16:00:28 #startmeeting api-wg 16:00:29 Meeting started Thu Mar 9 16:00:28 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is cdent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:32 The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg' 16:00:37 * mlavalle traditionally waves back at cdent :-) 16:00:38 hi 16:00:40 #chair elmiko edleafe 16:00:41 Current chairs: cdent edleafe elmiko 16:00:42 \o 16:00:59 who we have today beside elmiko and edleafe ? 16:01:36 #topic last meeting 16:01:39 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2017/api_wg.2017-03-02-16.00.html 16:01:49 there were no action items from the last meeting 16:01:58 #topic 16:02:03 #undo 16:02:04 Removing item from minutes: #topic 16:02:17 #topic open mic and new biz 16:02:24 thought you were getting zen on us 16:02:27 agenda, for referene is: 16:02:37 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda 16:02:41 * cdent is always a bit zen 16:03:14 Our first order of business is to honor etoews who has had to step down from his api-wg duties. 16:03:19 * cdent passes out virtual beer 16:03:32 * edleafe raises virtual glass 16:03:45 to etoews 16:03:49 * elmiko raises virtual glass 16:03:57 o/ hi 16:04:00 * cdent drinks 16:04:05 * elmiko drinks 16:04:15 * edleafe sips delicately 16:04:22 * elmiko pours some out for biggie 16:04:26 * cdent gives a beer to knikolla 16:04:43 Okay, with that sad business done we can move on: 16:04:46 * knikolla thanks and drinks 16:04:58 #topic finalizing stability guidelines 16:05:07 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421846/ 16:05:11 this is getting close 16:05:27 nice 16:05:28 mtreinish said he had some small comments but was too busy yesterday with TC to get them down 16:05:43 and I've been too busy this week to incorporate other comentary 16:05:49 but what's there is light, so we're nearly there 16:06:14 I still wish you had put the Monty reference in :) 16:06:17 the only caveat is that there's ongoing discussion that has not been reflected in the review, see: 16:06:25 #link http://p.anticdent.org/rsQ 16:06:36 I think there's plenty of monty in there, yeah? 16:06:54 if we see him everywhere, we don't need to use his name 16:08:14 * cdent needs to fix navigation in those logs 16:09:13 anyway, I'm not sure what else to say about this other than I think it might be important to have a very small section with reiterates that "these are the guidelines you should follow for interop, but if you're not following them, it's okay" 16:09:26 +1 16:09:52 What do you mean by "it's ok"? 16:10:18 the api police won't show up at your repo, i think 16:10:24 that 16:10:38 * elmiko still waiting for his api police badge 16:10:54 but will you be able to qualify for the stability tag? 16:11:01 there's quite a lot of concern, especially since the glance-related chaos with QA, that these guidelines will be wielded to prevent code from merging 16:11:05 edleafe: no! 16:11:07 edleafe: i wuold think not 16:11:33 then I guess the "don't worry, it's fine" has to be clear on that 16:11:38 but people have demonstrated that they will wield the guidelines in situations where people are not asserting they follow them 16:11:51 yes, of course, the quote above is a stub 16:12:13 yeah, i have mixed feelings on the tags. i like them when they aren't used as cudgels to beat project with. 16:12:26 if either of you have ideas on how best to unstub, please put it on the review 16:12:26 when have the guidelines been used in such a club-like fashion? 16:12:49 i don't think i've witnessed them being used that way, but i've heard folks talk about them like that 16:12:50 People seem to follow them as, well, guides 16:12:52 when glance was trying to fix those two things 16:12:54 i'd hate to see it go that way 16:13:11 QA said "this doesn't follow (the existing) guidelines" 16:13:23 cdent: I felt like it was more of the Tempest POV than the guidelines 16:13:32 there was both 16:13:41 cdent: but is that different than saying "you don't follow tag X, get in line!" 16:13:49 i think it is 16:13:49 But they cited the guidelines to buttress their case 16:13:57 and that is the appropriate thing to do 16:14:06 they were using tempest failures as the club 16:14:15 edleafe: yeah, that makes sense to me 16:14:25 using it as evidence to support change is good 16:15:13 there's a lot of concern about this stuff (if you read the full hour or so of linked irc above you'll see it) being wielded in ways that people don't like 16:15:36 I want to be sure we acknowledge that concern 16:15:43 we don't have to agree with the concern 16:15:57 but saying we know it is there seems pretty important (to me) 16:16:03 i agree 16:16:09 yeah, I read that yesterday 16:16:48 "son" 16:16:50 :) 16:17:01 i say son, i say i say 16:17:33 anyway, shall we move on, I think we can address the rest of it on the review? 16:17:52 The "just make a major release and make everyone move" thing is crazy. Didn't anyone learn from Nova V3? 16:18:30 I think the assertion, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that we learned the wrong thing or the incomlete thing. 16:18:58 #topic membership drive / blowing the dust out 16:19:32 This is to give us a few moments to brainstorm about how we might get some more active participants and participation 16:19:55 Free candy? 16:20:05 scottda: you with us today? 16:20:12 i can share some experience from the ossg on how they grew membership, but i'm not sure we'll be able to duplicate their effort 16:20:23 We got free beer today, that's bettery than candy isn't it? 16:20:28 haha 16:20:45 Yeah, but only because our membership -= 1 16:20:53 right 16:20:55 not a sustainable pattern 16:21:08 elmiko: share away 16:21:17 ok 16:21:48 so, a big thing they did was to create some specific messaging about joining the "team", mainly through a blog and handouts that they pasted around at openstack events 16:22:11 they also started to do "road show" type presentations that were like lightning talks with a common slide deck 16:22:23 these presentations were held at several regional openstack events 16:22:26 user groups, etc 16:22:42 i think the blog, and the shared slide deck made a big difference 16:23:08 the downside for us, is that these efforts required bodies and the ossg had several more folks than us 16:23:23 sounds like it also required, to some degree, travel budget 16:23:24 i don't think just emailing the -dev list is going to help, we probably need to wrangle folks in the door 16:23:32 cdent: yeah, that didn't hurt 16:23:42 and frankly, security is much more sexy than api stuff 16:24:06 * cdent looks around the room 16:24:07 yeah 16:24:08 and it's tough enough to get orgs to spend on security, i can't imagine getting them to spend on api 16:24:18 true dat 16:24:28 anyways, they had some nice actions that really helped out 16:24:38 speaking of spending, what are the odds of each of you going to Boston? 16:24:52 For me there's only a 20% chance I'll be there 16:24:56 i _might_ be able to get there for the kubernetes day stuff 16:25:21 i could at least make a case for that 16:25:40 It's extremely unlikely for me unless the foundation wants to fund me for two events in a row or I very quickly get a new employer 16:25:55 oof 16:27:10 is there any assistance we could call on from tc or similar. like, if they view the api-wg as useful project, how can we get some help? 16:27:29 imo, just asking the community is not working 16:27:45 We could raise it at the next TC meeting 16:27:52 See if they have any ideas 16:27:55 oh, just remembered, another thing the ossg did well was engaging the cpls by attending their meetings and dragging folks in 16:27:57 I don't think the api-wg is suffering anything that other groups are not, but yeah, might be worth pinging 16:28:29 it may also be the case that we are a little bit of a victim of our own success an we need revisit our goals a bit 16:28:45 a _lot_ of guidelines have been written over the last 2 years or so 16:28:51 good point 16:28:55 cdent: what do you mean by "victim of our own success"? 16:29:01 i guess, is there a path to "maintenance mode" then? 16:29:06 like, we're mostly done? 16:29:11 people aren't contributing because there's not as much to contribute 16:29:19 or at least not as much _obvious_ 16:30:06 this is kinda why i thought it would be cool to have some code project for the api-wg, easier to keep folks around 16:30:17 but, maybe too far outside our stated purpose 16:30:40 we talked about a guideline tester as well as a reference framework 16:30:44 right 16:30:48 elmiko: something like API Flake? 16:30:54 but both of those are quite a lot of work 16:30:57 edleafe: yeah, that would be cool as well 16:31:00 right 16:31:11 and money/time/etc 16:31:19 yeah 16:31:25 same old story 16:31:37 I think we're probably better off figuring out ways to make casual and small contribution more available and accessible 16:31:50 agreed, that makes more sense 16:31:55 the current bugs are really topic holders for people in the know 16:32:18 and those of us in the know only address them sometimes (edleafe had a very good run for a while) 16:32:42 So our major focus is a) writing the guidelines and b) mediating disputes on API design 16:33:10 cdent: yeah, that was when I had like nothing to work on in Nova 16:33:30 c) fix bugs 16:33:38 and we seem to be doing okay on that focus. it's not like we have a problem, now, it's more concern about the future 16:33:40 once you're "in the know" 16:33:46 yeah 16:34:02 so maybe we should just roll with it 16:34:21 i guess 16:34:30 until one more of us is fully gone things are okay enough, but not ideal 16:35:11 yeah, i can keep attending meetings and devoting maybe like 1-2 hours extra a week to the group, but that's my limit currently. i do apologize, but it's what i've got :/ 16:35:26 that's a lot better than fully gone 16:35:49 i just feel bad because i'm kinda out of touch with the openstack world 16:35:53 we're not going to solve this today, but we should carry on thinking about it in the background. I do think that talking to the tc about it is probably wise. 16:35:56 can't give what ya ain't got 16:36:03 should we do that formally or casually? 16:36:17 i vote formally 16:36:18 I thought this was a better topic for the bar track at PTG 16:36:40 Yeah, I can add an item to their agenda 16:36:46 probably true edleafe 16:36:53 #action edleafe to make a tc agenda item 16:37:09 i was too tired most of the time to reach the bar 16:37:17 only downside to bar tracking this topic is that it becomes really difficult to get an actual action item 16:37:42 let's move on? 16:37:52 elmiko: dunno - seems pretty easy to get people to commit to drinking beer 16:37:53 #topic guidelines 16:37:56 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z 16:38:00 oops 16:38:01 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z 16:38:10 edleafe: LOL 16:38:13 edleafe++ 16:38:14 nothing ready there 16:38:42 dulko has said that he hasn't got time to continue on capabilities 16:38:45 given that comment, we should change the name from api-wg to beer-wg, we'll have people beating down the door ;) 16:38:55 and pagination is also stalled 16:39:03 i'll do a new version on stability asap 16:39:16 Pouring guidelines; ideal temperature; and the like 16:39:16 cool, i'll make some time for reviews 16:39:23 yeah, totally! 16:39:41 and then we sneak in talk of api couched in the language of beer, it'll be awesome 16:39:47 * cdent can't wait for the debates on which cup or glass to use with which beer 16:39:59 oh man... holy wars already 16:40:00 fisticuffs! 16:40:12 Or the americans insisting that all beer be ice-cold 16:40:31 #topic bug review 16:40:34 no new bugs 16:40:41 #topic back to opens 16:40:45 good, bugs in beer make it too crunchy 16:40:57 I forgot to ask if anyone had any new business that's not on the agenda? 16:41:08 i have a general question 16:41:18 elmiko: +1 16:41:19 what ever happened to the openapi/swagger effort in openstack world? 16:41:51 at least some people decided that swagger was great for new apis (as a design and doc tool) but not so great for existing apis 16:41:56 especially ones with microversions 16:42:16 ah, right, microversions kinda bork the whole openapi schema 16:42:23 oh well 16:42:32 so the docs with swagger idea got killed in favor of a sphinx extension 16:42:53 effectively the hegemony of nova squelched it 16:42:59 right, ok thanks for the memory jog. i do remember that 16:43:22 Idea for a summit talk: "the hegemony of nova" 16:43:23 nova, the 2000lb gorilla 16:43:29 haha, yes edleafe ! 16:43:34 you'd need a big room 16:44:33 any other new business? 16:44:36 would be fun though 16:45:00 knikolla: did you have some api-wg business or were you just after free beer (which is just fine, btw)? 16:45:29 cdent: it's something i would like to be more involved with 16:45:42 \o/ 16:45:47 we love to hear that =) 16:46:04 cdent: i maintain openstack/mixmatch which is an api proxy between openstack deployments to allow services between them to communicate with each other 16:46:19 a) awesome b) ouch! 16:46:23 like attaching a cinder volume in cloud2 from nova in cloud1 16:46:49 interesting 16:46:56 i agree with cdent though, ouch! 16:47:08 elmiko: the api part is easy. the backend part is tough 16:47:33 I imagine you must encounter inconsistencies (consistency sort being the reason the api-wg exists)? 16:47:58 cdent: a lot of them, mostly when we were trying to do aggregation instead of only simple routing 16:48:10 but i'm removing that functionality 16:48:19 since it's baked into horizon now with k2k support. 16:48:33 so it constraints it to only be a router based on resource_id and type 16:48:37 which works pretty well 16:49:11 vbrownbag talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0euqskJJ_8 if anyone is interested :) 16:49:12 it's a shame how much cool stuff is going on that there's so little time to explore 16:49:37 neat, gonna give that a watch later 16:49:45 cdent: so true... so true 16:49:52 cool 16:49:56 * cdent puts it in the queue 16:50:07 pagination was the most inconsistent issue 16:50:14 yeah 16:50:25 then glance v1 with their headers which apache skips 16:50:27 we have a stalled guideline on trying to make it consistent: 16:50:37 and also chunked transfer encoding 16:50:45 since it's not really wsgi 16:50:56 #link pagination https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390973/ 16:51:33 knikolla: should that problem go away as part of the move to hosting the services as proper wsgi apps with proper wsgi servers? 16:52:19 cdent: that will be a problem when moving to wsgi 16:52:35 since wsgi doesn't have that mechanism as a standard as far as i know 16:52:48 it only really works in apache embedded mode 16:52:50 right, but most servers that host wsgi apps will do it for you 16:53:01 (under the right conditions, I thought) 16:53:16 uwsgi does a pretty good job 16:53:46 * cdent wishes we could all just leap to uwsgi 16:54:12 that would be awesome 16:54:30 there's some interest in that happening, but it is considered a big leap 16:54:39 (5 minute warning) 16:54:57 even moving away from eventlet is pretty big 16:55:05 Can someone else be the newsletter author this week? 16:55:08 a little further doesn't hurt 16:55:22 cdent: sure, I can take a crack at it 16:55:27 thanks edleafe 16:55:35 edleafe++ 16:55:38 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter 16:56:44 which irc channel can i usually find you? 16:56:48 knikolla: there's pretty strong talk of switching to nginx+uwsgi in devstack, which would have a pretty big impact 16:57:02 #openstack-sdks is where the api-wg hangs out when meetings aren't happening 16:57:17 wow, that is a big change 16:57:48 yeah, wow 16:58:14 elmiko: the driver on that is that is that apache's log handling is limited when you have multiple services under the same host 16:58:18 (which is another goal) 16:58:29 the current virtualhost by port thing is icky 16:58:41 but if you change to using a prefix (like placement tries to), the logs get lost 16:58:50 or integratd with the main longs 16:58:50 interesting, i'm really curious about the server techs. i've been reading up on the different usage patterns. 16:58:54 s/longs/logs 16:59:09 the whole nginx v. apache thing is fascinating to me 16:59:42 there's a lot of differences once you dive deep. 16:59:48 https://github.com/openstack/mixmatch/blob/master/mixmatch/session.py#L21 16:59:58 example 17:00:33 times up 17:00:39 thanks for coming and the interesting discussion 17:00:45 continues in #openstack-sdks 17:00:47 yep! 17:00:47 knikolla: thanks! 17:00:50 #endmeeting