14:00:04 <jokke_> #startmeeting glance
14:00:08 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  8 14:00:04 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jokke_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:10 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:12 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:00:15 <jokke_> #topic roll call
14:00:21 <abhishekk> o/
14:00:28 <jokke_> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:00:31 <jokke_> o/
14:00:38 <jokke_> We have short agenda today
14:00:45 <mfedosin> o/
14:01:32 <jokke_> giving minute or two it seems we have quite thin participation as well
14:02:33 <abhishekk> jokke_: thank you for review
14:03:11 <jokke_> ok lets get moving
14:03:31 <jokke_> #topic Updates (python_glanceclient release)
14:03:52 <jokke_> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/release-announce/2017-June/001786.html
14:04:16 <jokke_> seems like we did not break the world this time releasing the client \o/
14:04:47 <jokke_> #topic Updates (Glance P-2 release)
14:05:43 <jokke_> i sent the release request for P-2 earlier today. Waiting for it to be reviewed and merged
14:05:46 <jokke_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/472241/
14:06:34 <jokke_> This means that IIR MVP nor the wsgi community goal did make to the P-2
14:06:50 <jokke_> Thanks for everyone who has reviewed the weeks priorities
14:07:55 <jokke_> Any questions about the releases?
14:08:18 <abhishekk> jokke_: no, so IIR now will be part of p-3
14:08:32 <abhishekk> hopefully
14:08:34 <jokke_> abhishekk: hopefully
14:09:27 <jokke_> and no we did not release glance_store prior to P-2
14:09:35 <jokke_> ok moving on
14:09:53 <jokke_> #topic set global_request_id when request_id is passed in
14:10:08 <jokke_> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/117906.html
14:10:24 <jokke_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468443/
14:11:21 <jokke_> so I have personally bit of a problem about this proposal
14:11:44 <jokke_> due to the fact that it's backwards incompatible API breaking change
14:12:18 <jokke_> even I don't think it's tracked nor tested by the major shareolders (mainly InterOperability group)
14:12:48 <abhishekk> jokke_: right
14:14:57 <jokke_> if you guys have no comments about it now, I'd like you to look into it and chime in either to the mailchain and/or to the review
14:15:32 <jokke_> going once
14:15:57 <jokke_> going twice
14:16:00 <abhishekk> ok, i recollect your comment about return request-id caller
14:16:16 <abhishekk> where you have suggested to pass same request-id for list case
14:16:41 <jokke_> yeah
14:17:13 <abhishekk> so this will be problematic in this case
14:18:43 <jokke_> so yeah I don't recall the exact code path there, but I think we would be getting rolling request from that stream (we have 2 req-id's global and "local" and when we get that local in we send it in next request where it gets updated to globaland new one will be returned as req-id which is again sent back
14:19:05 <abhishekk> yes
14:19:12 <jokke_> so we would have no single req-id in those calls at all
14:19:55 <jokke_> ok .. that reinforces my stance that we should not do this ... I'm fine our client sending the global req-id per default and us accepting that but we need to keep the current req-id behavior
14:20:43 <abhishekk> jokke_: I will revisit that code and check again
14:20:52 <jokke_> abhishekk: thanks a lot!
14:21:03 <abhishekk> jokke_: np
14:21:14 <jokke_> anything else about req IDs for now?
14:21:24 <abhishekk> no
14:21:42 <jokke_> ok moving on to Open Discussion then
14:21:51 <jokke_> #topic Open Discussion
14:22:16 <jokke_> I have one thing kind of to preload here as I did not put it to the agenda in time
14:22:55 <abhishekk> go ahead
14:23:11 <jokke_> Tempest has decided _again_ to break the gate and not take the responsibility for it https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/
14:24:09 <jokke_> they do have non-voting test runs that we have for example in glance_store and they merge tests that will break those jobs without caring that other projects actually gates on them
14:24:57 <jokke_> this is not the first time and for example glance is already non-voting on that job, I think cinder as well because they keep breaking it
14:26:22 <jokke_> So unless they get their act together I'm gonna propose next week that for saving our precious dev cycles and the infra cycles we stop running any of those jobs
14:26:38 <jokke_> across the glance repos
14:27:24 <abhishekk> jokke_: are you gonna send mail for this?
14:28:32 <jokke_> abhishekk: yes ... I'm gonna see if they take action on that revert (and apparently there is another one merged that breaks that same job) and I'll put mail out next week
14:28:55 <abhishekk> jokke_: sounds good
14:29:37 <jokke_> but I'm likely gonna propose that we drop any tempest test runs from our check and gate that tempest does not gate themselves
14:30:35 <jokke_> that will reduce our test footprint and coverage a lot, but I'm sick and tired of them breaking something every other month and not taking responsibility of it
14:30:52 <abhishekk> true
14:32:11 <jokke_> thats all from me
14:32:36 <jokke_> big hand to mfedosin taking the time and reviewing the two last IIR MVP patches
14:32:45 <jokke_> good comments there Mike I will revisit
14:32:55 <mfedosin> jokke_: my pleasure
14:33:07 <mfedosin> hope it will be merged soon
14:33:22 <jokke_> and thanks to you abhishekk as well ... good catches
14:33:54 <abhishekk> jokke_: thank you :)
14:33:57 <jokke_> oh one more thing unless you noticed. We do not enforce log translations anymore :)
14:34:19 <abhishekk> yes
14:34:39 <jokke_> so logging team not doing them and we not enforcing the usage of translations functions, we can now start merging changes that does not have them in place
14:35:11 <jokke_> I'm still inclined not to start merging changes removing those function from out current codebase
14:35:57 <jokke_> we really don't have the bandwidth to review all those carefully and make sure they don't cause any regressions
14:36:17 <abhishekk> totally agree
14:36:19 <jokke_> so I'd suggest we take noop on that for now and just make sure we do not add more of them
14:36:59 <abhishekk> sure
14:37:42 <jokke_> anyone else or should we free up 20min today?
14:38:05 <abhishekk> good idea!!!
14:39:23 <jokke_> ok last chance before I end the meeting
14:39:42 <jokke_> TY all
14:39:46 <jokke_> #endmeeting