15:29:22 #startmeeting incub_sync 15:29:23 Meeting started Thu Jun 5 15:29:22 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:29:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:29:27 The meeting name has been set to 'incub_sync' 15:29:28 jraim: around? 15:29:32 yep 15:29:35 #topic Barbican 15:29:54 * ttx looks up the LP pages 15:30:26 jraim: when do you plan to do a juno-1 ? 15:30:51 in sync withe the integrated release, or when ready ? 15:31:02 we usually try to stay in sync 15:31:27 all our releases since incubation have been in sync with integration timelines 15:31:35 jraim: OK, juno-1 is next week, with a tag pushed to master in a window going from Tuesday to Thursday 15:32:01 for the havana release, there was a wiki page with the dates on it...do we have one for Juno? 15:32:01 We abandoned the concept of creating a branch for dev milestones 15:32:10 (no more milestone-proposed) 15:32:16 ahh, okay 15:32:25 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule* 15:32:29 err 15:32:33 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule 15:32:55 perfect, thanks 15:33:00 so just let me know when you want to apply the tag and which SHA you want the tag applied to 15:33:06 will do 15:33:10 not necessarily between Tue and Thu, your call 15:33:22 we have some PRs circling that I want to get the status of, then we should know 15:33:36 I think I saw you were using a barbican-specs repo ? 15:33:49 the PR is in to infra, just waiting for the final approvals 15:33:52 ok 15:34:10 jraim: is https://launchpad.net/barbican/+milestone/juno-1 up to date with your j-1 goals ? 15:34:29 its close, but we're planning a cleanup once the barbican-specs stuff lands 15:34:48 jraim: NB: you generally want to set a priority to any blueprint you add there. 15:35:15 The idea being we plan to use the -specs repo as the entry point for new feature, rather than encourage people to file BPs 15:35:18 I'll make sure they are all filled out during the clean up 15:35:33 yep, we're excited about the -specs approach 15:35:38 so the milestone page serves as a communication tool and should be controlled by the project drivers 15:36:02 but since LP lets anyone set target milestones, we use the priority field to check it's blessed 15:36:32 are there understood meanings for the various statuses? 15:36:32 I even have an autokick script that will remove BPs from milestones if they aren't prioritized 15:36:46 yes, see https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints 15:37:04 might be outdated with all the -specs approach though 15:37:16 understood 15:37:30 Priority and Implementation fields are what you should maintain 15:37:41 and their meaning is still current 15:37:55 okay 15:38:21 #action ttx to check https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints for validity in -specs world 15:38:53 so yeah, on https://launchpad.net/barbican/+milestone/juno-1 you should fix the "undefined" and the "unknown" 15:39:10 jraim: other questions ? 15:39:15 just one about integation 15:39:21 we got a lot of questions about it at the Summit 15:39:26 jraim: want me to create the other milestones in LP with due dates matching the integrated release ? 15:39:34 jraim: sure ask 15:39:37 sure, if you want that would be helpful 15:39:46 I wasn't orignally planning on trying for integration this cycle 15:39:50 #action ttx to create barbican milestones 15:39:54 I have a script for that, so fast 15:40:05 what would be your thoughts on us attempting that? 15:40:22 any minefields you see? I don't want to waste the team and TC's time if we think there isn't a high chance 15:40:32 jraim: you mean, graduate within this cycle ? 15:40:37 yes 15:41:00 in all cases you can't be "integrated in Juno release" since the Juno contents are decided before the cycle starts 15:41:13 but you can aim for graduation at the end of Juno to be part of K release 15:41:22 okay, that seems reasonable 15:41:29 and I think it is reasonable 15:41:35 most of the questions were just about wanting us to be integrated before people started deployment work 15:41:55 okay, i'll start reviewing the requirements and see where we are with an aim to asking late in the cycle for K 15:42:01 the release lags behind the dev cycles anyway 15:42:09 OK, talk to you next week, tehn 15:42:14 kgriffs: around? 15:42:16 awesome, thanks 15:42:58 o/ 15:43:06 #topic Marconi 15:43:11 kgriffs: o/ 15:43:42 howdy 15:43:46 kgriffs: planning to tag juno-1 next week ? Or some other time ? 15:44:15 #info Barbican planning to do juno-1 in sync with Juno release cycle 15:44:36 yep. I'd like to continue getting the team comfortable with the cadence of the integrated projects 15:44:49 #info Marconi planning to do juno-1 in sync with Juno release cycle 15:45:03 kgriffs: ok, so the new process is just a tag on master, based on a SHA you provide 15:45:09 ah, ok 15:45:19 as we dropped usage of a release branch for lowly milestones 15:45:28 nobody backported anything to them anyway 15:45:29 so I just send you the SHA when we are ready to go? 15:45:45 ttx: makes sense 15:45:48 kgriffs: yes 15:46:06 kgriffs: milestoens are not really important anyway... all commits should work ;) 15:46:13 do you prefer IRC or an email or? 15:46:24 but you can implement a soft freeze to slow down crazy patches while you try to get a working SHA 15:46:27 ttx: heh, gotchya 15:46:32 kgriffs: IRC or email 15:46:47 kk 15:46:47 https://launchpad.net/marconi/+milestone/juno-1 looks good 15:46:57 expect maybe that essential task which is not started 15:47:15 yeah... I was just following up with the team on that to see what is going on there 15:47:33 I suspect it will get bumped to j-2 15:47:45 kgriffs: want me to create all the Juno milestones with dates matching the release schedule ? 15:47:54 it really is essential then, because v1.1 of the api requires it 15:47:55 I'll run the same script as Barbican 15:48:02 ttx: that would be awesome! 15:48:03 #action ttx to create marconi milestones 15:48:23 btw, I came across a reference on the wiki to a "future" series 15:48:23 it might fail miserably due to Launchpad ACL but then I'll ping you to add me :) 15:48:36 kk 15:48:38 kgriffs: yes, it's a way to categorize future work 15:48:45 I can create that too 15:48:55 #action ttx to create future series for Marconi 15:49:07 so, what goes in future vs., say j-2 or j-3 ? 15:49:11 jraim: let me know if you want it as well 15:49:31 things that are pushed back to next cycle. useful around feature freeze 15:49:57 "future" series has "next" and "ongoing" milestones 15:49:58 jraim: that's fine with me 15:50:05 ha 15:50:09 ah, ok. makes sense. I could definitely have used that for the Juno freeze. It will be handy for next time. 15:50:09 ttx: that's fine with me 15:50:09 next is for "not in this cycle" 15:50:23 "ongoing" is for work that is never really finished 15:50:29 like "increase coverage" 15:50:42 that avoids to push it back milestone to milestone 15:50:57 #action ttx to create barbican future series too 15:51:02 makes sense 15:51:04 kgriffs: ok, anything else ? 15:51:39 we can keep some questions for next week :) 15:51:42 just a quick note that we are putting the finishing touches on our tempest tests and will be making that gate voting ASAP 15:51:51 kgriffs: great news! 15:51:59 #info Marconi are putting the finishing touches on our tempest tests and will be making that gate voting ASAP 15:52:02 also, py3k compat is coming along nicely. We have an intern doing great work there. 15:52:12 feel free to use the #info tag yourself 15:52:19 so that it appears in the automated summary 15:52:24 #info py3k compat is coming along nicely. We have an intern doing great work there. 15:52:29 here you go :) 15:52:32 ttx: thanks for the reminder! 15:52:34 devananda: around ? 15:52:46 kgriffs: np! 15:53:59 ttx: o/ 15:54:03 #topic Ironic 15:54:11 devananda: looks like you have your milestones and series already set 15:54:23 So... juno-1 sometimes next week ? 15:54:29 ttx: i think you created them for us a while back 15:54:59 fwiw, we've drunk the specs coolaid, and pushed all our BPs back, and are focusing on clean up right now 15:55:19 As I told the others, we dumped the milestone-proposed-based process to do a simple tag for juno-1 15:55:22 on master 15:55:23 aiming to merge the nova.virt.ironic driver into nova by j2, as opposed to adding more features 15:55:36 ah, that's convenient 15:55:41 so just gove me a SHA for it when you want it tagged 15:55:48 give* 15:55:52 we probably wont have any new features in j1 -- just lots of bug fixes 15:56:01 that's why no BPs are targeted to it right now 15:56:04 that's what your juno-1 page says, for sure :) 15:56:32 several specs are in flight and aiming for j2 / j3 15:56:33 devananda: heard of my autokick script ? I told jraim about it 15:56:51 it may be used to enforce LP missing consistency 15:56:58 ttx: nope 15:57:00 sounds interesting 15:57:09 i.e. make sure people don't pollute your milestoen pages by adding random stuff to it 15:57:11 kicks anything missing an approved spec? 15:57:19 .. not quite 15:57:33 but removed BPs that are in the milestone page that don't have a priority 15:57:44 ah, cool 15:57:47 priority is a field only drivers can set 15:57:48 i kicked one of those manually today 15:57:53 so it shows you blessed it 15:58:02 everythign else can be autokicked 15:58:03 ++ 15:58:13 so that we can truly use this page as a communication tool 15:58:18 link? 15:58:26 rather than as a wall where everyone writes 15:58:44 devananda: no link yet 15:59:01 it will replace the script that I run to adjust series goal automatically every 2 hours 15:59:25 new one will adjust series goals AND autokick blueprints for projects using -specs 15:59:33 #info ironic using specs 15:59:43 ah, gotcha. sounds good -- i know many folks look at the LP/blueprint status as a guidepost, so keeping it cleaner is important 15:59:45 kgriffs: btw, is marconi planning to use specs (or already using them) ? 16:00:07 devananda: the tradeoff being, you need to prioritize BPs you put there 16:00:18 it's probably not news to anyone, but like most projects, we're short on review (and specs review) bandwidth 16:00:30 devananda: fwiw I also work on a spec2bp script that will file BPs in LP for specs you approve 16:00:44 so that you don't have that manual step 16:00:55 i already make a point to prioritize the BPs, though right now i'm also prioritizing unapproved ones 16:01:18 think: "spec2bp this-spec juno-2 high 16:01:19 " 16:01:30 ahh - that's be handy 16:01:44 now if the LP API will just let me do that... 16:02:05 :) 16:02:07 anyway, our limited time is up... did you have an urgent question? 16:02:18 ttx: nope! if you dont have any Q for me ... 16:02:22 then let's wrap. thanks much! 16:02:30 I have more, but that's for next week's episode. 16:02:33 #endmeeting