15:00:27 <eglynn> #startmeeting ceilometer
15:00:27 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 22 15:00:27 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is eglynn. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:29 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:31 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ceilometer'
15:00:37 <jd__> o/
15:00:37 <llu-laptop> o/
15:00:38 <DinaBelova> o/
15:00:41 <nsaje> o/
15:00:43 <devlaps> o/
15:00:45 <_nadya_> o/
15:00:46 <rhochmuth> o/
15:00:48 <fabiog> o/
15:00:49 <murphi> o/
15:00:50 <eglynn> hey folks, welcome back to reality :)
15:00:54 <prad> o/
15:00:59 <ityaptin> o/
15:01:13 <sileht> o/
15:01:15 <gordc> o/
15:01:18 <deklan> o/
15:01:59 <eglynn> I trust y'all are nearly over the jet-lag?
15:02:05 <eglynn> ... and the liver-damage ;)
15:02:16 <DinaBelova> eglynn, I guess so))
15:02:22 <llu-laptop> wake up 3am this morning
15:02:28 <nsaje> getting there
15:02:33 <eglynn> llu-laptop: I know the feeling :)
15:02:40 <eglynn> #topic summit round-up and Juno planning
15:02:49 <eglynn> thanks folks for a very productive summit :)
15:02:56 <eglynn> what was the general thought on the project pod idea - useful, or?
15:03:11 <llu-laptop> very useful
15:03:11 <jd__> yes
15:03:21 <nsaje> very useful
15:03:24 <DinaBelova> really cool
15:03:26 <eglynn> ttx was asking all the projects if they wanted a pod again for Paris
15:03:34 <eglynn> that would be a yes?
15:03:38 <jd__> yes sir
15:03:38 <fabiog> yes
15:03:38 <sileht> yes
15:03:39 <murphi> sometimes too noisy, but in general useful
15:03:41 <gordc> yep
15:03:43 <murphi> +
15:03:44 <DinaBelova> definitely +1
15:03:47 <llu-laptop> +1
15:03:56 <eglynn> BTW if anyone has anything they haven't captured yet in the session etherpads
15:04:01 <prad> very useful
15:04:03 <eglynn> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Summit/Juno/Etherpads#Ceilometer
15:04:17 <eglynn> prolly good idea to do so before the memory fades too much
15:05:02 <eglynn> so, cold light of day ... here's the Juno release schedule
15:05:12 <eglynn> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule
15:05:24 <eglynn> note the 4-6-6 week cadence for the milestones
15:05:32 <eglynn> jd__: was that the same last time?
15:05:44 * dhellmann slides in late
15:05:50 <eglynn> i.e. the shorter lead-in to miletsone-1?
15:06:07 <eglynn> dhellmann: welcome :)
15:06:15 <murphi> eglynn: IIRC, then yes
15:06:41 <jd__> eglynn: IIRC yes
15:06:41 <eglynn> cool, I guess icehouse had the complication of Winterval also
15:06:45 <dhellmann> yeah, I remember i1 being very very close to the summit, almost a "things you didn't finish for havana" milestone
15:07:00 <jd__> i1 was very short
15:07:06 <jd__> we basically merged nothing for i1 :)
15:07:07 <murphi> eglynn: there were only a few things fixed in the first milestone as the time was too short
15:07:12 <jd__> +almost
15:07:14 <eglynn> yeah j1 will be tight also
15:07:23 <DinaBelova> eglynn - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Icehouse_Release_Schedule :)
15:07:32 <DinaBelova> looks pretty like current one)
15:07:33 <eglynn> DinaBelova: thx!
15:07:34 <murphi> jd__: was it an opinion about i1? ;)
15:07:39 <eglynn> copy'n'paste :)
15:07:44 <fabiog> eglynn: is there a API changes freeze or it is part of the Feature freeze?
15:08:09 <eglynn> fabiog: let's talk about freezes in a sec (in relation to j3)
15:08:26 <eglynn> first, I was hoping we could coalesce behind a couple of themes for j1 ...
15:08:43 <eglynn> 1. front-loading some progress on the TC mandated gap-closing actions
15:08:51 <eglynn> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ceilometer-integration-gap-analysis-coverage-plan
15:09:04 <eglynn> not much choice there, we gotta do it
15:09:24 <eglynn> then also ...
15:09:38 <eglynn> 2. subset of the team working in parallel on paying down the "architectural debt"
15:09:46 <eglynn> gnocchi is the silver bullet! :)
15:09:53 <eglynn> thoughts?
15:10:30 <_nadya_> what is the plan about gnocchi? poc?
15:10:31 <murphi> eglynn: the doc part did not seem to be that bad according to the docco session on the summit, at least one easy point on the list
15:10:43 <_nadya_> I mean estimates
15:10:47 <DinaBelova> well as for the TC reqs - #1 on review now, #2 - will be done as discussed on summit, #3 blocked :( #4 - connected with the #3 (in some way), #5 - ?
15:10:50 <gordc> eglynn: sounds good. i have a patch up that should hopefully get sqlbackend working with multi workers. if it works we can get back to tempest tests.
15:11:06 <eglynn> gordc: excellent
15:11:27 <DinaBelova> gordc, eglynn and use testing plan from the etherpad)))
15:11:28 <eglynn> DinaBelova: cdent (welcome!) a new contributor from Red Hat will be working on #5
15:11:29 <lsmola> o/
15:11:41 <eglynn> _nadya_: do you mean timelines etc.?
15:11:41 * cdent waves
15:11:42 <DinaBelova> eglynn, oh, cool
15:11:47 <DinaBelova> cdent, o/
15:12:05 <_nadya_> eglynn: yep. What do we want to have in j release?
15:12:22 <_nadya_> eglynn: POC or some finished part that works?
15:12:45 <murphi> _nady_: everything that fits, so most probably the migration for instance will not be supported by the end of this cycle
15:12:46 <eglynn> _nadya_: yes I hoping it'll be in J, at least usable for *new* deployments
15:12:53 <sileht> DinaBelova, eglynn #5 base code for ceilometer/grenade-> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94468/
15:13:13 <DinaBelova> _nadya_, I guess we'll have v3 api (not stable, probably, not default one - but still) - already tested at least on some of the labs
15:13:31 <eglynn> _nadya_: i.e. where migration isn't an issue
15:13:33 <_nadya_> hmm, great plans :)
15:13:43 <DinaBelova> _nadya_, heh, yep
15:13:44 <eglynn> sileht: excellent!
15:13:48 <jd__> re
15:14:27 <_nadya_> and what the status of tempest+Mongo? does anyone know?
15:14:28 <murphi> _nadya_: we have big dreams and then we will see ;)
15:14:28 <jd__> (sorry I got interrupted by a phone call, reading backlog)
15:14:54 <_nadya_> I mean status on Mongo 2.4 on gating
15:15:01 <eglynn> _nadya_: I spoke to sdague about enabling f20 gating
15:15:11 <eglynn> _nadya_: he's hopeful it'll be available soon
15:15:24 <DinaBelova> eglynn, did he say about some estimations?
15:15:36 <eglynn> _nadya_: according to jogo at summit tho', the trusty switchover will be slower than planned
15:15:43 <jd__> eglynn: gnocchi is getting good progress on a daily basis for now, I think by next week somebody could start taking a look at how to integrate it with ceilometer data publisher
15:16:04 <jd__> we need to work on a lot of detail, but the basics are there now
15:16:13 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... no, but he reckoned he was almost ready to +2 ianw's patch to enable the f20 in the nodepool
15:16:24 <DinaBelova> jd__, I think I may take a look there)
15:16:25 <_nadya_> eglynn: ok, I see
15:16:27 <llu-laptop> jd__: great
15:16:34 <murphi> jd__: cool, that sound really good :)
15:16:48 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... he's got a workaround for the image redundancy issue that'll allow non-voting jobs to run on f20 initially
15:17:21 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... even tho' the image isn't available yet in both CI clouds, so non-redundant
15:17:38 <eglynn> jd__: excellent!
15:18:11 <DinaBelova> sileht - did you decide what you'll work on speaking about apiv3
15:18:14 <DinaBelova> ?
15:18:40 <eglynn> jd__: what do you thing of the goal being: gnocchi usuable in prod for j3, but only for new deploys (i.e. no migration support)
15:18:56 <jd__> eglynn: sounds good to me
15:19:01 <sileht> DinaBelova, not yet
15:19:13 <_nadya_> jd__: is gnocchi under development?
15:19:28 <_nadya_> jd__: is it used somewhere :)?
15:19:28 <eglynn> #info over-arching series goal: gnocchi usuable in prod for j3, but only for new deploys (i.e. no migration support)
15:19:38 <jd__> _nadya_: it's under development, not used yet
15:19:40 <eglynn> _nadya_: still in prototype form
15:20:02 <eglynn> at summit we spoke about a 2nd focussed weekly meeting concentrating on gnocchi
15:20:03 <DinaBelova> eglynn, jd__ - great plans, but I guess it might be difficult a little bit))) I mean production ready ceilo deployment))) so more performance testing will be need here anyway, I guess)))
15:20:08 <DinaBelova> and some benchmarking))
15:20:10 <llu-laptop> jd__: so the j3 gnocchi will still based on swift?
15:20:14 <jd__> any help appreciated as the project is becoming big enough to not step on each others foot/feet
15:20:49 <jd__> DinaBelova: you need to believe!
15:20:51 <eglynn> jd__, DinaBelova, sileht: would a 2nd weekly make sense, d'ye think?
15:21:00 <DinaBelova> jd__ :D:D:D
15:21:04 <DinaBelova> yes, sir!
15:21:04 <sileht> eglynn, ok
15:21:07 <eglynn> DinaBelova: drink the koolaid, pronto!
15:21:13 <DinaBelova> :D
15:21:27 <jd__> second meeting or recurring topic in this meeting is good ot me
15:21:41 <DinaBelova> eglynn, jd__ - yes, +1 to separated meeting for this
15:21:54 <eglynn> cool, I'm happy to go with either
15:22:10 <jd__> I'd say let's start in this meeting and if we need more time, split it?
15:22:25 <eglynn> jd__: cool enough, lets go with that
15:22:25 <cdent> jd__++
15:22:31 <murphi> do we need all the meeting topics on this meeting?
15:22:37 <murphi> jd__: +1
15:22:44 <cdent> It's something that we probably all wanna know about.
15:22:56 <eglynn> murphi: yeah I think we can drop ceilo client as a recurring topic
15:23:04 <eglynn> cdent: +1
15:23:26 <murphi> eglynn: yes, and also we can talk about tempest, when we really have something to talk about in that topic
15:23:38 <eglynn> murphi: yep, agree
15:23:45 <eglynn> murphi: we do today (I think)
15:23:49 <DinaBelova> murphi ++
15:23:58 <eglynn> one other thing on gnocchi ...
15:24:14 <sileht> eglynn, for #4, APIv1 is already dropped, and the gordc patch seems almost finished, I have a great hope to have ceilometer working correctly in gate very soon.
15:24:20 <eglynn> amalagon__ (welcome!) has started as the OPW intern this week
15:24:30 <eglynn> sileht: excellent! :) \o/
15:24:34 <amalagon__> hi all!
15:24:55 <DinaBelova> sileht, gordc - when we'll have sql backend completely cleaned up it might work, yes)
15:25:03 <murphi> amalagon__: welcome :)
15:25:06 <llu-laptop> amalagon__: welcome
15:25:10 <jd__> "Ceilometer: a new hope" http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/057/3/8/star_wars_iv___a_new_hope___movie_poster_by_nei1b-d5t3cw9.jpg thanks sileht :D
15:25:12 <eglynn> Ana will first be re-imaginging how the period-spanning-stats BP intended for v2 will map onto the brave new world of gnocchi
15:25:34 * gordc never seen star wars.
15:25:34 <jd__> hey amalagon__
15:25:37 <sileht> ahah
15:25:42 <eglynn> who gonna be Luke? ;)
15:25:44 <DinaBelova> amalagon__, o/
15:25:50 <jd__> oh… #topic Removing gordc from ceilometer-core
15:25:55 <gordc> lol
15:25:55 <DinaBelova> gordc 0_0
15:25:56 <murphi> jd__: and now everyone should pick a character? :)
15:26:11 <DinaBelova> folks, let's move on)))
15:26:18 <murphi> gordc: REALLY? :)
15:26:18 <DinaBelova> too many things to discuss)))
15:26:22 <jd__> cool, who's gonna be Chewbacca?
15:26:32 <eglynn> jd__: me, Me, ME!
15:26:41 <jd__> :D
15:27:00 <gordc> murphi: it's on my list... maybe next year...
15:27:03 <eglynn> just one last thing on the Juno schedule ...
15:27:14 <murphi> eglynn: well, you have enough hair already ;)
15:27:20 <eglynn> ... well, one other bit of new-ness that I wanted to run by you guys
15:27:23 <eglynn> murphi: LOL :)
15:27:41 <murphi> gordc: okok, no offence, I just asked :)
15:27:51 <eglynn> following the nova lead, more & more projects are aiming to follow the FPF this time round
15:27:59 <eglynn> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/FeatureProposalFreeze
15:28:04 <gordc> murphi: :)
15:28:17 <eglynn> ... i.e. a deadline for (non-final) patch proposal circa 2 weeks before j3
15:28:48 <eglynn> it just recognizes the reality that shepharding a major feature patch through gerrit cannot be done the day before milestone is cut
15:29:02 * eglynn took several cycles to learn that lesson ;)
15:29:03 <dhellmann> that deadline means if we haven't even seen a patch for a feature by then, it won't be accepted, right?
15:29:11 <murphi> eglynn: I guess it can be useful for us, at least there is no last hours patches anymore
15:29:43 <eglynn> dhellmann: exactly
15:29:44 <DinaBelova> eglynn, well, it's logical
15:29:45 <gordc> eglynn: works for me. i thought we were already doing that but good to have it in writing.
15:30:10 <llu-laptop> murphi: agreed
15:30:11 <DinaBelova> dhellmann - well, as for the changes on review - they'll be continued to be viewed
15:30:12 <DinaBelova> ?
15:30:16 <DinaBelova> eglynn?
15:30:17 <dhellmann> DinaBelova: yes, that's right
15:30:18 <eglynn> so I gotta put my hand up, I was the worst offender for last-minute proposals in previous cycles
15:30:23 <DinaBelova> ok, cool
15:30:34 <murphi> gordc: eglynn has never ever followed this unwritten rule :)
15:30:39 <dhellmann> so you have to at least submit a patch by the proposal deadline, and it as to land by feature freeze
15:30:46 <gordc> murphi: lol no comment.
15:30:54 <DinaBelova> dhellmann, cool, thanks
15:30:57 <eglynn> dhellmann: exactly!
15:31:07 <dhellmann> I like having the separate earlier deadline, since it spreads out the review load and helps us focus near the end of a cycle
15:31:07 <DinaBelova> eglynn, dhellmann - just to be sure :)
15:31:07 <eglynn> DinaBelova: I missed your question
15:31:14 <murphi> my vote is on doing this, it worth a try at least
15:31:15 <_nadya_> looks good... but we should grow up to follow this rule:)
15:31:25 <DinaBelova> eglynn, np)
15:31:38 <DinaBelova> _nadya_, hehe :) we'll try to)
15:31:41 <eglynn> cool sounds like a rough consensus
15:31:47 <DinaBelova> +1
15:31:49 <fabiog> +1
15:32:05 <eglynn> k, let's do it!
15:32:19 <eglynn> anything else on Juno schedule?
15:32:28 <murphi> _nadya_: we only need a kindergarden teacher, a tough one ;)
15:32:32 <_nadya_> what about events?
15:32:44 <eglynn> _nadya_: the events API?
15:33:09 <DinaBelova> _nadya_ - it was decided during one of the pod sessions to impl it not only for the sql - so change for the hbase looks really consistent)
15:33:14 <_nadya_> eglynn: are we gonna proceed to support it?
15:33:25 <eglynn> _nadya_: I'm hoping to talk to mdragon and sandy some more about that
15:33:40 <eglynn> _nadya_: ... I'll report back, hopefully next week
15:33:50 <_nadya_> eglynn: ok, it's interesting
15:34:04 <DinaBelova> eglynn - as far as I remember during tdaas discussion it was an idea to continue this idea
15:34:15 <murphi> _nadya_: the plan is to keep it on board, so I'm really hoping
15:34:19 <DinaBelova> probably in some of the etherpads we may found it
15:34:30 <eglynn> DinaBelova: yeah we're gonna need it to reconstruct the resource state timeline
15:34:31 <_nadya_> eglynn: is there any intersections with gnocchi?
15:34:49 <eglynn> _nadya_: gnocchi kinda assumes the persistence of events
15:35:07 <eglynn> _nadya_: as the resource metadata is no longer snap-shotted
15:35:16 <eglynn> _nadya_: (for every sample)
15:35:31 <jd__> clearly we need workforce in this area at some point
15:35:42 <jd__> I don't think I will be able to help for this cycle
15:35:53 <jd__> so if nobody steps in, it will stay as it is for this cycle…
15:35:57 <_nadya_> eglynn: ok, I just wanted to know, how much we need to rework Event model to work with gnocchi
15:36:11 <jd__> _nadya_: we don't
15:36:16 <eglynn> jd__: yep I agree, but won't hurt to reach out and explain the new relevance of events
15:36:22 <DinaBelova> jd__, well, during next 2-3 weeks it'll be really clear who and what will be doing
15:36:23 <jd__> eglynn: oh sure
15:36:34 <jd__> DinaBelova: I hope so :)
15:36:49 <DinaBelova> jd__ - after the summit there are a lot of different things to coordinate usually
15:36:54 <DinaBelova> it'll be better soon)
15:37:07 <DinaBelova> so possibly there will be free people for this)
15:37:37 <eglynn> DinaBelova: yep, I'll have a list of uncovered areas by next week
15:38:05 <eglynn> "uncovered" == "without an explicit owner who has bandwidth available"
15:38:11 <murphi> I think that we should also keep some focus, and track the status of the other areas to still see the big picture
15:38:44 <DinaBelova> eglynn, sure)
15:39:02 <eglynn> better move on, time is a-ticking!
15:39:07 <murphi> eglynn: what about moving to the next topic?
15:39:12 <eglynn> #topic new BP review process
15:39:19 <murphi> eglynn: :)
15:39:26 <eglynn> the telemtry-specs repo has landed :)
15:39:34 <eglynn> *telemetry
15:39:38 <murphi> eglynn: \o/ :)
15:39:47 <eglynn> https://github.com/openstack/telemetry-specs
15:39:55 <eglynn> infra guys wanted {program}-specs as opposed to {project}-specs
15:40:15 <eglynn> hat-tip to jd__ for cleaning up after eglynn's sloppiness
15:40:17 <llu-laptop> eglynn: so they will rename the nova-specs?
15:40:25 <eglynn> llu-laptop: eventually yes
15:40:34 <jd__> :)
15:40:43 <eglynn> llu-laptop: long, long debate about this in the project/release status meeting on Tuesday
15:40:49 <murphi> eglynn: until we have one repo for the specs, I do not think that the naming is that important...
15:40:50 <eglynn> llu-laptop: ... went to a vote in the end
15:41:16 <eglynn> murphi: the issue was where a single program maps onto multiple projects
15:41:25 <eglynn> murphi: ... as in the tripleo case in particular
15:41:48 <gordc> eglynn: we decide how we want to handle all existing bps? anything not started, should be rewritten for telemetry-specs?
15:42:04 <eglynn> gordc: my thought exactly!
15:42:08 <DinaBelova> gordc, I really think it's a good idea!
15:42:30 <murphi> eglynn: sure, I just wanted t say that I like Telemetry as much as Ceilometer :)
15:42:33 <gordc> eglynn: DinaBelova: cool cool. makes sense to me.
15:42:44 <eglynn> so quick overview of the proposed workflow ...
15:42:52 <murphi> gordc: not started and/or not approved I guess
15:42:58 <DinaBelova> even more - there are some started ones (as you remember my black list :) ) - without real activity - I guess the same process might be used there
15:43:02 <eglynn> 1. propose a detail spec first on gerrit, based on https://github.com/openstack/telemetry-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
15:43:10 <DinaBelova> murphi +1
15:43:38 <eglynn> 2. discussion leads to rough consensus with core team, avoid nitpicking and bikeshedding if poss ;)
15:44:07 <llu-laptop> eglynn: should first step be register it in launchpad, for tracking?
15:44:12 <eglynn> 3. if not pre-existing, a launchpad BP is filed by PTL with spec URL linked to telemetry-specs repo
15:44:18 <eglynn> i.e. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/telemetry-specs/tree/specs/juno/my-awesome-idea.rst
15:44:56 <eglynn> llu-laptop: well part of the idea is to stop the accumulation of unapproved/unworked-on BPs on launchpad
15:45:07 <_nadya_> sounds awesome
15:45:18 <murphi> eglynn: can LP be automatically updated from gerrit?
15:45:43 <eglynn> llu-laptop: ... so ttx suggest punting automatically on any *new* BP that hasn't gone thru' specs review first
15:45:51 <murphi> eglynn: it was just a question, I totally agree with _nadya_ :)
15:46:03 <eglynn> murphi: yep jd__ suggested such automation on the channel earlier
15:46:16 <DinaBelova> eglynn - i guess special job will be cool for the automatical generation of the bp
15:46:20 * eglynn doesn't know enough about the LP REST API, but sounds plausible
15:46:26 <DinaBelova> anyway, core team will need to go and approve it
15:46:30 <murphi> eglynn: ok, cool, I'm not the only lazy developer around :)
15:46:48 <DinaBelova> as only you folks have rights to do it on lp)
15:47:57 <eglynn> DinaBelova: core team for spec review doesn't necessarily have to equate to core on core reviews
15:48:06 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... we've just done it that way
15:48:15 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... but nova have different teams
15:48:21 <DinaBelova> eglynn - nah, sorry - drivers group on the lp
15:48:31 <eglynn> DinaBelova: nova-drivers is a rough subset of nova-core IIRC
15:48:40 <DinaBelova> eglynn, yes, for sure
15:49:30 <DinaBelova> I simply think that if it should be done in the most useful way) if you folks think about two people, for instance, for lp housekeeping, it's ok)))
15:49:31 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... we could change that if folks think its a good idea for slightly groups, but simpler I think to keep it the same
15:49:39 <DinaBelova> if no - well, it's also ok)
15:49:47 <DinaBelova> eglynn, ++
15:49:57 <prad> eglynn: if we already have a bp we discussed at the summit session and started working on the implementation, we still have to refile the specs i guess?
15:49:57 <DinaBelova> as well - we don't have so many people now)
15:49:59 <eglynn> DinaBelova: slightly groups? I mean differing groups
15:50:07 <murphi> two people are not enough in the opensource world I think
15:50:12 <eglynn> prad: yep
15:50:16 <DinaBelova> eglynn - sorry, auto dictionary
15:50:20 <DinaBelova> it was smth else
15:50:36 <DinaBelova> "several" i guess
15:50:41 <DinaBelova> with typos
15:51:05 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... "slightly groups" was my typo, dunno what I was thinking
15:51:09 <eglynn> anyhoo
15:51:17 <DinaBelova> heh, I though it was mine)
15:51:19 <murphi> also, if we have a clear process, then the only thing to do is to follow it and I think the specs repo is a really good start in that way
15:51:27 <eglynn> one last point as discussed with jd__ earlier on the channel
15:51:44 <eglynn> ... let's not make this into the governance repo
15:52:04 <eglynn> ... i.e. lots of nitpicking on language, word-smithing etc.
15:52:27 <llu-laptop> eglynn: agreed, as a non-native speaker
15:52:37 <DinaBelova> eglynn - I guess typos fixing will be the only thing there
15:52:52 <eglynn> ... so in general I'd like to see spelling errors etc. not be a -1 issue in specs reviews, unless it really obscures the meaning
15:53:14 <eglynn> ... let's just concentrate on the idea/concept/design etc.
15:53:28 <gordc> eglynn: +1
15:53:38 <fabiog> eglynn +1, we can just review with 0 and comment where the typo/fixes should be
15:53:42 <cdent> you happy for corrections alongside +1 reviews?
15:53:49 <murphi> eglynn: I agree, the only case when the language can be commented, if that sentence/paragraph is not understandable
15:54:02 <eglynn> cdent, fabiog: yep absolutely to both
15:54:15 <eglynn> murphi: agree when the meaning is really obscured
15:54:25 <DinaBelova> eglynn, fabiog well - I possibly it might be a good idea to add new patch set with typos fixing by the reviewer - without any additional meaning, etc...
15:54:32 <DinaBelova> as this it minor thing
15:54:39 <DinaBelova> but possibly needed to be fixed
15:54:40 * eglynn can't spell, or puncuate, so has a vested interest ;)
15:54:55 <DinaBelova> eglynn - as ironic folks do sometimes)
15:54:59 <murphi> eglynn: if the spell checking gate job will work out, than no more typo problems ;)
15:55:03 <eglynn> DinaBelova: agree, if a new patchset is gonna be needed anyway fix, otherwise not a blocker
15:55:08 <prad> eglynn: is there a dependency on getting the spec approved before pushing code for review? as in if i already have some code i want to start getting eyes on?
15:55:24 <eglynn> prad: WIP patches *always* welcome
15:55:33 <prad> cool
15:55:42 <eglynn> prad: in fact a really good practice to get early eyes if poss ... IMO
15:55:50 <murphi> prad: I think it would not worth pushing 1000 lines of code before getting approval for the base idea
15:55:52 <prad> eglynn: agreed
15:55:59 <eglynn> up against the shot here, better move on
15:56:10 <eglynn> #topic coresec cleanup
15:56:30 <eglynn> anyone object to me cleaning up ... https://launchpad.net/~ceilometer-coresec/+members#active
15:56:32 <prad> murphi: hehe sure, i meant ideas we already discussed at the summit sessions and got some nods
15:56:38 <murphi> prad, but if you have something that already works or the base idea is not something you expect to be rejected, then go for a WIP patch
15:56:49 <eglynn> a few old names there
15:56:56 <DinaBelova> eglynn, heh)
15:57:02 <murphi> prad: a-ha, ok I thought you aks it in general, that one should be ok
15:57:10 <DinaBelova> eglynn you need to be admin here too))
15:57:10 <gordc> interesting... jd__ already called for my removal earlier.. :)
15:57:19 <eglynn> core-coresec should equate to ceilo-core?
15:57:38 <llu-laptop> eglynn: oops, never be aware of this group
15:57:42 <DinaBelova> eglynn - well - it's usually so if core-team is all active enough
15:57:47 <_nadya_> llu-laptop: +1
15:57:53 <DinaBelova> if no there are two variants
15:57:59 <eglynn> DinaBelova: ... k, lets go with that so
15:58:03 <murphi> llu-laptop: +1
15:58:16 <DinaBelova> 1/ remove inactive people from the core-reviewers
15:58:22 <eglynn> llu-laptop: ... for interaction with the vulnerability mgmt ninjas
15:58:23 <DinaBelova> 2/ remove them at least from the lp
15:58:56 <DinaBelova> eglynn - both variants are popular afair :)
15:59:05 <eglynn> DinaBelova: cool
15:59:21 <eglynn> one minute left
15:59:26 <eglynn> #topic tempest
15:59:31 <eglynn> _nadya_: any news?
15:59:47 <_nadya_> no major updates, only summit-news
15:59:56 <DinaBelova> eglynn, _nadya_ - as I remember we still have pack of good changes and we're blocked)
16:00:03 <DinaBelova> we'll see what we'll be sooner
16:00:08 <DinaBelova> working sql
16:00:14 <DinaBelova> or new nodes)
16:00:27 <_nadya_> gordc: one quick question
16:00:33 <gordc> DinaBelova: _nadya_: give https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94483/ a try... it should help
16:00:48 <DinaBelova> gordc - for sure!
16:00:53 <_nadya_> gordc: ok, so we need several collectors, right?
16:01:20 <gordc> _nadya_: for sql probably. haven't verified how much faster it is yet.
16:01:23 <_nadya_> gordc: in this case we need to change default parameter on gating
16:01:34 <DinaBelova> _nadya_, gordc - I may try to test it using tempest ;-\
16:01:37 <gordc> _nadya_: want to continue conversation in openstack-ceilometer?
16:01:45 <DinaBelova> this change
16:01:47 <gordc> out of time here.
16:01:51 <DinaBelova> yes, let's finish
16:01:59 <DinaBelova> eglynn?
16:02:12 <_nadya_> gordc: I will ping you
16:02:20 <eglynn> yep we're outta time
16:02:24 <eglynn> let's continue on the channel
16:02:33 <eglynn> thanks as always for a very productive meeting
16:02:37 <eglynn> #endmeeting ceilometer