13:59:31 #startmeeting Glance Drivers 13:59:32 Meeting started Tue Jan 26 13:59:31 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is flaper87. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:59:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:59:36 The meeting name has been set to 'glance_drivers' 13:59:42 o/ 13:59:45 o/ 13:59:46 o/ 14:00:06 * kragniz lurks 14:00:19 (this is another reason why I don't think the drivers team should stick around) 14:00:23 kragniz being around, that is 14:00:25 :P 14:00:29 KIDDIIIIING 14:00:30 :) 14:00:46 need to move it to closed invite only channel :P 14:01:04 It was just cores where that kind of operations were banned, right? 14:01:05 * flaper87 will create a glance-supersecret channel 14:01:07 :P 14:01:11 jokke_: yeah 14:01:16 anyway 14:01:21 #topic Dismiss the glance-drivers team: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/084562.html 14:01:25 ^ that's a thing 14:01:36 I mentioned I was going to bring a more structured proposal 14:01:40 looks like no negative feedback 14:01:42 well, I don't have one 14:01:49 Yeah 14:01:57 o/ 14:01:59 Here's the plan (i'll write it down on an email) 14:02:30 #1) Merge the drivers meeting into glance's meeting 14:02:46 #2 Dismiss the driver's team and give glance-cores +2 on specs 14:02:58 #3 Work on a better distribution for specs reviewers 14:03:15 Unlike code patches, we should have at least 1 core assigned per spec as main reviewer 14:03:18 sounds good :) 14:03:27 That way, the core can bring feedback, request other cores to chime in, etc 14:03:42 Like everything else, this is a volunteers job 14:03:51 Not all cores are *requested* to review specs 14:03:57 but it'd be awesome 14:04:27 thoughts? 14:04:33 I know Brian is not core but we'll fix that 14:04:51 that all sounds like an improvement on what we currently have 14:05:08 should make things move faster 14:05:15 ah, forgot 14:05:22 Let's keep +A on specs for PTLs for now 14:05:30 ++ 14:05:36 we can vote, but I think everyone is agree 14:05:43 yes 14:05:47 common sense required, no need to have any weird rule on gerrit 14:05:55 Like, if you're core, don't approve specs 14:05:57 ok 14:05:58 cool 14:06:12 if ppl are happy, I'm unhappy 14:06:15 14:06:26 glad you folks liked the plan 14:06:27 :D 14:06:35 anything else? Shall we move on? 14:06:41 we need to try finally document all this as well then 14:06:51 I'm happy to do that 14:06:58 \\o \o/ o// 14:07:00 We now have a contributors guidelines 14:07:05 will add it there 14:07:22 good place 14:07:25 sounds good to me 14:07:41 ok, moving on 14:07:48 #topic https://review.openstack.org/#/c/269965/ (rosmaita) 14:07:54 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/269965/ 14:07:58 rosmaita: go crazy 14:08:11 it's a proposal to add fuzzy search to the api 14:08:22 for image names, iirc 14:08:40 traditionally we haven't wanted to allow api calls that could cause full table scans 14:08:48 plus, there's Searchlight now 14:08:50 mmh, sounds like something one should use searchlight for 14:08:54 yeah 14:08:59 but wondering what current team thinks 14:09:16 I think I'm still on that page 14:09:23 especially now that we have searchlight 14:09:26 since it's just image name I think the DB hit is relatively small 14:09:42 nikhil: but it's the thin end of the wedge 14:09:44 of course we will need to mandate pagination on the filter 14:10:01 yeah true 14:10:22 I personally don't like the idea of fuzzy match on CHAR values 14:10:44 * flaper87 thikns that's what search engines w/ better index algorithms are fore 14:10:54 * rosmaita agrees with flaper87 14:11:06 for, even 14:11:13 ++ 14:11:16 is there a spec for that? 14:11:17 oh, for a moment I thought it had a spec 14:11:22 I just see the code 14:11:30 flaper87: exactly what I thought 14:11:31 i don't think there's a spec 14:11:44 would love to know the requirement source of this 14:11:46 just blueprint 14:11:51 ok, so, let's gently reject the code patch 14:12:02 nikhil: something for horizon 14:12:08 rosmaita: want to do that? (since you brought it up?) otherwise, I'll do it 14:12:15 i can do it 14:12:19 I can take the blame if other want's to keep the nice cop reputation ;) 14:12:22 rosmaita: awesome, thanks 14:12:26 just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me! 14:12:32 haha ... rosmaita you got it ;) 14:12:32 jokke_: I said we need to reject it "gently" 14:12:49 :D 14:13:05 take a informed decision 14:13:09 i will tell him to contact jokke_ if he's got a problem wid it 14:13:15 hahahahaha 14:13:26 rosmaita: sounds good to me 14:13:40 I can be nice and polite then 14:13:50 jokke_: to your standards 14:13:53 * flaper87 hugs jokke_ 14:13:55 so 14:13:57 anything else? 14:13:59 should we move on? 14:14:53 I take that as a yes 14:15:00 but there are no other topics 14:15:05 #topic Open Discussion 14:15:15 tl;dr: This is our last drivers meeting 14:15:29 I'll proceed to remove it from the meetings schedule and send an email out 14:15:35 thanks everyone 14:15:38 have a good one 14:15:43 #endmeeting