15:00:47 #startmeeting manila 15:00:50 Meeting started Thu Sep 5 15:00:47 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:51 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:54 The meeting name has been set to 'manila' 15:01:10 bswartz: hello 15:01:13 good morning everyone 15:01:17 hi 15:01:18 hi 15:01:19 hi 15:01:23 hi 15:01:24 good morning 15:01:25 hi 15:01:36 wow lots of people here today 15:02:14 sorry if I'm disorganized, I'm travelling today 15:02:24 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ManilaMeetings 15:03:01 for those of you who weren't here last week, we have engineers working on the code finally 15:03:30 vbelokon has volunteed to give us an update on development progress 15:03:48 #topic development progress 15:03:54 bswartz: ok, let me present short report 15:04:37 DevStack - Supporting Manila in DevStack was implemented. It's in testing now. Link to Git: [https://github.com/119Vik/devstack] (master branch) 15:05:04 bswartz: Could you please provide repository to push Manila-DevStack code (requirements - target repo + allowed access)? 15:05:08 #link https://github.com/119Vik/devstack 15:05:24 vbelokon: sure 15:05:45 ok next 15:05:57 Attributes "Cinder" was renamed to "Manila" in many places in the Manila project. And we are working on unit-tests of Manila now. 15:06:08 First "smoke testing" of Manila service was performed. Bugs and issues were found. QA are in-progress. Tempest. Preparing of positive and negative tests are in-progress. Functionality for Tempest (Manila Manager) is ready. 15:06:34 Several questions from QA team: 15:06:36 1) We have some stuff from Cinder as quotas for users and etc. Do we need to keep it in Manila or should we remove? 15:07:17 vbelokon: we want to keep quota support 15:07:20 2) Current tempest in repo http://github.com/bswartz/tempest in branch "manila" is grizzly tempest. Our tempest is based on latest havana tempest, so, should we completely replace it or make branch like "manila/havana"? 15:07:31 it wouldn't surprise me if there are bugs in the quota code however 15:07:36 bswartz: ok, thanks, we will keep quota 15:08:23 as for tempest - it is in fast change period, so was not commited yet to repo 15:09:03 addition to question 2) 15:09:10 * KenD should probably make a new repo 'manila/icehouse 15:09:23 vbelokon: will it be hard to merge the manila/temptest changes with recent havana changes? 15:09:42 if we copy code from Cinder, does that mean Manila will start diverging? Will someone keep the common code up to date? Is there a plan to have a common base? 15:10:00 let's ask vponomaryov 15:10:13 abput tempest 15:10:15 KenD: I'd rather wait until we've got the code in stackforge before worrying about icehouse 15:10:35 no, it is not hard to merge, but it is really different, it has modified structure 15:10:52 lpabon: that's a concern, yes. Ideally we will move common stuff into oslo, but that's not on the critical path for us 15:11:07 bswartz: cool 15:11:37 msg/ bswartz: good with that 15:12:15 bswartz: about tempest - I think it's better to merge with Havana 15:12:16 hello 15:12:26 рш 15:12:28 hi 15:12:29 vbelokon: you mentioned finding some bugs already 15:12:50 can we file them in LP? 15:12:55 yeah it's related to rename process 15:13:14 yes we can, but it's better to publish them in LP a bit latter 15:13:28 now a lot of minor issues 15:13:46 later when we have a stable project all bugs we will publish in LP 15:14:22 vbelokon: now that you've been working on the code for a bit, how soon do you expect we can complete the first 2 BPs? 15:14:23 so during next week we are planning: 15:14:40 bswartz: in one weel 15:14:42 bswartz: in one week 15:14:57 our plan is: 15:15:00 - NFS/CIFS servers configuration and supporting 15:15:02 - rename / refactoring / cleanup / bug fix of manila-clinet 15:15:04 - tempest tests 15:15:06 - bug fixing of manila 15:15:21 that sounds great 15:15:47 I think we need to get the code into stackforge before we can start pushing our tempest and devstack changes upstream 15:15:57 any problem keeping those changes in github for a wihle? 15:16:06 so, that's is my short report from our side :) 15:16:29 тщ 15:16:30 no 15:16:38 okay 15:16:55 #action make a shared devstack repo available 15:17:17 #topic open floor 15:17:41 bswartz, api question 15:17:44 anyone else here want to share anything new? 15:17:48 should we test manila with netapp shares ? 15:17:55 Who will be in attendance at the Design Summit in Hong Kong? 15:18:01 lpabon: will you be available to contribute soon? 15:18:06 bswartz: we have shortlisted one more candidate for Manila 15:18:19 esker: I will be around 15:18:23 We have 2 versions of api. Shares are extensions to existing api. Leave v1 of api? Move shares api from contrib to v1? 15:18:36 esker: I will probably be attending 15:18:50 vikiland: testing the netapp-specific backends is a low priority 15:18:56 bswartz: I would like to get more familiar with the code and the blueprints. Is there a wiki page which has the blueprints or should I search for them 15:19:12 vikiland: I'd more interested in having a stable project and reaching incubation status 15:19:21 Okay, perhaps bswartz has already mentioned, but we'd like to plan on a design summit session (or some other gathering) to discuss / plan in person. 15:19:28 bswartz: got it. 15:19:35 lpabon: https://launchpad.net/manila/ 15:20:04 esker: sounds good 15:20:08 yportnova_: we can take this opportunity to reset the API version as we remove the blocks stuff 15:20:11 Q: Have there been anymore discussions around network plumbing or auto-mounting in the guest? 15:20:21 We should only have a v1 API 15:20:25 bswartz: nice, thanks. I hope that by next week I will be cought up on the design and proposed tasks to be able to start contributing 15:20:48 bswartz: good, I will do it 15:21:03 what about default port for api? 15:21:36 esker: thanks for reminging us, I plan to hold at least 1 un-conference session in HK on Manila. It would be nice to meet people face to face, and perhaps we'll have enough time to do some real planning work 15:22:05 shamail: no we've been focusing on short term goals for the last month. the plumbing design will come back into focus soon though 15:22:25 shamail: feel free to create some BPs -- I will be doing the same 15:23:08 Thanks. I was also thinking about some potential user mapping related items but I am not certain where to push out "general thoughts" 15:23:47 yportnova_: I'm not sure how default ports are selected. It doesn't matter to me, but we shoud follow the process that other openstack projects do if possible 15:23:52 I think you just answered my second q in your reply. I should look into BP submissions. 15:24:36 bswartz: so we'll leave it as is 15:25:12 shamail: LP and the openstack wiki are both good options 15:25:25 bswartz: we've already selected port for testing and we'll change it later if U'll need 15:25:33 BPs go on LP and you can link to a more detailed functional spec on the openstack wiki 15:25:45 thanks. 15:25:46 bswartz: I will check how ports for projects are selected 15:26:16 yportnova_: I think the most important concern is just that we don't conflict with anything else in openstack 15:26:31 beyond that it shouldn't matter 15:27:08 as vikiland wrote, we have temporary port for testing 15:27:48 any other topics for today? 15:28:00 nothing else from me 15:28:11 if not I'll go work on the 1 action item and plan to see you all next week here 15:28:25 excellent 15:28:26 no questions 15:28:28 bswartz: thanks 15:28:29 I'm optimisitic that we might be able to go into stackforce in another week or 2 15:28:29 take care everyone! 15:28:38 stackforge* 15:28:46 thanks everyone, ttyl! 15:28:53 #endmeeting