07:00:35 <skraynev> #startmeeting heat
07:00:36 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jan 20 07:00:35 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is skraynev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
07:00:38 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
07:00:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'heat'
07:00:56 <skraynev> #topic rollcall
07:01:10 <shardy> o/
07:01:11 <ramishra_> hi
07:01:16 <tiantian> o/
07:01:18 <elynn_> o/
07:01:39 <stevebaker> \o
07:02:44 <skraynev> #topic Adding items to agenda
07:02:54 <skraynev> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/HeatAgenda#Agenda_.282016-01-20_0700_UTC.29
07:03:12 <ricolin> o/
07:03:59 <skraynev> Looks like nothing else :)
07:04:14 <skraynev> #topic Status of actions from previous meeting
07:05:08 <skraynev> hardy, stevebaker, zaneb, skraynev prepare stable/liberty
07:05:08 <skraynev> branch for new release to next week (merge remaining patches)
07:05:14 <skraynev> it was done
07:05:48 <skraynev> there is patch on reviewhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/269856/
07:06:09 <skraynev> hm... I need to fix some error...
07:06:34 <stevebaker> huh, me too
07:06:37 <stevebaker> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/269966/
07:06:59 <stevebaker> ah, send-announcements-to is needed
07:07:31 <stevebaker> we need to decide whether to do -announce or -dev
07:07:39 <skraynev> stevebaker: yes. I see, but I don't know what does it mean
07:08:03 <stevebaker> skraynev: its a new entry in the file for what list to send the anounce email too, let me find an example
07:09:12 <stevebaker> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266448/1/deliverables/kilo/heat.yaml
07:10:31 <skraynev> stevebaker: wow. I have missed this new thing
07:10:54 <skraynev> I think, that openstack-announce will be better
07:11:05 <stevebaker> agreed
07:11:19 <skraynev> I remember some mail about splitting mails from -dev and -announce
07:11:36 <skraynev> stevebaker: I suppose, that we may add this line in the same patches
07:11:44 <stevebaker> yeah same patch
07:11:48 <skraynev> so Need to update them ;)
07:12:26 <skraynev> skraynev upload patch to release repo for new stable/liberty
07:12:26 <skraynev> release on the next week
07:12:41 <skraynev> done. just need to fix issue mentioned above
07:12:51 <skraynev> : merge backports patches in stable/liberty for
07:12:51 <skraynev> python-heatclient and then propose new 0.8.x release for stable
07:12:58 <skraynev> as I see it's Done too
07:13:08 <stevebaker> its good to go https://review.openstack.org/#/c/269966/
07:13:38 <skraynev> stevebaker: zaneb: thank you for the help with it ;)
07:13:56 <skraynev> prepare and do 0.9.0 release for python-heatclient with stub
07:13:56 <skraynev> in setup.cfg for osc commands
07:14:04 <skraynev> this one is not ready yet
07:14:33 <skraynev> I probabbly will do it tomorrow with two patches where we skip and unskip osc extension
07:14:46 <skraynev> note, that heatclient looks ready for it
07:15:16 <skraynev> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/python-heatclient+status:open+-topic:bp/heat-support-python-openstackclient
07:15:27 <skraynev> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/python-heatclient+status:open+-topic:bp/heat-support-python-openstackclient
07:16:00 <skraynev> m-2 is ready too. https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/mitaka-2
07:16:20 <skraynev> I will upload patch to release repo after meeting and will post it to #heat
07:16:48 <skraynev> 8 BPs and 42 fixed bugs look awesome!
07:16:51 <stevebaker> ok
07:16:55 <skraynev> thank you all :)
07:17:19 <skraynev> "sent mail about making convergence by default after m-2"
07:17:33 <skraynev> anant was done it. thank you
07:18:10 <skraynev> So please core-reviewers please focus on patches mentioned in this ^ mail
07:18:39 <skraynev> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/084379.html
07:18:55 <skraynev> There are two patches which unskip two tests
07:18:59 <ananta> skraynev: wc
07:19:45 <ananta> few other patches are important as well given in mail :)
07:20:13 <skraynev> ananta: I understand, but enabling some tests more visible ;)
07:20:44 <ananta> skraynev: sure. there are some bugs in undecided, we should go through them
07:21:54 <ananta> convergence bugs at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=FIXCOMMITTED&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscrib
07:22:18 <ananta> oops, thats pretty big url :)
07:22:20 <skraynev> ananta: kk. I hope, that we will solve most part to first part of Feb and enable "convergence"
07:23:25 <ananta> skraynev: yes, most are in progress, so it looks good for feb beginning
07:24:23 <skraynev> ananta: hm. could you also send a mail with list of these launchpad bugs. I want to make sure, that they all have correct status and target milestone m3
07:24:46 <ananta> skraynev: ok, I will send
07:24:48 <skraynev> ananta: in the same mail thread, I think
07:24:57 <skraynev> ananta: thx
07:25:18 <skraynev> #topic Mitaka User survey mail
07:26:45 <skraynev> I have sent a mail with mentioned questions. So if somebody has a special important question, please ping me during today (I think, that I still may add your question :))
07:27:08 <skraynev> #topic Cross projects specs Liaison
07:27:27 <skraynev> #link  http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/cross-project.html#cross-project-specification-liaisons
07:27:34 <skraynev> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons#Cross-Project_Spec_Liaisons
07:28:02 <skraynev> do we have a volunteer for this work ?
07:28:40 <skraynev> it's mostly related with big changes, which affect all projects
07:28:40 <stevebaker> I'm terrible at watching the cross-project repo ;)
07:29:10 <skraynev> stevebaker: honestly me too.
07:29:33 <skraynev> stevebaker: it looks like a lot of reading/discussions :)
07:30:18 <Khayam> Hi
07:30:22 <Khayam> anybody from tricircle
07:31:23 <skraynev> If we have not special person for this work, I will do it, but probably try to involve more people for some specific technical questions :)
07:32:04 <stevebaker> sure, that sounds totally reasonable, and I can attend the x-project meeting when required
07:32:09 <skraynev> Khayam: hi. I am not sure, that we have someone from tricircle in Heat team
07:32:39 <ricolin> skraynev: I can assist you with that. :)
07:32:52 <skraynev> ricolin: sold!!!
07:33:06 <shardy> Yeah it probably requires everybody to more actively review openstack-specs, atm the review velocity is extremely low, e.g therve has an event spec which has been posted for 4 months now, with not very much feedback
07:33:06 <Khayam> thanks ricolin
07:33:25 <Khayam> trying to understand cross pod L2 networking.
07:33:45 <shardy> Khayam: this is the heat meeting, can you find a more appropriate channel please?
07:33:47 <Khayam> Any specific place from where i can get a bigger picture of this networking
07:34:50 <skraynev> ricolin: I will update info in liaisons table
07:35:16 <skraynev> ricolin and notify guys from foundation.
07:35:32 <skraynev> if you need any help please ask me
07:35:34 <ricolin> skraynev: Okey, will try to grep more part ofit
07:36:01 <skraynev> and don't hesitate to add on review people from Heat
07:36:42 <skraynev> in case of really important or complex changes we may discuss it on the weekly meeting (ping me and I will add it in agenda)
07:37:10 <skraynev> #topic Open discussion
07:37:33 <ricolin> Backlog in specs
07:37:35 <ricolin> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/260320/
07:38:08 <elynn_> And RBAC spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254037/, needs review and approval :)
07:39:03 <ricolin> We have decided to have a backlog space for specs
07:39:07 <shardy> While we're talking specs there's still the capabilities one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196656/
07:39:31 <skraynev> ricolin: oh. yes. I have not finished it. I still need to think about better approach in case of using one backlog directory.
07:39:50 <shardy> I'm unsure whether to invest the time in writing code for that because folks haven't provided feedback or approval, despite the generally positive summit session
07:39:59 <skraynev> ricolin: I will try to think about it
07:40:19 <ricolin> skraynev: Have we send mail for this yet?
07:41:50 <ramishra_> shardy, skraynev:  Is there any issue in approving a spec where no one has any objection and has multiple +2s?
07:41:52 <ricolin> and another specs https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237450/
07:41:55 <skraynev> shardy: I remember about it :( unfortunately I have not time to take a look on it and two other BPs (http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/heat-specs/specs/mitaka/multi-environments.html and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/256872/)
07:42:01 <therve> shardy, I'm about to abandon the spec to be honest
07:42:42 <skraynev> ramishra_: there is only one for me - time to read :)
07:44:08 <shardy> ramishra_: I think it's OK to approve provided there's clear consensus, e.g I normally try to wait for more than 2 +2's unless it's a very simple spec
07:44:31 <shardy> IMHO it doesn't have to be the PTL who approves everything, we just have to reduce the risk that stuff lands, then is later rejected during code review
07:44:37 <skraynev> ramishra_, shardy: also could you please target these specs on m3 ? I am trying to periodically review BPs with next milestone target
07:44:46 <shardy> therve: that's sad :(
07:45:07 <stevebaker> therve: which spec?
07:45:19 <therve> stevebaker, https://review.openstack.org/231382
07:45:32 <shardy> skraynev: the multi-environments one is already landed and most of the implementation is done
07:45:49 <skraynev> ramishra_: I agree with shardy, if you have a strong feeling, that it should be and it has two +2 just merge
07:45:56 <shardy> we just have to figure out the backwards compatibility aspect, as discussed on openstack-dev
07:46:05 <skraynev> I will read spec later in documentation
07:46:58 <stevebaker> therve: you could always go with the lazy concensus approach and just implement something that meets heat's needs and *should* meet everyone elses - then you're advocating for a real thing. Thats how most things get used across openstack ;)
07:47:00 <skraynev> shardy: yes. I know, but I did not read it ;) so can not start review without understanding final aim
07:47:15 <therve> stevebaker, Well, that's already what happened :)
07:47:41 <shardy> skraynev: you mean change mitaka-2 to mitaka-3 in the spec under review?
07:47:56 <shardy> I can do that, but obviously changing that 1 line loses the 2 existing +2's
07:48:37 <skraynev> shardy: no, I told about BPs on launchpad
07:49:18 <shardy> skraynev: OK, I haven't created that yet, because the spec hasn't landed
07:49:21 <shardy> I can create it tho
07:49:36 <skraynev> shardy: Honestly it's easier to see BPs to launchpad and focus on them
07:49:42 <shardy> Really I just want to know if it's worth investing at least a week writing the code before I run out of time for Mitaka
07:49:57 <shardy> anyway, feedback welcome ;)
07:50:12 <skraynev> shardy: it's not mandatory, but it's more useful for me, when I track whole milestone progress
07:51:14 <skraynev> shardy: I will try to look on it during this week. Also fell free to ping somebody else :)
07:51:53 <ramishra_> when we are on the specs topic , any thoughts on using the 'spec-lite' tags  with bugs for simple specs like other projects?
07:52:34 <stevebaker> ramishra_: that would be a good idea I for small features
07:52:41 <shardy> +1
07:53:10 <shardy> we already kind-of do that with blueprints that don't have a spec, when it's a simple feature
07:53:17 <shardy> but a tagged bug also works
07:53:22 <stevebaker> ramishra_: so we just create a feature bug and tag it with spec-lite?
07:53:30 <ramishra_> stevebaker: yes
07:54:27 <skraynev> ramishra_: sounds good for me
07:54:32 <stevebaker> a bug might be noticed more than a specless blueprint
07:54:39 <ramishra_> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/glance/contributing/blueprints.html#glance-spec-lite
07:58:47 <skraynev> 2 minutes
07:59:19 <skraynev> ramishra_: I think,that will be better to send a mail with this info
07:59:41 <skraynev> ramishra_: it allows to notify more people about this approach
08:00:07 <skraynev> if it needs, let's continue in #heat
08:00:13 <skraynev> #endmeeting