21:00:03 #startmeeting nova 21:00:03 Meeting started Thu Jul 2 21:00:03 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mikal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:04 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:07 The meeting name has been set to 'nova' 21:00:12 o/ 21:00:15 hi 21:00:15 abhishekk mikal tjones cburgess jgrimm adrian_otto funzo mjturek jcookekhugen irina_pov krtaylor danpb alexpilotti flip214 jaypipes gilliard garyk edleafe dims moshele anteaya Nisha sileht claudiub lxsli neiljerram markus_z swamireddy alevine tonyb andreykurilin ndipanov sc68cal akuriata artom jlvillal mnestratov kashyap aloga rgeragnov: ping 21:00:15 o/ 21:00:17 o/ 21:00:20 o/* <-- holding a firework 21:00:20 o/ 21:00:20 o/ 21:00:24 Heh 21:00:25 o/ 21:00:28 dansmith: heh 21:00:36 o/ 21:00:44 So, I am under orders to keep this short so the Americans can go and blow stuff up 21:00:48 So let's do that thing 21:00:48 o/ 21:00:52 hehe 21:00:53 #topic Release Status 21:01:08 July 16 is non-priority feature proposal freeze 21:01:26 Which as well as being a mouthful means if you are working on a non-priority non-bug fix, the code needs to be proposed by then 21:01:46 We're also working through spec freeze exception requests, for which there is an etherpad 21:01:53 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-spec-freeze-exceptions 21:02:26 We're under orders to discuss blocked spec freeze exceptions here 21:02:29 * mikal scans the etherpad 21:02:58 Its not clear to me how blocked is defined in this context 21:03:01 Thoughts people? 21:03:14 I honestly wasn't sure there was anything going on in there other than proposals 21:03:31 Yeah, I thought this was people asking for review "votes" 21:03:37 There is a lot there, which is a bit scary 21:03:38 I guess john +2'd something in there 21:04:01 So, I guess take a look at the listed reviews ASAP 21:04:07 And we can discuss them in gerrit as required 21:04:22 I see precisely one vote for one thing 21:04:25 is there an exception deadline? 21:04:29 aside from anonymous +1s 21:04:31 alaski: today 21:04:43 for voting, or proposing? 21:04:44 o/ 21:04:44 alaski: final review is "tomorrow" according to the agenda 21:04:48 ahh, okay 21:04:52 So yes, I guess the close of this week 21:04:52 I thought it was Jul 2? 21:04:56 Which kind of sucks for Americans 21:05:15 dansmith: I just obey the agenda... Not sure if its been extended deliberately or not. 21:05:34 Unless anyone wants to discuss a specific proposal I think we should move on? 21:05:45 I would like to discuss about Improving performance of UnShelve API specs 21:05:49 And promise to just keep reviewing during gaps in our Freedom Explosions? 21:05:51 Ideally we would have all spec exceptions voted on by 2nd July, and 21:05:56 from the email ^ 21:06:00 so today is the proposal deadline 21:06:06 tomorrow is the merge deadline I guess 21:06:17 I hope get some review for custom cpu model https://review.openstack.org/#/c/168982/, it already get agreement on the direction, just need some review 21:06:19 tpatil: what's the review URL? 21:06:28 #link : I would like to discuss about Improving performance of UnShelve API specs 21:06:36 sorry 21:06:50 the shelve things are really not in the critical path, IMHO 21:06:54 #link: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135387/13 21:07:13 we have been trying to get this thing from last release cycle 21:07:19 alex_xu: I don't think I'd characterize that as "agreed on direction" 21:07:29 I would appreciate if it's consider for this release cycle atleast 21:07:42 considered 21:07:46 dansmith: emm...no...how can I get agreed on that 21:08:14 tpatil: well, it has been considered right? I see heaps of discussion on it in gerrit 21:08:26 tpatil: so much in fact that I can't immediately see what the current concerns are 21:08:35 alex_xu: the last reviewer was me on Jun 24.. I guess it feels to me like it's a sticky situation and there isn't a lot of real support for it :/ 21:08:49 mikal: right, we have addressed alaski's concern in PS 13. 21:09:01 Want people to review specs and give some feedback 21:09:15 I will review the shelving one again before I leave today 21:09:27 Thanks, alaski 21:09:28 alaski: thanks 21:09:30 I'll read it too 21:09:37 dansmith: emm...I think all the reviewer think we need abstract cpu capabilities, that is the direction we agreed? The rest is how to implement it. 21:09:40 Its already on the request for exception list, so we should be doing that thing anyways 21:09:40 Thanks, mikal 21:09:50 spec 'Add new API to list compute node metric names' wants reviews. It was discussed during Vancouver summit and take-out then was to wait for Jay Pipe's input. Now Jay has given his +1 on this spec. 21:10:01 mikal: great 21:10:02 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180049/ 21:10:17 alex_xu: I'm not so sure about that 21:10:22 the service group api spec had a lot of discussion and has one +2 already so I was thinking probably that one is good to go 21:10:30 llu-laptop: ahhh, API ones are interesting in that the freeze might not apply if its a bug fix 21:10:39 llu-laptop: but this one looks like a feature to me? 21:10:49 @dansmith, there is a need for cpu-info, an improvement on what is there today, pave the way for something better 21:10:54 mikal: it's not a bug fix, it's adding new api 21:11:42 In Kilo it was heavily debated, if there is improvement and a plan to make it robust, better than analysis paralysis 21:11:43 llu-laptop: can you address Jay's nits, and I'll add it to the list I try to review today 21:12:00 mikal: sure 21:12:14 mikal: that one is pretty small, 21:12:22 mikal: and probably the best candidate I've seen so far 21:12:32 Alex_xu, Chris (windriver) and others at Intel really are working towards addressing concerns and making this happen 21:12:36 dansmith: cool, I havne't read it yet to be hoenst 21:12:38 we need your help 21:12:42 So yeah, we have a list of these things 21:12:53 And specs-core is meant to be reviewing based on that list 21:13:01 And all the ones that have been brought up are correctly listed 21:13:14 So I feel like we just need to give the process more time to do those reviews? 21:13:57 I'd like to point out https://review.openstack.org/#/c/193668/ - judging by the notes on the etherpad there may have been conversations or decisions on this already that I'm not aware of 21:14:38 this one terrifies me, 21:14:45 in that it's big, complicated, cross-project, and very very new 21:14:46 beagles: I am unaware of any such conversations, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen 21:15:02 * beagles nods 21:15:06 but, I think it's also something that will mostly be not a nova thing until the end when we go try to merge nova changes to use it 21:15:10 If that one is big and complicated its it a good candidate for discussion at the mid-cycle? 21:15:23 Sorry, is it? 21:15:25 well, midcycle is too late 21:15:40 The bits outside nova are already done? 21:15:41 the library can always be worked as POC on the side 21:15:47 no 21:15:54 mikal: this has only been a thought for like 1.5 weeks or so 21:16:06 mikal: jaypipes rage-coded something over a weekend 21:16:14 Yeah, so it seems premature to be landing the nova bits then 21:16:14 to go with the spec 21:16:27 it's also neutron changes 21:16:37 right, it's just a large scope 21:16:48 so like I said above, 21:16:52 yeah... it's kind of tough. We *could* say land one side and then the next but that worries me 21:17:01 it isn't really done until both sides work 21:17:05 the library work seems like it could go and and mature this cycle and the spec is actually for M to make nova _use_ it 21:17:22 s/and the/and then the/ 21:17:25 Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by the mid-cycle thing 21:17:32 If this is happening outside nova, and aimed at M 21:17:37 mikal: cool, I thought you meant midcycle for discussion of the spec 21:17:42 Then what we need to do is talk through what we'd want to see from it 21:17:50 And make sure we're on the same page as them 21:18:02 dansmith: nah, just check pointing the direction of external work 21:18:10 then..yes 21:18:17 and mestery will be at our midcycle i think 21:18:18 so yeah 21:18:19 punt 21:18:35 Can we put something to that effect into the etherpad then please? 21:18:47 Given people want to leave early I feel like we should move on 21:18:50 Anything else here? 21:18:55 i'll say something in the etherpad 21:18:59 Ta 21:19:04 thanks 21:19:46 #topic Traditional Reminders 21:19:53 So, the agenda asks me to remind you that... 21:19:54 sorry to raise https://review.openstack.org/#/c/168982/ again, but no further discussion. it has been heavily debated, do not want this to fall into analysis paralysis but allow to implement 21:21:11 mikal, pinging again for the cpu-info BP that Alex xu requested feature free exception on 21:21:31 malini: that was discussed here already 21:21:35 malini: yep, its on the list for consideration, I don't think there's a lot else I can do for it in this meeting 21:21:53 So, reminders 21:22:09 Yuo should be reviewing with the priority review list in mind 21:22:12 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-priorities-tracking 21:22:25 You probably have action items from the summit you should feel bad about 21:22:29 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-nova-liberty-summit-action-items 21:22:39 The registration deadline for the mid-cycle is July 7 (next week) 21:22:47 Any other reminder things? 21:22:54 thanks tonyb and mikal for the ack 21:23:27 #topic Stable branch 21:23:38 stable is hunky dory 21:23:39 Icehouse has now been eol'ed I believe? 21:23:44 yeah, working toward 21:23:48 But that's informational 21:24:00 malini: oh, I thought fungi has actually done it now? 21:24:05 yeah it's done 21:24:07 just looked 21:24:08 Cool 21:24:17 #topic Gate status 21:24:20 hunky dory 21:24:23 The gate has been perfect! 21:24:26 Perfectly broken 21:24:29 if you're not neuitron or horizon 21:24:42 Well, it was exciting earlier in the week 21:24:45 gate is fine excluding the first half of this week 21:24:46 But its sorted now right? 21:24:47 yes 21:24:51 no recent oslo releases 21:24:58 Thanks for chasing that when it was all wonky 21:25:00 Heh 21:25:08 #topic Open Discussion 21:25:15 Ok, we can talk, or we can go an explode things. 21:25:17 Thoughts? 21:25:19 mikal -- :-) no no, ack in my remark here in meeting, would very much like the +2s on the BP, not there yet! 21:25:33 sorry to raise https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192622 , it enable pci api 21:25:58 yeah, I have a few spec exceptions that have +2s already. 21:26:02 malini: yep, people are reviewing it. It might take some time though. 21:26:17 claudiub|2: and they're on the etherpad, yes? 21:26:24 mikal: yeah. 21:26:27 claudiub|2: cool 21:27:21 we have implement the underly pci logical and API code, just need to enable this api. 21:27:53 shhfeng: is it on the spec freeze exception etherpad? 21:28:30 early mark 21:28:30 all the code for pci api already in the nova tree, just need enable, so coding should be easy 21:28:40 mikal, yes. 21:28:53 shhfeng: cool, we it should get considered as part of the process then 21:28:54 testing? 21:29:03 I think we could let people go do 4th of July prep now, yes? 21:29:09 sure 21:29:28 mikal, great. 21:29:30 I insist that all fireworks are renamed Freedom Explosions though 21:29:49 freedomcrackers 21:29:50 Its like a little burst of freedom in the sky 21:29:56 And with that... 21:29:56 or your hand 21:29:58 #endmeeting