16:00:33 <eglute> #startmeeting interopwg
16:00:36 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jul 12 16:00:33 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is eglute. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:37 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'interopwg'
16:00:46 <Rockyg> o/
16:00:54 <eglute> Hello Everyone!
16:01:07 <eglute> Here is today's agenda, please update as needed: #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.7
16:01:29 <eglute> hogepodge is traveling so won't be able to attend today
16:01:38 <eglute> anyone else here for the interopwg meeting?
16:01:54 <eglute> #chair markvoelker
16:01:54 <openstack> Current chairs: eglute markvoelker
16:02:13 <hogepodge> I'm actually half available
16:02:16 <eglute> markvoelker may or may not be able to join us
16:02:21 <eglute> oh thats great!
16:02:24 <eglute> #chair hogepodge
16:02:24 <hogepodge> Hi everybody
16:02:25 <openstack> Current chairs: eglute hogepodge markvoelker
16:02:45 <markvoelker> o/
16:03:04 * markvoelker runs in all out of breath from another meeting and plops down in a chair
16:03:06 * eglute waves to everyone
16:03:18 <mguiney> o/
16:03:37 <eglute> I hope everyone had a nice day/week off last week
16:03:50 <eglute> I was out and today is my first day back
16:03:57 <eglute> so i have a bit of catching up to do
16:03:59 <kgarloff> eglute: welcomeback
16:04:12 * eglute failed at sunscreen and is now a zebra
16:04:16 <eglute> thanks kgarloff
16:04:41 <eglute> once again, here is agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.7
16:05:06 <eglute> #topic Denver PTG
16:05:17 <eglute> I am not sure who added question about PTG,
16:05:22 <eglute> but yes, we are going to be there
16:05:39 <eglute> and we absolutely can meet with the glare team
16:05:47 <hogepodge> Monday Tuesday and board meeting on Sunday
16:05:50 <eglute> is glare team same team as glance
16:06:06 <Rockyg> I did.
16:06:08 <eglute> Correct, and we are sharing room with refstack again
16:06:20 <eglute> Rockyg yes we are going to be there
16:06:25 <hogepodge> No, glare came out of glance v3 efforts
16:06:51 <hogepodge> Afaik
16:07:03 <eglute> ok so do we need to meet with glance team as well as glare team?
16:07:03 <Rockyg> the TC was discussing the thread about Glare talkinh about replacing glance
16:07:45 <Rockyg> no.  I thin it will be a what and how discuusion.  all theoretical
16:07:59 <eglute> thanks Rockyg, i will review TC meeting logs
16:08:06 <eglute> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG
16:08:20 <Rockyg> I'll see if I can find the thread link, too.
16:08:21 <eglute> etherpad for agenda items for Denver
16:08:25 <eglute> thanks Rockyg
16:09:36 <eglute> Please start updating the etherpad with topics
16:09:45 <eglute> also let us know if you are planning on attending
16:10:09 <eglute> anything else regarding PTG?
16:10:34 <Rockyg> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-July/119442.html
16:10:53 <hogepodge> Use the conference block please if possible
16:11:03 <eglute> thanks Rockyg
16:11:04 * eglute is booking today!
16:11:18 * kgarloff cannot do that much international travel :-( so no PTG for me
16:11:22 <markvoelker> Just a note: BoD/TC/UC meeting Sunday Sept. 10 at the PTG
16:11:38 <markvoelker> (for those interested)
16:11:53 <eglute> thanks markvoelker
16:11:59 <eglute> i will be there
16:12:16 <markvoelker> I likely will be as well (but haven't actually booked a flight yet)
16:12:16 <eglute> kgarloff if there are any topics you are interested in being addressed, let us know
16:12:30 <eglute> markvoelker glad to hear that
16:12:32 <kgarloff> eglute: thanks -- will do
16:12:54 <eglute> #topic Patch reviews
16:13:08 <kgarloff> eglute: Overall direction ... of InterOp WG is really good, so nothing fundamental to be addressed
16:13:16 <eglute> Fix some pep8 warning: #link ix some pep8 warning https://review.openstack.org/#/c/478662/
16:13:19 <eglute> thanks kgarloff
16:13:42 <eglute> Everyone, please take a quick look at the outstanding patches
16:13:47 * markvoelker thought he already +2'd this but must have dreamt it
16:14:04 * eglute blames gremlins in the interwebs
16:14:14 <eglute> i think we had multiple pep8 patches
16:14:26 <eglute> thanks markvoelker
16:14:29 * markvoelker blames 2am meetings
16:14:35 <eglute> Add aliases for test_update_volume_metadata_item
16:14:35 <eglute> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479673/
16:15:03 <eglute> that one looks straighforward to me
16:15:04 * hogepodge blames his bad pep8 skills
16:15:51 <luzC> o/
16:15:56 <eglute> hello luzC!
16:16:15 <eglute> thanks luzC for reviewing alias patches
16:16:20 <Rockyg> maybe hogepodge could use some peptobismol!
16:16:22 <eglute> Everyone, please the same
16:16:42 * eglute is waiting to dial up to 11, pep11
16:17:09 <eglute> Add aliases for test_update_snapshot_metadata_item #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479683/
16:17:17 <Rockyg> and the drmmer explodes
16:17:18 <eglute> another alias patch
16:17:42 <eglute> they look good to me, but would appreciate another set of eyes
16:17:59 <eglute> Add Aliases For VolumeV2 Test Cases Part 2 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/478619/
16:18:03 <eglute> more aliases.
16:18:20 <eglute> please review and comment on the patches!
16:19:23 <hogepodge> kgarloff: you said they were tests that were removed?
16:19:50 <hogepodge> Those should be aliased or flagged
16:19:55 * markvoelker makes a mental note to make sure these all get into 2017.08 either in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/472848/ or as subsequent patches
16:20:34 <hogepodge> s/they/there
16:20:44 <kgarloff> hogepodge: Right, let me look up the details
16:21:08 <eglute> markvoelker i added on the etherpad as well
16:21:48 <kgarloff> hogepodge: So what you say is that tempest-latest should work with Guideline-2017.01 against Mitaka -- if not, we should add an alias or flag some test (or submit a fix to tempest)?
16:22:29 <hogepodge> If tests were removed we should have been warned. So they probably moved
16:22:55 <hogepodge> So if moved use an alias. If removed use a flag
16:23:23 <hogepodge> You can search for them by using the idempotent ID
16:23:58 <eglute> anything else regarding outstanding patches + aliases?
16:24:58 <eglute> #topic 2017.08 Guideline
16:25:03 * kgarloff is searching for the mail with details
16:25:12 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/472848/
16:26:07 <eglute> mguiney any updates on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467528/
16:26:43 <mguiney> yes!
16:27:31 <mguiney> i've made the modifications mtreinish suggested, and touched base with the creator of the conflicting patch
16:28:15 <mguiney> the standing plan is to let the version of the catalog client present in my patch stand
16:28:24 <eglute> so at this point is this the only thing preventing us from merging 2017.08?
16:28:38 <eglute> thanks mguiney that sounds good
16:28:42 <mguiney> i believe so (sorry)
16:29:02 <markvoelker> eglute: that actually doesn't stopping us from landing the 2017.08 patch.  It's marked advisory, not approved
16:29:09 <mguiney> will be pushing a patch after i give it one more once over to make sure i didn't miss anything
16:29:14 <Rockyg> mguiney, hey, it's stiil July....
16:29:16 <markvoelker> So we can continue to ammed the 2017.08 file after that merges
16:29:32 <eglute> markvoelker true! should we merge it then?
16:30:10 <eglute> everybody, if you havent reviewed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/472848/ yet please do so
16:30:18 <markvoelker> I would like to.  That way we if more alias/flag requests come in we can add them to all the right guideline docs at once rather than having to update sparate patches
16:30:35 <eglute> ok... lets merge today then
16:30:41 <eglute> otherwise we will miss things
16:31:12 <eglute> any objections?
16:31:24 <luzC> markvoelker are you merging aliases into your patch? before merging it?
16:32:54 <markvoelker> luzC I think there are a few outstanding.  But again, we can add those in subsequent patches.
16:33:02 <luzC> ok
16:33:52 <eglute> any other comments?
16:34:02 <eglute> +1 on the patch if you are ok with it being merged
16:34:36 <eglute> #topic Schema 2.0
16:35:02 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/
16:35:49 <eglute> thanks everyone for reviewing it
16:35:55 <eglute> any discussions on the schema?
16:36:21 <eglute> hogepodge has done a great job on it i think
16:36:35 <luzC> +1
16:36:53 <eglute> would also like it to be merged if there are no more discussion on it
16:36:55 <mguiney> +1
16:37:01 <hogepodge> I'd like to get it in a good place so I can produce advisory extension programs for next guideline
16:37:12 <Rockyg> +1
16:37:17 <hogepodge> This means soon
16:37:18 <markvoelker> How do folks feel about the qeustions asked in teh commit message?
16:37:22 <kgarloff> hogepodge: +1
16:37:57 <kgarloff> markvoelker: The Open questions section
16:38:06 <markvoelker> yep
16:38:16 <eglute> markvoelker link?
16:38:24 <eglute> oh
16:38:25 <eglute> sorry
16:38:27 <markvoelker> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/12//COMMIT_MSG
16:38:41 <eglute> thanks markvoelker i am too slow
16:38:48 <hogepodge> Yeah, it's wip but I'll address concerns and get a final patch up
16:38:48 <kgarloff> My answers: no, no, don't know, don't know, yes
16:39:17 <eglute> "make required_since optional?"-- any good reason for doing so?
16:39:31 <mguiney> i did have a question re: the target approval date
16:39:38 <kgarloff> eglute: It's useful historic information, so keep it
16:40:38 <mguiney> would there be any real benefit to changing those to a more generic date format, or is it just a matter of readability/style
16:40:45 <Rockyg> yeah, I think tht's a good point.  eliminates the need to look at multiple guidelines
16:40:45 <eglute> kgarloff  i agree, but i wonder if hogepodge had a particular reason for it
16:40:48 <hogepodge> It doesn't make sense for things that have never been required
16:41:17 <eglute> hogepodge you mean things like advisory?
16:41:22 <hogepodge> Or for non board programs
16:41:51 <eglute> are there any of those in progress or interest in non-board programs?
16:42:23 <hogepodge> This is supposed to be applicable past our process
16:42:26 <kgarloff> mguiney: I'm lost ... more generic than %Y-%m-%d ?
16:42:49 <mguiney> i think it was in yyyy.mm, correct?
16:42:55 <hogepodge> Yes, we want projects to produce their own Interop guidelines regardless of if they will become official
16:42:59 <Rockyg> ah.  true, hogepodge
16:43:07 <eglute> hogepodge i would say no then, i rather not over-engineer for hypothetical situations
16:43:39 <mguiney> (for date of approval, i mean)
16:43:55 <luzC> mguiney: on previous schema it was in the form "\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}" example "2017-01-24" now it will be something like "2017.01"
16:43:56 <hogepodge> The date format was meant to match up the style we use. Is exact date important? I can go either way
16:44:43 <eglute> i like yyyy.mm
16:44:59 <kgarloff> %Y.%m is not necessarily an obvious date format ...
16:45:27 <eglute> kgarloff but it matches our guideline naming
16:45:38 <mguiney> makes sense. i had just been wondering if there is an immediate benefit to changing it
16:45:52 <kgarloff> eglute: fair comment, but then the field is spurious, no? ;-)
16:46:26 <eglute> kgarloff i think it depends on the perspective.
16:46:31 <eglute> i am ok either way!
16:46:57 <kgarloff> redundant would have been a better word -- but I think this detail is not really all that importnat
16:47:02 <mguiney> i was mostly just wondering the context, thank you for addressing this
16:47:24 <kgarloff> my vote would be to not change it if there's no good reason to, but I'll leave it to folks more experienced ...
16:48:22 <eglute> ok, so lets go back and address each question from the top:
16:48:28 <eglute> "make required_since optional?"
16:48:41 <eglute> +1 or -1
16:48:50 <markvoelker> -1
16:48:58 <eglute> -1
16:49:06 <mguiney> -1
16:49:06 <hogepodge> I'm on cell phone and have some weird constraints, so my typing skills are very limited
16:49:16 <eglute> hogepodge no problem
16:49:17 <kgarloff> -1
16:49:38 <eglute> ok, "make required_since optional?" answer: no
16:49:49 <eglute> "make idempotent_id optional?" yes or no
16:49:54 <eglute> +1 -1
16:49:54 <kgarloff> -1
16:50:04 <luzC> -1
16:50:12 <mguiney> -1
16:50:24 <markvoelker> -1
16:50:32 <eglute> "make idempotent_id optional?" answer: no
16:50:38 <eglute> "change date of approval to match more generic dates?"
16:51:02 <eglute> +1 / -1
16:51:04 <luzC> +1
16:51:13 <kgarloff> -1 (no strong opinion though)
16:51:17 <eglute> +1
16:51:30 <catherineD> -1 (for make idempotent_id optional)
16:51:32 <Rockyg> -1 but not strong
16:51:35 <mguiney> (generic = yyyy.mm?)
16:51:43 <eglute> mguiney correct
16:51:45 <catherineD> -1
16:51:49 <hogepodge> If someone can leave a review summarizing the results of the vote that would be awesome
16:51:49 <mguiney> +1
16:51:59 <eglute> hogepodge will do after we cover all
16:52:12 <eglute> catherineD why -1 on date change?
16:52:22 <eglute> would this affect refstack?
16:52:39 <catherineD> do not need change that is not absilutely necessay
16:52:55 <eglute> catherineD ok, that is a good reason for me
16:52:56 <Rockyg> That's true.
16:53:00 <eglute> markvoelker what do you think?
16:53:05 <catherineD> from developer perspective
16:53:15 <mguiney> true...
16:53:21 <Rockyg> And, if there is ever a need to *not* have it, we can add a qulifier
16:53:35 <Rockyg> like -1 or something
16:53:44 <markvoelker> +0, I"m not sure it's an important enough detail to argue much about. =)
16:54:03 <eglute> markvoelker cool! then we will say no to the date change
16:54:12 <eglute> "change date of approval to match more generic dates?" answer: no
16:54:19 <eglute> "components structured correctly? redundancy with designated sections?"
16:54:23 <eglute> any discussion on this?
16:54:39 <eglute> i think it looked ok to me when i looked
16:54:56 <luzC> can you elaborate on the question...
16:55:32 <eglute> i think hogepodge is referring to the structure of the schema, but i could be wrong
16:55:57 <hogepodge> Just wanted to make sure I don't
16:56:14 <hogepodge> Didn't miss anything or do anything weird
16:56:34 <markvoelker> I kinda feel like we might be able to get away with collapsing components to simplify, but that's really just an optimization we could do in 2.1 later if it proves useful.  Not worth bogging this down further IMHO.
16:56:45 <eglute> i think once you start working on the new programs if we need to amend the schema we can.
16:57:00 <hogepodge> Ok
16:57:03 <eglute> also all changes go until we get approved by the board, and after just bump the number
16:57:20 <eglute> "splitting platforms and extensions up into different fields for better granularity?"
16:57:34 <eglute> this question is also more complex and required detailed review
16:57:51 <hogepodge> Last question, two next schemas or one?
16:58:03 <hogepodge> Should next be 2.0?
16:58:06 <eglute> so if everyone please review the new schema with those questions in mind, that would help
16:58:15 <eglute> hogepodge what do you mean
16:58:19 <hogepodge> Next guidelines I mean
16:58:21 <markvoelker> Ditto here: I think what's here is sufficient and we can optimize later if necessary
16:58:28 <eglute> next.json should be in 2.0?
16:58:33 <hogepodge> Yes
16:58:39 <hogepodge> For the board approval
16:58:43 <eglute> how about 2017.08?
16:58:55 <markvoelker> IMHO leave 2018.08 in 1.x format since it's already what the community has been reviewing.
16:59:00 <hogepodge> It's approved, so no
16:59:03 <eglute> cool
16:59:05 <catherineD> RefStack can not render 2.0 yet
16:59:15 <markvoelker> We can move to 2.0 later when refstack is ready and we have programs that can use it.
16:59:17 <hogepodge> Excellent point
16:59:21 <eglute> so 2017.08 in 1.x format
16:59:23 <Rockyg> so, lots of reasons to keep it
16:59:31 <catherineD> so if next.json with 2.0 is merge then RefStack will break with next
16:59:49 <eglute> thanks everyone. we didnt get to cover vertical programs topic, so will move that to next week
17:00:01 <eglute> we are out of time, i will be around in the interop irc
17:00:07 <luzC> thank you, bye
17:00:07 <eglute> thank you!!
17:00:11 <eglute> #endmeeting