#openstack-meeting: gluon

Meeting started by bh526r at 18:02:46 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. Roll Call and Introduction (bh526r, 18:04:06)
    1. Georg Kunz (georgk, 18:04:23)
    2. Bin Hu (bh526r, 18:04:31)
    3. Jeff Collins (Jeffreyc42, 18:04:32)
    4. Kamil Renczewski (krenczewski, 18:04:33)
    5. Paul Carver (pcarver, 18:04:42)

  2. Admin Update (bh526r, 18:05:28)
    1. No update of admin matters (bh526r, 18:05:49)

  3. Review of Repository Structure (bh526r, 18:06:31)
    1. Today we primarily focus on reviewing 2 patches (bh526r, 18:07:00)
    2. one is the patch of proposing repo structure (bh526r, 18:07:15)
    3. the other one is the patch of architecture description (bh526r, 18:07:33)
    4. here is the patch of repo structure: (bh526r, 18:07:55)
    5. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/342448/ (bh526r, 18:08:10)
    6. There are a few comments, primiarily on the specific description of the functional description of each component of the repo proposal (bh526r, 18:09:28)
    7. my comments are mainly brain dumps of architectural things I wanted to capture somewhere (georgk, 18:10:40)
    8. there is only one comment from Kamal, suggesting to change the name of "gluon-core" to "gluon-lib" (bh526r, 18:10:57)
    9. Georg: that was before the architecture doc was pushed by Jeff (bh526r, 18:11:34)
    10. thank you Georg (bh526r, 18:11:58)
    11. I can move my comments to the right place (maybe the architecture doc) later (georgk, 18:12:09)
    12. sure, that's better. Thank you Georg (bh526r, 18:12:30)
    13. and I also think, the architecture description may need to reflect the new repo strucuture of architectural components (bh526r, 18:13:00)
    14. so regarding the comment of changing the name of "gluon-core" to "gluon-lib", is there any other opinion? (bh526r, 18:13:47)
    15. if there is no other opinion on the name change of "gluon-core" to "gluon-lib" (bh526r, 18:15:00)
    16. I would suggest that the group present on the meeting today agreed to this proposal. (bh526r, 18:15:43)
    17. +1 (georgk, 18:16:01)
    18. +1 (Jeffreyc42, 18:16:33)
    19. In respect of original authoer Tom, we would wait for Tom's back from vacation so that he will upload patch 2 for this new name (bh526r, 18:16:51)
    20. "gluon-lib" (bh526r, 18:17:07)
    21. then the gluon-core can +2 and merge it (bh526r, 18:17:50)

  4. Review of Architecture Document (bh526r, 18:18:41)
    1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/344283/ (bh526r, 18:18:55)
    2. now is the real thing: architecture description (bh526r, 18:19:14)
    3. Kamal posted 4 comments, 2 editorial and 2 needs clarification (bh526r, 18:20:00)
    4. plus Georg's comments (bh526r, 18:20:04)
    5. and the necessary re-consideration given the new repo strucuture, and related description of components within the repo (bh526r, 18:20:45)
    6. Jeff: For Kamal's comments 1 and 3 are given (bh526r, 18:21:21)
    7. Jeff: we already discussed this second one (bh526r, 18:21:32)
    8. and for 4 i think it would be a good idea to add a section on why etcd and not rabbit (Jeffreyc42, 18:21:51)
    9. that's right, it will be very helpful (bh526r, 18:22:09)
    10. and Georg's original comment on repo patch, but actually applicable to architectural description (bh526r, 18:22:51)
    11. regarding my comments: they are targeting potential improvements (georgk, 18:23:26)
    12. shall we put them in a dedicated section in this document or create a separate one (georgk, 18:23:45)
    13. yes, improvements - but also a starting point of our formal architectural design so that we know what needs improved for future work (bh526r, 18:24:27)
    14. I wanted to collect current shortcoming of the architecture and collect them in some place so that we can discuss those (georgk, 18:24:31)
    15. We mention a few places in the arch doc for improvements already. (Jeffreyc42, 18:25:03)
    16. I think either pull this out to its own section or just add it to the respective sections. (Jeffreyc42, 18:25:24)
    17. I suggest that let us work on the arch doc as the opportunity of long term design instead of just documenting what is currently we have (bh526r, 18:25:55)
    18. the arch document was put together to help people learn how its currently built (Jeffreyc42, 18:26:34)
    19. Along the way though we added future changes (Jeffreyc42, 18:26:48)
    20. - So I would suggest using the arch doc for how its currently built and maybe either add a new "future" section or put this in its own rst (Jeffreyc42, 18:27:20)
    21. I suggest to put this in its own rst (bh526r, 18:27:43)
    22. +1 (Jeffreyc42, 18:27:57)
    23. new doc for future/changes (Jeffreyc42, 18:28:08)
    24. fine this that (georgk, 18:28:11)
    25. I'll pull out the future stuff from the current arch doc and put it in a new one. then others can add (Jeffreyc42, 18:28:46)
    26. I'll go ahead and make the Kamal changes but will need help on the details of etcd vs rabbit (Jeffreyc42, 18:29:28)
    27. Yes, the new architecture document is a single document that will evolve over time (bh526r, 18:29:42)
    28. But the old one is a legacy stuff, we can keep it as documenting what we have before OpenStack (bh526r, 18:30:19)
    29. the current doc is the arch doc - Which I think should be maintained for how its built (Jeffreyc42, 18:31:05)
    30. then we take this as an opportunity of a fresh start in OpenStack (bh526r, 18:31:14)
    31. the new rst would be the "proposed improvements" or something like this (Jeffreyc42, 18:31:38)
    32. yes, we should maintain the old one as how it was built before OpenStack (bh526r, 18:31:50)
    33. the whole thing in Git now is not in OpenStack yet (bh526r, 18:32:04)
    34. - ok and that would maintain the name "Archectural Description"? (Jeffreyc42, 18:32:12)
    35. Everyone good with that strucutre then? (Jeffreyc42, 18:32:53)
    36. that is why we discussed the new repo structure, which will be supported by a fresh new architectural doc (bh526r, 18:33:07)
    37. I'm not following you. You are saying you want to use the arch doc for the new propsed stuff/changes or how its currently built? (Jeffreyc42, 18:34:15)
    38. yes, I agree with (1) the old one maintained as a whole of describing how it was built before OpenStack (2) a new one starts the new design (bh526r, 18:34:27)
    39. ok, got it (Jeffreyc42, 18:34:42)
    40. thanks (Jeffreyc42, 18:34:46)
    41. then we evolve the new one as we evolve in openstack (bh526r, 18:35:13)
    42. ok now I'm lost :) (Jeffreyc42, 18:35:22)
    43. yes, the old one as-is is for historical documentation (bh526r, 18:35:44)
    44. the current arch doc should be continuously updated for how gluon is currently built now and as it changes (Jeffreyc42, 18:36:01)
    45. the new doc is for ideas/purposals/changes as we discuss? (Jeffreyc42, 18:36:23)
    46. hold on, guy (bh526r, 18:36:39)
    47. the situation is - we have old repo, which we need to document how it was built (bh526r, 18:37:28)
    48. the repo structure is not really for the arch doc (Jeffreyc42, 18:38:01)
    49. currently the arch doc has how its built and as i describe things I also call out room for some changes (Jeffreyc42, 18:38:11)
    50. I expect the arch doc to evolve as we change the code (Jeffreyc42, 18:38:23)
    51. now, we have new repo, and agreed new repo structure (bh526r, 18:38:32)
    52. but that doesn't change the arch (Jeffreyc42, 18:38:41)
    53. we should take this opportunity to fresh start the architectural design (bh526r, 18:39:09)
    54. right - and we can do that and update the arch doc as we go (Jeffreyc42, 18:39:26)
    55. - how about we just keep the 1 arch doc and update it as we change things (Jeffreyc42, 18:39:43)
    56. and the old arch doc will describe how it was build before OpenStack (bh526r, 18:39:48)
    57. we are not changing / starting over though (Jeffreyc42, 18:40:06)
    58. we are just updating some pieces (Jeffreyc42, 18:40:15)
    59. like - here is the legacy. It's the end. (bh526r, 18:40:17)
    60. new doc can start with the old content, with the clarifications based on comments from Kamal and Georg (bh526r, 18:40:48)
    61. - those changes are small though. i can update those very quickly (Jeffreyc42, 18:41:05)
    62. we are not rebuilding gluon here. As we make changes lets just update the arch doc (Jeffreyc42, 18:41:25)


Meeting ended at 19:02:47 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. bh526r (62)
  2. Jeffreyc42 (43)
  3. georgk (17)
  4. pcarver (11)
  5. openstack (4)
  6. krenczewski (3)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.