18:03:14 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:03:15 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct 15 18:03:14 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:03:16 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:03:19 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:03:57 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Oct_15th_2015
18:04:19 <SumitNaiksatam> lets start with the packaging
18:04:26 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging
18:04:47 <SumitNaiksatam> there was an issue with CLI/client compatibility with RHEL OSP 6
18:05:17 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Is this the same issue as with the Fedora juno package?
18:05:27 <SumitNaiksatam> our stable/juno does not work with the the distro since the distro uses a different version of the libs
18:05:33 <SumitNaiksatam> that we dependent on
18:05:37 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes, same issue
18:06:27 <SumitNaiksatam> here is the fix for it: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/235037
18:06:52 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Your patch looks reasonable, but I haven’t had a chance to test it
18:06:52 <SumitNaiksatam> we try to get the client to work in both cases by conditionally importing
18:06:58 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay np
18:07:14 <SumitNaiksatam> so jishnu tested this on RHEL OSP 6 installation
18:07:39 <SumitNaiksatam> and the compatibility with stable/juno is tested by this patch:
18:07:57 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/235045/
18:08:29 <SumitNaiksatam> * tested that the compatibility is stable/juno is preserved
18:09:11 <SumitNaiksatam> if the approach looks fine, we will need to get it merged at the earliest
18:09:43 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: over to you now for the packaging, any updates that you want to share?
18:11:13 <rkukura> Nothing new - my next step on this is to test that the f22 (juno) and f23 (kilo) packages install successfully on fedora installations that have never had other openstack pacakges installed on them.
18:11:28 <rkukura> I should be able to do this today or tomorrow.
18:11:56 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:12:09 <rkukura> I’ll probably want to update the f22 python-gbpclient package to include release of Sumits fix
18:12:24 <rkukura> Then ask the Red Hat folks to pull them into RDO
18:12:46 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: at the appropriate please let me know when to release a new version of the juno client
18:13:02 <SumitNaiksatam> this will of course have to be after the above fix is merged in
18:13:24 <rkukura> Then I’ll do some RDO testing and update the wiki instructions, and let the Red Hat folks pull the f23 RDO pacakge into delorean
18:13:40 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:13:53 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: right - as soon as it merges, I guess, unless we have other CLI patches in the pipeline
18:14:08 <SumitNaiksatam> okay so talking about CLI patches...
18:14:25 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: if you are done with that update, I can switch to the CLI topic
18:14:27 <SumitNaiksatam> ?
18:14:41 <rkukura> that all from me
18:14:45 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks!
18:14:56 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic CLI changes to improve usability
18:15:04 <SumitNaiksatam> there is this other patch i have posted:
18:15:19 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/234156
18:15:32 <SumitNaiksatam> it addresses a bunch of related things
18:16:00 <SumitNaiksatam> so if we are releasing a new version of the client, i would like to get the above in that version as well
18:16:26 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: makes sense to me
18:16:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:17:02 <SumitNaiksatam> so i have requested folks in the team to test this out
18:17:06 <SumitNaiksatam> and also requesting you here
18:17:47 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so lets coordinate on reviewing, validating and merging of these two patches
18:18:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: say by end of tomorrow
18:18:19 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: and then you can take it from there for generating the packages?
18:19:05 <rkukura> Sounds good
18:19:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:19:37 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Stackforge namespace retirement - Oct 17th
18:19:45 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Stackforge_Namespace_Retirement
18:20:03 <SumitNaiksatam> so i updated the above wiki when the notification was sent out
18:20:21 <SumitNaiksatam> the move itself will be automated
18:20:37 <SumitNaiksatam> at our end we need to modify all places where we need make this namespace change
18:21:59 <SumitNaiksatam> i just created a google doc here: #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vwycTgXFhwiGek0SFN9IAAypZuTaoUzVyeAVoOdUzUk/edit
18:22:46 <SumitNaiksatam> lets collect input on what places we need to update to accomodate this change
18:23:19 <SumitNaiksatam> the repo location changes, so our intgration jobs which clone the repos get affected
18:23:24 <SumitNaiksatam> and we will need to update those
18:23:46 <SumitNaiksatam> please add any other such items that you can think of
18:24:26 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: will the ex-stackforge projects get any special big tent tag?
18:24:45 <SumitNaiksatam> it will also be helpful if the cores can watch their emails over the weekend to quickly mege any patches that we will need to post adapt to this migration
18:24:58 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: not that i am aware of
18:25:10 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: If this changes the git repo URLs, I’ll need to update the RPM package specs.
18:25:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: at least not as a part of the migration
18:25:29 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:25:57 <rkukura> So it probably makes sense to do those updates in the f22 and f23 packages before they get cloned to RDO.
18:26:11 <SumitNaiksatam> any place where we are using http://*stackforge*/ will have to change
18:26:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yeah that makes sense
18:27:00 <rkukura> So probably no need to update the python-gbpclient package prior to that, right?
18:27:22 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:27:34 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so you can just locally test if my patch helps
18:27:48 <rkukura> I plan to do that, SumitNaiksatam
18:27:49 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: then lest merge the CLI/client changes
18:28:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: then lets wait for the namespace migration to happen
18:28:14 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: and any associated action that we need to take to support that
18:28:38 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: and once this is settled (lets say by monday), we can proceed with the package generation?
18:28:51 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:28:58 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:29:26 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else we need to discuss on this topic
18:29:51 <SumitNaiksatam> requesting everybody in the team to stay on watch for the next few days during this migration
18:30:04 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Your google doc does seem to allow write access
18:30:13 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: will do
18:30:23 <rkukura> s/does/does not/
18:30:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yeah its open to all, thanks!
18:30:29 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: oh
18:30:59 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sorry, fixed
18:31:10 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Node Composition Plugin/Driver/Plumber enhancements
18:31:42 <SumitNaiksatam> i think its time to move forward with merging the following two specs:
18:31:59 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228693 (Traffic stitching & Proxy Group spec)
18:32:20 <SumitNaiksatam> and #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203226/ (New Terminology and Implementation)
18:32:37 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: it seems like they are up-to-date
18:32:49 <ivar-lazzaro> yes
18:32:57 <ivar-lazzaro> so IIRC
18:33:10 <SumitNaiksatam> mageshgv: i know you were tracking these more carefully
18:33:17 <ivar-lazzaro> the only blueprint we are missing at this point is the one defining HA PTs
18:33:18 <SumitNaiksatam> mageshgv: can we move forward?
18:33:32 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i was just going to ask about that ;-)
18:33:37 <SumitNaiksatam> was the next thing
18:33:55 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I'll have a new blueprint on that
18:33:58 <SumitNaiksatam> but anyway, i think the above two can be merged since we also have the implementation
18:34:02 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay
18:34:04 <mageshgv> SumitNaiksatam: yes , the current specs are fine
18:34:05 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: doesn't really belong to any of the existing ones
18:34:13 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay
18:34:17 <SumitNaiksatam> mageshgv: ok good
18:34:43 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone else have any issues with the state of the above two specs (or the design proposed therein)?
18:34:59 <SumitNaiksatam> not sure if igordcard_ is here today
18:36:09 <SumitNaiksatam> okay probably not
18:36:41 <SumitNaiksatam> i had some minor grammar/typo related comments in the second spec but it does not have to wait for that
18:37:13 <SumitNaiksatam> implementation patches: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy+branch:master+topic:bp/node-centric-chain-plugin,n,z
18:37:35 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yesterday we reviewed and tried to merge a couple of the patches but there seemed to be merge conflicts
18:37:41 <SumitNaiksatam> can you take a look?
18:38:06 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I think one failed because it finished the gate job before its dependency
18:38:19 <ivar-lazzaro> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229614/
18:38:39 <SumitNaiksatam> sorry wrong topic link earlier: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy+branch:master+topic:bp/sg-managers-in-rmd,n,z
18:39:03 <ivar-lazzaro> not sure what happened to #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/227562/
18:39:11 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: right, but this one did not merge: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/227562/
18:39:25 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: FYI I just checked, and it does not seem the fedora spec files contain the git URLs, just the launchpad and tarball URLs, which I don’t believe are changing.
18:39:52 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: oh nice, yes those will not change
18:39:54 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ok I'll solve the conflict
18:39:57 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: definitely not the launchpad
18:40:24 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i ran into wierd merge conflicts in the last week or so
18:40:52 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i tried a few things but did not help, so i just locally rebased and posted another patchset
18:41:13 <SumitNaiksatam> unfortunately the merge log is not visible
18:41:22 <SumitNaiksatam> so difficult to tell what went wrong
18:42:01 <SumitNaiksatam> we will have to ask that tiny little birdie there ;-)
18:42:35 <ivar-lazzaro> I think it
18:42:39 <ivar-lazzaro> is fixed now
18:42:47 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: nice
18:43:24 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: oh so there were merge conflicts?
18:44:22 <ivar-lazzaro> yes, just a small thing in the apic mapping
18:44:34 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: ah okay
18:44:41 <ivar-lazzaro> but not on the first patch of the series
18:44:53 <ivar-lazzaro> which makes me wonder why that one failed to merge
18:46:06 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i thought you just rebased the first patch in the series which was failing to merge
18:46:32 <ivar-lazzaro> I always rebase the whole thing, that's my workflow
18:46:54 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yeah, and the merge conflict seems to be in the first patch which failed to merge
18:47:13 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: patchset 21 and 22 has a diff
18:47:46 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: that was done autocatically
18:47:50 <ivar-lazzaro> automatically*
18:47:53 <SumitNaiksatam> that aside, i think the three patches apart from #link https://review.openstack.org/229673 are good
18:47:55 <ivar-lazzaro> I haven't manually solved that
18:48:02 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay
18:48:26 <SumitNaiksatam> we can review merge https://review.openstack.org/229673 once the spec is posted
18:48:37 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: thanks for the update
18:48:46 <SumitNaiksatam> mageshgv: ivar-lazzaro: anything else to discuss on this today?
18:49:13 <mageshgv> SumitNaiksatam: nothing from my side
18:50:09 <SumitNaiksatam> mageshgv: okay
18:50:29 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:51:01 <SumitNaiksatam> so the high priority bug was this one #link https://review.openstack.org/232274
18:51:28 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks for working on this
18:51:42 <igordcard> hi, sorry, I couldn't get to the meeting in time today
18:51:49 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so now i think all rally tests are 100% except one
18:51:52 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard_: no worries
18:52:01 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard_: thanks for stopping by anyway
18:52:05 <ivar-lazzaro> igordcard: hi
18:52:19 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: is the one that is failing the one that ajay needed to tweak?
18:52:27 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Right, that test needs to be fixed to not use the default IP pool for multiple L3Ps for the same tenant.
18:52:36 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sweet!
18:53:14 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont think this patch needs to wait for ajay to fix that
18:53:35 <rkukura> agreed
18:53:45 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: mageshgv: if there are no objections, lets try to get #link https://review.openstack.org/232274 in asap
18:53:53 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:54:01 <mageshgv> SumitNaiksatamL okay
18:54:07 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i believe you have a follow up patch as well?
18:54:12 <ivar-lazzaro> I've pushed the apic side of the fix, was someone reproducing it on the apic driver?
18:54:47 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: not that i am aware of, perhaps you need to coordinate with jishnu
18:54:54 <ivar-lazzaro> ok
18:55:20 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: the other option is to merge and make this available in the local packages
18:55:30 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: and let them test it from that
18:55:42 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: assuming you feel confident of the fix ;-)
18:55:53 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I don't :)
18:55:58 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: lol
18:56:28 <SumitNaiksatam> any other critical bugs to discuss today?
18:56:51 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discusion
18:57:16 <SumitNaiksatam> No meeting next week since people will be preparing to travel to Tokyo
18:57:31 <SumitNaiksatam> and the week after we will be at the summit in Tokyo, so we will meet in person
18:57:54 <SumitNaiksatam> we can decide if we want to take a week’s break after the summit
18:58:15 <SumitNaiksatam> but at least for now, no IRC meeting in the next couple of weeks
18:58:22 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else we missed today?
18:58:29 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Are we scheduling any meetings at the summit?
18:58:48 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we definitely can in an informal way
18:59:02 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we dont have formal session rooms though
18:59:16 <rkukura> That was my understanding
18:59:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:59:43 <SumitNaiksatam> alright thanks everyone for joining
18:59:46 <SumitNaiksatam> and see you in Tokyo
18:59:49 <SumitNaiksatam> bye!
18:59:51 <igordcard_reconn> cya
18:59:57 <mageshgv> bye
19:00:02 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting