22:03:08 <armax> #startmeeting neutron_drivers
22:03:09 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep  1 22:03:08 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is armax. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:03:10 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:03:12 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'
22:03:46 <armax> I don’t have a formal agenda
22:04:06 <armax> this might turn out to be a short meeting
22:04:17 <amuller> We could go over features targeted for rc1?
22:04:26 <armax> if nothing else I’d like to draw people’s attention on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/360207/
22:04:42 <armax> amuller: it’s all blueprints :)
22:04:49 <armax> amuller: we completed 0 in N-3
22:04:54 <armax> 2 in N-2
22:04:57 <armax> 0 in N-1
22:05:43 <carl_baldwin> When you put it that way...
22:06:21 <armax> carl_baldwin: I suppose this one https://review.openstack.org/#/c/360207/2/specs/archive/mitaka/unaddressed-port.rst
22:06:22 * amuller is trying to find the silver lining
22:06:30 <armax> needs no renaming
22:06:39 <armax> but rather be targeted for Newton, is that right?
22:06:59 <amuller> we switched to native interfaces for ovsdb and openflow... I bet we did a lot of other stuff that wasn't tracked via RFE bugs or blueprints
22:07:02 <carl_baldwin> armax: right
22:07:11 <armax> carl_baldwin: ok I’ll fix that
22:07:30 <armax> HenryG: I still haven’t seen your notes and neither I have seen dougwig's
22:07:45 <armax> or amuller's
22:08:06 <armax> can I ask your help in making me draw an accurate picture?
22:08:13 <HenryG> armax: yeah, I'll get my notes added tomorrow
22:08:19 <armax> thanks
22:08:40 <amuller> armax: is the current list including all RFEs and all blueprints already?
22:08:56 <armax> amuller: yes
22:09:00 <amuller> ok thanks
22:09:11 <armax> amuller: I need to add one that fell through the cracks but the list is current
22:09:16 <armax> to the best of my knowledge
22:09:58 <armax> Ideally I’d like to take the next couple of days to see what blueprints/rfe have enough chance to land complete until Sept 12
22:10:47 <armax> After that we are completely in lock down more as far as Newton goes
22:11:10 <armax> and we’ll have time until Oct 3rd to address any RC critical issues
22:12:06 <kevinbenton> when is newton branch cut?
22:12:18 <armax> the week of Sep 12, as soon as we have a good RC1
22:12:41 <armax> I was talking to Ihar this morning and we were mulling over the idea of using Ocata 1 to focus on only a handful of blueprints
22:13:25 <armax> that have partially completed in Newton and represent a substantial level of baggage if we don’t clear them fast enough
22:13:46 <kevinbenton> e.g ?
22:13:48 <armax> like OVO, Keystone v3, push notifications
22:13:48 <carl_baldwin> armax: Examples?
22:14:19 <kevinbenton> stupid question, how is OVO relevant to the release if we aren't using it anywhere?
22:14:57 <armax> if we make OVO a dependency for a few other efforts, the fact that we’re not 100% complete hinders our ability to proceed as fast as we could
22:15:09 <armax> I thought you above all else got stung by it
22:15:26 <kevinbenton> yep, but i don't see OVO getting finished in a week
22:15:41 <armax> I am not suggesting that
22:16:23 <armax> and I am not suggesting this in the Newton timeframe
22:17:18 <armax> did I give this impression?
22:17:40 <carl_baldwin> I understood you meant from the time Ocata opens to O-1
22:17:47 <carl_baldwin> Is that right?
22:17:50 <armax> yes
22:18:39 <armax> we obviously need core reviewer volunteers
22:19:18 <armax> to help us transition the codebase in such a way that we’re not in some sort of limbo where things are only done half way
22:19:29 <carl_baldwin> I'd like to be a little more involved with OVO and push notifications.
22:19:53 <carl_baldwin> ... otherwise, I won't recognize the code base when y'all are done with it.
22:20:05 <armax> correct
22:20:31 <armax> the point being that as core reviewer team we need to take more responbiility of the codebase
22:20:48 <carl_baldwin> ++
22:20:56 <armax> if one 2 core reviewers are involved in these transformation we’d end up as carl_baldwin  said
22:21:09 <armax> that we don’t recognize where stuff is or is like
22:21:15 <dougwig> focus and closing some of these things is better than them staying open forever. i think it's worth a try.
22:21:16 <armax> and we can’t be core anymore!
22:21:17 <armax> :)
22:21:20 <armax> we’d be out of a job!
22:21:50 <dougwig> do the new "cross openstack" goals need to also be included in the list?
22:22:29 <carl_baldwin> This might sound dumb but what are the "cross openstack" goals?
22:22:30 <armax> dougwig: until I manage to read that thread, I defer my duty to response to your answer :)
22:23:26 <dougwig> armax: just keep repeating how much you like python 3.5 and you'll fake it nicely.
22:23:37 <armax> I love it!
22:23:39 <dougwig> armax: or we can take the week to rewrite the packet flow to go through mysql triggers.
22:23:58 <dougwig> carl_baldwin: sec, let me dig out a link
22:24:12 <carl_baldwin> dougwig: thanks
22:24:54 <armax> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/100537.html
22:25:08 <armax> is that it?
22:25:11 <armax> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/100537.html
22:25:44 <dougwig> yes, that's it
22:26:43 * carl_baldwin embarrassed to say he muted that thread.
22:27:32 <HenryG> There was one message in that thread that mentioned future goals ...
22:27:36 <dougwig> well, it is less high-level technical goals and more of a qa laundry list right now. but i'd hate to see it suddenly mandated and no one ever looked at it.
22:30:07 <dougwig> i either net-split or completely segfaulted everyone.
22:30:16 <kevinbenton> dougwig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
22:31:46 <carl_baldwin> lol
22:32:14 <HenryG> It was in a comment by Doug Hellman on https://review.openstack.org/349068 from July 30
22:32:28 <carl_baldwin> kevinbenton: was that today?
22:32:31 <kevinbenton> yes
22:33:23 <kevinbenton> rapid unscheduled disassembly
22:33:34 <kevinbenton> it's a bad omen, we should not mark m-3 today
22:33:56 <kevinbenton> dougwig: you did break everything
22:33:59 <kevinbenton> everyone*
22:34:13 <carl_baldwin> Wow, it isn't quite as funny knowing it was today. It'll be funny though when the shock is over.
22:34:36 <kevinbenton> nobody got hurt
22:36:03 <HenryG> kevinbenton: I think armax got hurt
22:36:12 <armax> no I am watching you talk
22:36:31 <kevinbenton> armax: well what happened? did the thread deadlock?
22:36:36 <kevinbenton> raise RetryRequest()
22:36:50 <armax> InvalidEror
22:36:53 <armax> anyhoo
22:36:56 <dougwig> kevinbenton: jeebus, not that halfway disgusting hack workaround.
22:37:24 <kevinbenton> dougwig: show me a distributed system that doesn't use retries and i'll show you a broken distributed system :P
22:37:29 <armax> if I can ask you guys to take the remaining of time we got in this meeting to go over the postmortem and fill the dots it woudl be super
22:37:43 <armax> dougwig: particularly the lbaas stuff
22:37:46 <dougwig> armax: do you want FFE requests in that review, or on the ML?
22:37:49 <armax> as I suspect blogan is out
22:37:54 <armax> review
22:38:03 <dougwig> armax: his twins are out, and thus so is he.
22:38:04 <armax> we can assess the extent of the work left
22:38:27 <armax> and judge whether an FFE can be granted
22:38:56 <dougwig> ok
22:38:58 <armax> for those of you who have documentation patches to work on
22:39:26 <armax> and have patches under review, please tag me
22:40:23 <armax> anything else?
22:41:04 <armax> I gather not
22:41:09 <HenryG> nope
22:41:10 <armax> thanks folks
22:41:13 <armax> #endmeeting