02:00:56 <zhenguo> #startmeeting mogan
02:00:57 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug  3 02:00:56 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is zhenguo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
02:00:58 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
02:01:00 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'mogan'
02:01:45 <zhenguo> liusheng, shaohe_feng, wanghao, litao, Xinran, zhangyang: o/
02:01:50 <zhangyang> o/
02:01:56 <liusheng> o/
02:02:19 <Xinran> o/
02:02:58 <zhenguo> as always, the agenda:
02:02:58 <zhenguo> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Mogan#Agenda_for_next_meeting
02:03:06 <zhenguo> let's jump in
02:03:13 <zhenguo> #topic announcements and reminders
02:03:25 <zhenguo> Our gate job is not running nova services now!
02:03:42 <zhenguo> and there's a patch to update the recommended devstack config file
02:03:51 <zhenguo> you can restack your env to have a try:D
02:04:35 <liusheng> cool
02:04:49 <zhenguo> hah
02:05:01 <zhenguo> another thing is the keyword of our CLI
02:05:23 <zhenguo> how about replacing 'baremetal' wit 'bm'?
02:05:30 <zhenguo> we have to change it soon
02:06:01 <zhenguo> I don't like 'baremetal compute' or 'baremetal management', as it's long
02:06:55 <liusheng> zhenguo: yes, but I am not sure if there is a concept of OSC "namespace" ?
02:07:24 <zhenguo> liusheng: seems not, but we should avoid collision
02:08:06 <liusheng> zhenguo: for Neutron, there are: openstack network xxx, openstack subnet xxx, openstack router xxx, seems OSC we only need to care about the resources
02:08:07 <zhenguo> liusheng: and some operators complain that, when typing 'baremetal' they think it's ironic command
02:08:52 <zhenguo> liusheng: yes, but we should avoid collisions
02:09:17 <zhenguo> liusheng: we introduce node notion in mogan, how to handle 'openstack baremetal node list'
02:10:20 <zhenguo> liusheng: and they think 'server' and 'node' are synonym
02:11:08 <litao__> I am here
02:11:15 <liusheng> liusheng: hmmm.. hard to choice
02:11:22 <zhenguo> litao__: o/
02:11:31 <zhenguo> liusheng: yes
02:12:14 <liusheng> zhenguo: but bm it also a bit unclear
02:12:44 <zhenguo> liusheng: why? as my understand it's just like vm
02:13:32 <liusheng> zhenguo: OSC don't has abbreviation like this
02:14:24 <liusheng> zhenguo: how about baremachine, hah
02:14:44 <zhenguo> liusheng: it's not readable
02:14:53 <zhenguo> liusheng: I never seen that word
02:15:12 <liusheng> zhenguo: just gooled it, there are many usages
02:15:18 <zhenguo> liusheng: oh seems yes
02:15:59 <wanghao> zhenguo: I just changed the Zaqar service with 'messaging', so I think we could use 'bare-managing'?
02:16:10 <liusheng> zhenguo: s/gooled/googled
02:16:47 <litao__> liusheng: lol
02:17:00 <zhenguo> I find ZUN choose something like containerapp as containers is used by others
02:17:04 <liusheng> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_machine
02:18:01 <liusheng> zhenguo: in wikipage, baremachine is like another name of baremetal
02:18:11 <zhenguo> liusheng: seems yes
02:18:33 <liusheng> zhenguo: "bare metal" redirects here. For other uses, see bare metal (disambiguation).
02:19:56 <zhenguo> so baremachine is '裸机' and baremetal is '裸金属' in chinese, lol
02:20:21 <liusheng> zhenguo: hah, yes
02:20:52 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: morning. sorry for late
02:20:59 <litao__> Using two names for one thing is strange
02:21:00 <wanghao> zhenguo: I think for most of  chinese users,  they are same
02:21:29 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: in another meeting. just rush to office for mogan
02:21:32 <zhenguo> as we just the same thing
02:21:39 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: hah
02:22:36 <zhenguo> baremachine is a good alternative in my opinion
02:23:02 <liusheng> if is baremachine a bit more meaning "provisioned baremetal server" than baremetal of "unprovisioned baremetal server" ?
02:23:41 <zhenguo> liusheng: as the wiki said, it's for just hardware without operating system
02:23:53 <liusheng> zhenguo: hah
02:24:24 <zhenguo> baremetal and baremachine with the same meaning
02:25:07 <liusheng> seems yes
02:26:06 <zhenguo> wanghao, litao__: if you think two keyword for same thing is strange how about 'baremetal compute' or 'baremetal management'
02:26:51 <wanghao> zhenguo: I prefer to just use one word 'baremetal'
02:26:55 <liusheng> zhenguo: that is still with a prefix word of "barmetal" which is same with baremetal
02:27:17 <wanghao> zhenguo: sorry,  I didn't get that why we need to change the baremetal?
02:27:17 <liusheng> zhenguo: same with Ironic
02:27:33 <litao__> I agree the prefix ‘baremetal’
02:27:50 <zhenguo> wanghao: I asked on the mailing list before, they prefer us to change
02:28:02 <wanghao> ....
02:28:30 <wanghao> it  conflict with others now?
02:28:49 <wanghao> Ironic?
02:28:52 <zhenguo> wanghao: not now, but after we introduced the node notion, it conflicts with ironic
02:29:25 <wanghao> okay I see
02:30:10 <zhenguo> https://openstack.nimeyo.com/113997/openstack-dev-osc-ironic-mogan-share-same-keyword-baremetal
02:30:58 <wanghao> if we use 'baremachine',  it's also hard to distinguish for users.
02:32:25 <wanghao> how about use 'bare_computing' ?
02:33:03 <litao__> wanghao: yes, zhenguo give us two advice “baremeal compute ”， “baremetal management”， which is better?
02:33:52 <zhenguo> wanghao: not sure if bare computing is readable
02:34:33 <wanghao> zhenguo:  then I prefer baremetal compute
02:34:41 <wanghao> litao__: emm, sure
02:35:01 <zhenguo> ok, maybe we shoult vote it during next meeting :D
02:35:12 <zhenguo> or we can discuss this more later
02:35:13 <liusheng> wanghao: seems in OSC, there is little word with a "_"
02:35:32 <zhenguo> we have many topics to discuss :D
02:35:38 <wanghao> liusheng: emm yes
02:35:41 <litao__> zhenguo:yes
02:35:48 <zhenguo> let's move on?
02:35:51 <wanghao> okay
02:36:09 <zhenguo> do we still have 'review hour'?
02:36:20 <zhenguo> seems it's silently disappeared :D
02:37:16 <zhenguo> here I want to emphasize the importance of 'reviews', we can't move along without 'reviews'.
02:37:37 <liusheng> sigh, cannot ensure eveyboday are available at that period
02:37:58 <zhenguo> yes, but I would like everybody have a own 'review hour'
02:38:26 <zhenguo> at least for cores, we should make an hour for reviewing everyday
02:38:33 <liusheng> yes, sure
02:39:12 <zhenguo> and we will add or remove core reviewers mostly based on that
02:39:55 <zhenguo> patches are always lack of review in openstack, but we can improve it in mogan, as we are all in the same time zone now
02:40:38 <zhenguo> so please feel free to ping others for reviewing if needed
02:40:56 <zhenguo> Contribution into mogan for the last 30 days
02:40:56 <zhenguo> #link http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/mogan/30
02:41:45 <zhenguo> #link http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/mogan/90
02:42:20 <zhenguo> ok, thanks everyone for the contribution
02:42:33 <zhenguo> not much of announcement, anyone else have a thing here?
02:42:46 <litao__> zhenguo: should we discuss how to define the adoption API?
02:42:58 <zhenguo> litao__: in the next topic :D
02:43:04 <zhenguo> #topic task tracking
02:43:14 <litao__> zhenguo: OK
02:43:30 <zhenguo> #links https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MoganWhiteBoard
02:43:37 <zhenguo> looks like things are moving along nicely
02:44:08 <zhenguo> seems most codes are done
02:45:08 <zhenguo> when reviewing, please also take specs and client patches into account :D
02:46:09 <zhenguo> for adoping running servers, seems the API pattern is not very good
02:46:38 <litao__> zhenguo: yes
02:46:40 <zhenguo> litao__, wanghao: I find cinder add a new URI /manageable_volumes
02:46:57 <zhenguo> and GET/POST it for listing and managing
02:47:18 <liusheng> litao__: do you have api-ref patch of adoption ?
02:47:53 <zhenguo> seems not yet
02:48:00 <litao__> zhenguo: not recently
02:48:14 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: do you have some suggestion for the API defination
02:48:43 <litao__> liusheng: I will commit a patch if we ensure the format
02:49:13 <zhenguo> liusheng: it's something like POST /servers/adopt
02:49:14 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: which API? let me check
02:49:26 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: the adopting running servers API
02:49:46 <liusheng> zhenguo: got it.
02:49:53 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: we need to list adoptable/manageable servers
02:49:58 <litao__> shaohe_feng: Currently ,I using POST v1/servers/adopt
02:50:12 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: then an API to adopt/manage it
02:50:18 <liusheng> zhenguo, litao__ wanghao how about add new resource and a new controller
02:50:31 <zhenguo> liusheng: yes, tha't what I suggested
02:50:37 <zhenguo> liusheng: it's like what cinder does
02:50:39 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: list why use POST?
02:51:04 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: that's adopt, we have two APi
02:51:39 <liusheng> zhenguo: we can list/post with the adoptable servers, not sure if we can support other methods, like delete
02:52:01 <zhenguo> liusheng: seems we can
02:52:07 <zhenguo> liusheng: unmanage servers
02:52:15 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: adopt is the status of servers?
02:52:27 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: no
02:52:28 <litao__> zhenguo: Maybe we will add other actions like delete later
02:52:42 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: just creat a new server from the running node
02:52:51 <litao__> zhenguo: So we need a new resource
02:53:00 <zhenguo> litao__; yes
02:53:33 <shaohe_feng> zhenguo: OK, let me see.
02:53:34 <liusheng> litao__: yes, a new controller and resource with  POST/GET/DELETE methods
02:53:36 <zhenguo> another thing is whether adoptable and manageable is better
02:54:25 <litao__> Ironic uses adopt, so i think adoptable is better
02:54:41 <litao__> zhenguo:
02:54:44 <zhenguo> litao__: cinder use manage unmanage
02:55:16 <zhenguo> litao__: maybe that's more generiic?
02:56:10 <zhenguo> and for unmanage, seems there's not a 'unadopt'
02:56:17 <litao__> zhenguo: you mean manage and unmanage?
02:56:24 <zhenguo> litao__: yes
02:56:26 <liusheng> there is not much time left :)
02:56:38 <zhenguo> how time flies..
02:56:56 <litao__> zhenguo: yes,
02:57:23 <zhenguo> ok, we can continue this disucssion later, but I prefer manage than adopt
02:57:35 <litao__> zhenguo: Ok
02:57:46 <shaohe_feng> no antonym for adopt :)
02:58:07 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng: hah, and manage seems more generic
02:58:23 <litao__> zhenguo: If others have no idea, we use manage currently
02:58:47 <zhenguo> litao__: ok, and need to upadte the specs
02:58:54 <zhenguo> shaohe_feng, liusheng: wdyt?
02:59:08 <liusheng> zhenguo: yes, I also prefer manage
02:59:32 <litao__> OK, that's all
02:59:49 <zhenguo> ok, then add a patch to update the spec, then we can discuss more there
02:59:58 <zhenguo> it's almost time
03:00:19 <zhenguo> thanks all for joining the meeting!
03:00:24 <zhenguo> #endmeeting