16:00:03 <Jeffrey4l> #startmeeting kolla
16:00:08 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Mar 21 16:00:03 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Jeffrey4l. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:09 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:11 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'kolla'
16:00:19 <Jeffrey4l> #topic  Roll-call
16:00:23 <mgoddard> o/
16:00:23 <duonghq> o/
16:00:27 <caoyuan> o、
16:00:39 <spsurya__> 0/
16:01:05 <ktibi> o/
16:01:08 <bmace> o/
16:01:15 <caoyuan> o/
16:01:23 <pbourke> o/
16:01:30 <chason> o/
16:01:46 <Jeffrey4l> #topic announcements
16:02:08 <Jeffrey4l> first of all, welcome caoyuan to join the core team
16:02:08 <sadasu> o/
16:02:16 <caoyuan> ：）
16:02:21 <caoyuan> thanks
16:02:29 <duonghq> congratulation caoyuan
16:02:31 <spsurya__> grats caoyuan
16:02:41 <ktibi> congrats ;)
16:02:53 <caoyuan> thanks ：） guys
16:03:13 <portdirect> o/
16:03:19 <Jeffrey4l> second, kolla rc2 is tagged. and kolla 6.0.0 tag will be released soon.
16:03:32 <Jeffrey4l> any announcements from community?
16:04:16 <Jeffrey4l> #topic ptg summary bp
16:04:23 <Jeffrey4l> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-rocky-ptg-recap
16:04:37 <Jeffrey4l> thanks pbourke for preparing the summary.
16:04:54 <Jeffrey4l> we need convert them to bp.
16:04:58 <Jeffrey4l> please open the link.
16:05:35 <Jeffrey4l> and add proper bp for them, if the pb already exists, please just add the link.
16:05:47 <pbourke> a handful have already started bps
16:05:50 <pbourke> will add links now
16:06:06 <Jeffrey4l> we will be after 10 min
16:06:52 <Jeffrey4l> if anyone is interested in any bp, please assign it to yourself.
16:07:30 <sadasu> I am working on 3rd party vendor plugins for Neutron
16:07:52 <Jeffrey4l> cool.
16:07:59 <sadasu> that approach could be used for plugins that are currently in tree and are planning to be split out
16:08:17 <sadasu> and I understand the issue that Sam Betts brought up during the PTG
16:09:01 <sadasu> does a BP already exist for this?
16:09:02 <Jeffrey4l> sadasu, could you write a spec or POC to explain what the issue and how to solve it?
16:09:38 <sadasu> Jeffrey41: yes, if non already exists, I would be happy to start a new spec
16:10:00 <Jeffrey4l> iirc, there is no such a bp
16:10:40 <sadasu> I also have some initial changes out in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552119/
16:11:12 <sadasu> let me first create a spec and then link this review to that
16:12:30 <sadasu> thanks to caoyuan for providing comments on the review
16:12:49 <caoyuan> sadasu you are welcome:)
16:15:50 <yankcrime> regarding backups, i've added the link in to the existing bp for mariadb backup and recovery
16:16:00 <Jeffrey4l> yankcrime, thanks.
16:16:29 <Jeffrey4l> time is up. thanks all guys.
16:16:45 <Jeffrey4l> please feel free to take the pbs.
16:17:08 <Jeffrey4l> and if you have any concern, please throw it out in meeting or ML.
16:17:35 <Jeffrey4l> anythink wanna be talked for the pb now?
16:18:11 <Jeffrey4l> guess no
16:18:14 <Jeffrey4l> let us move on
16:18:15 <pbourke> pb?
16:18:21 <Jeffrey4l> yes.
16:18:32 <pbourke> what is that?
16:19:09 <Jeffrey4l> any bluesprint in the etherpad you wannt to talk here, now?
16:19:43 <mgoddard> Jeffrey4l: you mean bp (not pb)?
16:20:04 <Jeffrey4l> hrm, sorry, my bad
16:20:08 <pbourke> ah right
16:20:11 <pbourke> one thing
16:20:24 <pbourke> sometimes there's confusion on who can set those to approved
16:20:30 <pbourke> could you clarify Jeffrey4l ?
16:21:10 <spsurya__> Jeffrey4l: I would be working on rolling upgrade for few of core Services and I would assign the same
16:21:24 <pbourke> I think its anyone in the kolla launchpad group, but Im not sure what makes a bp eligble for approval
16:21:26 <Jeffrey4l> normally, another core member, who is not the drafer,  could.
16:21:34 <pbourke> ok
16:21:49 <Jeffrey4l> we are not that strict on this.
16:21:57 <pbourke> good enough for me :)
16:22:10 <Jeffrey4l> in other team, a spec and a roll-voting is required.
16:22:23 <Jeffrey4l> and we only do this for big change.
16:22:34 <Jeffrey4l> spsurya__, cool, thanks.
16:22:52 <ktibi> I can see a lot of bp have old series version. Maybe try to clean bp ?
16:23:12 <Jeffrey4l> ktibi, yep. we need update them.
16:23:27 <duonghq> spsurya__, thanks, I'll update the current status, I also working on Heat locally
16:23:40 <caoyuan_> spsurya__ cool and the other's rolling upgrade I glad to complete
16:24:08 <spsurya__> duonghq: caoyuan_ roger
16:25:07 <Jeffrey4l> feel free to re-target the bp status and series.
16:25:12 <Jeffrey4l> ok. let us move on
16:25:18 <Jeffrey4l> #topic kolla-kubernetes project split
16:25:19 <duonghq> caoyuan_, spsurya__ Glance ps is finished, can you test with me?
16:25:45 <Jeffrey4l> this is still WIP
16:25:47 <Jeffrey4l> #link https://review.openstack.org/552531
16:26:04 <Jeffrey4l> i think we guys are agree on that split the kk8s project.
16:26:16 <caoyuan_> duonghq my pleasure
16:26:22 <portdirect> are any kolla-k8s cores here?
16:26:24 <spsurya__> duonghq: sure, we can discuss in opendiscussion
16:26:28 <Jeffrey4l> portdirect, anything you wanna to update now?
16:26:46 <Jeffrey4l> portdirect, tbh, the former active contributor are not here.
16:26:56 <pbourke> i just read portdirect's comment and I think it makes sense
16:27:39 <portdirect> :(
16:27:54 <Jeffrey4l> i checked the code of kolla-k8s and osh ( shamed on me that i never tried them), i am agree with the former kk8s active contributor,
16:28:02 <pbourke> portdirect: usually agreement is a good thing ;)
16:28:23 <Jeffrey4l> the microservice is a good arch than only one charts.
16:28:36 <portdirect> As someone who used to be active in the project I'm just worried that it would be confusing, and potentially damaging, to 'launch' a project that from the outset does not have a path towards sustainability.
16:29:22 <Jeffrey4l> portdirect, it is hard to upgrade the openstack through only one charts for nova.
16:29:34 <portdirect> I contest that :)
16:29:34 <Jeffrey4l> portdirect, spsurya__ and i will start contribute this project
16:29:59 <Jeffrey4l> and we will also try to find other volunteers
16:30:04 <spsurya__> Jeffrey4l: IIRC rwellum is also in
16:30:14 <portdirect> also osh supports the same architecture as kolla-k8s if desired: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-helm/blob/master/nova/values.yaml#L1594-L1639
16:30:17 <Jeffrey4l> yeap
16:30:18 <pbourke> why not just contribute to osh
16:31:03 <spsurya__> Jeffrey4l: duonghq has also shown interest at a time don't know at the moment
16:31:08 <portdirect> I dont want to cause to much issues - but its worth noting that osh has three large orgs in or close to prod
16:31:11 <Jeffrey4l> hrm, i see, interesting,
16:31:34 <portdirect> and for them, upgrade was the primary attraction
16:31:43 <Jeffrey4l> pbourke, it is mainly concern with arch or deploy philosophy
16:32:15 <pbourke> I imagine those issues could be worked out with osh
16:32:25 <pbourke> assuming they even are issues from an end user perspective
16:32:26 <portdirect> Jeffrey4l: would it help if i produced a demo of OSH run as micro-charts?
16:32:51 <Jeffrey4l> i think i get your idea.
16:33:06 <Jeffrey4l> use variables to control which chart is loaded in heml
16:33:08 <Jeffrey4l> helm*
16:33:31 <portdirect> yup
16:33:32 <Jeffrey4l> i missed that when i review the code.
16:33:52 <portdirect> this provides the exact same flexibility as the kolla-k8s deployment method
16:34:06 <portdirect> where each object can be addressed individually
16:34:39 <Jeffrey4l> there is another thing i concern.
16:35:05 <Jeffrey4l> how helm load the *.yml? any possible order?
16:35:22 <portdirect> as in the templates?
16:35:50 <Jeffrey4l> yes.
16:36:32 <portdirect> it uses a semi-deterministic order
16:36:43 <portdirect> which is controlled through one of two methods
16:37:09 <Jeffrey4l> okay, i will check that
16:37:12 <portdirect> we use dependency/environment checking extensivly: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-helm/blob/master/nova/values.yaml#L205-L219
16:38:15 <Jeffrey4l> roger thanks
16:38:18 <portdirect> or you can take control of the manifest deployment via toggling them in the over-rides in a playbook
16:38:33 <Jeffrey4l> understand.
16:38:33 <portdirect> *via a playbook
16:38:59 <Jeffrey4l> at least for microservice, osh and kk8s are almost the them.
16:39:40 <Jeffrey4l> mybe i need dig these two projects more later.
16:39:58 <portdirect> we choose a different `default path` but you can drive them in veritually the same way if desired
16:40:18 <portdirect> its also worth noting that with osh - we fully support both Kolla and LOCI images
16:41:10 <portdirect> taking the same path that Kolla-Ansible is now exploring for bind mounting in the config and scripts
16:41:58 <Jeffrey4l> got.
16:43:17 <portdirect> thanks
16:43:24 <portdirect> :)
16:43:26 <Jeffrey4l> i am agree now that we should and may be co-operation. but we still need some time before make the decision. ;D
16:43:32 <portdirect> ++
16:44:05 <Jeffrey4l> thanks portdirect
16:44:24 <Jeffrey4l> anything else about kk8s and osh?
16:44:52 <Jeffrey4l> let us move on
16:44:55 <Jeffrey4l> #topic  Documentation RST convention upgrade
16:45:01 <Jeffrey4l> chason, your floor
16:46:06 <Jeffrey4l> seem he is not here.
16:46:08 <Jeffrey4l> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/kolla-ansible+branch:master+topic:bp/optimize-the-documentation-format
16:46:22 <Jeffrey4l> this is a legecy patch in fact.
16:46:43 <Jeffrey4l> there some syntax or convention issue in doc
16:46:54 <spsurya__> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/538220/
16:46:55 <Jeffrey4l> feel free to review them
16:46:56 <Jeffrey4l> thanks
16:47:37 <Jeffrey4l> #topic Open Discussion
16:47:43 <Jeffrey4l> any volunteers?
16:48:08 <bmace> if we have time i wouldn't mind getting any feedback on my email to the mailing list regarding upstreaming the kollacli
16:48:16 <bmace> and putting it under kolla management
16:49:03 <pbourke> im good with it but a little biased obviously ;)
16:49:04 <Jeffrey4l> we can create a new repo for it.
16:49:41 <pbourke> do we need a spec?
16:49:51 <spsurya__> duonghq: i can help in test and also would like add script for nova rolling upgrade
16:50:00 <pbourke> would like people to be in agreement with the overall way it works before importing it
16:50:32 <bmace> well, since it is already sort of fully implemented and i linked the docs in the email to the mailing list, i'm not sure what extra a spec would provide.
16:50:37 <mgoddard> would be nice to see a spec for the cli, but clearly an implementation exists so how much will you be willing to change?
16:50:50 <duonghq> spsurya__, nice, thank you very much
16:50:57 <bmace> i am fine with it changing in whatever ways the community wants, that is the whole point of doing the upstream :)
16:51:10 <bmace> mgoddard ^^
16:51:19 <mgoddard> another approach could be - import existing as a pre 1.0 release, with the proviso that anything may change before 1.0
16:51:23 <duonghq> hope that we can finished 1st version for rolling upgrade of all core services, it will need extensive test
16:51:43 <pbourke> mgoddard: seems a good idea
16:51:44 <Jeffrey4l> how about move the project into openstack project namespace, then if there is anything not properly, we can improve it through a spec
16:52:15 <bmace> mgoddard: that is fine with me as well... consider the cli pre-release until a point that the community is happy with it.
16:52:33 <spsurya__> duonghq:  will learn in advance way to test for glance probably tomorrow
16:52:44 <duonghq> spsurya__,  nice
16:52:58 <mgoddard> on the question of a new repo vs. in kolla-ansible - how closely tied is it to the inventory, config, playbooks etc.?
16:53:11 <pbourke> bmace: people may be more likely to read a spec rather than trawl the oracle docs
16:53:26 <spsurya__> we also need to optimize the solution of zedro downtime of ks
16:53:27 <pbourke> prob not a big deal though
16:53:38 <pbourke> most seem in favor so
16:53:48 <bmace> mgoddard: internally we have a totally separate repository for the cli, so having it broken out is fine, but for the cli to be actually usable, it does rely on bits from kolla-ansible, like the passwords, playbooks, inventory, etc.
16:53:50 <Jeffrey4l> pbourke, the issue is we can not wait until the spec is merged.
16:53:56 <mgoddard> if the cli is in a separate repo, then does the playbook 'interface' need to become stable?
16:55:25 <Jeffrey4l> for ansible playbooks, the interface is more like "inventory" file or "globals.yml"
16:55:29 <bmace> mgoddard: a problem with the separate repo is that conceptually a change in kolla-ansible could break the cli, though in our experience it would need to be a pretty big change and that issue happens very rarely
16:55:52 <pbourke> well I guess we'll have tests and gates to prevent that too
16:55:53 <Jeffrey4l> bmace, we can add cross-project jobs to ensure this.
16:56:02 <bmace> mgoddard: i think in the long run that could be covered by the introduction of some sort of co-dependent tests.
16:56:14 <bmace> Jeffrey4l: exactly my thought, right
16:56:22 <Jeffrey4l> after the kolla-cli, we can use it in kolla-ansible jobs to genreate the inventory or global.syml file.s
16:56:51 <mgoddard> it probably shouldn't come up often, but it just means we can't do something like rename site.yml to somethingelse.yml
16:57:12 <pbourke> all that can be configurable
16:57:44 <Jeffrey4l> mgoddard, once that done, jobs failed and we could fix kolla-cli at the same time.
16:57:45 <bmace> mgoddard: right, some sort of thought of the effect on the cli needs to be kept in mind, which i think is  good all around, because some people use it already without a cli and might do scripts of their own and similar changes could break those people also.
16:58:10 <mgoddard> that's true
16:58:18 <Jeffrey4l> let us start by separate repo. once it is not  proper in the future, we can still merge two repo into one
16:58:49 <Jeffrey4l> this is not a big deal.
16:58:51 <bmace> Jeffrey4l: that sounds great.  starting with it broken out, as it is internally for us, should also make the transition easier.
16:59:18 <Jeffrey4l> yeah.
16:59:42 <Jeffrey4l> ok time is up. let us move to kolla channel
16:59:49 <bmace> is there any way that i can be a core for just the cli?  i'm not sure how it was for the kolla-k8s stuff, i think something was done similar?  if not that is fine.. i just know i have a bit of outstanding work to do on it and will just need to get other folks to review it :)
16:59:49 <caoyuan_> ok
16:59:57 <Jeffrey4l> thanks guys for coming.
16:59:57 <bmace> kk
17:00:06 <duonghq> thanks
17:00:08 <Jeffrey4l> #endmeeting