that. the api-wg had similar reactions early on
16:08:05 <cdent> the cross-project-goals stuff that is in flight had a similar reaction
16:08:38 <cdent> lots of trust issues
16:09:44 <cdent> the other thing to draw attention to from summit are the raw results from the api feedback gathering that piet did, I made an html version:
16:09:48 <cdent> #link https://burningchrome.com/api-feedback.html
16:10:17 <elmiko> huh, oh well, guess we need more messaging!
16:10:37 <etoews> or the arch-wg needs more messaging?
16:10:48 <cdent> I think people are happy with the api-wg these days, they just haven't learned the lesson we've set: we're there to help, advise, provide guidance, not enforce
16:10:56 <cdent> but people haven't got that message on arch-wg
16:11:01 <elmiko> hehe, i guess i meant us, but i can see how that could be interpretted either way ;)
16:11:47 <elmiko> i thought our messaging was really clear though, maybe it was just an awareness issue with the arch-wg
16:11:53 <elmiko> cdent: did things turn out ok in the ned?
16:11:58 <elmiko> s/ned/end/
16:12:24 <cdent> well for the api-wg side of things, yes: We were held up as an example of how to do things and a paragon of success and value
16:12:47 <cdent> to which I said something like "great, please come help us do more"
16:13:02 <elmiko> haha, nice!
16:13:11 <cdent> but for the arch-wg things are still up in the air, let me find a link
16:13:55 <cdent> #link http://fewbar.com/2016/10/openstack-architecture-wg-because-we-all-arent-gaudi/
16:14:25 <elmiko> cool, thanks!
16:14:47 <cdent> on the api-feedback thing above, two of the most visible things to me were:
16:14:56 <cdent> people want more info in error messages
16:15:03 <cdent> people are curious about the porcelain idea
16:15:29 <elmiko> what is the porcelain idea?
16:16:04 <cdent> instead of ameliorating the bad UI of the existing http APIs at the client level (a la openstackclient) do it with an overarching API
16:16:25 <elmiko> ah, cool
16:16:34 <cdent> which would effectively mean you could say "get me a thing" instead of: get me a network port, get me some disk, get me a vm
16:16:51 <etoews> still lipstick on a pig but at a lower layer
16:17:02 <elmiko> interesting
16:17:13 <cdent> every problem can be solved by adding another layer of indirection
16:17:17 <elmiko> also, this arch-wg blog post sounds very ambitious. good luck to them!
16:17:31 <cdent> the idea here is that the layer is at a place where anyone can benefit, not just people using a particular client
16:17:40 <etoews> +1 layer of indirection
16:17:40 <elmiko> right
16:17:51 <elmiko> would there then be a porcelain client(s)?
16:18:01 <etoews> out of curiosity, where did that idea come from?
16:18:21 <cdent> I put the question on the api feedback etherpad, just to go fishing
16:18:42 <cdent> but the idea of having such an api has been bounced around by lots of different people, independently
16:19:18 <cdent> I suspect its earliest incarnation was when bits started being spun off from nova
16:19:37 <cdent> and the proxy apis in there started to exist, and then people realized that was icky
16:20:11 <cdent> but also that the UX of using multiple apis was icky too
16:21:02 <cdent> at the beginning of the year jaypipes, alaski, tdurakov and I worked on version of the concept:
16:21:23 <cdent> #link https://github.com/jaypipes/enamel
16:21:31 <cdent> but like most things it got lost to the real world
16:21:56 <cdent> as I understand things, lots people, including harlowja, have made various attempts at different times
16:22:14 <elmiko> seems like a good windmill to tilt at
16:23:24 <etoews> shall we attempt to resolve the question "should we put API porcelain in our domain?" so it can finally be removed from the agenda?
16:23:27 <cdent> It's not something I would think anything could happen with in the immediate future, just something to keep in mind
16:23:36 <cdent> that was almost a jinx
16:24:01 <cdent> but yeah, I think we can probably take that off the agenda
16:24:15 <etoews> if it gets some legs we could consider it then
16:24:15 <cdent> as long as the concept stays in our brains
16:24:19 * cdent nods
16:24:20 <elmiko> seems like it would _not_ be in our domain, unless we had some sort of project team
16:24:45 <elmiko> i would expect api-wg members to be involved, but leading the effort, not so sure
16:25:07 <cdent> not the building of, sure
16:25:15 <elmiko> that's what i meant
16:25:43 <etoews> agreed
16:25:52 <cdent> cool. anybody got more to say on the feedback doc or anything else, or shall we move on?
16:26:32 <cdent> #topic guidelines
16:26:37 <cdent> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z
16:26:49 <cdent> new stuff!
16:27:11 <elmiko> thanks for the updates cdent !
16:27:32 <etoews> ++
16:27:47 <cdent> when https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386614/ was frozen did it the cpls get invited in?
16:28:01 <elmiko> i did not invite them, my bad
16:28:29 <cdent> ah, okay, I was kind of assuming that that one would stir some negative responses
16:28:34 <elmiko> it did get mentioned in the newsletter, but that was right before summit
16:30:15 <cdent> the pagination guideline is going to need more active work, with an eye to its predecessors: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390973/
16:31:39 <elmiko> looks like it
16:31:59 <etoews> elmiko: looks CPL pestering was missed on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383862/ too
16:32:47 <elmiko> yeah, i totally flubbed it on the cpl pestering
16:33:23 <etoews> elmiko: are you running it now or should i?
16:33:25 <elmiko> do we have a script for adding those folks?
16:33:54 <elmiko> 383862 has a new push, so feel free
16:34:09 <elmiko> i can remove my +2 on the other one as well if you want to take over?
16:35:34 <etoews> elmiko: it's api-wg/tools/add-reviewers.py
16:35:50 <elmiko> ack, thanks!
16:36:10 <etoews> elmiko: you said you're missing the next few weeks right?
16:36:14 <elmiko> yes
16:36:31 <etoews> i'll take over those frozen ones and begin pestering
16:36:37 <elmiko> thanks =)
16:38:35 * cdent has started filling in the newsletter
16:38:56 <cdent> Are we ready to move on to the next topic?
16:39:31 <elmiko> +1
16:39:52 <cdent> #topic bug review
16:39:59 <cdent> etoews made a new bug and yeah, who knows:
16:40:06 <cdent> #link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg/+bug/1636641
16:40:06 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1636641 in openstack-api-wg "What are the valid microversion statuses?" [Undecided,New]
16:40:40 <elmiko> that seems like a worthy bug
16:40:45 <etoews> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
16:40:49 <elmiko> lol
16:43:14 <etoews> cdent: i'm going ahead and freezing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/392156/
16:45:49 <etoews> i froze https://review.openstack.org/386614 https://review.openstack.org/392156 https://review.openstack.org/383862
16:45:58 <elmiko> thanks etoews
16:48:19 <cdent> lame
16:48:20 <cdent> internet took a dive
16:48:25 <elmiko> =(
16:49:08 <cdent> etoews: are you considering https://review.openstack.org/#/c/392156/ effectively a typo
16:49:29 <cdent> and thus okay with early freeze?
16:49:42 <etoews> yep. that was my thought process.
16:49:53 <etoews> get out of my brain cdent!
16:50:05 * cdent IS EVERYWHERE
16:50:06 <elmiko> lol
16:51:27 <cdent> back to CURRENT momentarily: where should we go for the answer to that?
16:51:54 <etoews> erm...what?
16:52:27 <elmiko> not sure on that one, i guess look at the most advanced microvers. stuff and see what they implemented?
16:53:14 <cdent> etoews: clearly i'm not in your mind etoews, otherwise I would have communicated that more clearly
16:53:26 <etoews> oh. we're back on microversion statuses.
16:54:09 <etoews> maybe there's a hint on http://developer.openstack.org/api-guide/quick-start/index.html
16:54:21 <etoews> Current API versions
16:54:22 <etoews> Supported API versions
16:54:22 <etoews> Deprecated API versions
16:54:40 <elmiko> nice
16:54:53 <elmiko> i love an easy answer
16:55:29 <etoews> i commented on the bug
16:55:42 <cdent> seems reasonable. another interesting thing from the api-feedback thing was that many people don't think about microversions much
16:55:57 <cdent> of course the group was probably biased in some fashion, they were self selected
16:56:41 <elmiko> i have to say that sahara is going to drop plans for implementing microversions in the v2 api
16:56:52 <elmiko> it's just too much overhead for not enough value
16:56:56 <cdent> \o/
16:57:19 <cdent> if you change your mind, the way I've implemented it in the placement api is pretty simple
16:57:24 <cdent> so that might be a good reference
16:57:45 <elmiko> ack, i'll bring it up with them, but i think in the case of that project it just doesn't make sense
16:58:09 <cdent> oh don't let me encourage you. I think they are to be avoided where possible
16:59:09 <cdent> oh dear, we've run out of time
16:59:22 * etoews looks at watch he doesn't have
16:59:30 <cdent> any last minutes before we move it to #openstack-sdks ?
16:59:42 <cdent> (i'll do the newsletter)
17:00:03 <elmiko> thanks cdent !
17:00:14 <cdent> #endmeeting