19:59:54 <redrobot> #startmeeting barbican
19:59:55 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Sep 22 19:59:54 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is redrobot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:59:56 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:59:59 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'barbican'
20:00:06 <redrobot> Hi everyone
20:00:14 <SheenaG1> Hey redrobot
20:00:17 <redrobot> as usual the agenda for the Barbican weekly meeting can be found here:
20:00:21 <SheenaG1> Happy Monday!
20:00:24 <redrobot> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Barbican
20:00:34 <redrobot> Happy Monday to you too SheenaG1 !!!
20:00:39 <redrobot> #topic Roll Call
20:00:58 <SheenaG1> o/
20:01:00 <reaperhulk> \o
20:01:05 <atiwari> o/
20:01:05 <rellerreller> o/
20:01:06 <woodster_> \o
20:01:47 <kaitlin-farr> o/
20:02:05 <chellygel> \o/
20:02:38 <redrobot> lots of barbicaneers!  I like it
20:03:16 <redrobot> The agenda is kind of light today
20:03:31 <redrobot> so let's get right to it, and maybe we can all go back to work early ^_^
20:03:40 <redrobot> #topic Kilo Design Sessions
20:03:43 <redrobot> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/barbican-kilo-design-sessions
20:03:56 <redrobot> woodster_ you added an agenda item to talk about a Design Session Topic
20:04:04 <redrobot> woodster_ do you want to elaborate
20:04:35 <woodster_> Ade, Nate and I were looking at the content type field associated with storing/retrieving secrets
20:05:04 <woodster_> There has been periodic discussion about content types and Accept headers to retrieve secrets since early in the project
20:05:35 <woodster_> it continues to be a confusing concept, so it I'm proposing discussion about it during Kilo
20:06:08 <woodster_> I've detailed the current approach and drawbacks, and a possible approach for Kilo that might improve upon things
20:06:45 <woodster_> so just wanted folks to be aware that it was added to the (growing) list of things to consider for Kilo
20:06:57 <redrobot> Yeah, looks like it's going to be a busy week for sure.
20:07:15 <woodster_> at some point we'll need to prioritize things out there
20:08:24 <atiwari> woodster_, it it goign to address https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115435/3/specs/juno/support-for-text-plain-order.rst?
20:08:27 <atiwari> too?
20:09:13 <woodster_> Also folks' names on the right side of the etherpad don't seem to 'stick' with the pad over time, so please add your name to the 'Reviewers
20:09:17 <woodster_> section at the top
20:09:34 <woodster_> atiwari: I think so
20:09:49 <alee> woodster_, I would think that at some point, we need to start proposing blueprints for the sessions.  That will give us something more concrete to consider (and hopefully more details).
20:09:55 <atiwari> woodster_, that will be helpful
20:10:01 <atiwari> woodster_, thanks
20:10:06 <alee> I mean for the specific topics ..
20:10:28 <redrobot> alee good point.  We could open the specs repo for Kilo spec proposals
20:10:41 <redrobot> atiwari you'll want to resubmit that blueprint for Kilo consideration
20:11:15 <alee> redrobot, I didn't know the specs repo was closed ..
20:11:20 <atiwari> redrobot, we will do
20:11:23 <woodster_> atiwari: I think we might want to go further and key the 'content type' to the actual secret type/algorithm
20:11:50 <rellerreller> woodster_ what is the reviewers section on the etherpad
20:11:51 <redrobot> alee I added -2 Do Not Merge votes to all pending specs when we past the Juno feature freeze
20:12:48 <redrobot> alee I don't think you had any pending blueprints, so maybe you didn't get a Gerrit email saying Feature freeze was in effect.
20:12:49 <alee> redrobot, ok can we simply change those to kilo then?  or to untriaged?  and remove the -2?
20:13:01 <alee> yup
20:14:08 <redrobot> alee We can re-target the Launchpad specs to Kilo.  I think it would be better to make a new Gerrit CR for the rst file though
20:14:26 <redrobot> since the blueprints will go into the new Kilo directory
20:15:04 <woodster_> rellerreller: I added a 'Reviewers' section at the very top...please add your name out there. The list on the right hand side doesn't seem to persist over time.
20:15:26 <rellerreller> woodster_ ok
20:16:11 <alee> woodster_,  the colors dont persist either
20:17:32 <woodster_> alee: that stinks :\  I always see my text as burnt orange, but apparently as lasting as a Longhorns winning season :)
20:18:07 <woodster_> rellerreller: you can change the color if you want, just not sure if everyone else sees it that way
20:18:48 <rellerreller> Should we have a section for each one for voting or anything?
20:19:51 <redrobot> Yes, it would be good to vote on what we think is most important to talk about
20:20:04 <rellerreller> Is the point of the list to down select? What happens to the list next?
20:20:07 <woodster_> I guess folks could +1 the ones they really like, or maybe rank them from...maybe from 0 (lowest) on up?
20:20:08 <redrobot> we will be getting fewer slots for design sessions than we did in atlanta
20:20:34 <alee> how many slots?
20:20:36 <woodster_> rellerreller: the original idea was just to gather folks' interests/concerns for the Kilo release
20:20:48 <redrobot> alee I think we're getting two
20:21:09 <rellerreller> When should all interests/concerns be entered into the list before the list is closed?
20:21:39 <redrobot> the recommendation from ttx was to pick topics that need feedback from the community as the topics for the official design sessions, then cover anything else during ad-hoc meetings in the barbican table
20:22:12 <rellerreller> Two slots is not that many. Hopefully we only have two big items to discuss.
20:24:12 <woodster_> I'm not sure how many 'big' items we have...that the greater community cares about. Probably integration related issues.
20:24:23 <alee> rellerreller, to be honest, I think we'll make more progress in the ad hoc meetings.  Many of these topics are pretty specific.
20:24:49 <redrobot> alee I agree
20:25:05 <alee> issue #9 might be a "big" one that we might want more feedback from the community
20:25:37 <redrobot> alee yep, #9 definitely fits the bill
20:26:11 <redrobot> I also think that #1 is another candidate for a community wide discussion
20:26:42 <woodster_> it might be good to have a session where we invite folks other teams/projects that would like to integrate with Barbican once we integrate (hopefully in Kilo)?
20:27:14 <alee> woodster_, yeah - that might be a good session in an of itself.
20:27:17 <rellerreller> Get Nova invited.
20:27:24 <alee> and glance
20:27:30 <alee> and keystone
20:27:36 <rellerreller> We have been trying to integrate Barbican in there for a while now
20:28:17 <redrobot> Do we want to take a week to review the ehterpad, then maybe come back with the top 3 topics you'd like to see as a community-wide session?
20:28:33 <woodster_> if nothing else, it might identify stakeholders to work with more closely after the summit in the run up to Kilo
20:28:52 <alee> woodster_, that idea sounds like a winner - please add it.
20:29:01 <woodster_> that sounds good redrobot
20:29:04 <woodster_> alee: will do
20:29:31 <woodster_> so maybe folks could just put their name and 1st, 2nd or 3rd up there?
20:29:45 <redrobot> woodster_ yes, that's what I'm thinking
20:30:09 <redrobot> (redrbot: 1st)   (redrobot: 2nd)  etc
20:30:41 <redrobot> If we can get that done by this time next week, it should be obvious what we want out scheduled sessions to be
20:30:50 <alee> where 1st is first preference etc ..
20:31:05 <redrobot> yes, for the scheduled community-wide slots
20:31:21 <alee> when do we need to define our design spots by?
20:31:50 <redrobot> we'll cover as much as we can on the other topics at the barbican table
20:32:04 <rellerreller> Are there any talks on Barbican integration into other services?
20:32:18 <woodster_> I'll add that other-teams-integration topic as #0 as it is kind of broad in scope
20:32:24 <redrobot> alee I'm not sure yet.  Last I saw, every team is using etherpad to plan what they want to talk about, but not sure on when the deadline is.
20:32:40 <rellerreller> We have tried to integrate into Nova and Cinder. It would be good to have as many PTLs as possible to get a consensus on how to do that.
20:37:04 <woodster_> Note as well the API and MISC sections at the end of the wiki
20:37:13 <woodster_> um, etherpad that is
20:39:39 <woodster_> So the RC1 release is Thursday, I think we're trying to land some of these CRs, correct?
20:39:57 <woodster_> Can we make that a topic if possible?
20:40:04 <redrobot> There is no hard date for the release, so if we slip past Thursday it should be ok
20:40:12 <redrobot> #topic RC1 release
20:40:57 <redrobot> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule
20:41:20 <alee> can we start reviewing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117845/ please?  I expect there will be changes needed so it would be good to get those comments sooner.
20:41:41 <woodster_> what are those tests failing?
20:41:58 <alee> also akoneru was having some problems with jenkins -- hoping to get some help with that.
20:41:58 <woodster_> test-requirements.txt was updated, but to remove a dependency
20:42:51 <alee> woodster_, looks like Double requirement given: pycrypto>=2.6
20:43:08 <alee> has that been fixed?
20:44:14 <woodster_> alee: you mean also in requirements.txt, correct?
20:45:25 <woodster_> I'm thinking that dep removal isn't needed for the CR, so maybe remove it to see if that affects the tests?
20:45:43 <alee> either -- the full text of the error is --> Double requirement given: pycrypto>=2.6 (from -r /home/jenkins/workspace/gate-barbican-pep8/test-requirements.txt (line 8)) (already in pycrypto>=2.6 (from -r /home/jenkins/workspace/gate-barbican-pep8/requirements.txt (line 16)), name='pycrypto')
20:45:45 <woodster_> remove that removal that is!
20:46:41 <woodster_> oh I see. So this is a new glitch, lucky you :\
20:47:00 <redrobot> Also, please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118697/
20:47:12 <redrobot> it would be awesome to complete that BP for RC1
20:47:23 <alee> woodster_, well lucky akoneru  -- but yeah lets discuss this after meeting
20:47:32 <akoneru> alee, woodster_ : i added pycrypto as part of my CR since i have been getting Jenkins failure for py26 tests when i was using pycrypto in test_dogtag. I am about to update my CR by removing it
20:47:52 <alee> ah
20:48:04 <woodster_> yep, got it
20:49:56 <woodster_> reaperhulk: Could cryptography help with some of these pycrypto calls?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117845/  I don't think asn1 is available yet, correct?
20:50:08 <reaperhulk> let me look
20:50:36 <woodster_> So I think we are in decent shape wrt to the juno final roadmap discussion here:
20:50:39 <woodster_> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/barbican-juno-final-roadmap
20:50:45 <reaperhulk> Yeah we'll be handling some of that stuff in a future release, but not quite yet.
20:51:04 <woodster_> reaperhulk: sounds good
20:52:16 <woodster_> The standardize to base64 task (3-d) is being fleshed out still but, that discussion is what resulted in the API-2 topic on the Kilo etherpad.
20:53:57 <alee> woodster_, there are some comments in the code about TODO convert everything to base 64 -- can we remove those so that we're not confused?
20:54:00 <woodster_> redrobot, is the plan to release the python client as soon as the two CRs land, or to wait until the 1-g work (refactor to use Keystone components) is done?
20:54:22 <woodster_> alee: that sounds good
20:54:31 <redrobot> woodster_ I would like to see the Keystone stuff sorted out before a release
20:55:15 <redrobot> Running out of time here, guys.  Let's keep an eye on the juno-final etherpad.
20:55:28 <redrobot> it would also be good to get some bug-squashing in before the RC1 release
20:55:42 <redrobot> although we could do some bug squashing for an RC2
20:56:52 <woodster_> sounds good
20:57:24 <redrobot> Ok, thanks everyone for coming to the meeting.  Please try to review as much stuff as you can in the next few days.
20:57:28 <redrobot> #endmeeting