16:02:07 <mrunge> #startmeeting Horizon
16:02:08 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun  3 16:02:07 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mrunge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:10 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:02:12 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
16:02:21 <mrunge> good afternoon
16:02:24 <rdopiera> hello
16:02:25 <tzumainn> hiya!
16:02:26 <tmazur> hello everyone o/
16:02:27 <davlaps> o/
16:02:27 <akrivoka> hey
16:02:30 <gary-smith> hi
16:02:32 <lblanchard> hi all
16:02:32 <santib> hi!!
16:02:33 <akrivoka> everyone :)
16:02:34 <doug-fish> hello all
16:02:35 <jomara> hi
16:02:39 <Openstack1> hello
16:02:46 <amotoki> hi
16:02:53 <jcoufal> o/
16:02:56 <mrunge> david lyle is currently on pto, so I'll chair the meeting
16:02:59 <crobertsrh> hi
16:03:10 <mrunge> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon
16:03:39 <mrunge> #topic project news
16:03:47 <mrunge> any news to share?
16:03:50 <jrist-afk> o/
16:04:27 <rdopiera> the pyscss patch for global-requirements has been merged :)
16:04:40 <doug-fish> The nova guys have been asking a lot about the default quota stuff they took out in icehouse.
16:04:53 <mrunge> hooray rdopiera
16:05:01 <doug-fish> They must be getting a lot of grief about it, and it seems that its going back in
16:05:14 <rdopiera> doug-fish: I've seen a patch that is supposed to restore some views, is that it?
16:05:14 <mrunge> good news as well
16:05:19 <jomara> rdopiera: nice
16:05:57 <doug-fish> of course this has led to questions like "Why don't you have better integration tests, so we can know this earlier?"
16:06:33 <doug-fish> (I think this is where jpich is supposed to post the link to the horizon integration test wiki)
16:06:41 <mrunge> doug-fish, I assume you answered: known issue; we're working on this ;-)
16:06:49 <crobertsrh> I'm still working on the sahara merge.  Next-up is adding some tests for each of the panels.
16:06:49 <doug-fish> yep
16:07:08 <jpich> doug-fish: :)
16:07:39 <mrunge> crobertsrh, yes, you have a lot of patches up for review, progress with reviews is still a bit slow
16:08:06 <crobertsrh> Yes, reviews have been a bit slow to trickle in, but those that we have got have been helpful.
16:09:00 <mrunge> let's move to the next topic
16:09:01 <amotoki> another kind of news about stable update.
16:09:08 <amotoki> stable icehouse update is now soft freeze. if any important backport, please send a mail to stable-maint.
16:09:22 <mrunge> oh yes
16:09:56 <amotoki> let's move on.
16:10:07 <mrunge> #topic Horizon split
16:10:28 <mrunge> rdopiera, I assume, you brought this up?
16:10:32 <rdopiera> yes
16:10:46 <mrunge> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-split-plan is the linked document
16:10:53 <rdopiera> I just wanted to mention again that the plan is on the etherpad, at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-split-plan
16:11:01 <rdopiera> and that anybody is free to add to it
16:11:10 <rdopiera> or raise concerns, etc.
16:11:25 <rdopiera> another thing that we have to do before the split, is decide on the name
16:11:40 <rdopiera> it has been raised on the mailing list that django_horizon is not the best choice
16:11:53 <mrunge> IMHO we should reach out to the mailing list for proposals
16:11:59 <rdopiera> I wonder what the most effective method of picking the name would be
16:12:06 <mrunge> I agree here
16:12:32 <rdopiera> so, an etherpad with the names, and people putting their names next to the ones they like?
16:12:32 <mrunge> call for proposals? make a list of 3-5 names?
16:13:02 <clu_> we could have some an online poll after we get some name proposals?
16:13:02 <rdopiera> and a week from now we count them, and if there are ties, we just pick randomly?
16:13:24 <tqtran> i highly doubt there will be a tie
16:13:38 <mrunge> I assume, we could make a poll? does anyone know, how other projects decided about a name?
16:13:39 <rdopiera> tqtran: just in case, to make it quicker :)
16:13:44 <mrunge> neutron folks here?
16:13:47 <tqtran> if there is, we can have david flip a coin
16:13:56 <rdopiera> tqtran: exactly what I meant
16:14:08 <amotoki> mrunge: ?
16:14:26 <mrunge> amotoki, how was the name change to neutron decided?
16:14:29 <akrivoka> then we will potentially need a n-sided coin :)
16:14:34 <rdopiera> I would hate to waste a week for gathering the proposals, and another for voting
16:14:51 <mrunge> quantum - (something I forgot) -> neutron
16:14:52 <amotoki> we voted a couple of candidates.
16:15:00 <rdopiera> 2 days for proposals, and until the next meeting for voting, maybe?
16:15:23 <amotoki> only core member voted at that time.
16:15:34 <mrunge> rdopiera, could you send a mail to the list about name proposals?
16:16:01 <tmazur> I suggest "mirokolitsa". No one uses this name before, that's win-win! ^^
16:16:09 <rdopiera> mrunge: should we collect them on an etherpad or wiki? because tracking them on e-mails would be error prone
16:16:20 <mrunge> #todo rdopiera to send a mail to the mailing list, asking for naming proposals
16:16:22 <clu_> do we want other openstack projects to vote on the name too?
16:16:22 <tqtran> tmazur: lol what does it mean?
16:16:47 <mrunge> rdopiera, etherpad or wiki: works both for me
16:16:57 <gary-smith> sorry for the noob question, where to subscribe to the mailing list? I looked around and couldn't find it
16:17:05 <tmazur> That's "horizon" in fake proto slavic :)
16:17:18 <amotoki> AFAIK, in neutron cases, we have candidate names without copyright problem.
16:17:21 <tqtran> tmazur: i like! haha
16:17:44 <amotoki> what i am not sure is do we need to check copyright issue before name vote.
16:17:46 <tzumainn> gary-smith, http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
16:17:48 <jpich> gary-smith: You can find more information over there -> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/MailingLists#Future_Development
16:17:56 <rdopiera> amotoki: you mean trademark
16:17:59 <mrunge> gary-smith, http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
16:18:05 <amotoki> ah.... right.
16:18:06 <gary-smith> thanks, got it
16:18:35 <rdopiera> amotoki: do you know how one would go about it?
16:18:47 <rdopiera> amotoki: does openstack have any lawyers who would help?
16:18:59 <jpich> the foundation does
16:19:10 <amotoki> rdopiera: i am not sure. markmcclain, former neutron ptl, is the right contact.
16:19:29 <amotoki> If you need it, I can send a mail to ask.
16:19:33 <rdopiera> otoh, if we use something like "horizon-lib", we can be pretty cofident it's safe
16:19:53 <rdopiera> amotoki: that would be awesome
16:20:13 <amotoki> rdopiera: sure.
16:20:14 <mrunge> on the other side, it doesn't need to have horizon in the name
16:20:36 <rdopiera> mrunge: right
16:20:40 <mrunge> as it should be more generic and consumable from the outside, totally unrelated to openstack
16:20:41 <rdopiera> I just like boring names
16:20:57 <mrunge> something like django-generic (or so) ;-)
16:21:06 <rdopiera> "skyline" is taken already, unfortunately :(
16:21:16 <tzumainn> "firmament"
16:21:23 <gary-smith> what's beneath a horizon? an ocean or seabed
16:21:27 <rdopiera> nadir
16:21:49 <mrunge> proposals to the wiki or etherpad
16:21:53 <rdopiera> yup
16:22:03 <rdopiera> I will send the e-mail shortly
16:22:11 <rdopiera> I think we are done with that
16:22:11 <mrunge> ok, then we could start a poll next week?
16:22:12 <tqtran> "sunrise" or something along the line of horizon?
16:22:29 <rdopiera> mrunge: I wuld want to start it before the weekend
16:22:39 <rdopiera> mrunge: and have the name decided on the next meetings
16:22:55 <mrunge> rdopiera, start the poll before next weekend?
16:22:56 <rdopiera> but maybe that's unrealistic
16:23:00 <mrunge> might be a bit tight
16:23:04 <rdopiera> yeah
16:23:05 <rdopiera> ok
16:23:10 <rdopiera> so poll next week
16:23:15 <mrunge> yes
16:23:18 <rdopiera> which brings me to the next topic
16:23:22 <rdopiera> dates for the split
16:23:31 <mrunge> yes please
16:23:33 <jrist> skywave?
16:23:34 <jrist> :)
16:23:48 <mrunge> j-1 will  be cut on june 12th
16:24:05 <rdopiera> I'm still waiting for some patches to merge, and we will have to depend on some more patches for the requirements
16:24:06 <mrunge> I think we should do the split shortly after
16:24:50 <rdopiera> mrunge: I'm not sure we will be ready
16:25:09 <rdopiera> mrunge: also, how long in advance do we need to set the date for the freeze?
16:25:22 <rdopiera> and what is the latest date when it still makes sense
16:25:50 <rdopiera> by June 12 we still won't have the name, for example
16:25:52 <mrunge> rdopiera, not putting any pressure, but j-3 would be too late (imho)
16:26:01 <rdopiera> mrunge: when is that?
16:26:12 <mrunge> rdopiera, good question
16:26:23 <mrunge> anyone?
16:27:31 <jcoufal> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule
16:27:47 <mrunge> around Sept 4th
16:28:12 <rdopiera> thanks
16:28:20 <rdopiera> ok, so we have to do it before that
16:29:34 <johnma> can someone explain the process of how this split works. For example, once this split happens how do we coordinate the changes that are still in review that depend on the old code structure?
16:29:36 <mrunge> yes
16:30:11 <rdopiera> johnma: the patch queue stays with the current openstack_dashboard
16:30:29 <rdopiera> johnma: so any changes that touch the current horizon part will become invalid
16:30:41 <rdopiera> johnma: and will have to be broken up and re-submitted
16:30:44 <mrunge> in fact, most patches in the past have been for openstack-dashboard
16:31:29 <rdopiera> the /horizon part is mostly a library
16:31:40 <rdopiera> so the changes there are more general and "global"
16:31:51 <mrunge> rdopiera, do we have an overview on what needs to get merged before?
16:31:55 <rdopiera> it makes sense to make them separately
16:31:56 <johnma> aah ok. Thanks for clarifying that.
16:32:21 <rdopiera> mrunge: I will add links to patches to the plan, good idea
16:32:33 <mrunge> great, thank you
16:32:40 <amotoki> perhaps we need to clarfiy the detail process on etherpad and review it in the meeting.
16:33:02 <mrunge> amotoki, good idea
16:33:16 <mrunge> anything else to add?
16:33:32 <lcheng_> does it make sense to have a separate launchpad project too?
16:33:52 <mrunge> hmm, I don't think so
16:34:10 <mrunge> thoughts?
16:34:33 <rdopiera> mrunge: if it will be used by other projects, they will want to report bugs and stuff
16:34:38 <mrunge> a person from the outside can't know, which component is failing/causing issues
16:34:42 <lcheng_> framework vs content related?  Right now, we do have a separate project for openstack_auth.
16:35:08 <rdopiera> I think it may make sense to have separate launchpad
16:35:25 <rdopiera> for the library/framework
16:35:43 <mrunge> would a tag work as well?
16:35:56 <mrunge> a tag #framework or #ui ?
16:36:14 <rdopiera> or name-of-the-project-that-we-will-come-up-with
16:37:05 <mrunge> I mean, that would avoid copying bugs from there to there
16:37:48 <amotoki> for launchpad we can migrate to a separate launchpad project gradually. At first most reports should be from openstack-dashboard.
16:37:49 <lcheng_> mrunge got a point... From user perspective, it does make it confusing figuring out which project to log the bug or request.
16:37:53 <johnma> I second the idea of using a tag with the new name as the tag name
16:38:32 <johnma> its easier that way to track bugs and bp
16:38:34 <tqtran> i also think it might be hard if a bug spans both projects
16:38:47 <tqtran> then where do you report it? two different reports? thats confusing....
16:38:55 <lcheng_> we don't really get bugs logged in openstack_auth right now, mostly bugs comes in horizon project and moved to openstack_auth after triage.
16:39:04 <mrunge> that's the reason, why we're moving away from launchpad
16:39:06 <jpich> tqtran: Launchpad lets you open tasks so you can say a bug affects 2 projects within the same report
16:39:11 <amotoki> tqtran: we can add multiple projects for one bug.
16:39:36 <tqtran> oh right....
16:39:40 <amotoki> it is a common way to track a bug across multiple projects in openstack.
16:40:43 <mrunge> can we move to the next topic?
16:40:57 <mrunge> #topic django-angular.js
16:41:24 <mrunge> who brought this up?
16:41:37 <tqtran> i think eric did, but hes not here....
16:41:46 <tqtran> i'll speak on his behalf =)
16:42:21 <mrunge> thanks
16:42:26 <tqtran> so the current plan is to provide an alternative way for rendering, mainly client-side using angular
16:42:38 <tqtran> it will hook nicely into the current django implementation
16:42:57 <tqtran> and overtime, we can have people jump in to retrofit the django version wth the angular version
16:43:26 <tqtran> eventually, we end up with everything rendering on client-side, then we can go back and clean out the django rendering logic
16:43:52 <mrunge> that's about: why we're investigating angular, right?
16:44:00 <jpich> Link to the current discussion on list as well, started by Veronica Musso: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036488.html
16:44:03 <mrunge> how comes django-angular into the game?
16:44:22 <tqtran> the question is, does this make sense? or are people oppose to removing the django implementation over time? or do we want to keep 2 rendering path for new developers?
16:44:57 <rdopiera> tqtran: I brought it up, because I've seen the discussion on the ML
16:45:11 <rdopiera> but I don't really have anything to say about it
16:45:13 <rdopiera> sorry
16:45:20 <tqtran> ah...=)
16:45:37 <rdopiera> I thought it might just be good to compare notes
16:45:43 <rdopiera> and agree where we stand
16:46:13 <mrunge> so, this topic is about django-angular (the python package), right?
16:46:13 * jrist is sitting
16:46:30 <mrunge> so tqtran any thoughts about that?
16:46:32 <ericpeterson> sorry, late comming
16:48:06 <tqtran> i would have to read more about it
16:48:31 <ericpeterson> I am not sure django-angular is critical, but would likely be a good first thing to use.   just having a json centric web layer would be helpful.... no matter if it's angular or something else
16:48:48 <mrunge> yes, that is my impression as well
16:49:26 <ericpeterson> and angular seems to have a lot of support among current devs too, which never hurts
16:49:38 <mrunge> sorry guys, I need to run out right now!
16:49:46 <ericpeterson> thanks mrunge!
16:50:43 <ericpeterson> anything else I could help on the subject?  (apologies for the late arrival) ?
16:50:45 <jpich> Looks like the conclusion on django-angular is "more reading required"? Was there any other items on the agenda?
16:51:23 <jpich> ericpeterson: Did you see the discussion on list? Your input would likely be appreciated there as well
16:51:38 <jpich> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036488.html
16:51:57 <jpich> #topic Open discussion
16:52:00 <amotoki> I see "Use mock?" in the agenda. Anything to discuss?
16:52:11 <jpich> Nope, not working. I think only the chair will be able to end the meeting too
16:52:40 <rdopiera> amotoki: yes, that's me too
16:52:42 <jpich> amotoki: I think it was a question about the current status which I believe is "feel free to use mock in future tests, no need to rewrite all the current ones, mox3 should work with python 3 in the future"...?
16:52:59 <rdopiera> the thing is, mock is not added to requirements.txt in Horizon
16:53:03 <rdopiera> so can we add it?
16:53:18 <rdopiera> jpich: it is like that in Nova
16:53:22 <jpich> rdopiera: I guess so? I don't know where the current OpenStack direction is documented
16:53:23 <rdopiera> jpich: but not sure about Horizon
16:53:24 <amotoki> IMO it is better to avoid two mocking methods in a single project.
16:53:55 <rdopiera> the thing is, mox is not really suitable for unit tests
16:54:00 <jpich> amotoki: mox is confusing enough on its own alright
16:54:05 <rdopiera> more for acceptance testing and bigger stuff
16:54:23 <rdopiera> it forces you to check everything
16:54:34 <rdopiera> while with mock, you can just check the things you care about
16:54:40 <rdopiera> and not lock the implementation
16:54:45 <doug-fish> I assume mock is something we'd add to test-requirements.txt right?  and not necessarily require it for production deploys
16:54:54 <rdopiera> doug-fish: yes
16:54:59 <doug-fish> super
16:55:03 <amotoki> jpich: rdopiera: totally agree with you.  I have experince both.
16:55:06 <rdopiera> it's also in the stdlib in recent pythons
16:55:17 <jpich> Does someone fancy starting the discussion the list again, asking for the current status for mocking frameworks in the wider project and where we are documenting this?
16:55:25 <jpich> *where it is documented
16:55:35 <rdopiera> jpich: ok, I will do that tomorrow
16:55:40 <amotoki> good idea.
16:55:44 <jpich> rdopiera: Thank you
16:56:26 <jpich> Anything else?
16:56:26 <rdopiera> is there anything we should talk about?
16:57:06 <doug-fish> Just a minor issue - I think we had discussed using a "docimpact" tag at some point in the past
16:57:10 <doug-fish> but I don't think we have been
16:57:19 <doug-fish> and I can't recall exactly how we were supposed to use it
16:57:34 <doug-fish> anyone of a link to a wiki describing what we intend?
16:57:49 <jpich> Right... We should summarise what was discussed in a wiki page
16:58:07 <amotoki> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/DocImpact
16:58:10 <jpich> There is the generic page here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/DocImpact
16:58:13 <jpich> Thanks amotoki
16:58:31 <doug-fish> and we need more info about how we are using it in Horizon?
16:58:39 <amotoki> commits which affect documentation team should have DocImpact flag.
16:59:12 <amotoki> IMO commits which only affects developer docs don't need DocImpact flag.
16:59:18 <jpich> amotoki: Because nearly every commit affects the UI in some way it's unclear what requires a DocImpact tag and what doesn't
16:59:35 <jpich> We document settings in the dev docs that really should probably belong to the wider project documentation, it is useful to deployers
17:00:13 <amotoki> it is different from what other projects do.
17:00:23 <amotoki> our time is over...
17:00:24 <jpich> Ok, tbc on that one, I'm not 100% clear on what is appropriate to flag or not either, I would need to reread the logs - I think annegentle had popped up to clarify a few things during that meeting
17:00:27 <jpich> Right
17:00:28 <jpich> #endmeeting
17:00:37 <rdopiera> bye
17:00:41 <tzumainn> thanks all
17:00:42 <lblanchard> bye all!
17:00:43 <jpich> fungi: We lost the chair, any chance someone in infra could help us force-end the meeting?
17:00:49 <akrivoka> bye everyone
17:00:54 <davlaps> bye all!
17:00:54 <amotoki> I am afraid that only chair can send *endmeeting*.....
17:01:07 <jrist> o/
17:01:21 <jrist> amotoki: try it :)
17:01:24 <jcoufal> bye bye
17:01:36 <tmazur> bye all!
17:01:44 <clu_> bye
17:01:52 <thinrichs> Anyone here for Congress?
17:01:56 <kudva> hi this is kudva
17:02:00 <skn__> Hi thinrichs
17:02:02 <banix> i here :)
17:02:06 <thinrichs> kudva, skn, banix: hi!
17:02:22 <s3wong> we are still in Horizon meeting topic
17:02:24 <skn__> where is pballand
17:02:29 <pballand> hi
17:02:29 <openstack> thinrichs: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress.  Use #endmeeting first.
17:02:33 <fungi> jpich: it will be endable after an hour
17:02:50 <fungi> which is right about now
17:02:55 <fungi> #endmeeting