16:00:01 <jgriffith> #startmeeting cinder
16:00:02 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep 17 16:00:01 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jgriffith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:03 <flip214> although I hoped for none, as the agenda was still empty a few hours ago ;)
16:00:04 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
16:00:06 <e0ne> hi
16:00:11 <bswartz> hello
16:00:12 <eharney> hi
16:00:19 <glenng> Hey guys1
16:00:22 <smcginnis> o/
16:00:22 <scottda> hi
16:00:26 <Swanson> hello
16:00:26 <patrickeast> hey
16:00:37 <xyang1> hi
16:00:53 <tbarron> hi
16:01:02 <jgriffith> Ok, let's get going
16:01:06 <jgriffith> #agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CinderMeetings
16:01:11 <avishay> hi
16:01:19 <DuncanT> hi
16:01:27 <jkremer> hi
16:01:34 <jgriffith> DuncanT: thanks for putting the agenda together
16:01:44 <jgriffith> DuncanT: you wanna drive since you did the work :)
16:02:03 <DuncanT> Sure
16:02:18 <DuncanT> I don't think I can do #topic magic though
16:02:34 <DuncanT> FFEs - are we all done with them? looks like it
16:02:43 <DuncanT> Just want to check none have been missed
16:02:49 <bswartz> you can probably #chair jgriffith DuncanT or something like that
16:03:03 <jungleboyj> o/
16:03:12 <jgriffith> bswartz: ?
16:03:32 <jgriffith> bswartz: was just trying to be polite and not steal his topics
16:03:42 <bswartz> (there's a meetbot command to set multiple chairs -- can't remember it)
16:04:01 <DuncanT> I'll assume nobody has any FFEs pending then?
16:04:04 <jgriffith> DuncanT: so yeah, seems like it...  IMO I'm done with Feature adds at this point
16:04:52 <DuncanT> ...which segues nicely into the next topic. Are we going to -2 the reviews that are up that are new features?
16:04:56 <timcl> Has the ffe etherpad been updated?
16:04:59 <jgriffith> I am :)
16:05:24 <DuncanT> timcl: I updated a few, then realised they were all merged and got bored
16:05:44 <timcl> thx
16:05:47 <DuncanT> Ok, -2s it is.
16:06:18 <jgriffith> #topic submarine features
16:06:18 <rushiagr> o/
16:06:26 <jgriffith> don't do it :)
16:06:29 <jgriffith> nuf said?
16:06:45 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Can you explain what that means?
16:06:52 <jungleboyj> :-)
16:06:56 <avishay> jgriffith: just change the smiley face to a threatening one
16:07:01 <avishay> then nuf said
16:07:03 <jungleboyj> Torpedo features?
16:07:14 <jgriffith> smcginnis: it means don't try and submit a feature and disguise it as a bug
16:07:28 <jgriffith> smcginnis: like "bug = my driver doesn't do consistency groups"
16:07:33 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Ah, yeah, sounds bad.
16:07:39 <bswartz> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119938/
16:07:52 <bswartz> ^ this is a gray area -- a bug that can only be fixed by adding a new feature
16:08:15 <glenng> As is NFS Security…
16:08:34 <bswartz> the link I posted was not NFS security, but.... yeah
16:08:41 <bswartz> >_<
16:08:45 <glenng> YEah
16:08:59 <jgriffith> bswartz: not gray IMO
16:09:17 <jgriffith> bswartz: that's a bug
16:09:25 <bswartz> okay I agree
16:09:25 <jgriffith> pools was the feature
16:09:38 <bswartz> was just looking for clarification
16:09:40 <tbarron> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121820/
16:09:46 <tbarron> we consider this a bug
16:09:46 <jgriffith> anyway... we're all adults
16:09:49 <glenng> jgriffith: And NFS Security? We have a bug on that but it is a large set of changes.
16:09:53 <jgriffith> surely we can play nicely
16:09:55 <tbarron> but we are adding some information
16:09:57 <xyang1> jgriffith: if we are not required to submit a blueprint for new driver feature any more, it will be even harder to distinguish between them
16:10:00 <jgriffith> glenng: that's a bug
16:10:16 <tbarron> I don't want somebody to decide that it's an enhancement and scold me :-)
16:10:17 <jgriffith> glenng: but sadly I realize it will likely lead to additional bugs
16:10:20 <glenng> *likes stepping on bugs*
16:10:35 <jgriffith> tbarron: no scolding, just a -1 or -2
16:10:39 <glenng> jgritffith: Yeah, good chance.
16:10:40 <tbarron> :-)
16:10:47 <jgriffith> tbarron: and if somebody is wrong you can inform them of your position
16:11:22 <jgriffith> ok... any questions?
16:11:23 <tbarron> kk, the current implementation is pretty broken IMO and it's all orthogonal to
16:11:29 <tbarron> anything outside our own driver
16:11:38 <jgriffith> anybody have anything in the queue that might be questionable they want to discuss?
16:11:50 <jgriffith> tbarron: don't know what you're referring to?
16:12:01 <navneet_> jgriffith: I have some bugs..dont thnk anybody questioned them
16:12:02 <tbarron> my little bug :)
16:12:08 <tbarron> enuf here ...
16:12:11 <jgriffith> tbarron: what is "your little bug"
16:12:15 <glenng> jgriffith: NFS Security work is a item I would like to touch on.
16:12:19 <bswartz> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119938/
16:12:24 <bswartz> DOH
16:12:27 <bswartz> wrong link
16:12:31 <bswartz> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121820/
16:12:31 <tbarron> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121820/
16:12:37 <tbarron> jinx
16:12:39 <xyang1> jgriffith: this one is already merged. can you help update the blueprint status?  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/emc-vnx-direct-driver-cg-support
16:13:07 <jgriffith> sigh
16:13:49 <navneet_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120407/
16:14:02 <navneet_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119311/
16:14:14 <navneet_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119340/
16:14:25 <DuncanT> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120407/ is clearly a bugfix and fine
16:14:25 <jgriffith> geesh netapp!
16:14:27 <glenng> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107693/
16:14:29 <jgriffith> alwasy the same
16:14:38 <glenng> Pick ME!!!
16:14:42 <glenng> hehe
16:14:53 <jungleboyj> What is with the parade of review links ?
16:15:13 <jungleboyj> We will get the reviews and decide how to proceed.
16:15:18 <avishay> where do these bugs come from after ever feature freeze?  something is clearly wrong with testing...
16:15:20 <glenng> jungleboyj: Reaction to the threat of -2 ;-)
16:15:21 <navneet_> DuncanT: other two plzzz
16:15:45 <navneet_> avishay: bugs from customers
16:16:04 <DuncanT> glenng: The NFS security issues are a bug, though I'd like to see it merged soon enough to get some testing before release, given the size of the change
16:16:08 <jgriffith> navneet_: well, they're late
16:16:11 <DuncanT> glenng: Lots of pending comments
16:16:18 <jgriffith> navneet_: and you should at the very least keep on top of them
16:16:31 <jgriffith> navneet_: just dumping them in gerrit isn't cool at this point
16:16:35 <jgriffith> navneet_: they've all failed
16:16:35 <jungleboyj> avishay: People don't test until after FF.
16:16:42 <jgriffith> navneet_: you could fix them?
16:16:42 <glenng> DuncanT: Yes sir. I have a question on one item from review. All other items have been refactored.
16:16:42 <navneet_> jgriffith: they are thr since long...I asked guys to reiew them
16:16:48 <jungleboyj> glenng: :-)
16:17:00 <jgriffith> navneet_: they've failed Jenkins
16:17:03 <DuncanT> glenng: Awesome, keep up the great work!
16:17:10 <bswartz> avishay: I think the bugs are coming because we spent time on increased test coverage and we found more issues
16:17:11 <navneet_> jgriffith: thats recent auto merge
16:17:28 <jgriffith> navneet_: 7 days ago on the one
16:17:31 <jgriffith> navneet_: just fix it
16:17:34 <navneet_> jgriffith: I will rebase
16:17:35 <jgriffith> navneet_: no need to argue
16:18:34 * avishay proposes a gate test for 100% unit test coverage on all new code + integration tests on new features for Kilo
16:18:46 <DuncanT> Clear bugs we can continue fixing... anything questionable can be discussed in IRC
16:18:59 <jungleboyj> DuncanT: +1
16:19:18 <DuncanT> avishay: That'll just mean we get crappy unit tests to increase coverage, and we've enough poor tests as-is
16:19:26 <jgriffith> DuncanT: well put
16:19:28 <jgriffith> ok....
16:19:35 <jgriffith> #topic Hot Issues
16:19:38 <avishay> DuncanT: i guess
16:19:41 <rushiagr> that reminds me of a question I had: who is in charge of targetting a bug to a milestone, and upto when? I'd love to read a doc/wiki regarding if any..
16:19:53 <jgriffith> Any hot issues that may not have bugs targetted to RC yet?
16:20:04 <eharney> requirements.txt is ancient
16:20:14 <eharney> i was looking this morning to see if any updates there are needed... not sure yet
16:20:27 <rushiagr> navneet_'s bug wasn't on launchpad milestone page, a possible reason for missing attention
16:20:33 <jgriffith> eharney: eharney ?
16:20:40 <jgriffith> eharney: new version 5 days ago?
16:20:42 <eharney> jgriffith: we haven't landed a requirements sync in two months
16:20:58 <jgriffith> eharney: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commits/master/requirements.txt
16:20:59 <navneet_> rushiagr: do we need to put bugs  on launchpad milestone?
16:21:14 <navneet_> rushiagr: or somebody incharge?
16:21:29 <eharney> jgriffith: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119988/ ?
16:21:31 <jgriffith> eharney: Sep 12, 11, 3, Aug 20, 18, 8.....
16:21:33 <rushiagr> navneet_: I don't know for sure actually
16:21:37 <eharney> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/106567/ ?
16:21:58 <jungleboyj> jgriffith: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121885/
16:22:05 <jgriffith> eharney: sometimes those get "lost" I think
16:22:23 <eharney> jgriffith: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119988 looks valid to me
16:22:25 <jgriffith> eharney: I just go off of github
16:22:27 <jungleboyj> jgriffith: Oh, that is targetted for RC though.
16:22:40 <eharney> i.e. should we be blocking taskflow 0.4
16:22:56 <jgriffith> eharney: let's back up a second please......
16:23:19 <jgriffith> eharney: do you or do you not see the merge from Sep 12?
16:23:45 <hemna> mornin
16:23:56 <eharney> jgriffith: yes, i wrote that patch to enable tests to pass for the larger update...
16:24:00 <jungleboyj> hemna: is here now.  We can start!
16:24:15 <jgriffith> eharney: so I'm confused by your statement that "we haven't updated in months"
16:24:26 <hemna> jungleboyj, lol
16:24:28 <eharney> jgriffith: we haven't done a full sync in months
16:24:39 <eharney> jgriffith: just a couple of updates w/o examining a lot of them from what i can tell
16:25:21 <eharney> how much this matters, i'm not sure, but there is a delta there we should probably examine before release time
16:25:33 <jgriffith> eharney: fair enough
16:25:47 <jgriffith> eharney: honestly those jobs are just auto +2/A as far as I'm concerned
16:26:48 <jgriffith> eharney: but regardless... yes, we should be up to date on requirements files before RC1 cuts
16:26:56 * DuncanT really wishes there were reasons articulated for the version bumps, but that is a complaint for another day
16:27:07 <jgriffith> eharney: I was just confused by the statement that "it hadn't been updated in months"
16:27:20 <jgriffith> DuncanT: well, there is that
16:28:13 <jgriffith> anybody have any bugs in mind that aren't just for their 3'rd party driver?
16:28:40 <xyang1> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119564/  It was already approved, but I had to resolve a merge conflict.
16:28:42 <DuncanT> "cinder-client --debug broken" is my only high priority bug
16:28:43 <hemna> jgriffith, some of our folks here on the horizon team found a filed a few bugs yesterday
16:28:48 <hemna> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1370273
16:28:49 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1370273 in cinder "volume type-create  allows only spaces as type name" [Medium,Triaged]
16:29:23 <DuncanT> hemna: To my mind, not a bug
16:29:27 <hemna> 3 bugs related to that type of create call with a " " empty/or space name
16:29:41 <jungleboyj> hemna: Yeah, seems a little suspicious.
16:29:43 <hemna> DuncanT, yah that's basically what I told her as well, but they say it affects Horizon
16:29:57 <DuncanT> hemna: It's a free text field, user can put what they want in it
16:30:03 <jgriffith> hemna: debateable
16:30:06 <hemna> yup
16:30:10 <hemna> that's what I said as well
16:30:11 <DuncanT> hemna: Then horizon need to fix it, not cinder IMO
16:30:13 <guitarzan> that one's hilarious :D
16:30:19 <hemna> but thought I'd raise it here since you asked.
16:30:22 <jungleboyj> DuncanT: +1
16:30:50 <hemna> well the only argument here is, shouldn't cinder be doing the validation, not Horizon?
16:30:59 <hemna> I don't have strong feelings about it really.
16:31:02 <DuncanT> xyang1: I'll review that CG type fix again now
16:31:07 <AlkaD> I think Horizon should do the validation
16:31:13 <hemna> jgriffith, you can mark it invalid if you like.
16:31:16 <AlkaD> just my 2 cents
16:31:16 <jgriffith> hemna: cinder doesn't have an issue with it :)
16:31:17 <DuncanT> hemna: ' ' is a valid name
16:31:43 <xyang1> DuncanT: thanks!  Looks that jgriffith just approved it.
16:31:46 <avishay> it's stupid, but valid - agree
16:31:47 <jgriffith> hemna: DuncanT guitarzan so this has implications for breaking behaviors that people currently expect
16:31:48 <hemna> DuncanT, yah that's what I said as well.
16:32:10 <jgriffith> so changing it this late in the game seems bad
16:32:11 <DuncanT> hemna: Once you start validating things like displayable characters, unicode becomes a world of hurt
16:32:22 <hemna> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1370280
16:32:24 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1370280 in cinder "cinder create allows only spaces as display-name" [Low,Triaged]
16:32:28 <hemna> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1370194
16:32:30 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1370194 in cinder "QOS Spec creation should validate name and key-value pairs" [Medium,In progress]
16:32:31 <hemna> are the other 2
16:32:38 <hemna> basically the same thing with different commands
16:32:56 <guitarzan> are these people anti spaces? we shouldn't be characterist here
16:32:59 <DuncanT> hemna: All invalid bugs IMO
16:33:04 <jgriffith> WTF, one bug per iteration?
16:33:11 <jgriffith> duplicates and invalid
16:33:15 <hemna> well they are different commands
16:33:17 <jgriffith> at least for now
16:33:21 <hemna> I'll mark them invalid
16:33:29 <hemna> just wanted to see what others thought.
16:33:31 <jungleboyj> guitarzan: white spaces are characters too!
16:33:35 <jgriffith> hemna: already did
16:33:36 <guitarzan> jungleboyj: exactly!
16:33:44 <hemna> jgriffith, ok thanks.
16:33:45 <hemna> :)
16:33:51 <jgriffith> hemna: but they are all the same basic issue so they should be dup's IMO
16:34:01 <jgriffith> hemna: unless someobdy is getting ranked on number of bugs submitted :(
16:34:14 <hemna> heh, one of them even has a patch to fix it already
16:34:15 <jgriffith> metrics will be the death of us all
16:34:19 <hemna> the qos bug
16:34:38 <hemna> jgriffith, nah, just a bug happy horizon dev on our team.
16:34:52 <eharney> we have a simple outstanding patch to help prevent docs job failures that we should probably land: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1368910   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121224/
16:34:54 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1368910 in nova "intersphinx requires network access  which sometimes fails" [Medium,In progress]
16:35:26 <DuncanT> eharney: I meant to +2/A that one
16:35:41 <DuncanT> eharney: Done
16:35:46 <eharney> :)
16:36:17 <jgriffith> hemna: I'm not necessarily object to changing it, just not right now
16:36:25 <DuncanT> Shall we move on to a third-party update? We're circling a bit here now I think, can always come back at the end if we ahve time...
16:36:35 <jgriffith> hemna: now... if you want to submit a patch that removes things like '/' I'm down with that :)
16:36:37 <hemna> jgriffith, coolio.  thanks for the feedback.   I'll relay it.
16:36:42 <jgriffith> #third party driver update
16:36:44 <hemna> :P
16:36:48 <jgriffith> bahh
16:36:56 <jgriffith> #topic third-party ci updates
16:37:16 <jungleboyj> Nothing big here, just a ping to see if the status on the wiki page is up to date.
16:37:26 <jgriffith> wiki page?
16:38:04 <smcginnis> Up to date in regards to Dell. Still working on ours. Feel I am very close.
16:38:11 <jungleboyj> jgriffith: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/third-party-ci-status
16:38:34 <jungleboyj> Seems like the focus right now is on bugs and reviews.  I am fine with that.
16:39:11 <DuncanT> 'Failing tests' is the bit I'd really like people to keep up to date if possible
16:39:26 <jungleboyj> DuncanT: +1
16:40:04 <jgriffith> jungleboyj: thanks, I've updated
16:40:12 * jgriffith system is now reporting
16:40:42 <jgriffith> FYI, my setup doesn't report if it fails for "internal" crap
16:40:54 <jgriffith> ie; devstack fails to deploy
16:41:01 <jungleboyj> jgriffith: Cool.
16:41:36 * DuncanT proposes K1 as a new hard cut-off date for getting CI working for anybody who has a driver in J (so new drivers get some slack)
16:41:52 <smcginnis> DuncanT: +1
16:42:05 * DuncanT wants to avoid this slipping as a hard requirement indefinitely
16:42:20 <xyang1> we have a problem making the *.gz file browsable
16:42:21 <smcginnis> jgriffith: DuncanT What is the preference if tests fail due to internal issues?
16:42:34 <DuncanT> smcginnis: Fixing the internal issues :-)
16:42:35 <smcginnis> Do we still comment to state that or just die quietly?
16:42:49 <jungleboyj> DuncanT: You are relaxing in your late release time.  ;-)
16:43:19 <DuncanT> smcginnis: Ah, reporting that you can't make a run is probably a good thing
16:43:39 <DuncanT> smcginnis: Certainly you shouldn't report it as a -1 fail
16:43:48 <bswartz> infra gets angry if you make multiple comments
16:44:01 <bswartz> probably better to retry and complete the test, then comment
16:44:08 <DuncanT> Yeah, if you're going to retry, don't comment
16:44:26 <DuncanT> If you're giving up, a 0 vote to that effect is probably good
16:44:43 <smcginnis> DuncanT: Good, that's what I was thinking.
16:44:52 <jgriffith> DuncanT: just curious.... "why"?
16:44:53 * bswartz agrees
16:44:57 <DuncanT> Voting -1 because your test rig blew up is the worst situation
16:45:06 <jgriffith> DuncanT: agree with that
16:45:21 <DuncanT> jgriffith: So that any reviewers waiting for a result knows to stop waiting
16:45:30 <jgriffith> DuncanT: so here's a question.....
16:45:49 <jgriffith> has ANYBODY ever waited for a review from 3rd party CI system?
16:45:57 * jungleboyj not it
16:45:58 <jgriffith> or does anybody think they would?
16:46:11 <navneet_> not me...but checked results
16:46:15 <jgriffith> DuncanT: not being contrary, just asking
16:46:26 <jungleboyj> Certainly not yet.
16:46:28 <xyang1> I did wait for our CI to validate the CG and pool aware patch
16:46:40 <jbernard> jgriffith: for my rbd changes, i would wait for the ceph ci to report
16:46:41 <jgriffith> Personally I do my best to ignore the outputs
16:46:41 <bswartz> I check the results -- especially if a particular CI system has proven reliable in the past
16:47:01 <xyang1> just make sure nothing breaks existing functionality
16:47:02 <jgriffith> bswartz: hmmm.... that's interesting
16:47:05 * DuncanT has wanted ceph reviews on some patches, easier than chasing for a manual inspection
16:47:20 <jgriffith> bswartz: DuncanT ok, good enough for me
16:47:34 <bswartz> +1 non-voting is still valuable information
16:49:30 <jgriffith> so for those that are using the infra modules....
16:49:43 <jgriffith> we should cnosider consolidating your changes and feeding them back upstream
16:49:56 <navneet_> should 3rd party CI check for openstack CI vote and recheck if it failed in their environment?
16:50:30 <jgriffith> navneet_: in my case I don't even run if OpenStack CI hasn't run and passed
16:50:44 <navneet_> jgriffith: yeah thats a good check
16:50:44 <jgriffith> navneet_: but I'm sure some will have concerns witht that approach
16:51:15 <navneet_> jgriffith: it avoids unneccessary run as the coder will reload
16:51:41 <bswartz> you could use the "wait for jenkins +1" as a load tuning knob -- wait if your job queue is long, don't wait if your job queue is short
16:52:07 <navneet_> jgriffith: checking might be useful incase of rerunning internal CI if it fails but openstack CI passed
16:52:24 <jgriffith> navneet_: yes
16:52:26 <DuncanT> bswartz: +1
16:53:04 <jgriffith> Ok... anybody have anything else?
16:53:15 <jgriffith> #topic open-discussion
16:53:46 <jgriffith> Ok...
16:53:53 <jgriffith> thanks everyone
16:53:57 <jgriffith> #endmeeting