14:01:15 #startmeeting glance 14:01:15 #topic roll call 14:01:16 Meeting started Thu Sep 29 14:01:15 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rosmaita. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:20 The meeting name has been set to 'glance' 14:01:25 \o 14:01:35 o/ 14:01:39 o/ 14:01:51 o/ 14:02:13 o/ 14:02:20 louis! 14:02:32 mike! 14:02:36 hey :) 14:02:48 sorry, I'm late 14:03:06 np, you haven't missed anything yet 14:03:19 hopefully a few more people will wander in 14:03:29 #topic agenda 14:03:37 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda 14:03:39 o/ 14:03:56 erno! 14:04:11 maybe free donuts would attract more people 14:04:12 i am setting a bad precedent by not greeting the people who were on time 14:04:22 free virtual donuts! 14:04:27 ooooo 14:04:36 #topic releases 14:04:46 RC2 is out (a day early!). 14:04:58 Thanks to sigmavirus (Ian) and Jokke (Erno) for their work reviewing, etc. 14:05:09 And thanks to hemanthm (Hemanth) for quick work on a security-related fix that got in. 14:05:10 nice work! 14:05:20 \\o \o/ o// o/7 14:05:44 I've noticed a lot of TrivialFix kind of patches up, let's please wait to merge any of those until *next week*. 14:05:54 Let's keep the gate unclogged as a courtesy to other teams while the rest of the RCs are being cut. 14:06:12 so reviewers, feel free to -1 workflow on any of those 14:06:29 The official date for the Newton release is 6 Oct (one week from today) 14:06:55 the only thing left are some doc changes to deprecate v1 and indicate the v2 minor version bump 14:07:13 i will be bugging people to review those patches 14:07:28 would like to have the docs ready for 6 Oct 14:08:02 that's all from me ... questions? 14:09:23 ++ 14:09:36 ok, moving on, then 14:09:50 #topic import refactor 14:10:06 I want to get a sync started, like we've been doing for community images 14:10:18 This will be a 20 minute or so weekly meeting to help build momentum 14:10:29 Anyone interested, please indicate your availability: 14:10:39 #link http://doodle.com/poll/xc3ip9263bq5rmbh 14:10:58 The sync will be in #openstack-glance, everyone can follow along, even if you are only casually interested 14:11:58 ok, timothy's turn 14:12:06 #topic community images 14:12:13 before he says anything though 14:12:20 there are patches up, please review! 14:12:32 ok, tsymanczyk , all yours 14:12:36 indeed. two pieces of good news today. 14:12:42 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/369110/25 14:12:47 Hello all. first time here, wondering if we have audio in this meeting? 14:13:01 Jack: nope, just typing and reading 14:13:03 the first patchset is done as well as i can make it without feedback. 14:13:12 Ok, thanks 14:13:15 so please review, please be harsh. quality is all i care about 14:13:56 and secondly : the biggest outstanding problem that there WAS is how in the heck to (as well as possible) keep v1 backwards compatible while still allowing the new functionality with v2 14:14:06 and i think it's much much simpler than i had been worried about 14:14:31 the reason that it seems difficult is because of a misunderstanding that "public" and "private" are the two old visibility states, and that "Shared" and "community" are the two new states 14:14:38 BUT (and here's my theory, feedback please) 14:14:51 in reality, is_public==true is indeed public, but is_public==false is actually shared 14:15:08 so when we migrate old to new, we don't set everything is_public=false to private we set it to shared 14:15:11 which retains the old behaviour 14:15:24 shared with no members IS effectively private, and members can be added with no additional steps beyond the add 14:15:33 interesting 14:15:55 then if we continue that idea, and have v1 set visibility=shared when doing a set to is_public=false, then ... unless i'm missing something... we basically get everything we want. 14:16:19 the really confusing thing though that i'm worried about is that people are going to ... perhaps legitimately... get spooked when they migrate to the new database and see that all their old non-public images are now SHARED 14:16:26 i need to think about that some more 14:16:31 even though that doesn't change their real-world visibility 14:16:34 yes, that was my concern 14:16:35 rosmaita : please do 14:16:49 i've been chewing it over for about a day and every angle i've looked at makes it seem correcet 14:16:57 but if there are problems i'd love to see them 14:17:09 #action rosmaita to think about tsymanczyk 's idea and discuss at sync tomorrow 14:17:11 right now this looks to me to be a clean way to solve it. 14:17:21 we just need to make the documentation clear 14:17:26 ++ 14:17:30 that SHARED doesn't mean ... EVERYONE CAN SEE MY STUPID BROKEN IMAGE 14:17:36 i think i'm done 14:17:53 would love any questions or feedback now or later on today or during tomorrows sync (9am pst) 14:18:08 my mind is blown 14:18:14 :) 14:18:38 we get counterintuitive results no matter what we do, so it's really a matter of picking the one that makes the most sense 14:19:11 ok 14:19:25 that's the end of the "official" updates 14:19:45 #topic cross-project liasons 14:20:02 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons 14:20:18 #action everyone - look at that page and update your name appropriately before nex glance meeting on 6 Oct 14:20:35 what do i mean by "update appropriately"? 14:20:40 glad you asked 14:20:54 here are the expectations for a cross project liason 14:21:03 1 - must attend the other project's weekly meeting 14:21:16 actually, i guess that's it. key thing is attendance 14:21:28 in the past, you've had to be a core to do this, but i am going to loosen that up 14:21:53 but we need to get the page updated before new people can sign up 14:22:04 but if you are on there already, and want to continue, that's fine 14:22:26 well, here's another thing 14:22:34 2 - must represent glance at the other team's meeting 14:22:49 what i mean is, if something that could impact glance comes up, please put it in *our* agenda and report back to the team 14:23:00 if the other team has a question, and you aren't sure about the answer, just tell them you will consult with the glance team and get back to them at the next meeting 14:23:16 the requirement to have only cores was so that other teams would get instant answers 14:23:32 but i don't see the harm in having them wait one week for a definitive answer 14:23:46 it wlll allow us to have more c-p representatives 14:23:51 anyway 14:24:03 the action item is to look at the page, if your name is there, decide if you are willing to do (1) and (2) 14:24:11 if not, please remove your name before 6 Oct 14:24:29 * abashmak is thinking about picking a project whose weekly meeting is held later than 7am MST 14:24:39 :D 14:24:44 any criterion you like! 14:25:30 being a cross-project liason is important, we need to keep informed about stuff affecting glance 14:25:35 and glance affecting other projects 14:25:53 the changes to image sharing are going to affect openstack client for sure 14:26:07 so we need to keep other teams informed as well 14:26:44 this will be a great opportunity for people who want to eventually be glance cores 14:26:55 plus, virtual donuts to all! 14:27:18 not sure i got the action item in 14:27:52 #action all current cross-project liasons -- please decide if you want to continue and update the page 14:28:06 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons 14:28:21 any comments, questions? 14:29:06 it is awful quiet in here 14:29:09 ok, moving along 14:29:25 #topic Feedback for Item 4 on last week's agenda 14:29:29 Also for any new folks for OpenStack wiki, feel free to ping us if you need something changed. I think the new wiki account creation is still frizen 14:29:45 frozen even 14:29:46 Jokke_: correct 14:29:47 Jokke_: good point 14:30:04 and that's a good segue into this next topic 14:30:13 I have at least account, please anyone else put your hands up as well ;) 14:30:33 i have one too, though haven't used it recently 14:31:16 with the wiki locked down, nikhil proposed that we include an events page in the dev docs 14:31:26 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366923/ 14:31:39 then to make an announcement, you put up a patch 14:32:02 and since reviews happen so quickly, it will be faster than the wiki 14:32:09 :) 14:32:24 so i don't know how i feel about this idea 14:32:35 anyone have feedback or alternatives? 14:33:03 rosmaita: uhm, I don't like that 14:33:10 I don't like using the wiki for it either 14:33:19 Although 14:33:25 * rosmaita is waiting for spammers to start putting up viagra patches 14:33:34 I guess we can put event info in those docs and then blast the ML with them 14:33:48 yeah, i think that was the idea 14:33:51 rosmaita: couldn't we also use the openstack blog(s) for this kind of stuff? 14:33:55 I think the biggest problem with that approach is that it needs maintenance and before agreeing to do something like that, I'd like to see who is gonna maintain it 14:34:12 Jokke_: we (the community) are :D 14:34:21 sigmavirus: my point exactly 14:34:28 sigmavirus: don' know about the openstack blog 14:34:46 I think Nikhil it's more for us to keep log of what happening during those meetings 14:34:53 not entirely for announcing the events 14:34:58 part of nikhil's idea was to keep a record of what glance has been doing 14:35:02 like keeping the etherpads from past events 14:35:08 (basically what hemanthm said) 14:35:11 but less ephemeral 14:35:13 got it 14:35:18 rosmaita: that's why these meetings are logged 14:35:24 I was thinking that the documentation is a bad way of announcing things 14:35:30 but, pipermail is also an archive 14:35:41 and our channel is logged and mailing list is archived 14:35:44 for ML postings 14:35:50 what Jokke_ 14:35:52 rosmaita: right 14:35:56 Jokke_: yes, but hard to discover 14:35:57 though maybe not so easy to search 14:35:57 do we really need another source of truth 14:36:12 Jokke_: we need a web of truth ;) 14:36:33 sigmavirus: yeah, like internet. Everything written there is true, right! 14:37:31 so perhaps we should use the #command like #info here more to document these things without needing to read hours of irc logs 14:38:15 well i think the idea is: 14:38:25 1 - #info at weekly meeting 14:38:31 2 - patch 14:38:47 patch with link to eavesdrop.o.o? 14:38:47 3 - ML announce with link to (what? doc or patch) 14:38:56 4 - etherpad during the event 14:38:56 That seems like a lot of process 14:39:08 yeah, and i am forgetting 5 and 6 14:39:09 sigmavirus: ++ 14:39:18 We're already bad at other processes that take more than 2 steps in this community 14:39:27 Why would we add another process with > 2 steps? 14:39:46 unless we can automate steps 2+ 14:40:04 well, we *are* sort of doing this already 14:40:10 without the doc patch 14:40:18 we probably could but people don't always appreciate auto-generated emails 14:40:25 i mean, announce here, on ML, create etherpad 14:40:58 rosmaita: and on that, normally the etherpad is already either totally ignored or forgotten after 2hrs 14:41:29 ok, i am sensing opposition to this idea 14:41:35 * rosmaita is very sensitive 14:41:50 it's the midochlorians 14:41:57 :) 14:42:12 yeah I'm pretty much with sigmavirus on this ... smells like heavy process for how bad we are already with processes 14:42:26 ok, no point having a vote, you can comment on the patch, so sigmavirus and Jokke_ , please do 14:42:27 also I kind of dislike the noise that will bring to the reviews as well 14:42:59 #action sigmavirus Jokke_ comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366923/ 14:43:16 also, anyone who likes the idea, feel free to commnet on that patch 14:43:24 we can move the discussion over there 14:43:24 what's the alternative though? 14:43:34 alternative is just do what we do now 14:43:51 yeah irc, ml, profit 14:44:26 there's gotta be a better way to keep relevant historical context 14:44:36 but I don't have a solution yet :/ 14:44:54 hemanthm: i agree 14:45:06 and i should say, thanks to nikhil for getting this discussion started 14:45:21 maybe someone will be inspired to come up with a good solution 14:45:34 ok moving along 14:45:49 #topic Design summit planning 14:46:01 The votes have been cast, so thanks to everyone who voted. 14:46:07 but 14:46:19 the key question right now is: only 3 people have indicated that they are attending the summit 14:46:33 which will be quite cozy, but it does affect the discussion ... like for instance if no one working on rolling upgrades will be there, then maybe it is kind of pointless to have that session (even though it got the most votes) 14:46:45 so 14:46:55 #action everyone - indicate if you will be at the summit on the etherpad 14:47:17 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-glance-summit-planning 14:47:32 that being said 14:47:34 my informal interactions are indicating that there won't be a lot of glance people in Barcelona 14:47:45 so i think we should plan to have a virtual design summit as we have done in the past 14:48:27 but please let's get a likely headcount to help pick physical topics 14:48:39 that didn't come out quite right, but hopefully you know what i mean 14:49:24 +1 to virtual design summit 14:50:05 ok, i just added a place for people interested in a virtual summit to indicate interest 14:50:08 so please do 14:50:29 the virtual summit is going to coincide with the actual-summit session i assume? 14:50:44 no, it will be non-concurrent 14:51:14 it has been really hard to get virtual attendance at an actual design summit session 14:51:55 I'm starting to think that the virtual summit is likely more hurting us in long term than benefitting 14:51:56 fair enough. no point in making the fallback option difficult. 14:52:09 Jokke_: why is that? 14:53:38 i guess i should be more clear about what i'm thinking 14:53:39 rosmaita: well for example what you just said that the number of attendees are declining. Could that be because of companies thinking "We don't need to send our glance folks to summit as they can always participate to the virtual planning even anyways" 14:53:57 s/even/event/ 14:54:15 Jokke_: very possibly, but that doesn't matter for Barcelona, travel has already been approved/denied 14:54:49 but i do see your point 14:55:02 gives companies an excuse not to send people 14:55:08 Jokke_: I don't think at least my employer makes decisions that way 14:55:16 though, hopefully they will send more people to the PTG in february 14:55:25 summit attendance here is based on role in project & whether or not someone is speaking 14:55:41 (also whether or not they actually want to travel to the summit) 14:56:11 my idea is that the virtual summit doesn't need to cover the same exact topics as the physical summit 14:56:30 though maybe that is dumb 14:56:34 i welcome feedback 14:57:00 anyway, if there is enough interest in virtual summit, i will set up a doodle poll for format and scheduling 14:57:04 probably 2 different polls 14:57:15 and we will need to try out some communication options 14:57:34 to pick something 14:58:47 ok, please update the etherpad 14:58:54 #topic general discussion 14:59:01 1 minute left 14:59:06 I'd like to ask people to weigh in on the Alembic Migration proposal: https://review.openstack.org/374278 14:59:10 okayquickoneminuteforopendiscussion 14:59:15 ... and on our Rolling Upgrades Database strategy: https://review.openstack.org/331740 14:59:43 #action everyone follow abashmak 's suggestions 14:59:51 ok, 10 seconds 15:00:00 #endmeeting