22:01:12 <gabrielhurley> #startmeeting horizon
22:01:13 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb  5 22:01:12 2013 UTC.  The chair is gabrielhurley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:01:14 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:01:16 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
22:01:27 <gabrielhurley> #topic General status update
22:01:52 <gabrielhurley> Lots of code up for review at the moment
22:02:02 <gabrielhurley> I went through this morning and tried to make sure everything had feedback.
22:02:11 <gabrielhurley> there are several that need a second +2/approval
22:02:21 <gabrielhurley> the blueprints that have been posted are all looking good
22:02:29 <gabrielhurley> #topic Blueprints and bugs
22:02:33 <gabrielhurley> speaking of blueprints
22:02:35 <mrunge> hi, just a short update, I also did my duty on reviews
22:02:43 <gabrielhurley> excellent. thank you.
22:02:47 <mrunge> so, we have several approved now
22:02:55 <gabrielhurley> yep, jenkins will churn away on them
22:03:04 <mrunge> yupp
22:03:27 <zykes-> gabrielhurley: speaking of bps will the introspection land ?
22:03:57 <gabrielhurley> zykes-: no, that one got dropped out of Grizzly several weeks ago, sorry. It'll be an early-H feature
22:04:17 <zykes-> awww :(
22:04:29 <gabrielhurley> yeah, I know. sadface.
22:04:33 <gabrielhurley> ;-)
22:05:10 <gabrielhurley> In terms of remaining work to be done for Grizzly, we've got just over two weeks.
22:05:24 <gabrielhurley> That means anyone who'd like to get their code in should get a review up by this time next week
22:05:36 <gabrielhurley> I know it's a big push to get to the end
22:05:50 <gabrielhurley> but the deadline's the deadline, and ttx doesn't like feature freeze exceptions. ;-)
22:06:10 <mrunge> should we do a combined test day or so?
22:06:25 <mrunge> just to be sure, everything is tested then again?
22:06:39 <gabrielhurley> I generally go by the rule of "that's what the RC period is for"
22:06:41 <zykes-> gabrielhurley: question also, is there support for the domain / project stuff and new quantum lbaas stuff ?
22:07:17 <gabrielhurley> zykes-: quantum LBaaS is in progress but not currently targeted. I will accept it if it's proposed in the near future. The quantum team is hard at work on it.
22:07:43 <gabrielhurley> domain management in keystone got hammered out too late for horizon to do much in adopting the v3 API, so that'll be H as well
22:08:50 <gabrielhurley> Overall, I'd like to see folks hammering on the blueprints for the next 1-2 weeks, and then we'll have time for a testing effort and bug bash in the RC phase. That's always the best time to polish.
22:09:23 <zykes-> that's kinda sad face that major features aren't landed in the UI
22:10:01 <gabrielhurley> zykes-: it's been that kind of dev cycle... horizon's a tricky project 'cuz our work is so dependent on other projects getting things nailed down in a reasonable timeframe.
22:10:15 <gabrielhurley> We usually end up with a very busy final milestone because of it
22:10:19 <gabrielhurley> and only so much fits in
22:11:05 <gabrielhurley> but in a positive light, we've had a lot of new folks coming in during the last milestone and a half so that bodes very well for getting lots done in H! :-)
22:11:09 <amotoki> hi
22:11:23 <gabrielhurley> hi amotoki. how're things going in quantum-land?
22:11:52 <amotoki> I just joined the channel. I am looking at the log.
22:11:58 <ttx> gabrielhurley: yeah right, blame me :)
22:12:10 <gabrielhurley> ttx: you're the best scapegoat
22:12:44 <gabrielhurley> amotoki: okay. no worries.
22:12:46 <gabrielhurley> is either davidlenwell or cody-somerville around?
22:13:00 <gabrielhurley> I'd really like to get an update on the file/image upload blueprints
22:14:03 <gabrielhurley> if not I'll follow up via email
22:14:14 <gabrielhurley> cody-somerville was here a minute ago...
22:14:36 <cody-somerville> i
22:14:38 <gabrielhurley> oh well. email it is.
22:14:38 <cody-somerville> er.
22:14:39 <cody-somerville> Hey :)
22:14:40 <gabrielhurley> oh
22:14:41 <gabrielhurley> hi!
22:14:57 <cody-somerville> So I need to sync up with David.
22:15:21 <cody-somerville> I've did the bit the allow one to upload an image like you can upload to swift through Horizon
22:15:31 <cody-somerville> but uploading multi-gig file that way isn't really realistic
22:15:32 <gabrielhurley> yeah
22:15:38 <gabrielhurley> it's certainly not ideal
22:15:54 <gabrielhurley> but it might be better to land it as such in G3 and document deployment considerations there
22:16:01 <gabrielhurley> then in H we can improve it
22:16:10 <cody-somerville> Ok. Was going to ask about that.
22:16:21 <cody-somerville> Was wondering if I should bother to implement some sort of streaming
22:16:31 <cody-somerville> or if we should get glance people to implement something similar to formpost that swift has
22:16:35 <gabrielhurley> can you do that in under two weeks? ;-)
22:16:48 <gabrielhurley> I was talking to brian waldon about that the other day
22:16:50 <cody-somerville> One thing I noticed about formpost for swift is that the swift account has to have a temp key thingie set on it.
22:16:53 <gabrielhurley> we may see something of that nature in H
22:17:19 <gabrielhurley> I don't think we'd see it implemented in glance exactly like in swift (which has tons of legacy auth stuff going on), but it's not gonna be a grizzly feature
22:17:27 <gabrielhurley> and we could help shape the requirement/developemtn for that
22:18:18 <cody-somerville> If we do the formpost bit for swift, is just creating a random temp url key on the swift account ok if there isn't one already? (I assume we can fetch the current key if there is one set).
22:18:22 <gabrielhurley> so yeah, I think as long as we thoroughly document the deployment considerations and security implications (and perhaps add a settings flag to enable/disable the direct upload form/modal) then merging it with a naive file upload is gonna be good enough for Grizzly
22:18:34 <gabrielhurley> for swift that's fine as far as I know
22:19:32 <gabrielhurley> cody-somerville: can you get a review up (even if it's still a little rough) by this time next week?
22:19:49 <gabrielhurley> I'd really rather not 11th-hour merge this one, ya know :-)
22:20:20 <cody-somerville> Sure.  For the image-upload patch, the only thing remaining is some more tests plus UI consideration from David.
22:20:44 <gabrielhurley> awesome
22:20:46 <gabrielhurley> that's good news
22:20:56 <cody-somerville> I've only just added another input to the form for the file (and logic to handle only accepting one or the other). I assume we'll want to do something nicer looking with JS.
22:21:18 <gabrielhurley> that'd be ideal
22:21:43 <gabrielhurley> as noted, though, substance counts more right now. there's more time to polish afterward
22:21:56 <amotoki> gabrielhurley: about quantum we have 6 BPs now. summary is here: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings#line-127
22:22:19 <cody-somerville> so this will implement image-upload but what exactly do we want to do for the file-upload-refux bp?
22:22:25 <cody-somerville> *redux
22:22:57 <gabrielhurley> cody-somerville: I though part of davidlenwell's code was about a nice fancy upload widget. he showed me something back at the end of G2 that wasn't too far off...
22:23:49 <gabrielhurley> amotoki: I'm curious how the "network topology" blueprint is coming along? is that still gonna land in G3?
22:24:12 <gabrielhurley> I remember nachi's demo at the summit so I'm surprised it hasn't been proposed for review yet.
22:24:13 <amotoki> I will ask nachi about its status.
22:24:16 <gabrielhurley> thanks
22:24:31 <zykes-> demo what ? :)
22:24:53 <cody-somerville> Ok. Cool. So file-upload-redux is about the UI. Thought maybe there was work on the backend you wanted done for the spec.
22:24:54 <gabrielhurley> zykes-: it was a network topology visualization. cool stuff.
22:25:07 <mrunge> oh, cool
22:25:26 <amotoki> gabrielhurley: perhaps he must be writng a unittests. i will ask him to update the status.
22:25:38 <gabrielhurley> cody-somerville: the idea was simply to make a reusable UI widget so that file uploading was consistent across image upload, swift upload, etc. and have it be a good experience.
22:26:05 <gabrielhurley> amotoki: thanks. are there any of the other blueprints you are concerned about? it sounds like they're all going pretty well to me.
22:26:41 <amotoki> gabrielhurley: for other stuffs in quantum, quantum-lbaas has a steady progross and i am asking the status update to KC (from bigswitch)
22:27:05 <zykes-> amotoki: is bsn involved in that stuff ?
22:27:12 <zykes-> I thought it was some other oflks
22:27:56 <amotoki> zykes-: yes. they are woring on quantum-lbaas
22:28:46 <gabrielhurley> #topic General discussion
22:28:56 <gabrielhurley> anything else people would like to cover? the blueprints were my main taopic.
22:28:57 <lcheng> gabriel: Does the rbac update to use the policy api going into G? :-)
22:28:58 <gabrielhurley> *topic
22:29:22 <gabrielhurley> lcheng: keystone still hasn't gotten the policy file rollup into the v3 API, so no.
22:29:37 <gabrielhurley> that is easily the most delayed feature I've ever dealt with
22:29:47 <gabrielhurley> I think it's been bumped out of three releases now
22:29:51 <gabrielhurley> E, F and G
22:30:15 <gabrielhurley> but given how far the v3 API came along in Grizzly I don't think it will escape from Havana
22:30:55 <lcheng> argh, I thought the policy api is already included in V3 API. Would be a nice feature to have.
22:30:57 <lcheng> Thanks
22:31:17 <gabrielhurley> policy API *for keystone* is included
22:31:25 <gabrielhurley> but we need the policy API for *all the projects*
22:31:30 <gabrielhurley> they didn't quite get there
22:31:51 <lcheng> got it.
22:32:36 <amotoki> gabrielhurley: about my quantum secgroup patch, some part (vm launching panel) may need to be splited and extended.
22:32:48 <gabrielhurley> no problem
22:32:49 <amotoki> gabrielhurley: i have no concerns about others.
22:32:50 <lcheng> btw,  I got the change-password bp. Would you like it to be included for G3?
22:33:01 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, Before moving away from bp, I wanted to know your opinions about the tenant deletion blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/tenant-deletion
22:33:04 <gabrielhurley> lcheng: sure. put up a review
22:33:14 <lcheng> okay
22:33:35 <gabrielhurley> vkmc: everything you've proposed for it sounds great. just the coding that remins, right? ;-)
22:33:45 <gabrielhurley> *remains
22:34:11 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, Yeah, but also I found that OpenStack allows to manage some resources that are available from the clients but not yet from Horizon (e.g. cloudpipes and agents in Nova, vips and members in Quantum). That is, that resources cannot be managed from the Dashboard. Should they be taken into account when deleting a tenant?
22:34:42 <gabrielhurley> I would say no for now, though it'd be good to make a note of that (probably comments in the code)
22:35:01 <gabrielhurley> I'd just be hesitant to start deleting anything from the dashboard that you can't *see* from the dashboard
22:35:36 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, Fair enough
22:35:42 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, I'd also appreciate some feedback regarding the UI http://imgur.com/a/I8zsu#0
22:36:10 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, I'm worried that it's too massive
22:36:30 <gabrielhurley> looks great but yeah, might be biting off more than you can chew for v1
22:36:48 <gabrielhurley> but use your judgment on that part
22:37:12 <vkmc> gabrielhurley, Great, I'll do that then
22:37:19 <gabrielhurley> excellent
22:37:31 <gabrielhurley> anybody else?
22:38:12 <gabrielhurley> great! good meeting everyone. keep up the hard work during the final stretch here. propose your code in gerrit, and I'll talk to you all same time next week!
22:38:16 <gabrielhurley> #endmeeting