17:32:59 #startmeeting glare 17:33:00 Meeting started Mon May 16 17:32:59 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mfedosin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:33:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:33:05 The meeting name has been set to 'glare' 17:33:17 #topic agenda 17:33:28 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-artifacts-sub-team-meeting-agenda 17:33:52 #topic Updates 17:34:35 So, I haven't been involved in Glare last two weeks 17:35:00 but kairat and dshakray made a great work 17:35:26 before the summit we defined a list of items that must be done before merging 17:35:36 there were 11 points 17:35:45 10 of them are implemented 17:35:52 nice! 17:35:58 only db is left 17:36:23 it lead to the fact that after some testing we are ready to merge it 17:36:40 I updated API spec in late April 17:36:40 mfedosin: can I say something here? 17:36:45 sure 17:37:07 so, the only way this will merge it soon is if people know what is being implemented and how 17:37:18 and the way to do that is working upstream 17:37:31 otherwise, we will again have last minute -1, -2s 17:37:44 as people will not see things fit for some of the use cases 17:37:52 So, like I mentioned at the summit: 17:37:53 yeah, it was my next topic :) 17:38:12 ok, let's carry on for now. I can add comments later. 17:38:21 for sure we need to have good documentation 17:38:34 mfedosin: that's not enough 17:38:41 to be really honest 17:38:43 what else? 17:39:03 I can share the plan to "how to do it" upstream later with you 17:39:23 you should carry on with your agenda for now. I may take 15-20 mins for that. 17:39:37 okay, great 17:40:03 we can talk later about "how to do it in upstream" 17:40:08 k 17:40:49 on Wednesday we're going to have a meeting dedicated to final Glare API 17:41:13 send that notice to ML 17:41:23 walk through the spec and update it if needed 17:41:51 good point, but I meant inner meeting 17:42:03 mfedosin: from now on, no inner meetings please 17:42:06 but upstream is good idea 17:42:26 for example, on Friday 17:42:33 I think for a POC that's fine. but once the idea is in good shape, let's do the discussion 100% upstream 17:42:46 I'll send this email in ML 17:42:49 k 17:43:22 #topic Merge plans 17:43:37 let's define it 17:43:56 what is definition of done for the spec? 17:44:18 I mean how detailed it should be 17:44:32 I think for now let's focus on the bare minimum 17:44:42 and we need to clearly indicate that it is so 17:44:56 and also document what will/can be implemented and what are future plans 17:45:07 let us focus on "just" Newton now 17:45:24 let us tell the story of how this API will improve in features over time 17:45:42 so it should be another spec? 17:45:51 so, the first and foremost thing to do is to come up with the "minimal" set of calls needed for say HEAT 17:46:04 and let's say that in the spec 17:46:07 or it's a part of existing one? 17:46:10 ok, I see 17:46:19 for now, just one spec 17:46:26 we can discuss future plans later. 17:46:43 what about API examples there? 17:46:56 mfedosin: the more the better 17:47:07 mfedosin: but let's not go in too much detail for now 17:47:12 the spec will be huge :) 17:47:20 mfedosin: for example let's not worry about tags if that is not needed 17:47:31 mfedosin: let us not worry about import or sharing 17:48:04 yeah, only base part 17:48:07 mfedosin: the first spec will be reasonable big but that's okay. 17:48:23 reasonably* 17:48:48 and about the code 17:49:09 mfedosin: also, I think it will be really useful if we can get a liaison from heat and someone else from glance actually working on the code 17:49:14 we agreed to separate in small patches before merge - not this one big commit 17:49:21 correct 17:49:32 nikhil: I told you - we have one 17:49:49 k, let's make sure all that is done upstream 17:49:53 and he's already writing a spec for Heat 17:50:21 people have a _strong_ dislike for code that is _dumped_ upstream 17:51:48 also, we decided don't include images artifact type initially 17:52:06 correct 17:52:48 and no special features :) 17:53:24 I predict that amount of code without tests will be 5000-7000 LOC 17:53:30 👍 17:53:30 may be less 17:53:49 umm 17:54:01 ok, let's see what we can remove as possible 17:54:21 db part is very big 17:54:23 just make sure each patch is 250LOC with unit tests 17:54:36 all these migrations... 17:54:58 eh 17:54:58 I think there will be about 15 patches 17:55:18 200-300 LOC each 17:55:23 ok, let's see 17:55:40 once they are out we need to meet to discuss what can be done first 17:56:02 note: people are getting worried about code not being upstream 17:56:03 yup 17:56:20 it's all on review :) 17:56:30 with WIP ? 17:56:30 except db part 17:56:33 yeah 17:56:43 :) 17:56:50 yeah as far as I knew everything was out there (that's what we played with in app-catalog land) 17:57:05 I see 17:57:13 so for consumers it is out there 17:57:34 for reviewers (hard part) we need to make sure it's in the right shape for it to be reviewed 17:57:40 kind of :) 17:57:53 mfedosin: 250LOC /each :) 17:58:09 as I mentioned on the summit will start to split it in early June 17:58:44 and if it's possible will have the spec been merged by that time 17:58:47 mfedosin: hmm, ok. let me know in detail what are the blockers so that I can plan accordingly. 17:59:13 mfedosin: this week we are supposed to focus on spec reviews as per my email 17:59:30 the more you review someone else's work, the more review you can get on your work ;-) 17:59:44 gotcha ;) 17:59:54 check my emails to the ML 18:00:02 for sure! 18:00:09 I am sending all that for people to use the approach to get things done fast! 18:00:22 gtg 18:00:25 next meeting 18:00:26 thanks! 18:00:27 thank you for that 18:00:39 #endmeeting