16:00:01 <smcginnis> #startmeeting Cinder
16:00:02 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr  6 16:00:01 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is smcginnis. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:05 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
16:00:08 <Swanson> hello
16:00:11 <smcginnis> Courtesy ping: dulek duncant eharney geguileo winston-d e0ne jungleboyj jgriffith thingee smcginnis hemna xyang tbarron scottda erlon rhedlind jbernard _alastor_ vincent_hou kmartin patrickeast sheel dongwenjuan JaniceLee cFouts Thelo vivekd adrianofr mtanino yuriy_n17 karlamrhein diablo_rojo jay.xu jgregor baumann
16:00:12 <yhayashi> Hello
16:00:13 <jgregor> Hello!
16:00:15 <eharney> hi
16:00:17 <bswartz> .o/
16:00:17 <flip214> hi
16:00:18 <geguileo> smcginnis: Thanks!
16:00:19 <diablo_rojo> Hello :)
16:00:20 <mtanino> hi
16:00:20 <geguileo> Hi
16:00:21 <tbarron> hi
16:00:22 <scottda> hi
16:00:22 <jseiler> hi
16:00:25 <hemna> hey
16:00:25 <kmartin> hi
16:00:26 <baumann> Hey there
16:00:27 <rajinir> hi
16:00:32 <dulek> Hi (parallel meeting, so I'll be reading using one eye only)
16:00:42 <patrickeast> Hi
16:00:44 <smcginnis> dulek: ;)
16:00:45 <xyang1> hi
16:00:59 <adrianofr_> hi
16:01:03 <scottda> dulek .)
16:01:05 <smcginnis> Thanks to everyone that stepped up to run the meeting last week.
16:01:11 <smcginnis> Horrible timing on my side.
16:01:19 <smcginnis> Forgot about Europe DST.
16:01:33 <rhedlind> hi
16:01:40 <smcginnis> Ended up the one spot where I couldn't get on - in the middle of the sea with no signal.
16:01:50 <smcginnis> #topic Release Status
16:01:50 <Swanson> Was your kid barfing at the time?
16:02:00 <smcginnis> #info RC-2 will be final Mitaka release
16:02:05 <e0ne> hi
16:02:09 <thingee> o/
16:02:16 <DuncanT> Hi
16:02:22 <cFouts> hi
16:02:35 <yuriy_n17> Hi!
16:02:39 <smcginnis> Release is set. We have a few backports for the first update, but I think we can declare M mostly baked.
16:02:51 <smcginnis> Great work everyone on all that we got done the last cycle.
16:03:07 <e0ne> smcginnis: it's a good news!
16:03:18 <Swanson> My only regret is that I couldn't code replication support a third time.
16:03:26 <smcginnis> Swanson: :P
16:03:30 <Swanson> ;)
16:03:31 <jgriffith> Swanson: hush!
16:03:37 <jgriffith> Swanson: it can be arranged ya know
16:03:44 <smcginnis> With that - time to start focusing on Newton.
16:03:47 <Swanson> jgriffith, I'll be good.
16:03:50 <smcginnis> Repl v3, here we come!
16:03:50 <DuncanT> Swanson: Tiramasu has you covered in Newton
16:04:09 <smcginnis> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-spec-review-tracking Spec and review focus tracking.
16:04:10 <xyang> Swanson, DuncanT: yes:)
16:04:20 * jgriffith still isn't convinced that's a great idea... but ok :)
16:04:20 <smcginnis> Tasty tiramisu.
16:04:36 <smcginnis> jgriffith: You just want more cheesecake.
16:04:45 <jgriffith> smcginnis: but of course
16:04:46 <xyang> jgriffith: which one?  Tiramisu or spec tracking?
16:04:54 <smcginnis> Hah!
16:04:55 <jgriffith> and whoever sent me one last week, thank you!!  It was yummy
16:05:06 <diablo_rojo> xyang: My question too.
16:05:12 <xyang> :)
16:05:13 * bswartz quietly prepares double-fudge-brownie spec...
16:05:16 <jgriffith> Tiramisu, I'm nervous about volume only rep failovers
16:05:38 * DuncanT decides to name all his future after good single malt, just in case
16:05:43 <e0ne> we have to pre-order tiramisu for our beer night at summit
16:05:43 <smcginnis> jgriffith: I definitely think that will be an active summit session.
16:05:48 <hemna> DuncanT, +1
16:05:49 <smcginnis> DuncanT: Smart man!
16:05:53 <jgriffith> but no need to rat hole on that here
16:06:02 <smcginnis> So spec tracking... :)
16:06:04 <diablo_rojo> Better left for the summit
16:06:09 <smcginnis> I just put a few things in there for now.
16:06:28 <xyang> jgriffith: you apparently changed  your mind again:), but let's discuss later
16:06:28 <smcginnis> We can resort and prioritize things as we go. Probably some better ideas after the summit.
16:07:10 <smcginnis> I'd like to see if we can use this better for focusing reviews.
16:07:24 <jgriffith> xyang: nah... I'll stay out of your way
16:07:24 <smcginnis> Seems to have worked well for Nova at least.
16:07:38 <smcginnis> #link http://releases.openstack.org/newton/schedule.html Planned Newton release schedule
16:07:41 <scottda> smcginnis: Maybe a Friday working session for setting and sorting priorites?
16:07:54 <xyang> jgriffith: we need your input
16:08:01 <smcginnis> scottda: Good idea. I'll add that to the etherpad to make sure we don't miss it.
16:08:13 <jgriffith> smcginnis: did I miss the link?
16:08:25 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Which one?
16:08:36 <jgriffith> smcginnis: nm found it ;)
16:08:37 <jgriffith> sorry
16:08:38 <smcginnis> Review focus: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-spec-review-tracking
16:08:52 <smcginnis> jgriffith: No worries. Multiple streams going at the same time.
16:09:21 <smcginnis> I'll publish the Cinder specific deadlines on the newton release schedule soon.
16:09:33 <smcginnis> I'm thinking our deadlines in Mitaka worked well for the most part.
16:09:49 <smcginnis> Anyone have any input or opinion that any of it should be different for N?
16:09:50 <e0ne> smcginnis: will we have the same deadlines for new drivers?
16:10:10 <smcginnis> e0ne: That's my thought so far, unless someone feels strongly otherwise.
16:10:34 <e0ne> smcginnis: from my PoV it works better
16:11:04 <smcginnis> OK, well if anyone has any strong opinions otherwise, just let me know.
16:11:10 <smcginnis> But I did think it went well.
16:11:24 <smcginnis> #topic Summit session planning
16:11:26 <diablo_rojo> I think the same deadlines would be good.
16:11:34 <smcginnis> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-cinder-summit-ideas Summit session planning
16:11:54 <smcginnis> I need to get the sessions added to the schedule.
16:12:21 <smcginnis> I'll start going through and allocating topics to specific timeslots, hopefully this week yet.
16:12:33 <smcginnis> Please add any topics to the etherpad.
16:13:12 <smcginnis> We can adjust things, but the biggest ones I'll put in the fishbowl sessions, larger topics for the group in working sessions, misc. topics in the Friday work day.
16:13:37 <smcginnis> We were able to power through topics on the last day in Tokyo.
16:13:57 <smcginnis> So make sure anything you want discussed is on there so it's not missed.
16:13:59 <e0ne> hemna: do we want session about privsep in os-brick?
16:14:01 <DuncanT> Please also note if you thing a topic will be contentious / uncontentious - we waste a fair amount of time on things where there's no disagreement some summits
16:14:16 <smcginnis> e0ne: Looks like it's under the nova session list.
16:14:31 <hemna> e0ne, I'm not sure why.  it's about to land :)
16:14:31 <smcginnis> DuncanT: Good point.
16:14:38 <diablo_rojo> now that all the privsep stuff has landed
16:14:47 <diablo_rojo> Or there is one more
16:14:51 <smcginnis> We want to make sure folks have had time to digest and discuss ahead of time so it's productive.
16:14:54 <jgriffith> smcginnis: DuncanT so only things that we can argue about :)
16:14:57 <hemna> we just need folks to test it.  it's basically ready to roll.
16:15:20 <smcginnis> But we also don't need to dedicate a topic just as a formality if everyone's already in agreement.
16:15:21 <e0ne> hemna: good to know it
16:15:28 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Yeah, entertainment value. :)
16:15:34 <jgriffith> smcginnis: :)
16:15:37 <hemna> e0ne, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277224/
16:15:47 <DuncanT> hemna: It's kind of broken from my PoV, given we're not in a rush anymore, I'd rather see it evolve slightly closer to the final vision before we merge it now
16:15:55 <smcginnis> No, but really anything that needs some discussion or needs to make sure everyone is aware of.
16:16:03 <eharney> hemna: trying to get my NFS CI job added to os-brick so i can test it with that
16:16:08 <e0ne> hemna: It's still in my TODOs list
16:16:11 <smcginnis> I actually think we have enough time, based on the number of slots we have.
16:16:13 <hemna> e0ne, all the deps have landed, and the 3PAR and pure storage CI have passed now. (they had been failing due to the dependencies not landing)
16:16:22 <hemna> eharney, sweet!
16:16:29 <DuncanT> hemna: Even if it is only one or two example calls being done properly
16:16:35 <smcginnis> So if we have a few that are just small updates, I'd rather have that than something coming out of the blue that most folks weren't aware of.
16:17:02 <hemna> DuncanT, well, I think this is a decent first step.  I have several other patches in os-brick that are depending on this getting in (nova/cinder using os-brick's lvm)
16:18:26 <smcginnis> #topic Nova-Cinder API discussion
16:18:29 <DuncanT> hemna: Ok, I don't think it's massively harmful to merge what's there, I just really want to see an example of doing it properly so we can start working on it. Maybe ask Angus to do a parallel patch of one call site to start looking at that though, and allow other things to progress?
16:18:33 <smcginnis> sheel: Hi!
16:18:38 <sheel> smcginnis: hi
16:19:02 <sheel> smcginnis:  it was regarding having idea about what was discussed in cinder-nova api discussions
16:19:08 <scottda> sheel: I can give an update, since you were looking for a volunteer.
16:19:09 <hemna> DuncanT, yah I think that's doable as follow ups.
16:19:14 <scottda> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-nova-api-changes
16:19:20 <sheel> smcginnis:  I think scottda  have updated something
16:19:25 <sheel> scottda:  yes please
16:19:35 <scottda> There are a few topics, all related somewhat...
16:19:57 <scottda> Getting multi-attach in Nova is one of them. And that leads to possible changes in Cinder.
16:20:11 <scottda> You can see we have 4 alternatives in the etherpad.
16:20:35 <sheel> scottda: yes
16:20:49 <scottda> hemna created a nice graph of Volume attach: #link https://www.gliffy.com/go/publish/image/10360157/L.png
16:21:08 <scottda> At this point, we are wanting got get as much info out as possible, thus the graph.
16:21:21 <scottda> We could use similar graphs for detach and Nova live migration.
16:21:29 <hemna> scottda, I was just thinking about that
16:21:34 <scottda> From there, we hope to examine the various alternatives.
16:21:48 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Have you had a chance to look at that etherpad. I think one of the alternatives was what you were pushing for.
16:21:49 <scottda> And resolve them at the Summit with a Big Cage Match
16:21:54 <hemna> scottda, if I get time I can work on creating a graph for live migration as well.
16:22:05 <scottda> hemna: That's be swell.
16:22:05 <smcginnis> scottda: Would love to have pretty graphs for all the workflows.
16:22:08 <jgriffith> smcginnis: yep, and I added some things including comments
16:22:10 <smcginnis> I think that could benefit everyone.
16:22:14 <smcginnis> jgriffith: Great, thanks!
16:22:17 <jgriffith> and questions
16:22:28 <smcginnis> I've seen some usage of PlantUML in other projects.
16:22:50 <smcginnis> Don't know if we have a standard, but that's a pretty convenient one that would allow us to include the code in source and have it reviewed.
16:22:54 <smcginnis> Just a suggestion.
16:23:08 <scottda> smcginnis: Yes, on that note, having a good , free tool for call graphs and flow charts would be great. Lotsa stuff could benefit.
16:23:17 <hemna> smcginnis, I just did a search for web based uml tools
16:23:22 <sheel> smcginnis:  +1
16:23:27 <hemna> I'd like one that is free that produces something like what I did.
16:23:37 <jgriffith> smcginnis: I like it, OSS and free
16:23:47 <smcginnis> Prety easy to use too.
16:23:58 <scottda> It really makes a difference for these kind of complex design discussions.
16:24:00 <jgriffith> and text language input for repo is a big plus
16:24:15 <scottda> Anyway, that's where the nova-cinder api stuff is today.
16:24:15 <hemna> http://plantuml.com/  that one ?
16:24:24 <smcginnis> hemna: Yep, that's it
16:24:31 <smcginnis> I think there are python libraries for it.
16:24:38 <smcginnis> Integration with things like Confluence, etc.
16:24:43 <scottda> With another meeting today at 2100- UTC in #openstack-meeting-cp
16:24:49 <hemna> is there a GUI for editing ?  if so, I can check it out and try to reproduce the same attach graph
16:25:19 <smcginnis> hemna: Maybe. I've only done text updates to generate the images.
16:25:20 <sheel> hemna:  we have other tools as well for same thing like Seqdiag
16:25:23 <hemna> :(
16:25:25 <smcginnis> hemna: Usually pretty good about layout.
16:25:32 <smcginnis> hemna: Syntax is super simple.
16:25:36 <hemna> ok, I'd rather not have to spend time learning some text syntax
16:25:51 <hemna> ok anyway
16:26:03 <smcginnis> Super super simple. :)
16:26:19 <smcginnis> But fair enough. I'd rather see something than nothing.
16:26:48 <smcginnis> Anything else on the nova-cinder topic to cover?
16:27:01 <scottda> Not from me.
16:27:06 <hemna> I added a 4th alternative yesterday
16:27:12 <hemna> would be nice if folks can chew on it
16:27:53 <sheel> scottda: do we have only multi attach in this discussion ?
16:28:17 <scottda> sheel: No. multi-attach just brings forth many issues.
16:28:40 <sheel> scottda:  ok..will go through etherpad for more details..
16:28:49 <sheel> scottda:  thanks for pointers
16:28:57 <scottda> Having some way to do a Cinder force-detach without Nova (in the case where Nova instance is gone) is another...
16:29:09 <jgriffith> hemna: umm... I'm confused
16:29:13 <scottda> But that kind of depends on attach/detach changes for multi-attach.
16:29:15 <xyang> scottda, hemna: is the plan to fix all multi attach related issues in Nova in Newton?
16:29:31 <smcginnis> That would be great if we could.
16:29:39 <hemna> xyang, the plan is to get multi-attach working :)
16:29:41 <jgriffith> hemna: you just took my proposal for initialize_connection which already does part of it and moved it to reserve which *was* specifically JUST for reserving the volume?
16:29:46 <scottda> And Nova live migration requires a way to update certain attach info (i.e. compute host). But that also depends on changes...
16:29:51 <xyang> hemna: ok:)
16:29:51 <dulek> hemna: That would also be cool! :)
16:30:26 <scottda> hemna: jgriffith Will you both be at the meeting today to discuss ?
16:30:47 <jgriffith> scottda: time?
16:31:01 <scottda> 2100 UTC 1500 MDT
16:31:12 <scottda> #openstack-meeting-cp
16:31:19 <jgriffith> scottda: yeah. I can be there
16:31:25 <jgriffith> scottda: please ping me if I forget :)
16:31:40 <hemna> jgriffith, basically, yes because it will give you the correct attachment_id throughout the entire process of the workflow.  if you look at the code now, the volume_attachment table entry doesn't even exist until attach is called, which is the end of the process.
16:31:41 <scottda> It will be a lot more fun with both of you there :)
16:31:51 <smcginnis> I would definitely feel better if all of you guys are on the same page. :)
16:32:12 <hemna> it's a much cleaner and explicit/straight forward approach IMHO.  no magic lookup/discovery stuffs needed.
16:32:45 <scottda> There is a sign up in the etherpad for interested people and you will be pinged for the meeting.
16:32:52 <jgriffith> hemna: but you're just taking my proposal that you haven't given any feedback on and duplicating/moving it up one step further where IMO it doesn't belong?
16:33:13 <hemna> jgriffith, yup, because I don't like your proposal.
16:33:19 <jgriffith> hemna: ok
16:33:22 <scottda> hemna: jgriffith Let's get our alternatives and graphs together and discuss at today's meeting.
16:33:29 <smcginnis> scottda: +1
16:33:32 <hemna> scottda, +1
16:33:59 <diablo_rojo> Have a good old fashioned debate
16:33:59 <smcginnis> #topic Cinderclient support of /v3 endpoint and microversions
16:34:09 <scottda> Hi
16:34:11 <smcginnis> scottda: Your a popular guy today.
16:34:14 <smcginnis> *you're
16:34:46 <scottda> Just a prod to review cinderclient changes for microversion support:
16:34:54 <scottda> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300028
16:35:02 <scottda> support for /v3 endpoint ^^
16:35:21 <scottda> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/301941/2
16:35:29 <scottda> support for microversions ^^
16:35:45 <xyang> scottda, smcginnis: do we have plan to move extension APIs to core APIs in Newton?  Otherwise we can't use microversion on them
16:35:46 <scottda> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300585
16:35:59 <scottda> ameade: patch for /v3 endpoint in devstack ^^
16:36:22 <scottda> xyang: We had discussed it, and we should. Thanks for the reminder.
16:36:34 <smcginnis> xyang: That's what manila did, right?
16:36:41 <xyang> smcginnis: yes
16:37:05 <bswartz> +!
16:37:06 <bswartz> +1
16:37:09 <scottda> xyang: How hard would it be to do?
16:37:18 <scottda> s/to do/for you to do/
16:37:25 <scottda> (see what I did there?)
16:37:26 <bswartz> moving the extensions to core was susprisingly easy
16:37:26 <xyang> scottda: in manila, it took one release to complete it
16:37:44 <xyang> bswartz: it just takes time and cinder has a lot more than manila
16:38:00 <e0ne> xyang, scottda: sounds good
16:38:03 <xyang> scottda: I think once you get one done, the rest should be easy
16:38:12 <xyang> scottda: I can help as well
16:38:17 <DuncanT> No reason why it should be slow, the patches should all be identicalish once the first on eis got right
16:38:34 <e0ne> IMO, it will be helpful to track this progress in an etherpad
16:38:36 <xyang> DuncanT: it just takes time for things to get merged
16:38:57 <scottda> I can look at  doing this. xyang I'll ping you
16:39:07 <xyang> scottda: sounds good
16:39:26 <smcginnis> scottda: Anything else on this topic?
16:39:45 <bswartz> https://github.com/openstack/manila/commit/2467ccf223559e7542349a5336379c6ef607352c
16:40:05 <bswartz> example of moving extensions into core for manila
16:40:13 <scottda> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/move-cinder-extensions-to-core
16:40:14 <smcginnis> bswartz: Doesn't look horrible.
16:41:01 <xyang> smcginnis: coding is not hard.  just takes time to get everything merged because there are so many extension apis
16:41:03 <e0ne> scottda: thanks
16:41:19 <scottda> smcginnis: No. But please review. I hope we can make progress before the Summit
16:41:24 <smcginnis> xyang: Yeah, it looks like something we'll just have to work our way through.
16:41:42 <smcginnis> Certainly feasible to complete in N, but we'll need to pay attention to make sure it can.
16:41:53 <smcginnis> scottda: Thanks!
16:42:08 <smcginnis> #topic Deprecate cinder-all
16:42:14 <smcginnis> DuncanT: Yeah, not sure about this one.
16:42:44 <DuncanT> smcginnis: It's entirely true that it is untested, I wondered if anybody had ever had/see a use for it
16:42:56 <e0ne> IMO, it's not tested and probably not used at all. should we continut to maintain it?
16:42:59 <eharney> i assume that nobody really uses this
16:43:04 <DuncanT> smcginnis: Also whether other services (still) have a *-all binary
16:43:06 <e0ne> eharney:+
16:43:19 <eharney> i drop it from our packages just to make sure nobody decides to have fun with it
16:43:46 <smcginnis> eharney: Oh, that's an interesting data point.
16:43:52 <e0ne> tbarron maked a good comment about it in the review
16:44:01 <eharney> nova-all still exists in their tree
16:44:19 <tbarron> wouldn't real customers get in trouble if they did this?
16:44:34 <DuncanT> aharney: Can you add the comment about you dropping it to the review, please?
16:44:40 <tbarron> and we don't use it in dev environment to my knowledge.
16:44:41 <eharney> tbarron: i think it should mostly "work" in theory
16:44:43 <eharney> DuncanT: ok
16:44:51 <tbarron> but scale?
16:45:01 <tbarron> seems very uncloudy
16:45:04 <dulek> tbarron: Well, this still runs 3 processes.
16:45:33 <e0ne> eharney: TBH, I tested it today. it works. at least, I was able to create and delete a volume
16:45:37 <dulek> tbarron: It certainly is in terms of running in containers for example.
16:45:39 <tbarron> dulek: ok, but why?
16:46:09 <DuncanT> The issue I can see is if somebody does both cinder-all and cinder-{whatever}
16:46:16 <tbarron> seems to me a direction we'd want to deprecate.
16:46:37 <tbarron> proposal was to deprecate over a release.
16:46:50 <bswartz> DuncanT: if they do that, wouldn't they just get accidental HA?
16:46:51 <dulek> Definitely it doens't look that cinder-all has any benefits to running every service separately.
16:46:56 <smcginnis> That might actually be a good way to find out if anyone cares.
16:47:01 <tbarron> if there's a use case for it, then sure.  but is there?
16:47:13 <smcginnis> If we mark it deprecated and no one says anything, then we're probably safe removing it in O.
16:47:18 <DuncanT> bswartz: They get craziness if they e.g. edit a config file and don't know what to restart
16:47:24 <dulek> bswartz: It's more complicated - API will crash due to used port.
16:47:26 <eharney> i've always assumed use case is for some all-in-one development setup, but that doesn't really exist
16:47:31 <smcginnis> If someone complains and gives a reason for its existence, then we can un-deprecate it.
16:47:31 <e0ne> smcginnis: +1
16:47:35 <tbarron> eharney: ++
16:47:43 <smcginnis> But only after having been given some justification for it.
16:47:44 <e0ne> smcginnis+1
16:47:47 <eharney> smcginnis: good point
16:47:52 <tbarron> our all-in-oone is devstack and we don't do it there
16:48:01 <dulek> Deprecate seems safe.
16:48:06 <DuncanT> I mostly just wanted to check if anybody knew a use for it off the cuff and hadn't seen the review, so I'm happy enough
16:48:15 <tbarron> DuncanT: ++
16:48:19 <smcginnis> +1
16:48:44 <bswartz> DuncanT: please link me the review -- we have the same madness in manila
16:49:21 <e0ne> bswartz: https://review.openstack.org/302189
16:49:48 <smcginnis> #topic Open Discussion
16:49:58 <e0ne> bswartz: it's a "initial for of cinder" problem ;)
16:50:34 <dulek> e0ne: "Initial fork out of Nova". I've learned that already when looking through code. :D
16:50:35 <DuncanT> bswartz: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302189/
16:50:51 <e0ne> dulek: in manila?
16:50:54 <bswartz> ty
16:50:59 <yuriy_n17> guys, thanks a lot for discussing on my patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302189/
16:51:08 <bswartz> cinder forked from nova and manila forked from cinder
16:51:17 <tbarron> it's all forked
16:51:18 <dulek> e0ne: Oh. Okay, you're right.
16:51:22 <smcginnis> Cluster forked.
16:51:30 <e0ne> :)
16:51:49 <e0ne> we need fork from manila!
16:51:53 <smcginnis> I've got one. Any feedback on this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/297140/
16:51:55 <e0ne> file-as-a-service
16:51:56 <dulek> And neutron is forked from nova-network. Oh wait…
16:52:07 <smcginnis> I've seen some cases where having this check could be useful.
16:52:22 <smcginnis> If we add it, it would be nice to have in place for new drivers in N.
16:53:15 <eharney> smcginnis: i'd like to give feedback on this, will take a look
16:53:44 <smcginnis> eharney: Great, thank you.
16:53:51 <bswartz> smcginnis: I wanted to revisit your earlier questions about deadlines
16:53:57 <smcginnis> bswartz: Sure!
16:54:03 <bswartz> smcginnis: did any drivers or features actually miss the deadlines?
16:54:09 <bswartz> was anyone thrown out?
16:54:11 <DuncanT> smcginnis: I've been meaning to take a proper look at this, but at first glance I liked it - it provides much of what I hoped to get from ABCs and... didn't
16:54:18 <smcginnis> bswartz: I think Nexenta had a couple more they wanted to add.
16:54:40 <bswartz> so they're waiting for newton?
16:54:41 <smcginnis> bswartz: And one other one submitted way late, so they weren't paying any attention.
16:55:00 <smcginnis> bswartz: I think so. Could be wrong, but if my memory is right they had something.
16:55:26 <bswartz> the main measure of a deadline is what happens when the deadline gets missed -- if it's all orderly then I think it was successful
16:55:32 <smcginnis> bswartz: No one thrown out.
16:55:50 <e0ne> one more review request: Remove XML API https://review.openstack.org/231663 - please, help me to not meet rebase hell
16:56:01 <smcginnis> bswartz: It seemed successful to me. Other than the one out of the blue, it seemed like everyone was aware of it and planned accordingly.
16:56:19 <smcginnis> CI's continue to be an issue, so we may have to remove some this cycle.
16:56:33 <smcginnis> There are a few that haven't been passing for some time now.
16:56:57 <scottda> smcginnis: +1 When CI's fail all the time, we ignore them, and then broken stuff gets in like Sheepdog issue for backups.
16:57:02 <smcginnis> e0ne: Would be nice to get that one through sooner rather than later.
16:57:18 <smcginnis> scottda: Yeah, that's a bad one.
16:57:24 <e0ne> smcginnis: I'm agree with you:)
16:57:43 <smcginnis> OK, thanks everyone.
16:57:48 <smcginnis> #endmeeting