17:00:19 #startmeeting designate 17:00:20 Meeting started Wed May 31 17:00:19 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is timsim. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:24 The meeting name has been set to 'designate' 17:00:24 #topic Roll Call 17:00:30 o/ 17:00:31 o/ 17:00:34 o/ 17:00:34 o/ 17:00:42 Don't see any mugsie nicks in here 17:02:09 #topic Bug Triage 17:02:42 o/ 17:02:53 hi mugsie 17:03:05 I am double booked today 17:03:12 so I will be sporadic 17:03:26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/designate/+bug/1688621 17:03:27 Launchpad bug 1688621 in Designate "Ability to have different Rabbit connections for Sink" [Undecided,New] 17:03:50 Not really a bug, more a feature request 17:03:58 yeah 17:04:17 I'll tell them to bp/spec if they're interested 17:04:39 https://bugs.launchpad.net/designate/+bug/1690184 17:04:40 Launchpad bug 1690184 in Designate "zones created via zone import don't have pool attributes" [Undecided,New] 17:04:42 This is that terrible one 17:06:17 ya 17:06:36 Critical I guess 17:07:03 definitly 17:07:11 Don't think we have milestones... 17:07:13 https://bugs.launchpad.net/designate/+bug/1691618 17:07:14 Launchpad bug 1691618 in Designate "MQ messages flood in designate devstack master" [Undecided,New] 17:07:49 No clue what's happening there 17:08:06 I think I have seen more random oslo.messaging stuff over the last few months in the logs 17:08:31 yeah - someone needs to dig into it 17:08:31 If the gate is still passing it's probably not a high priority. Medium? 17:08:34 med 17:08:46 I will figure out after finishing the works in enable worker model 17:09:15 cool - thanks 17:10:22 #topic Stable Backport Triage 17:10:27 Been a while since we've done this http://paste.openstack.org/show/611122/ 17:10:58 Anyone see anything worth of backporting to stable branches? 17:11:32 nothing really 17:11:57 yeah me either 17:12:07 #topic Open Discussion 17:12:14 Anyone want to discuss anything? 17:12:16 Hi 17:12:22 yes. I have 17:12:22 one question to mugsie 17:13:06 for enabling the worker model, is it possible to change grenade to realize our new config? 17:13:14 yes 17:13:21 I am not 100% what it is 17:13:24 but we can 17:13:38 you recommend to create new grenade gate for worker model 17:13:57 but I prefer configuring grenade to realize the new config 17:14:22 so maybe we do not need new grenade gate for worker model only 17:14:28 am I right? 17:15:57 I would prefer it 17:16:03 but I am OK now not having one 17:16:19 thanks 17:16:32 we are almost done with OVO (just zone object). please look at our PS https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464971/ 17:16:50 that's all from me 17:17:21 we only issue with a functional testcase to pass gate. 17:17:47 Did you all have any luck talking to your leaders about the proxy approach we discussed in Boston? 17:18:10 no luck at all 17:18:42 they still request us to implement ovo and other stuffs 17:18:52 yep. 17:19:10 How do you feel about that? 17:19:47 not really comfortable 17:20:10 but at least we should try in this cycle 17:20:21 Well, alright then. 17:20:27 Anything else from anyone? 17:20:46 we are running ice house, so put a proxy into the ancient system could be a doom for us 17:21:52 I think that's all from Fujitsu guys 17:22:21 timsim, https://github.com/openstack/designate/blob/master/designate/objects/recordset.py#L142 17:22:30 For this #TODO 17:22:49 I think we can have easy implemention via OVO 17:23:00 like this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464971/13/designate/objects/fields.py 17:23:18 with a PolymorphicObject. 17:23:41 hm. 17:24:51 My problem with our objects has always been: too complicated. It's very difficult to reason about when you get into it and try to actually use them. My fear with OVO, among other things, is that this is going to be even MORE complicated. 17:25:22 For example, if by some miracle the functional tests are able to pass, I'll have almost no confidence that they're going to work going forward. 17:25:47 Because it's going to take me 5 days of code review/messing around to even partly understand what's going on. 17:26:19 I understand the approach of just trying to fit them in where the current objects work. But to get it into a mergeable state in the future, I fear you're going to have to rewrite how the objects work altogether. 17:26:49 Which is what Graham mentioned originally. "Make these current objects better at what they do now" rather than "shoehorn ovo in here" 17:26:54 Anyway. 17:26:59 That's my opinion. 17:27:12 Anything else? 17:28:20 Alright, going once, 17:28:28 twice 17:28:29 yes. i have 17:28:33 aha 17:28:38 timsim, I have some PSs https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468088/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468904/ 17:28:58 could you look at them? 17:29:41 sure 17:30:03 with OVO, we can try to get pass everything then we will improve whole code to get best solution for our codes. 17:30:23 we also will test our code on our system. 17:30:48 For https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468088/ I think a unit test is needed, +2'd the other one 17:32:27 which remain PS? 17:34:07 timsim, hmm, thanks. we will do both of them (improve testcase to ensure about some validation and try to migrate current objects to OVO) 17:34:23 Cool 17:34:31 Alright, I need to head out, anything else? 17:34:45 that all for me. 17:34:48 thanks 17:35:02 me too, thanks. 17:35:42 cool. Thanks all 17:35:44 #endmeeting