19:03:33 <fungi> #startmeeting infra
19:03:34 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb 16 19:03:33 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is fungi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:03:35 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:03:37 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'infra'
19:03:38 <olaph> o/
19:03:40 <fungi> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_meeting
19:03:47 <fungi> #topic Announcements
19:03:54 <craige> o/
19:03:57 <fungi> #info Due to the scheduled infra-cloud sprint, the usual IRC meeting we would hold next Tuesday (February 23) is cancelled. The next official IRC meeting for Infra will be Tuesday, March 1 at 19:00 UTC.
19:04:03 <pabelanger> o/
19:04:11 <nibalizer> o/
19:04:22 <fungi> any other important sprint-related news i should cram in here before we move along?
19:04:33 <timrc> o/
19:04:57 <fungi> #topic Actions from last meeting
19:05:02 <fungi> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2016/infra.2016-02-09-19.02.html
19:05:09 <fungi> "1. (none)"
19:05:16 <fungi> #topic Specs approval
19:05:16 <jeblair> i did not do that
19:05:30 <fungi> #info Approved "Update unified mirror spec to support AFS"
19:05:36 <fungi> #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack-infra/infra-specs/specs/unified_mirrors.html
19:05:40 <AJaeger> jeblair: we all did it ;)
19:05:41 <fungi> #info Approved "Maintenance change to doc publishing spec"
19:05:48 <fungi> #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack-infra/infra-specs/specs/doc-publishing.html
19:05:58 <fungi> (those links _should_ be correct once the post pipeline backlog clears)
19:06:03 <yolanda> o/
19:06:12 <fungi> just in time!
19:06:17 <fungi> #topic GSOC proposals: what about adding infra-cloud? (yolanda)
19:06:19 <asselin> o/
19:06:29 <cody-somerville> \o
19:06:32 <yolanda> so i arrived just in time
19:06:46 <yolanda> i was reading that email that Victoria sent, and I thought that infra-cloud can be a good topic
19:07:10 <yolanda> because there can be multiple efforts associated to it. I wanted to know people's feedback
19:07:24 <rcarrillocruz> what's the timeline for GSOC ?
19:07:34 <rcarrillocruz> as in, when would an intern start doing stuff
19:07:38 <clarkb> yolanda: the biggest considerations are likely going to be that it should be a software development project that is completable by a student in 3 months of time
19:07:39 <AJaeger> this friday AFAIK for application
19:07:45 <yolanda> deadline is 19/02
19:07:48 <clarkb> do we hvae any such things for infra cloud?
19:07:58 <rcarrillocruz> i ask cos imho there's not much room for people to do stuff
19:07:59 <yolanda> clarkb we can isolate some task
19:08:01 <greghaynes> That is for organizations to submit a proposal, correct?
19:08:06 <rcarrillocruz> there may be once infra-cloud works
19:08:07 <fungi> also, gsoc, as for outreachy, needs a clearly-defined scope. we'd need to pick a specific task or set of tasks to provide t the intern if selected
19:08:09 <greghaynes> that deadline
19:08:16 <rcarrillocruz> and we can talk about other topics to improve it
19:08:21 <crinkle> it will be hard to get an intern up to speed and given a specific project in three months
19:08:22 <rcarrillocruz> ha, monitoring, whatnot
19:08:41 <timrc> Moar metrics.
19:08:51 <pabelanger> Is there a list of things currently that need help with, both GSOC and not?  I know last time it was the mysql migration, but am still interested to get more involved with infracloud.
19:08:56 <yolanda> so not infra-cloud as a topic, but some sub-task related with it
19:08:56 <greghaynes> I think for GSoC you do not necessarially need a clearly defined task - it is really up to the organization on how they want to do it, but it is totally valid for the mentee to assist with defining the task
19:09:09 <crinkle> it's been hard just getting our existing team up to speed and in a good position to make contributions
19:09:13 <fungi> like, the last outreachy we did was the codesearch.o.o deployment. it was a pretty isolated scope of work and i wrote a spec for it in advance outlining what the mentor would be expected to work through
19:09:15 <yolanda> or yes, if infra needs more topics. I saw the wiki and nothing was proposed from infra, so there can be other things as well
19:09:21 <cody-somerville> re: GSOC, something they can continue to work on after the summer would probably be beneficial. Something they can also point to employers is especially valuable.
19:09:44 <fungi> er, what the intern would be expected to work through
19:10:14 <clarkb> greghaynes: I think we should have at least some canned ideas that are acceptabel
19:10:18 <greghaynes> clarkb: totally
19:10:31 <greghaynes> I am just trying to make it known that in GSoC its our discretion, basically
19:10:38 <greghaynes> and there are orgs which do both things
19:10:46 <fungi> just coming up to speed with our code-review-based workflow is rather a lot to expect out of a college student in the timespan provided for these internships
19:10:48 <pleia2> crinkle: I agree, infra-cloud is a big thing, so unless the tasks are specifically isolated and don't require knowledge of the whole infra-cloud setup, I think it would be hard
19:11:08 <pleia2> and I'm not sure that's an achievable scope
19:11:09 <yolanda> i was thinking in some sub-tasks like monitoring, inventory management , logging
19:11:20 <yolanda> some of the topics that are listed on the mitaka etherpad
19:11:33 <pabelanger> There is always generic puppet work that could work. Like updating modules for example
19:11:38 <rcarrillocruz> i think we are not at a stage right now where we can give tasks to people till we stabilize/make it work
19:11:42 <greghaynes> yolanda: Has there been any talk with the larger openstack community about the openstack org proposal?
19:11:47 <rcarrillocruz> so it depeends on when the mentees really start
19:11:51 <greghaynes> IIRC dims has done the proposal in the past
19:12:03 <fungi> though again, you'd need to have the solution designed and planned. easily half the internship is going to be community/toolset learning curve
19:12:11 <yolanda> greghaynes what i know is from the wiki and the email that Victoria sent asking for help
19:12:19 <greghaynes> ah, ok
19:12:32 <fungi> so for the rest of teh effort, they need some pretty clearly laid out step-by-step instructions on what you want built/implemented/whatever
19:13:02 <yolanda> fungi, problem i see to do that, is the deadline. It's on 19/02 so we are short of time to write something solid
19:13:09 <pleia2> fungi: nods
19:13:43 <yolanda> apart from that, are there other infra efforts that can be candidates for gsoc?
19:13:43 <fungi> i think a reasonable scope is to take some task that one of us would spend a couple days solid putting together. for a new intern. getting to the point that can be done and then working through it even with clear instructions is going to be the entirety of the allotted timeframe for the internship
19:14:00 <zaro> yolanda: you might want to talk to zxiiro, i think his interns are 3 months as well and he got them pretty prodcutive on jjb and possibily other things.
19:14:15 <rcarrillocruz> i honestly think puppet openstack ci would be good for gsoc
19:14:22 <zaro> +1
19:14:23 <greghaynes> So this is an area where GSoC might work in our favor - the students are supposed to work up a proposal and mentors/orgs are supposed to work with them on making that well defined, so as long as we can define the scope of potential projects well enough I think we can leave defining details until later
19:14:23 <rcarrillocruz> i see it's in need of some love
19:14:42 <fungi> rcarrillocruz: what exactly with puppet-openstackci?
19:14:44 <rcarrillocruz> like
19:14:48 <rcarrillocruz> 'add gerrit'
19:14:49 <rcarrillocruz> i mean
19:14:52 <rcarrillocruz> there are specifics bits
19:14:55 <rcarrillocruz> that are missing
19:15:00 <rcarrillocruz> and are clearly defined
19:15:14 <zaro> that's a really good project.
19:15:16 <zxiiro> yolanda: yup. I have another intern this coming summer to work on JJB
19:15:16 <rcarrillocruz> i just checked today and i see gerrit and other stuff missing
19:15:25 <rcarrillocruz> and it's well defined
19:15:36 <fungi> yep, that might be doable. adding gerrit to puppet-openstackci is fairly well-defined in scope (if maybe slightly ambitious)
19:15:37 <rcarrillocruz> and won't need a superhigh steep learning curve compared to infracloud
19:15:50 <rcarrillocruz> nod, so rather than 'implement the missing bits'
19:16:02 <rcarrillocruz> we could say 'implement gerrit, if possible implemented foo component'
19:16:13 <zxiiro> yolanda: my advice is the project shouldn't be too difficult. 3 months isn't really a lot of time to do anything major, unless the student is especially keen.
19:16:24 <rcarrillocruz> i'm totally cool helping that out as mentor fungi
19:16:32 <clarkb> I would also expect htat config mgmty things aren't that desireable
19:16:47 <rcarrillocruz> lol
19:16:49 <yolanda> zxiiro yes, i agree. I've been helping with mentorship as well, and the onboarding process is complicated
19:17:03 <clarkb> I am going to guess that projects that involve writing what is generally considered code will be more desireable
19:17:04 <rcarrillocruz> clarkb: who knows, maybe htere's people loving puppet out there :D
19:17:05 <clarkb> shade maybe etc
19:17:07 <pleia2> clarkb: there is certainly a steep learning curve there too
19:17:10 <greghaynes> Yea, this is my feeling as well. Typical projects are around software development.
19:17:11 <fungi> #info rcarrillocruz willing to mentor an intern to add gerrit support to puppet-openstackci
19:17:21 <clarkb> a zuul feature
19:17:28 <clarkb> nodepool feature and so on
19:17:30 <zaro> puppet not code?
19:17:48 <greghaynes> I am trying hard to avoid that topic...
19:18:08 <yolanda> clarkb i have to agree with that. I've had a pair of mentees and when i was proposing config management it was not good for them. They normally prefered to code with python, javascript
19:18:10 <greghaynes> I wouldnt say "dont even try", I am just commenting on what I have seen out there
19:18:27 <zxiiro> it's too bad GSoC must be a code project. I think documentation would be a great project.
19:18:40 <greghaynes> zxiiro: Yea, that is a common complaint :(
19:18:45 <jeblair> i think the codesearch project went really well
19:18:47 <zxiiro> some of the other mentoring programs allow none code contributions
19:19:15 <zaro> would be nice to do puppet on 1st internship then code on 2nd one.
19:19:17 <jeblair> that was outreachy though, right?
19:19:31 <fungi> yep
19:19:34 <fungi> outreachy
19:19:42 <fungi> (formerly gnome opw)
19:19:47 <jeblair> so not the same restrictions
19:20:11 <fungi> it seems a bit more open (and also decidedly non-google in nature)
19:20:43 <fungi> actual open community organizing the program rather than closed, secretive corporation with own agendas
19:21:03 <greghaynes> IMO any program which can potentially get more people involved is a win
19:21:27 <greghaynes> so, why not both :)
19:21:39 <pleia2> I'm mentored out
19:21:48 <fungi> okay, well that was some excellent brainstorming, i don't want to lose the entire meeting to this but does someone want to summarize? maybe interested mentors sign up per vkmc's call for help, or at least continue working out options on the infra ml first?
19:22:17 <fungi> greghaynes: certainly, i'm not opposed to either, it's just that outreachy seems a little more in touch with free software than gsoc
19:22:27 <greghaynes> Yep
19:22:27 <yolanda> i think mailing list is a good idea. We have time until friday
19:22:40 <timrc> pleia2: lol
19:22:47 <jeblair> it seems like we have more potential options for outreachy
19:22:55 <jeblair> at the moment, at least
19:23:09 <rcarrillocruz> fungi: wfm
19:23:27 <fungi> yeah, so maybe we save more codey-type-things for gsoc and spend our more general work options on outreachy when it comes around again
19:23:35 <fungi> or something like that
19:23:51 <fungi> #topic CentOS / Fedora AFS mirror hacking request (pabelanger)
19:23:55 <timrc> We should just have someone add -y to everything... zuuly? Much better
19:23:58 <pabelanger> ohai!
19:24:10 <pabelanger> talked a little about this with mordred and jeblair last week
19:24:13 <fungi> [afs everywhere]
19:24:23 <pabelanger> just wanted to see what is needed from myside to start hacking on afs?
19:24:38 <fungi> probably start with a spec?
19:24:41 <jeblair> fungi: good thing it's a global filesystem
19:24:41 <pabelanger> I have local sync scripts, but don't have AFS setup locally
19:24:55 <fungi> jeblair: touché
19:25:01 <pabelanger> fungi: Oh, didn't think we need new specs for each distro
19:25:04 <pabelanger> but I can add that
19:25:05 <jeblair> well, there's no reason this needs to be particularly complicated
19:25:08 <fungi> maybe not
19:25:28 <fungi> it's possible the wording in the unified mirrors spec is sufficient to cover our needs on this
19:25:47 <fungi> at a minimum, you likely want to copy most of what's being done for the apt mirrors
19:26:04 <fungi> but it sounded like instead of reprepro it's just rsync for rpm mirrors?
19:26:10 <pabelanger> Yup, I think it is good shape locally, but things like using k5start are not being tested atm
19:26:33 <jeblair> pabelanger: well, if you think it's mostly there, we can just put it into production and see what breaks :)
19:26:42 <fungi> yeah, are there changes proposed to implement it yet?
19:26:44 <jeblair> wrapping a command in k5start isn't too hard
19:26:59 <fungi> we already have several k5start use examples at this point
19:27:06 <pabelanger> okay, I am fine with that. As long as people know it is untested
19:27:30 <fungi> partly untested additions of new services like this are understandable
19:27:31 <jeblair> yeah, it'll be on its own volume and shouldn't interfere with anything else
19:27:49 <pabelanger> okay, so I'll clean up the scripts and get a review up
19:27:49 <fungi> untested major changes to existing services/systems are slightly harder to stomach
19:27:51 <jeblair> so i don't think we have to get it perfect before landing it
19:28:17 <jeblair> an infra-root who isn't me should sign up for volume and service principal creation
19:28:32 <jeblair> and i should back that person up
19:28:47 <fungi> i'm willing, though my bandwidth is pretty terrible at the moment so it might happen faster if someone else volunteers
19:28:59 <jeblair> fungi: ++bindep :)
19:29:07 <fungi> indeed
19:29:37 <fungi> (also part of being ptl is that i'm supposed to learn to stop volunteering to do everything myself!)
19:30:36 <jeblair> well, if no one steps up, i'm going to use random.choice().  :)
19:30:39 <fungi> *chirp* *chirp* how did that cricket get into an irc channel?
19:31:08 <Clint> brute force
19:31:36 <jeblair> pleia2: you win!
19:31:42 <pleia2> ok :)
19:32:02 <fungi> yay!
19:32:09 <fungi> she didn't even protest
19:32:41 <fungi> pabelanger: so once your changes are close to being ready, reach out to pleia2. maybe after she's done being our beast of burden for the infra-cloud sprint
19:32:56 <pabelanger> fungi: roger
19:33:19 <fungi> any other questions on the rpm mirroring topic?
19:33:24 <pabelanger> no sir
19:33:42 * fungi could get used to being called "sir"
19:33:52 <fungi> you didn't even add "you're making a scene"
19:34:12 <fungi> #topic Serving REST API docs (annegentle)
19:34:24 <fungi> #link https://review.openstack.org/276484
19:34:33 <annegentle> o/
19:34:35 <fungi> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/086467.html
19:34:54 <annegentle> I updated Friday to clarify more for jhesketh and others in the same boat
19:35:33 <fungi> haven't seen jhesketh pop up in meeting today, for his sake i hope he's still asleep
19:35:47 <annegentle> heh srsly
19:36:07 <annegentle> maybe mordred had a chance to review
19:36:12 * annegentle says hopefully
19:36:22 <annegentle> here for Qs if you need me
19:36:30 <fungi> he's also not in meeting today, using "travel" as an excuse or something ;)
19:36:33 <annegentle> ha
19:36:41 <annegentle> dat happens
19:36:59 <fungi> but anyway, it looks like a pretty well fleshed out spec, so hopefully we can get a few more eyes on it
19:37:45 <jeblair> wasn't there some talk about not needing a running server because it's basically just serving json files that don't really change (very often)?
19:38:04 <annegentle> jeblair: they could change as often as WADL
19:38:11 <annegentle> jeblair: basically JSON as doc source
19:38:46 <annegentle> jeblair: it's not only request and response JSON. it's JSON that describes the API
19:38:50 <jeblair> right, but they change when the api changes, which is not moment to moment
19:39:07 <annegentle> jeblair: except for the hundreds of bugs existing in the WADLs?
19:39:11 <jeblair> i think serving static files is the cool new thing and i don't want us to be behind the times :)
19:39:16 <fungi> it sounded like there were two things the docs team wanted: a way to serve api reference details generated by a tool (that could in theory be static), and then a solution for interactive api examples (which would need its own service but could in theory be hosted separately and stitched together via a proxy)
19:39:17 <annegentle> heh
19:39:38 <annegentle> fungi: yes, this spec is only for the former for now
19:41:31 <jeblair> we should probably point mordred at the spec, since i think he's looked into this some
19:41:48 <annegentle> jeblair: yeah
19:41:53 * annegentle awaits patiently
19:42:58 <annegentle> I would like an end date for a decision, because we'll need to double-down on the static site work if we can't get this implemented this release...
19:43:15 <fungi> and other than that i guess we need to make sure it integrates sufficiently with the updated publishing spec being finalized at https://review.openstack.org/276482
19:43:24 <jeblair> annegentle: yeah, my vague recollection was basically that the json that swagger generates ought to be able to be generated each time the api changes and hosted statically, rather than needing a running service.  but that's where everything gets fuzzy and i shouldn't take up more time in the meeting.
19:44:19 <annegentle> jeblair: sure want mordred's take on this spec as a phase one then so I can get to that awesome state
19:44:38 <annegentle> fungi: yeah integration I basically ignore in the spec.
19:44:38 <fungi> i do recall that it ends up being an annotated interactive api that we then need the job to serve locally and connect to, dump the results of querying it, and then feed that into a publication solution
19:44:47 <jeblair> i guess, to try to bring it on topic -- if i'm describing something that has been considered and discarded, would probably be good to have it in the alternatives
19:45:03 <annegentle> jeblair: yep good point. I'll see what I can find out.
19:45:46 <jeblair> fungi: that seems feasible
19:46:15 <fungi> also on a purely non-content note, 276484 needs to update the infra-specs index to add an entry for itself to the approved list
19:46:34 <annegentle> fungi: okie
19:46:39 <fungi> i just tried to view the draft rendering and realized it's not indexed
19:46:47 <fungi> easy to overlook
19:46:57 <jeblair> oh, yeah, we don't do the auto-index because of $important_reasons
19:47:12 <jeblair> (i think url permanence was one of them)
19:48:23 <fungi> i apologize for not finding time to read this spec yet, so don't have a lot of good feedback and am not in a position to make any detailed implementation recommendations in meeting. it sounds like the two core reviewers who had been looking at it are through circumstance not available today
19:48:29 <annegentle> ok
19:48:41 <annegentle> carry on with other agenda items then, I'm good
19:49:08 <jeblair> i think it's great getting this written down though
19:49:12 <jeblair> annegentle: thanks :)
19:49:24 <annegentle> jeblair: sure
19:49:27 <fungi> so anyway, we should probably continue discussion on the review itself for now, and can punt to re-discussing in the march 1 meeting if necessary (next week the meeting is on hiatus for our infra-cloud sprint)
19:49:41 <fungi> thanks annegentle for putting that together!
19:49:51 <annegentle> ok, that gives me a date too which we'll keep in mind for next steps
19:50:11 <fungi> #topic Open discussion
19:50:25 <pleia2> we have our infra-cloud sprint coming up in a few days :)
19:50:27 <fungi> light agenda, so we have 10 minutes for whatever
19:50:36 <crinkle> hiya, to try to answer the question "I want to help with infra-cloud but I don't know where to start" I started working on https://github.com/cmurphy/infracloud-development
19:50:45 <fungi> pleia2: yes! thanks for putting the sprint together
19:50:46 <pleia2> let me know if you have any questions about where to go or anything, everything should be in the wiki
19:50:47 <crinkle> hoping it can help people do reviews and make changes
19:50:49 <pleia2> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints/InfraMitakaSprint
19:50:57 <craige> Thanks crinkle
19:51:04 <pleia2> I've never been there either, so it should be interesting :)
19:51:13 <ianw> i have a bunch of patches out for installing d-i-b from git on nodepool.  does anyone have opinions on this?  i might have to turn it into a spec, because the reviews didn't get consensus
19:51:19 <fungi> crinkle: ooh, that looks like an excellent intro
19:51:25 <Clint> crinkle: neat
19:51:29 <pabelanger> crinkle: thanks, bookmarking
19:51:50 <zaro> do we have any update on maniphest migration?  is that still gonna happen?
19:51:54 <crinkle> if people think it's useful I could potentially move it to an examples/ dir in the puppet-infracloud module
19:52:44 <craige> I've been stymied by conferences (LCA) and the HP cloud transition.
19:52:47 <pabelanger> Also, just a reminder. We have atleast 2 -infra specific talks for Austin, 7578 and 7337 if you are interested in voting.  Additionally, if others have submitted something, Please send them this way
19:53:00 <rcarrillocruz> oh yeah
19:53:01 <rcarrillocruz> good call
19:53:05 <rcarrillocruz> i have not voted
19:53:10 <rcarrillocruz> will check them out, thx
19:53:36 <craige> there's only one issue outstanding from my perspective zaro and patches that need reviews.
19:53:41 <fungi> pabelanger: in fact there are a ton of infra-specific talks proposed, though those are definitely the front-runners ;)
19:54:13 <zaro> craige: topic?
19:54:38 <craige> Manifest
19:54:46 <fungi> zaro: as defined at http://specs.openstack.org/openstack-infra/infra-specs/specs/maniphest.html#gerrit-topic
19:54:51 <craige> Ugh, Maniphest
19:54:59 <fungi> hopefully
19:55:18 <zaro> thanks, will take a look
19:55:35 <craige> \I/
19:56:56 <craige> autocorrect fails.
19:58:08 <fungi> looks like we've actually exhausted open discussion as well, so i'll end this a couple minutes early for a change
19:58:13 <fungi> thanks everybody!
19:58:24 <AJaeger> thanks, fungi!
19:58:24 <fungi> #endmeeting