20:03:59 #startmeeting Glance 20:03:59 Meeting started Thu Nov 13 20:03:59 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is nikhil_k. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:04:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:04:02 The meeting name has been set to 'glance' 20:04:31 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda 20:04:57 kragniz: abhishekk jokke_ : around ? 20:05:01 yup 20:05:10 nikhil_k: o/ 20:05:10 are we the only ones? ;) 20:05:27 see there ack from hemanthm mfedosin sigmavirus24 ? 20:05:27 I'm here 20:05:30 nope, there's a bunch more 20:05:34 okay 20:05:36 +1 20:05:48 +1 20:06:08 arnaud__: flaper87 ? 20:06:10 Mike & Curtis \o 20:06:29 jokke_, o/ 20:06:32 not sure if Travis and Lakshmi are here? 20:06:42 anyways, let's get started 20:06:50 o/ 20:06:58 #Topic Virtual mini summit survey results 20:07:12 so, haven't had anymore responses yet 20:07:17 just those 8 20:07:43 and it would be good to have input on the form to decide the location and time of the kilo mid-cycle meetup 20:08:08 so, strongly encourage for everyone to participate 20:08:23 do we default to virtual mini-summit? 20:08:36 not sure yet 20:08:38 nikhil_k: so is it still open if we will have it together with Nova at VMWare or not? 20:08:47 current responses indicate that no 20:09:09 nikhil, sorry I am here now 20:09:18 jokke_: current results seem to indicate that we need to have it in east coast area 20:09:24 nikhil_k: due to nova peeps, or scheduling glance folk? 20:09:47 am not sure if there is much to discuss sitting alongside Nova 20:10:06 nikhil_k: I think the info was also not there when that survey was posted 20:10:07 however, I can confirm that after syncing up with the Nova PTL 20:10:09 nikhil_k: those results were before we knew we could have the meetup alongside nova, though? 20:10:25 nikhil_k: I'm willing to join Palo Alto if we get together with Nova folks 20:10:50 if I start the survey again, people will not fill it out 20:11:02 if what I'm afraid about 20:11:04 is* 20:11:24 and we do not have participation at the meetings 20:11:26 Can people update existing responses? 20:11:30 nikhil_k: why not just send out a very small new one? 20:11:30 which is kinda of annoying 20:11:39 so don't let the survey dominate ... make executive call based on new opportunities :P 20:12:05 jokke_: lol, however we want to respect the open-ness of the community 20:12:11 ^^ PTL is kind of like BDFL, right? 20:12:22 * sigmavirus24 kids 20:12:25 what if people are not willing to travel that far, loses the purpose of mid-cycle meetup 20:12:33 nikhil_k: I doubt it will change a lot if it's at East Coast or West Coast ... it's Biatch for EMEA/APJ anyways 20:13:18 jokke_: ok, only if I'd some confirmation from the other people as well 20:13:33 let me try to figure it out offline 20:13:35 nikhil_k: that's easy, send e-mail to the mailing list "Is there anyone strongly opposing?" ... you probably won't get a single response and you have given opportunity :) 20:13:52 we'd decide on the location by next Thursday 20:13:58 +1 20:14:16 nikhil_k: sounds good 20:15:06 so, how do we decide on the Meeting time? 20:15:26 is everyone here okay with keeping all the meetings at 14UTC? 20:15:32 and stop the alternating time 20:15:37 I'm good with 1400 20:15:38 works for me 20:15:46 works for me, too 20:15:54 No objections here but i'm not a regular attendee 20:16:07 guess we gotta check with zhiyan 20:16:10 1400 is good 20:16:19 i like 2 pm every time 20:16:35 ok, so that might be another note of disappotment sent to ML and mention of the new time 20:16:45 at the very least, we can trial it for a few weeks 20:16:55 I'll miss fewer meetings if we are not alternating :) 20:17:10 if a few people don't like it, we can change to something else 20:17:11 we want to avoid changes to reduce scheduling conflicts 20:17:19 nikhil_k: true 20:17:21 1400 sounds good 20:18:13 #topic Guidelines for: Core reviewers, review quality, membership etc 20:18:26 seems like a favority topic :) 20:18:50 we've had a lot of requests for core-reviewer membership lately 20:19:04 that's good 20:19:22 and in order to keep fairness for all those who are earning/earned it the hard way 20:19:25 I didn't know that was a thing 20:19:52 ^^ 20:19:53 Isn't it only by nomination? 20:19:53 it seemed like a good idea to keep some guidelines 20:20:05 coming to that 20:20:27 That's what I thought as well until the summit :D 20:20:35 +1 for guidelines 20:20:40 all those who are already doing quality reviews, please keep up the good work 20:20:40 +1 20:20:50 +1 20:21:29 here I just wanted to say that we must understand that numbers help however, that'd not be the only deciding factor 20:22:08 please give your valuable feedback so that we will have good changes to the patch sets 20:22:23 btw, what is a procedure of becoming a core? 20:22:25 * jokke_ stops writing that auto +1 script 20:22:34 and the changes go through smoothly with fewer patch sets and less of wait time for developers 20:22:38 jokke_: I knew it 20:22:49 does another core needs to bite you? :) 20:22:55 jokke_: mind sharing the script? :P 20:23:13 mfedosin: lol 20:23:18 it helps developers working on the bugs/features, helps the community with less review queue and helps a ton on the infra gate 20:23:58 just wanted to mention that to whoever is proposing or is going to propose candidate names to me offline 20:24:43 best idea for all the developers joning the circle this cycle would be 20:25:28 it's pretty clear 20:25:32 helping the core-reviewer assigned to a BP should help in getting that core-reviewer and me to nominate you 20:25:57 it will also help the BP and you will also have build a good rapport with community member 20:26:42 all in all, please keep focusing on the quality reviews 20:27:08 I've just started putting together a brain dump for the review guidelines, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-review-guidelines 20:27:15 my feeling is that a good comments without a -1 or +1 is worth more than the rank in the stats 20:27:32 ok great 20:27:43 It'd be helpful if you all can contribute 20:27:47 #topic Review Guidelines 20:27:50 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-review-guidelines 20:28:24 there a bit more guidelines set out there 20:28:35 Could I ask, Please don't stop reviewing code at the point you see first -1 there 20:28:35 feel free to drop in whatever comes to your head. I'd be happy to organize stuff into meaningful buckes 20:28:44 specifically, Nova team has a good page for their reviews 20:28:49 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReviewWorkflowTips 20:29:07 at least I tend to wait day or two to get all the wishes in the next PS not just the oneliner someone pointed out 20:29:29 jokke_: yes, unless it's something that indicates that the patch is not fully complete, not applicable to cycle , etc 20:30:27 does anyone have any comments, concerns? 20:30:42 nikhil_k: btw that wikipage is by no means Nova specific even the exampleas are having nova there 20:30:42 nikhil_k: not really, all sounds good 20:31:02 jokke_: yeah, I'd have rephrased that 20:31:08 we need something Glance specific 20:31:29 something that indicates - regular errors, gotchas, etc. 20:31:38 nikhil_k: what glance specific we need there? 20:31:49 so that the reviewers don't have to comment exact same thing on every single patch 20:32:11 this would be a good guideline for both reviewers and the developers 20:32:19 nikhil_k: +1 20:32:26 nikhil_k: good luck with that .... like hacking doc or logging guidelines had helped there ;) 20:32:59 Let's see where we land 20:33:05 We can try, for now 20:33:36 #topic glance_store in launchpad 20:33:47 #link https://launchpad.net/glance-store 20:33:52 nikhil_k: sounds good ... would be great get something more generic so that every project didn't have to have their own guidlines and if you're jumping between, trying to remember what was the one here 20:34:39 jokke_: sure, may be a sub page for glance specific things. Overall structure being generic 20:35:09 I believe hemanthm is leading that effort 20:35:23 I can help him 20:35:25 so please co-ordinate with him 20:35:37 got some experience in that 20:35:46 mfedosin cool, thanks 20:35:51 moving to glance_store 20:35:52 okay 20:36:02 nikhil_k: cool ... as this is going to be handholding cycle anyways, I'll reach Sean, Jay and Doug if we can get some generic best practises out there through openstack-specs 20:36:07 ok 20:36:17 jokke_: that sounds great. thanks! 20:36:25 glance_store: please do file bugs against that project 20:36:33 and not against glance 20:36:49 oh gr8 20:36:53 I moved a coule of existing ones against it this morning 20:37:11 release notes, dates, etc. info should be available on that page at some point 20:37:20 kragniz: excellent! 20:37:48 * kragniz thinks it needs a fancy openstack logo 20:37:50 :P 20:38:12 #topic Reviews, Specs, priorities, etc. 20:38:34 Am trying to come up with a good solution where we can collaborate on the most important things to do 20:38:51 etherpad, trello, etc. tools come to mind 20:39:05 nikhil_k: trello might be cool 20:39:10 etherpads are just pain 20:39:15 iirc another program uses it 20:39:17 yep, trello is nice 20:39:23 never touched trello ... need to have a look 20:39:23 +1 20:39:31 that would help keep the velocity going and keep people aware about the most important changes *now* in glance, glance_store and python-glanceclient 20:39:35 so using it in openstack isn't something new 20:39:44 nikhil_k: +1 to that 20:40:06 so, for tracking glance_store and client releases we just started using trello 20:40:07 nikhil_k: reg prioritization ... is it cores who are also bug drivers? 20:40:30 jokke_: well there is that bug team 20:40:39 nikhil_k: and if not, who is, because that is not working 20:40:45 however, glance used to be very small that there was literally no distinction 20:41:03 nikhil_k: yeah that was exactly my point ... who is on that bug team 20:41:24 ok, so may be we can keep that a part of core duty 20:41:44 jokke_: it's public, I think 20:41:47 need to double check 20:41:56 nikhil_k: pretty sure anyone can join 20:42:09 ok, so that will not work 20:42:12 it's great that we pay attention to BP's and specs and gate, but we have again 260 bugs logged only against glance and there is no noise about it outside the odd bug days 20:42:24 jokke_: agreed 20:42:44 let's make cores do it 20:43:04 that kinda makes sense as these people are aware about the project overall 20:43:05 how many active cores do we have? 20:43:44 4-5 maybe atm, not sure as the term "active" is rather hard to define ;) 20:43:50 hemanthm: well we have one nikhil_k at this meeting! 20:44:07 so, that's my disappointment 20:44:14 imho it's not acceptable that we have 111 new bugs and I think even more that has no priority set 20:44:17 no cores available to guide the meeting 20:44:26 precisely my point. We are pushing more responsibility to cores but we don't have too many of them active 20:44:33 no disrespect here 20:44:51 what do you propose hemanthm ? 20:45:01 I was a bit hesistent to create another team 20:45:23 as we already have, cores, bug team, glance drivers, glance_store cores! 20:45:41 just keeps getting complicated 20:45:53 nikhil_k: is this now for what? 20:46:18 jokke_: did not get you there 20:46:46 we may be running out of time here 20:46:54 so, I propose the following 20:46:58 nikhil_k: for what action you're referring with "I was a bit hesistent to create another team" 20:47:04 I think we're stuck on the how, maybe take this to the ML? 20:47:12 not sure I have a good suggestion. But, what privileges do we need for the people in bug team? 20:47:36 in summit, we had a discussion in contributors meetup to check active cores 20:47:37 ML is getting a bit crowded these days ;) 20:47:58 jokke_: remember? 20:48:07 #topic feedback 20:48:26 how about each one of you please send me your feedback on the following? 20:48:33 hemanthm: there is Glance Bug Team in the launchpad and those people are the only ones who can do stuff like set priority, close bug as "Won't fix" etc 20:48:41 1. bug team ideology 20:48:50 2. summit feedback 20:49:14 3. review guidelines (if you did not get a chance today) 20:49:19 4. anything else 20:49:39 and we can keep the rest of the 10 mins for the few items on the agenda list 20:49:46 nikhil_k: sounds good 20:49:52 nikhil_k: sure 20:50:04 thanks! 20:50:15 #topic #openstack-glance IRC channel logging 20:50:22 kragniz: was that you? 20:50:37 does anyone have any objections to having #openstack-glance logged? 20:50:42 o/ 20:50:54 we may want to discuss that with the infra team 20:51:01 there have been a couple of times when it would have been useful to point someone at the logs 20:51:12 nikhil_k: I already have, the patch is very easy 20:51:23 I do not want it to be publicly logged ... if you want to have logs out of it, have your client sitting there and logging it for you 20:51:37 okay cool 20:51:54 jokke_: yeah, good point. 20:51:56 we have our own bouncer ant it's alright 20:52:01 jokke_: okay 20:52:15 it might make sense to make an FAQ out of stuff we'd otherwise use logs for 20:52:15 However, freenode prolly means that you need to watch the language 20:52:26 I tend to do stuff like popping my e-mail address there and that will be flooded with spam if it gets indexed by some spambot 20:52:39 makes sense 20:52:41 jokke_: having those logs on http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/ would have been nice a while back 20:52:48 jokke_: but it doesn't really matter that much 20:53:23 so let's not log, then 20:53:34 let's move on, since we're low on time 20:53:54 cool. yes, let's NOT log seems to be the direction (just in case) 20:54:04 #topic bug/1387973 20:54:13 abhishekk: please go ahead 20:54:34 nikhil_k: I am ok with your approach 20:54:36 yt 20:54:50 i have submitted patch against stable/juno 20:55:05 ok, cool. so, we can wait until next week and see what happens 20:55:14 i hope will get positive response 20:55:14 should we move on? 20:55:20 sure 20:55:28 #topic Multiple sort keys 20:55:41 who proposed this topic 20:55:42 ? 20:55:43 okay, it's mine 20:55:55 excuse me, I'm not a native speaker, so I can't type very fast, but I'll try my best 20:56:02 There is an old bug 20:56:08 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1221274 20:56:11 Launchpad bug 1221274 in glance "allow sorting with more than one field" [Undecided,In progress] 20:56:24 as for me it's a feature :) 20:56:31 +1 20:56:34 +1 20:56:34 some guy wants an ability to sort image list output with multiple keys 20:57:00 I implemented these features both in v1 and v2, but then cores said me that v1 is will be soon deprecated and I removed this part of code 20:57:13 mfedosin: okay, then a spec ? we can discuss further there 20:57:17 sounds like that's something the bug team should have prioritized as "Wishlist" 20:57:20 So, v2 is here and I want to ask you: do we need this feature in Glance? And if yes, then do we need it for task and metadefs (the last one is not my own private main, but I'm just interested) 20:57:58 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120727/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120777/ 20:58:17 The patch doesn't break backward compatibility, so, previous requests stay the same, but now it supports csv keys (owner, size for example) Glance client has support too and there is a normal test suit 20:58:41 review it please :) 20:58:54 I'm done here 20:59:05 sounds like we need some reviews on that soon 20:59:20 we'd talk a bit more about it later 20:59:27 okay, thanks! 20:59:39 sigmavirus24: we will have to discuss your item on the regular channel 20:59:42 sorry about that 20:59:43 poor sigmavirus24 has had to sit though the whole meeting for this! 20:59:47 lol 20:59:54 it's okay. i joined the bug team 20:59:57 so i have that going for me 21:00:02 sigmavirus24: heh 21:00:02 ok back to openstack-glance 21:00:05 #endmeeting