18:03:34 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:03:35 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Mar 12 18:03:34 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:03:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:03:38 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:03:57 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#March_12th_2015
18:04:26 <SumitNaiksatam> so i tweaked the meeting format a wee bit and added a “standing items” agenda at the top
18:04:38 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Standing_items
18:04:46 <yapeng> hello
18:04:59 <SumitNaiksatam> yapeng: hemanthravi rkukura: hi
18:05:10 <hemanthravi> hi
18:05:11 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: hi
18:05:19 <SumitNaiksatam> we can add/delete from the standing items as necessary
18:05:19 <yapeng> the meeting time has changed?
18:05:31 <SumitNaiksatam> yapeng: daylight savings
18:05:47 <SumitNaiksatam> UTC time has not changed
18:05:54 <rkukura> yapeng: Its UTC time hasn’t changed
18:06:01 <yapeng> SumitNaiksatam: oh, i forgot this :)
18:06:25 <SumitNaiksatam> yapeng: i sent out a reminder email, but i think i forgot to add you and Yi, apologies
18:06:35 <SumitNaiksatam> #info Kilo-2 is March 16th
18:07:06 <SumitNaiksatam> with that lets quickly run through the standing agenda items
18:07:13 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:08:01 <SumitNaiksatam> I have not posted the new stable/juno yes because we still have some reviews pending which targeted for this
18:08:04 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy/kilo-bug-squash
18:08:43 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i believe ivar-lazzaro had comments on each of your two patches
18:09:41 <rkukura> yes, on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161619/, he wanted me to change the UT approach
18:10:15 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, so once we wrap up these two bugs, and backport, i think we can cut the new stable
18:10:20 <rkukura> And just a nit on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161968/
18:10:39 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i will look out for the new patches (other cores please look out as well)
18:10:45 <rkukura> Changing the UTs would take me some time - probably next week
18:11:26 <rkukura> With neutron kilo-3 coming up, I need to prioritize that right now
18:12:09 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ivar-lazzaro: is there any middle ground on this? i would hate to delay the stable/juno even further
18:12:32 <rkukura> I’d think we could file a bug to improve the UT later
18:12:46 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, ivar-lazzaro does that work for you?
18:13:31 <ivar-lazzaro> sure
18:13:31 <rkukura> I could also add a REVISIT comment in the current UT
18:13:42 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: either one works for me
18:14:04 <rkukura> I’ll respin both patches today, adding the REVISIT and fixing the nit.
18:14:21 <SumitNaiksatam> great, lets try to close this today, and the backport by tomorrow, so i can cut the new stable/juno over the weekend
18:14:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks!
18:14:33 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: sounds good
18:14:48 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont think the bug which magesh-gv has is critical for the backport
18:15:04 <SumitNaiksatam> okay, any other bugs that we need to discuss today?
18:15:23 <SumitNaiksatam> i just noticed that the links i have posted for the bug categories are not working any more, will fix
18:15:38 <SumitNaiksatam> i meant links in the meetings page
18:16:04 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Functional/Integration Tests
18:16:43 <SumitNaiksatam> may be i will spend a couple of mins here explaining to the team what we need to do
18:17:33 <SumitNaiksatam> first we need to configur an openstack-infra gate job such that it will trigger a run on every patch-set (just like we have pep8 and py27 UT jobs today)
18:17:39 <SumitNaiksatam> for this i had posted the patch:
18:17:46 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161511
18:18:04 <SumitNaiksatam> still waiting for reviews on that
18:18:27 <SumitNaiksatam> currently this is being proposed as an experimental job
18:18:51 <SumitNaiksatam> which means it will not run automatically, you would have to do a “check experimental” to trigger it
18:19:20 <SumitNaiksatam> once we are comfortable that the job works as desired, we will make it voting on all patches
18:19:48 <SumitNaiksatam> for this job to run, we need to implement pre- and post-job hooks in GBP as well
18:20:05 <SumitNaiksatam> i have posted a patch for this in GBP: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161532
18:20:21 <SumitNaiksatam> the above scripts are to help customize the job for GBP
18:20:51 <SumitNaiksatam> the job can trigger all kinds of functional and tempest tests
18:21:06 <ivar-lazzaro> nice
18:21:30 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnub is working on adapting his test suite such that the job will run those tests
18:21:54 <SumitNaiksatam> i would characterize those tests more in the functional category
18:22:03 <SumitNaiksatam> we still need the tempest tests
18:22:37 <SumitNaiksatam> good development here is that other projects have started moving their tempest tests from the tempest repo to the individual project repos
18:22:49 <SumitNaiksatam> so there is some precedence that we can use
18:23:02 <SumitNaiksatam> in terms of how this is done, and how the tempest lib is used
18:23:13 <SumitNaiksatam> of course, we need to write the tempest tests as well
18:23:29 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Are tempest-speciifc clients required, or can we use python-gbpclient?
18:24:17 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i am not clear on that level of detail, but i believe tempest used to have a client wrapper inside to make rest calls?
18:24:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i dont think that has changed
18:24:46 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: That’s what I was refering to
18:25:23 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so good point, we need someone to do this investigation, and hence...
18:25:33 <SumitNaiksatam> any volunteers to work on this? ;-)
18:25:53 <SumitNaiksatam> this is a critical area of the project, and will need ongoing effort and committment
18:26:08 <SumitNaiksatam> we dont have to decide here, but please let me know if you would like to pitch in
18:26:35 <SumitNaiksatam> as it stands, this is the responsibility of the entire team - so if you write a new feature, you sign up to write the tempest tests for that as well!
18:26:57 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: +1 on that
18:27:08 <SumitNaiksatam> of course, we need to have the framework in place first, but assuming we have that
18:27:16 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: ack
18:27:51 <SumitNaiksatam> any questions, on the above?
18:28:35 <SumitNaiksatam> this aspect has been top of mind for a long time, but we really have to get this done now, and we will track the progress on a weekly basis
18:29:07 <SumitNaiksatam> okay moving on :-)
18:29:20 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging update
18:29:29 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: anything significant to report?
18:29:53 <SumitNaiksatam> we already discussed the stable branches
18:29:58 <rkukura> nothing recent - plan to update fedora and RDO once the stable/juno release happens
18:30:07 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ah so one more on that
18:30:19 <SumitNaiksatam> i notice susaant is here too
18:30:33 <SumitNaiksatam> we owe susaant at least three reviews on the heat/automation side
18:30:43 <SumitNaiksatam> and couple of those are backport-worthy
18:31:01 <SumitNaiksatam> susaant: apologies, i believe you have been patiently waiting for almost a month now
18:31:24 <susaant> SumitNaiksatam: Not a problem.
18:31:27 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so we will need to include those in the stable/juno for gbp-automation
18:31:35 <SumitNaiksatam> i will coordinate with susaant today and tomorrow
18:31:48 <SumitNaiksatam> susaant: thanks!
18:31:54 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Docs
18:31:55 <rkukura> Will we be releasing for all 4 repos?
18:32:04 <SumitNaiksatam> #undo
18:32:06 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x90890d0>
18:32:13 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes
18:32:17 <rkukura> thanks
18:32:29 <SumitNaiksatam> i have a patch that i need to post on UI side that i have been sitting on
18:32:46 <SumitNaiksatam> so we need to get that reviewed and merged as well
18:33:00 <SumitNaiksatam> phew!
18:33:38 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Docs
18:33:57 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont have anything specific on this for today, but i wanted to note this as a standing agenda item
18:34:23 <SumitNaiksatam> over course of time we need to track that each feature is documented (just like tempest test support)
18:34:53 <SumitNaiksatam> btw, if you haven’t noticed already, we do have in-tree documentation:
18:34:56 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://github.com/stackforge/group-based-policy/tree/master/doc/source
18:35:24 <SumitNaiksatam> would really appreciate more feedback on this and  feel free to propose patches to edit/update this
18:36:22 <SumitNaiksatam> now coming to the agenda items specifically for today
18:36:36 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic GBP Project Proposal
18:36:44 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161902/
18:36:57 <SumitNaiksatam> per discussion in last meeting, we went ahead and put forward the proposal
18:37:12 <SumitNaiksatam> please read and feel free to comment
18:37:26 <SumitNaiksatam> it should not surprise any one, since its mostly what we have been discussing all along
18:38:34 <SumitNaiksatam> i changed this to WIP earlier today since there were some comments, and it was felt that we should address them before proposal gets discussed in the TC meeting
18:38:51 <SumitNaiksatam> any thoughts on the above?
18:39:51 <SumitNaiksatam> one of the things that we needed to do was to have the PTL elections
18:39:56 <rkukura> Are we going to wait for temest-based gate tests before removing WIP?
18:40:41 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: at this point i think we would want the gate job to be running
18:41:05 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Do you mean the current no-op test?
18:41:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i do not believe this is an explicit requirement though
18:41:23 <hemanthravi> is that the only reqmt for removing wip
18:41:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: perhaps more than just the no-op test :-)
18:41:48 <ivar-lazzaro> hemanthravi: I think the PTL election is another one
18:41:51 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: we have proactively put this into WIP
18:42:09 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: true
18:42:36 <SumitNaiksatam> though even on that we did not get -1
18:42:37 <ivar-lazzaro> Those seem reasonable requirements to me
18:43:08 <SumitNaiksatam> since there is no prior precedence of PTL elections for stackforge projects
18:43:13 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yeah
18:43:20 <SumitNaiksatam> hence we proactively put into WIP
18:43:38 <SumitNaiksatam> does everyone agree with the approach, or have other suggestions?
18:43:40 <ivar-lazzaro> That's what we are here for right? setting precedents ;)
18:43:48 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: nice one! ;-)
18:44:15 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: to your question, i dont know
18:44:47 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: this is an evolving topic, so if you see the TC meeting last week, there were a number of things which came up during the discussion of the Magnum proposal
18:45:06 <SumitNaiksatam> though to the best of my knowledge there are not new requirements, yet
18:45:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe the TC will evaluate a few more proposals in the next meeting, and take if from there
18:45:59 <SumitNaiksatam> we are running behind schedule today
18:46:22 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic GBP PTL elections
18:46:24 <SumitNaiksatam> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/058783.html
18:47:00 <SumitNaiksatam> there is one candidate so far: #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/058925.html
18:47:22 <SumitNaiksatam> I expect the wiki page: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy/PTL_Elections_Kilo_Liberty
18:47:33 <SumitNaiksatam> to be updated with the list of candidates and the results
18:48:10 <SumitNaiksatam> if you have a commit in the GBP project, you get to vote
18:48:29 <SumitNaiksatam> anye questions/comments on the above?
18:48:50 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Do you know when the polling starts/ends?
18:49:10 <ivar-lazzaro> --> March 17, 2015 - 1300 UTC March 24, 2015: PTL elections
18:49:12 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i think its mentioned on the wiki, i believe starts on march 18th, ends on march 24th
18:49:21 <SumitNaiksatam> oh march 17th then
18:49:27 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: thanks
18:49:47 <rkukura> I see - thanks
18:50:05 <SumitNaiksatam> moving on
18:50:08 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Re-factor Group Based Policy with Neutron RESTful APIs
18:50:18 <SumitNaiksatam> i know yapeng and Yi are patiently waiting
18:50:30 <SumitNaiksatam> so we spent significant amount of time on the reviews yesterday
18:50:38 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: and rkukura thanks for the reviews
18:50:52 <SumitNaiksatam> Yi: and yapeng thanks for your time and indulging as well
18:51:08 <SumitNaiksatam> Yi: yapeng do we need to discuss anything today, or are you good?
18:51:28 <yapeng> thanks for all the comments. I think we are all good for now
18:51:28 <Yi> SumitNaiksatam: I am good here
18:51:29 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159725, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156776, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156856
18:51:40 <SumitNaiksatam> yapeng: Yi: sweet
18:51:53 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Floating IP support
18:52:12 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh-gv has been sick for the past couple of days, so he is not able to make it
18:52:22 <SumitNaiksatam> he still working on this though, and has sent an update
18:53:02 <SumitNaiksatam> he says - “For floating IP support I am going ahead with Nat Pool and use admin context to do the floating IP create and attach in single step. “
18:53:34 <SumitNaiksatam> he also says - “The ability to specify floating IP in create operation is added recently only.” (he is referring to Neutron)
18:54:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i was not sure about the later
18:54:15 <SumitNaiksatam> so need to follow up with him
18:54:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: if you are familiar with the changes there, please respond to the email thread
18:55:05 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I’m not, so will need to investigate a bit
18:55:10 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:55:20 <SumitNaiksatam> i will skip task flow investigation for today
18:55:29 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Cross Project Liaisons
18:56:20 <SumitNaiksatam> as we are growing, and aspire to enhance our interaction with other OpenStack projects, we need to have people who will take lead on these
18:57:37 <SumitNaiksatam> at the very least, we need to track the meeting logs of some the other projects we depend on, or have interlocks
18:58:16 <SumitNaiksatam> so four projects come to mind upfront
18:58:24 <SumitNaiksatam> oslo, neutron, keystone and nova
18:58:42 <rkukura> heat and horizon?
18:58:54 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: you bet, sorry i missed those
18:59:02 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I’d consider oslo and/or nova
18:59:18 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: great, thanks
18:59:32 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i thought you would want to look at neutron since you are deeply involved :-)
18:59:48 <rkukura> :(
19:00:09 <SumitNaiksatam> of course, anyone can look at any project, but we want one go-to person
19:00:18 <SumitNaiksatam> so rkukura for oslo and nova
19:00:19 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I’m lucky to keep up with just ML2 in neutron
19:00:25 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: :-)
19:00:40 <SumitNaiksatam> let me know if you have interest in other areas
19:00:45 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
19:01:01 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: had an excellent suggestion that we should plan the mid-cycle code sprint
19:01:08 <rkukura> I have one item
19:01:17 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: please go ahead
19:01:50 <rkukura> Given that neutron has postponed the pecan BP post-kilo, should we consider having our master track neutron master, at least until we become a standalone server?
19:02:46 <rkukura> Couple of benefits:
19:02:57 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: that requires some refactoring as well (although it's not the same amount of work)
19:03:02 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: absolutely, we have to do that
19:03:08 <rkukura> 1) We’ll be ready to take advantage of kilo features, especially the subnet pools
19:03:15 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: that is a major item on to-do list
19:03:43 <rkukura> 2) fedora rawhide, RDO, and probably other distros are packaging kilo, and we get left out for now
19:04:24 <rkukura> 3) tracking only juno could come up during project proposal review
19:04:27 <rkukura> thats all
19:04:34 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: agree
19:04:47 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: and that is a kilo item we have to accomplish
19:05:01 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we just need to figure out the right sequence of refactor activities
19:05:12 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: lets discuss on this, and get this rolling at the earliest
19:05:22 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh-gv also brought this up in his email
19:05:46 <SumitNaiksatam> regarding the code-sprint i am thinking end of March/beginning of April
19:05:48 <rkukura> I’m not saying we should postpone becoming standalone beyond our kilo, but if that happens, we are probably better of tracking kilo now than just at the end
19:06:02 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I'll be in Italy at that time :)
19:06:05 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: absolutely
19:06:08 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: oops
19:06:26 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay, lets coordinate in #openstack-gbp then
19:06:30 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: however I can attend remotely, no problems
19:06:47 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: +1
19:06:55 <SumitNaiksatam> we need to get all the specs sorted out before we get to code sprint
19:07:14 <SumitNaiksatam> i noticed that nbouthors also joined earlier
19:07:22 <SumitNaiksatam> not sure if he had an update
19:07:26 <rkukura> I’d be willing to travel for a sprint, but 1st week of April wouldn’t work for me I think
19:07:46 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ah okay, lets coordinate, i just wanted to throw in the idea
19:08:03 <SumitNaiksatam> okay i will sync up with nbouthors offline
19:08:05 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks all
19:08:09 <SumitNaiksatam> bye
19:08:14 <ivar-lazzaro> ciaoooo
19:08:18 <rkukura> bye
19:08:34 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting