23:01:55 <rhallisey> #startmeeting kolla
23:01:56 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr 13 23:01:55 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rhallisey. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:01:57 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
23:01:59 <sdake> o/
23:02:00 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'kolla'
23:02:02 <sdake> first :)
23:02:06 <rhallisey> #topic rollcall
23:02:09 <inc0> o/
23:02:16 <rhallisey> hello
23:02:22 <vhosakot> o/
23:02:32 <akwasnie> hi
23:03:14 <sdake> this meeting slto always so slow
23:03:16 <rhallisey> no Jeffrey4l__ ?
23:03:21 <rhallisey> ya it is..
23:03:28 <sdake> he was burning the midnight oil with me
23:03:48 <rhallisey> #topic Announcements
23:03:53 <rhallisey> sdake, go ahead
23:03:57 <rhallisey> I don't have much
23:04:10 <sdake> ya we barely have a quroum
23:04:15 <sdake> I guess peopel can read the logs
23:04:18 <rhallisey> we can run though quick
23:04:27 <sdake> no NNOUNXWMWNRA
23:04:31 <sdake> no announcements
23:04:46 <sdake> speaking off by one there :)
23:04:58 <vhosakot> ha
23:05:04 <rhallisey> alright moving on
23:05:05 <sdake> i didn't update the agenda, but things we need to talk about are
23:05:05 <rhallisey> #topic Liberty backport planning
23:05:29 <inc0> soo
23:05:33 <sdake> 1) final schedule for summit ODS sessions, 2) final 2.0.0 tag and planning for 2.0.1 and 3) there wa soething elses
23:05:43 <rhallisey> roger that
23:05:54 <sdake> ya backports
23:05:56 <rhallisey> inc0, do you have anything regarding this topic?
23:05:57 <sdake> thats the  osmething else
23:06:03 <inc0> yes I acutally hace
23:06:42 <inc0> so it seems one big patch is best way to go
23:07:01 <sdake> inc0 according to dims?
23:07:07 <inc0> according to dhellman
23:07:24 <sdake> cool
23:07:26 <sdake> wfm then :)
23:07:37 <inc0> either that or we talk to infra
23:07:55 <sdake> whats the infra option
23:08:02 <inc0> don't know yet
23:08:09 <rhallisey> do we want to mention this to the ML?
23:08:14 <sdake> ok they have a ialing list
23:08:15 <rhallisey> add it on to that thread from before
23:08:18 <sdake> opentack-infra
23:08:34 <sdake> lets use the infra miaing list if we ask them soemthing sepcific
23:08:42 <sdake> i guess i'd like to know whaat we would sk
23:08:52 <dhellmann> inc0 : that's not quite what I said. I suggested making your mitaka version work with liberty, too, but you didn't like that. Merging a bunch of commits from your mitaka or master branches into liberty is going to cause you problems, which cherry-picking will avoid.
23:08:54 <sdake> if doug said superpatch was way to go
23:08:57 <sdake> didi doug suggestconsulting infra?
23:09:35 <inc0> dhellmann, well, sorry for misunderstanding
23:09:47 <dhellmann> it'll cause other problems, namely not being able to get the stable tag if you want it
23:10:03 <sdake> yes we want thestable tag
23:10:09 <inc0> what I meant is coexisting liberty and mitaka will be really messy
23:10:12 <dhellmann> inc0: nah, it's what we settled on as the best of a bunch of bad options but I didn't want anyone to have the impression I thought it was a good idea
23:10:21 <sdake> howeer is tht dependent on all branches being well managed?
23:10:30 <sdake> because going forwrd all branches will be wel managed
23:10:30 <inc0> yeah, it is better of bunch of evils
23:10:35 <inc0> I agree on that
23:10:42 <dhellmann> sdake : backporting a bunch of feature work will make that unlikely. you'll have to check with tonyb about those policies, though.
23:11:01 <sdake> dhellmann its a one time thing
23:11:12 <sdake> we are never doing this again ever in the history of mankind
23:11:25 <inc0> even in future of mankind;)
23:11:29 <sdake> it woulndl't bee necessary except kolla 1.0.0 has a fatal flaw
23:11:51 <dhellmann> sdake : you should read http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/stable_follows-policy.html and http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
23:11:57 <dhellmann> and then talk to tonyb before making your decision
23:12:15 <sdake> dhellmann ack i'll red that
23:12:28 <sdake> eventually we kill stable branches right? :)
23:12:48 <inc0> well in any case, one big patch will cause least of a mess from a technical standpoint
23:12:53 <tonyb> sdake: I don't think so
23:12:55 <sdake> tonyb is hte stable branches maintainer?
23:13:03 <tonyb> sdake: ACK
23:13:20 <sdake> tonyb sorry dont htink so which
23:13:25 <inc0> but we'll lose history but we can point to history of stable/mitaka, this will be effectively it
23:14:43 <sdake> the problem is 1.0.0 has a fatal flaw whih causes data loss which we cant fix
23:14:54 <sdake> without esentially bringing in the entire new ocde base
23:14:57 <sdake> there is no surgical fix
23:15:30 <sdake> in the future there will be no feature backports
23:15:39 <sdake> only critical and high severity bug fixes imo
23:15:58 <sdake> tonyb do yo uthink that owuld meet requirements for stable tag?
23:16:29 <tonyb> sdake: okay /me bogging dow the meeting probably isn't productive.  Add me to the review/discussion and I'll come up to speed
23:16:47 <sdake> tonyb ok we can dooffline if you like
23:16:52 <inc0> tonyb, let me dig out ML thread
23:16:54 <sdake> but we can bog down the meeting now - its ok with me :)
23:17:14 <inc0> bogging down meeting might be better as we have core team here
23:17:20 <sdake> right
23:17:28 <sdake> this isn't a rathole form my perspective
23:17:28 <tonyb> okay
23:17:28 <inc0> and I think everyone agrees that this is actually fairly important thing
23:18:18 <vhosakot> yes, I feel this is important
23:18:30 <sdake> the entire core team wants this done tonyb
23:18:35 <inc0> tonyb, http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/090813.html
23:18:46 <sdake> there isn't a single detractor - unimous agreement
23:19:01 <Jeffrey4l__> o/ sorry for late.
23:19:04 <sdake> if i could spell after being awak for 35 hrs
23:19:37 <sdake> Jeffrey4l__ all good
23:19:39 <lifeless> sleep isn't actually optional, you know
23:19:49 <vhosakot> sdake: I sleep on the keyboard
23:19:53 <inc0> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299563/ tonyb this is review that makes all the changes required
23:19:53 <Jeffrey4l__> yea, take care sdake
23:19:56 <rhallisey> guys let's move on and let tonyb catch up
23:19:59 <sdake> so tonyb
23:20:02 <sdake> read thread
23:20:06 <sdake> we will come back to this topic ok ?
23:20:10 <inc0> our plan was to rebase this PS to stable/mitaka
23:20:11 <sdake> if you don't mind being interrupted that is
23:20:19 * tonyb is reading the thread and the review
23:20:20 <inc0> and somehow make stable/liberty have exactly this code
23:20:28 <rhallisey> tonyb, thanks
23:20:37 <rhallisey> ok next up..
23:20:42 <rhallisey> #topic final schedule for summit
23:20:50 <rhallisey> sdake, do you have a link
23:20:53 * rhallisey looks
23:21:06 <sdake> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-newton-summit
23:21:13 <rhallisey> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-newton-summit
23:21:26 <sdake> we have 4 fishbowl sessions
23:21:33 <sdake> 10 design sessions
23:21:40 <inc0> wow, that's cool space
23:21:47 <sdake> I offered to work withthe security team on one of our design sessions
23:21:56 <sdake> so we really hve 9 free deign sessions
23:21:59 <inc0> +1 to that
23:21:59 <sdake> I have analyzed the votes
23:22:12 <sdake> and I'll jut go bsaed upon the otes
23:22:38 <sdake> if there are objections to that
23:22:41 <sdake> let me know
23:22:44 <sdake> if you have conflicts
23:22:46 <sdake> let me know
23:22:56 <sdake> so I can keep the important sessions conflict free
23:23:07 <sdake> the full schedule is posted on the mailing list from ttx
23:23:34 <vhosakot> sdake: the link has topics ? where is the info about speakers of those topics ?
23:23:46 <sdake> these are design sessions
23:23:48 <sdake> no speakers
23:23:52 <inc0> vhosakot, design sessions aren't really talks
23:23:58 <vhosakot> we all speak.. got it :)
23:23:59 <inc0> we just sit by the table and argue
23:24:06 <inc0> raretly hit each other
23:24:09 <sdake> someone typically takes notes and  everyone else talks
23:24:13 <sdake> last time pual took notes
23:24:19 <sdake> but this time I'll likely be doingthat
23:24:31 <rhallisey> cool
23:24:35 <vhosakot> hitting or taking notes ? ;)
23:24:44 <rhallisey> vhosakot, notes :)
23:24:50 <inc0> hitting with notebooks
23:25:11 <rhallisey> ok cool that's covered
23:25:18 <rhallisey> #topic final 2.0.0 tag and planning for 2.0.1
23:25:24 <sdake> is it covered
23:25:24 <sdake> wait
23:25:32 <sdake> can we get a rollcall vote
23:25:40 <rhallisey> what's the undo
23:25:41 <rhallisey> #undo
23:25:42 <sdake> to my proposed plan
23:25:43 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x9235c90>
23:25:45 <sdake> there ya go
23:26:19 <sdake> so biovusl yI am +1 to my own plan since its the best i'vegot :)
23:26:24 <sdake> note I need to enter this data last week
23:26:30 <sdake> so i need a decision now :)
23:26:43 <rhallisey> +1
23:26:45 <inc0> sdake, where is this proposed plan?
23:26:55 <sdake> i just stated it in irc
23:27:07 <sdake> see lines 32 and 33
23:27:19 <sdake> and comments about avoiding conflicts in your schedules
23:27:28 <vhosakot> sdake: what are we voting for again ? for this --> "I'll jut go bsaed upon the otes"
23:27:34 <inc0> ah, about sessions
23:27:37 <sdake> to avoid conflicts in yur schedules, I need to know when your schedules conflict with our ods sessions
23:27:48 <sdake> vhosakot right
23:28:04 <sdake> and that people will actually send me their scheduled conflicts
23:28:07 <sdake> that didn't happen last time
23:28:15 <sdake> and we had multiple core reviewers missing from critical sessions
23:28:50 <inc0> sdake, can you reach out to Mirantis folks if they still want kolla-mesos sessions?
23:29:08 <sdake> inc0 waiting on mail to the ml
23:29:24 <inc0> ok
23:29:25 <sdake> but at this point i'll schedule them if they are voted on
23:29:37 <sdake> and if things change we can adapt those that are not fishbowl
23:29:40 <sdake> fishbowls get locked in
23:29:51 <vhosakot> sdake: when are the design sessions ? tue-fri ?
23:29:56 <sdake> the other stuff gets burried ithe schedule
23:30:02 <inc0> wed-tue
23:30:03 <sdake> tuesdady is cross project
23:30:05 <inc0> fri is meeting
23:30:07 <inc0> meetup
23:30:10 <sdake> wed and thur are our sessions
23:30:14 <sdake> we he ful day meetup on friday
23:30:16 <inc0> ah, true
23:30:25 <inc0> sorry:(
23:30:34 <sdake> no apologies needed :)
23:30:40 <vhosakot> so, you are checking conflicts for which day ? wed and thur ?
23:30:45 <sdake> right
23:30:53 <akwasnie> we have presenttion with inc0 and elemoine_ on Wed 27  11:00am-11:40am
23:30:54 <sdake> mail me personally
23:30:59 <sdake> mail me
23:31:00 <akwasnie> oh ok
23:31:09 <sdake> asap :) i'll enter the data in tomorrow morning
23:31:17 <sdake> when i recover from that webinar :)
23:31:46 <vhosakot> sdake: send us the recording of the webinar
23:32:01 <rhallisey> vhosakot, I'll link it at the end
23:32:14 <vhosakot> coo, thanks!
23:32:17 <rhallisey> ok lets go over tagging
23:32:27 <rhallisey> sdake, what do where you gong to tag?
23:32:46 <sdake> huh
23:32:48 <rhallisey> I think you mentioned it earlier, I forgot though
23:32:56 <sdake> you mean the releases repo?
23:33:01 <sdake> we will cover that friday
23:33:04 <sdake> of ods
23:33:18 <sdake> releases repo training and gate training friday
23:33:26 <rhallisey> no tagging M
23:33:33 <sdake> oh 4/15
23:33:40 <rhallisey> ok cool
23:33:42 <sdake> i'll do that
23:33:45 <sdake> but ya thats the deadline
23:33:47 <vhosakot> this is 2.0.0 tagging right ?
23:33:47 <sdake> right
23:33:52 <rhallisey> anything to mention about 2.0.1
23:33:54 <sdake> yes 2.0.0
23:33:57 <sdake> here is the idea
23:34:24 <sdake> we fix as mmany high and critical bugs in mitaka as possible by friday
23:34:32 <sdake> we only ahe a few of those left that aren't already in master
23:34:45 <sdake> the rest we can handle in a z stream
23:34:54 <sdake> as in 2.0.1 in 1 month or so
23:35:00 <inc0> we can have bugbash session in Austin
23:35:11 <sdake> inc0 possibly
23:35:34 <sdake> point is we hae 2 dys
23:35:38 <sdake> to fix the critical/highs
23:35:49 <sdake> i'll tag friday evening
23:35:55 <sdake> stable/mitaka is looking good in my tests
23:36:24 <rhallisey> same
23:36:36 <sdake> if you are going to fix a medium/low thats fine too
23:36:48 <sdake> Jeffrey4l__ you ohave a bunch of bugs in high
23:36:54 <sdake> any you want  to give up to distribute the load
23:37:01 <Jeffrey4l__> sdake, got
23:37:53 <rhallisey> #topic Open Discussion
23:38:00 <rhallisey> M was a great cycle
23:38:00 <sdake> tonyb
23:38:05 <rhallisey> :)
23:38:09 <sdake> its not over yet rh:)
23:38:18 <rhallisey> roger
23:38:21 <sdake> tonyb did you hae a chance to catch up to where we are ;)
23:38:21 <tonyb> Phew that's a lot of context to try and grok (pre-coffee)
23:38:30 <sdake> sorry
23:38:32 <sdake> if you need more time
23:38:34 <tonyb> sdake: np
23:38:36 <sdake> we can provide it
23:38:49 <tonyb> sdake: Well we'll see *if* I grokked it.
23:38:49 <sdake> but we want to get moving quckly
23:39:30 <sdake> as soon as mitaka is done, we want to do the liberty backport in the sanest way possible that doesn't excludee us from governance tags
23:40:54 <sdake> tonyb one approach is to try to repeat it, another is to query us on the details
23:41:02 <sdake> tonyb or maybee there areother appraoches - up to you ;)
23:41:07 <tonyb> I think what you're proposing would invalidate stable:follows-policy
23:41:24 <sdake> permanently?
23:41:45 <tonyb> I'm not sure I understand the difference from the current plan and "abandoning liberty" isn't that what you're doign by stealth?
23:41:55 <tonyb> sdake: nothing in permanent ;P
23:41:58 <sdake> no we are keeping liberty
23:42:13 <sdake> we are abanodning 1.0.0 as a dead tag
23:42:19 <inc0> tonyb, since we're deployment tool, it's really about what version of openstack we deploy
23:42:36 <inc0> and right now stable/liberty deploys liberty, only with critical flwa
23:42:41 <sdake> idea is to tag 1.1.0
23:42:53 <inc0> so we want to give operators a chance to deploy liberty without critical flaw
23:42:56 <tonyb> inc0: Yeah deployment tools lok kolla/osa require different thinking ;P
23:43:07 <inc0> kinda, true
23:43:14 <tonyb> sdake: but *what* will that tag be ?
23:43:16 <sdake> different on our part or governance erpo part?
23:43:23 <inc0> some of deployment tools explicitly deploy N-1 version
23:43:32 <inc0> like Fuel
23:43:33 <sdake> tonyb the 1.1.0 tag will be tagged from the stable/liberty branch
23:43:44 <inc0> we would like to deploy N, so liberty kolla deploys liberty
23:43:45 <sdake> the stable/liberty branch will contain the current contents of mitaka made to work with liberty
23:44:44 <inc0> only reason we go to this lengths is to provide ops good way to deploy liberty while keeping our "liberty deploys liberty" policy
23:45:21 <tonyb> ahh okat that's a point I was missing
23:46:12 <tonyb> so stable/liberty would install liberty BUT basically be the same kolla code as stable/mitaka + work to make it install liberty
23:46:33 <inc0> yeah
23:46:41 <tonyb> and be tagged 1.1.0
23:46:45 <inc0> correct
23:46:51 <inc0> and this is one time thing mind you
23:46:58 <tonyb> inc0: sure
23:47:05 <sdake> ya after this no more o that nonsense
23:47:05 <inc0> mitaka will not be ever deployed by newton code
23:47:34 <inc0> dependencies killed us :( (damn you ansible!)
23:47:54 <sdake> tonyb so if it requires governance changes to handle deployment projects which are a special beast
23:47:56 <sdake> i can do that
23:48:09 <sdake> to unblock us from not being taggable
23:48:12 <tonyb> inc0: tangent .... how is this not a problem for OSA id it's ansible that's the root cause?
23:48:24 <sdake> its docker thats the root cause
23:48:33 <tonyb> sdake: okay.
23:48:36 <sdake> osa doesn't use docker
23:48:37 <inc0> tonyb, there was bug in ansible 1.9 in docker module
23:49:02 <tonyb> that's not what sdake said
23:49:05 <sdake> the issue is docker data containers don't work as advertised
23:49:05 <inc0> and ansible refused to fix it in 1.9 branch, and 2.0 is not backward compatible and wasn't even released back then
23:49:16 <sdake> inc0 is talking about a different side-beenfit :)
23:49:20 <tonyb> Ahhh "refused to fix"
23:49:27 <Jeffrey4l__> another issue is docker add more new feature recently and backport the code is very difficult.
23:49:28 <sdake> data conianers cause data loss
23:49:35 <inc0> sdake, but reason we couldn't use docker 1.9 with volumes was because of ansible bug
23:49:43 <sdake> inc0 oh right
23:49:53 <tonyb> okay. I think I'm gettign it now.
23:49:59 <inc0> tonyb, by refused to fix I mean they said "it will be fixed by 2.0"
23:49:59 <sdake> so we need to backport kolla_docker
23:50:03 <sdake> which is sort of a feature
23:50:16 <inc0> we wrote our own docker module in Mitaka;)
23:50:18 <tonyb> *can* it be fixed in 1.9?
23:50:31 <sdake> we hae fixed it by writing our own docker module
23:50:38 <inc0> yeah, by replacing it by our own code
23:50:40 <sdake> ansible module to integrate with docker
23:50:49 <tonyb> Ahh and that's the main thing you're backporting
23:50:57 <sdake> this requires massive changes to all of the playboosk
23:50:59 <inc0> yeah, and that was a lot of work
23:51:07 <inc0> and it affected a lot of our code
23:51:09 <sdake> (to use this new module)
23:51:45 <inc0> so instead of trying to get this logic out of mitaka (we tried and failed) we decided to make mitaka deploy liberty, and that worked without big effort
23:52:15 <tonyb> inc0: and that's basically https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299563
23:52:25 <sdake> t-8 minutes
23:52:31 <inc0> tonyb, correct
23:52:37 <tonyb> which shows up on master because in March stable/mitaka didn't exist?
23:52:43 <inc0> yup
23:52:55 <inc0> I'll rebase it to stable mitaka as soon as we tag
23:52:57 <sdake> that patch isn't going into master
23:53:02 <tonyb> okay
23:53:10 <inc0> no, it will not go to stable mitaka as well
23:53:16 <sdake> it would go into stable/liberty
23:53:20 <inc0> but it will represent code which we want to be stable liberty
23:53:37 <sdake> after a megapatch is applied on the table/liberty branch
23:53:44 <tonyb> so at some point you'll do the equivielent of git co stable/liberty ; git reset --hard stable/mitaka ; git push
23:53:57 <inc0> pretty much, yeah
23:53:58 <tonyb> and then add that review
23:54:29 <sdake> it might require a couple extra reviews to enable centos binary as well
23:54:32 <inc0> in fact that would be best if we could do that because that would retain git history
23:54:42 <tonyb> sdake: sure.
23:54:51 <inc0> well yeah, and maybe something on this
23:54:54 <inc0> but tha'ts besides point
23:55:34 <inc0> another way we can do it is git co stable/liberty, git diff stable mitaka -> make massive patch out of it and merge it as one massive patch
23:55:38 <sdake> dhellmann thanks for pointing u at tonyb ;)
23:55:43 <inc0> but git history is lost
23:55:44 <tonyb> Okay I'm pretty sure I understand what and why you're doign it
23:55:55 <inc0> don't hit us too hard:(
23:56:15 <tonyb> inc0: well you can tag the liberty branch with liberty-early-demise or similar to not loose the history
23:56:25 <tonyb> inc0: :)
23:56:50 <inc0> well, history will be lost from liberty to mitaka
23:56:59 <sdake> tonyb you mean i should tag prior to this backport
23:57:04 <inc0> because patch will be massive and will not contain commits it was build by
23:57:26 <rhallisey> 3 minutes
23:57:37 <sdake> t-3 minutes - may have to overflow into #openstack-kolla
23:57:41 <inc0> tonyb, if you have time we can move it to #openstack-kolla
23:57:51 <rhallisey> just want to link one thing
23:57:53 <tonyb> sdake: Yeah you need to tag stable/liberty (with early-demise or similar befoer you do the reset)
23:57:56 <sdake> inc0 i have a meeting conflict but i trust you cn handle it
23:58:00 <tonyb> inc0: ACK
23:58:05 <rhallisey> #link https://vimeopro.com/midokura/345kl392
23:58:11 <rhallisey> ^ sdake's video
23:58:15 <vhosakot> thanks rhallisey!
23:58:22 <inc0> nice!
23:58:39 <sdake> tonyb the one quetion is does that stop us from applying for specificc tags?
23:59:32 <tonyb> sdake: it doesn't stop you *applying* but I'd -1 your application for stable:follows-policy
23:59:41 <tonyb> sdake: while liberty was a thing)
23:59:54 <sdake> thats 3 cycles?
00:00:08 <vhosakot> 0 minutes
00:00:18 <tonyb> sdake: that'll be decided at the Austin summit
00:00:28 <rhallisey> ok let's flow over to openstack-kolla
00:00:30 <sdake> ya les end meeting and overflow in openstack-kolla
00:00:34 * tonyb moves
00:00:38 <rhallisey> thanks guys
00:00:41 <rhallisey> #endmeeting kolla