15:00:57 <bswartz> #startmeeting manila
15:01:00 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  5 15:00:57 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:02 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:01:04 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:01:20 <bswartz> hello everyone
15:01:24 <vponomaryov> hi
15:01:26 <deepakcs> bswartz, GM
15:01:41 <xyang1> hi
15:01:42 <scottda> Hi
15:01:44 <rraja> hi
15:02:12 <bswartz> I actually didn't update the agenda today
15:02:31 <bswartz> looks like nobody added anything so I'll just make up the topics as I go
15:03:04 <bswartz> #topic incubation readiness
15:03:33 <bswartz> yesterday we did a a review of the requirements to be an incubated project and the good news is that we meet nearly all of them
15:03:52 <xyang1> great!
15:03:56 <vponomaryov> nearly?
15:03:57 <bswartz> however there was one item on the list that we're missing
15:04:02 <deepakcs> nice
15:04:15 <bswartz> I wish I could find the doc -- but there is a requirement that we have API docs which are generated from the code
15:04:52 <bswartz> do we have esker here?
15:05:59 <bswartz> #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.rst
15:06:03 <bswartz> I think this is the one
15:06:28 <bswartz> * Project should have API documentation for devs who want to add to the API, updated when the code is updated
15:06:45 <bswartz> okay so the wording of the requirement is that the update should happen at the same time
15:07:01 <bswartz> I think realisticly it's impossible to meet that goal if the API docs are not autogenerated in some way
15:07:11 <ameade> im here now >.<
15:07:20 <bswartz> ameade: welcome
15:07:49 <xyang1> Is there a command that you run to generate the API doc?
15:08:35 <bswartz> we don't have the docs autogenerated currently
15:08:39 <bswartz> I think other projects do
15:08:54 <bswartz> although I'm not sure what the mechanism is
15:09:02 <bswartz> I would like to find out and duplicate it
15:09:38 <bswartz> that's the only requirement in the list that we're missing completely, in my opinion
15:10:09 <bswartz> there are some other requirements where I think we may be meeting the letter of the requirement but not the spirit
15:10:17 <bswartz> such as this one:
15:10:17 <xyang1> Cinder API doc only lists basic APIs.  It misses a lot of new API's.  I don't know how the doc generation work either
15:10:59 <bswartz> * Project must have a basic devstack-gate job set up
15:11:14 <vponomaryov> bswartz: we already met this
15:11:23 <bswartz> vponomaryov: which one
15:11:42 <vponomaryov> we have two jobs in CI
15:11:57 <vponomaryov> that matches that requirement
15:12:01 <bswartz> yes, we have gate jobs, but some of the non-voting ones fail every time
15:12:13 <vponomaryov> its temporary
15:12:14 <bswartz> I think the TC may hold that against us
15:12:29 <vponomaryov> votable is requirement?
15:12:32 <bswartz> vponomaryov: is there anything we can do to fix it?
15:12:46 <bswartz> I think that a non-voting gate test that always fails just looks bad for us
15:12:47 <vponomaryov> +1 this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97747/
15:12:57 <ewindisch_> o/
15:13:25 <vponomaryov> bswartz: who said always fail?
15:13:28 <bswartz> vponomaryov: done!
15:14:05 <bswartz> vponomaryov: okay I see some changes where it's not failing
15:14:26 <bswartz> I suppose I was wrong -- I saw several cases where it failed and it was nonvoting
15:14:49 <xyang1> gate-manila-tempest-dsvm-neutron-multibackend FAILURE in 12s (non-voting)
15:15:12 <xyang1> the non-voting ones fail all the time
15:15:12 <bswartz> so my next question is: can we make the tempest test voting and make it pass reliably?
15:15:22 <bswartz> xyang1: well not all the time
15:15:28 <bswartz> they fail a lot but I see cases where they pass
15:15:29 <xyang1> ok
15:15:33 <bswartz> it seems to be something outside of our control
15:15:46 <bswartz> so we need to get it under our control and fix it
15:15:52 <vponomaryov> we need just this to be merged: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97747/
15:16:09 <bswartz> ^ everyone review that change and +1 it please!! ^
15:16:49 <bswartz> okay well it makes me feel better to know this is easily solved
15:17:38 <vponomaryov> but is there a requiremnt for votable job?
15:17:44 <bswartz> so the only other requirement where work is needed are the ones about the core team and the diversity of the contributors
15:18:31 <bswartz> vponomaryov: no, you saw the requirement, but I feel the spirit is that the gate job actually has to do functional testing otherwise it's not a good gate test
15:18:47 <bswartz> I don't want the TC to hold up the process because of different interpretations of that requriement
15:19:08 <bswartz> so let's get our gate tests in the best shape we can
15:19:19 <bswartz> even if it takes a few weeks -- we don't have a date yet
15:19:39 <bswartz> but by the time we get reviewed, I would like the test to be voting and reliably passing
15:19:56 <bswartz> even if that means we need to hack on the tests a lot
15:20:02 <vponomaryov> bswartz: there are normal situation with recheck
15:20:17 <bswartz> but back to the last requirement
15:20:23 <vponomaryov> I mean there no jobs that works in 100% cases
15:20:35 <bswartz> this group is getting bigger and we're seeing more contributions and reviews every day
15:20:37 <bswartz> which is great
15:21:13 <vponomaryov> bswartz: contributers, but not reviewers
15:21:22 <bswartz> I think we need to develop a process for adding new core team members for those that do significant reviews
15:21:35 <bswartz> vponomaryov: I know -- more reviewers is key
15:22:00 <bswartz> we have a core team of a few people, which meets the requirement, but bigger would be better I feel
15:22:35 <bswartz> so if there are folks out there that aspire to be core members of this team, please put a lot of time into code reviews
15:22:53 <bswartz> when we see a lot of reviews happening we will add people to the core
15:22:59 <deepakcs> bswartz, I am new to Manila (just starting off) and my 2 cents are : We should have a good working devpt setup for Manila, i am stuck on devstack+manila setup :(
15:23:15 <bswartz> deepakcs: so we have docs on this subject
15:23:18 <bswartz> have you read them?
15:23:22 <deepakcs> bswartz, I plan to contribute to devstack setup doc, once I am unblocked.
15:23:32 <nileshb> deepakcs .. same here
15:23:50 <deepakcs> bswartz, If you are pointing to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/docs/Manila_Developer_Setup_Fedora19
15:23:55 <bswartz> I definitely want to help you deepakcs, nileshb
15:23:56 <vponomaryov> deepakcs, nileshb: poke me in manila chat after this meeting
15:23:59 <deepakcs> bswartz, i tried that couple of time, doesn't work
15:24:05 <deepakcs> vponomaryov, sure :)
15:24:29 <deepakcs> bswartz, The point i was trying to make is that, if we have  a working devpt setup documented, it will reduce entry barrier for others
15:24:32 <bswartz> deepakcs: On F19 you're using packstack not devstack, correct?
15:24:39 <deepakcs> bswartz, and that would add more contributors and reviewers :)
15:24:44 <deepakcs> bswartz, I am on F20 using devstack
15:25:01 <bswartz> but devstack is just a wrapper around packstack on Fedora, if I'm not mistaken
15:25:09 <nileshb> mainly .. we are having issues with Manila networking ..
15:25:12 <vponomaryov> deepakcs: devstack tested on ubuntu 12
15:25:37 <deepakcs> vponomaryov, ok next iwill use ubuntu, I favoured fedora since devstack worked nicely for me in my cinder contribs
15:25:38 <bswartz> Supporting Manila on Fedora and CentOS are high on my priority list
15:25:51 <bswartz> I think most of us use Ubuntu
15:26:10 <deepakcs> bswartz, vponomaryov frankly, the current issue is my nova VMs are just stuck at spawning.. and i don't think its a Manila issue
15:26:13 <bswartz> but we have several redhat folks -- it would be nice if we could make it run better on redhat-based distros
15:26:35 <deepakcs> bswartz, vponomaryov and i have asked for help in lists and IRCs, nothing much yet.. and i am debugging it :)
15:26:38 <bswartz> I think we also have a SuSE guy
15:26:52 <bswartz> dunno if he's here
15:27:00 <deepakcs> bswartz, maybe latest devstack on f20 is broken, will try ubuntu next
15:27:23 <deepakcs> nileshb, even before u can get to Manial networking were u able to get a nova VM running on latest f20 + devstack combo ?
15:27:28 <bswartz> deepakcs: did you use the [Manila] tag on the ML?
15:27:44 <bswartz> or was your question specific to nova?
15:28:02 <deepakcs> bswartz, No, as it was nova specific
15:28:06 <bswartz> oh okay
15:28:16 <bswartz> well please make noise if you're blocked getting manila up and running
15:28:23 <bswartz> we might not be able to help but we want to if we can
15:28:29 <deepakcs> bswartz, I was able to up Manila services using devstack+f20, but unable to do mcuh useful as Nova is acting werid
15:28:31 <deepakcs> *weird
15:28:46 <bswartz> okay so that was a bit of a tangent
15:29:03 <bswartz> anything else on the topic of incubation requirements?
15:29:32 <bswartz> #topic dev status
15:30:01 <vponomaryov> Dev status:
15:30:15 <vponomaryov> 1) Force-delete admin action (API)
15:30:15 <vponomaryov> bp: #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/manila/+spec/manila-client-enhancements
15:30:15 <vponomaryov> client: #link https://review.openstack.org/97432
15:30:15 <vponomaryov> server: #link https://review.openstack.org/97480
15:30:15 <vponomaryov> status: waiting for review
15:30:27 <vponomaryov> 2) Share server backend details
15:30:27 <vponomaryov> bp: #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/manila/+spec/implement-backend-details-in-drivers
15:30:27 <vponomaryov> generic: #link https://review.openstack.org/97263
15:30:27 <vponomaryov> cmode: #link https://review.openstack.org/98069
15:30:27 <vponomaryov> status: work in progress
15:30:37 <vponomaryov> 3) Sync common code from oslo
15:30:37 <vponomaryov> bp: #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/manila/+spec/update-oslo-code
15:30:37 <vponomaryov> server: #link https://review.openstack.org/97767
15:30:37 <vponomaryov> client: #link https://review.openstack.org/98088
15:30:37 <vponomaryov> status: waiting for review
15:31:09 <vponomaryov> 4) Common improvements:
15:31:09 <vponomaryov> client:
15:31:09 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/97493
15:31:09 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/98061
15:31:09 <vponomaryov> server:
15:31:10 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/97895
15:31:10 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/97471
15:31:11 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/98051
15:31:11 <vponomaryov> #link https://review.openstack.org/98107
15:31:29 <vponomaryov> that's all for dev status
15:31:39 <bswartz> wow
15:31:43 <bswartz> that's a lot of stuff waiting for review
15:32:18 <bswartz> as always please help out with reviews
15:32:28 * bswartz is directing that comment at himself too
15:32:54 <vponomaryov> bswartz: at least those ones that have +2 already
15:33:26 <bswartz> anyone have questions on this stuff?
15:34:10 * deepakcs yet to start reviewing stuff... stuck w/ devpt setup :( hope it gets resolved soon
15:34:29 <bswartz> #topic open discussion
15:34:51 <bswartz> okay so can anyone confirm that devstack wraps around packstack on Fedora?
15:35:08 <bswartz> I know that's the case on RHEL
15:35:17 <bswartz> and packstack is pretty awesome from what I hear
15:35:18 <deepakcs> bswartz, i don't think so, but not 100% sure
15:36:10 <bswartz> rushil, ameade, lgreg_1: any of you setup devstack and/or packstack on RHEL or Fedora before?
15:36:16 <deepakcs> bswartz, qucik google search says it doesnt use packstack
15:36:30 <deepakcs> readhat RDO uses packstack
15:36:40 <deepakcs> and hence all redhat distros will use packstack by default
15:36:46 <bswartz> I'd like to get to the bottom of that and find out where the gap is
15:36:57 <ameade> bswartz: mm prolly a long time ago...so i'm no help
15:37:19 <deepakcs> bswartz, devstack checks out git repos and start AIO using that. packstack on the other hand IIRC uses rpms
15:37:42 <rraja> bswartz: csaba and I plan to put up a pretty detailed technical draft on how we plan to implement the gateway mediated ganesha driver by next week so that other folks can help us.
15:37:58 <bswartz> rraja: that's awesome
15:38:05 <bswartz> rraja: you run on redhat don't you?
15:38:33 <rraja> bswartz: I use F20.
15:38:38 <bswartz> rraja: do you have any idea what we need to do to make it easier for new people to get manila running on fedora?
15:39:18 <rraja> bswartz: i'll update the dev document link that deepakcs posted and also add the same for ubuntu
15:39:27 <bswartz> rraja: it would be great if you could help out deepakcs
15:39:31 <bswartz> okay great
15:39:44 <bswartz> anything else from anybody?
15:39:46 <nileshb> yeah .. any document to understand the whole process end-to-end would be of great help
15:40:18 <bswartz> nileshb: you've seen the existing wiki docs right?
15:40:26 <bswartz> nileshb: what do you feel is missing?
15:40:55 <ewindisch_> bswartz: I’m looking at moving the nova volume mounting code into a library — and I’m wondering how much that might intersect with Manilla’s interests (it has an NFS driver, for instance).
15:41:21 <bswartz> ewindisch_: are you coordinating with the cinder folks on that?
15:41:23 <nileshb> I referred https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/docs/Manila_Developer_Setup_Fedora19
15:41:28 <bswartz> ewindisch_: that sounds like brick tbh
15:41:29 <ewindisch_> bswartz: yes
15:41:59 <rraja> nileshb: the link is pretty outdated - lagging behind by a few months.
15:42:03 <ewindisch_> bswartz: and yes, it’s related, although jgriffith wasn’t too sure what the status of brick is.
15:42:24 <bswartz> ewindisch_: so cinder has a very different use case than manila -- but there are many cases where they interract
15:42:25 <nileshb> any latest one?
15:42:30 <bswartz> I gave a talk about that in Atlanta
15:42:34 <ewindisch_> bswartz: anyway, I presume there is overlap with manilla here
15:42:51 <bswartz> ewindisch_: if I had to guess I would say probably not
15:43:03 <bswartz> ewindisch_: nova is going to act as an NFS client and Manila is all about NFS servers
15:43:08 <bswartz> so there's no overlap
15:43:20 <bswartz> but maybe I'm wrong
15:43:49 <ewindisch_> bswartz: I was referring to the client-side, but anwyay we can offline it. Just stating my interest.
15:44:08 <bswartz> okay so by next week let's hope for some updates to our docs to help newbies get started faster
15:44:34 <bswartz> and anyone who's having trouble, please reach out in the channel and we'll find solutions
15:44:42 <bswartz> any last things?
15:44:46 <deepakcs> bswartz, lets hope so :) i already checked with rraja and csaba, i think it worked for them in the past, i am using latest devsatck and seems it has issues
15:45:26 <bswartz> alright thanks all
15:45:37 <deepakcs> thanks bswartz
15:45:40 <vponomaryov> thanks
15:45:44 <xyang1> thanks
15:45:44 <bswartz> #endmeeting