14:00:16 <mriedem> #startmeeting nova
14:00:16 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct  6 14:00:16 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mriedem. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:17 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
14:00:26 <takashin> o/
14:00:28 <jroll> \o
14:00:32 <dansmith> o.hai
14:00:33 <gibi> o/
14:00:33 <auggy> o/
14:00:34 <efried> \_@_/
14:00:34 <bauzas> \o
14:00:36 <raj_singh> o/
14:00:39 <edleafe> \o
14:00:39 <cdent> o
14:00:40 <peter-hamilton> o/
14:00:42 <lyarwood> o/
14:00:45 <dane-fichter> o/
14:00:50 * kashyap waves
14:00:57 <lbeliveau> o/
14:01:00 <thorst_> o/
14:01:10 <johnthetubaguy> o/
14:01:15 <mriedem> #link agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova
14:01:27 <mriedem> let's do this
14:01:31 <mriedem> #topic release news
14:01:41 <mriedem> #info newton release should happen today
14:01:53 <mriedem> #link Draft Ocata release schedule: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Ocata_Release_Schedule
14:01:53 <bauzas> it's done http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-announce/2016-October/001776.html
14:02:12 <mriedem> oh nice
14:02:21 <sdague> o/
14:02:27 <mriedem> well congratulations everyone
14:02:38 <jroll> \o/
14:02:39 <bauzas> yay
14:02:42 <mriedem> #topic summit planning
14:02:53 <mriedem> #link Nova Ocata design summit draft schedule: https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/global-search?t=Nova%3A
14:03:11 <mriedem> we also have a 5pm nova/neutron session on wed in the neutron room
14:03:18 <mriedem> and jroll is asking about a 10pm nova/ironic session on wed
14:03:25 <dansmith> heh
14:03:26 <mriedem> more like 6pm
14:03:26 <jroll> lol
14:03:47 <mriedem> i'm open to that if others can come too, specifically dansmith and jaypipes given it's placement related
14:03:54 <dansmith> yeah, I'm down
14:04:03 <dansmith> not with the timing, but I <3 jroll too much to miss it
14:04:04 <jroll> so another option would be something like 11am friday, if you could spare some api/placement people, figure it doesn't overlap with libvirt too much
14:04:05 <sdague> jroll is going to provide beer, right?
14:04:07 <jroll> d'aww
14:04:09 <jroll> sure
14:04:14 <jroll> or sangria
14:04:35 <mriedem> jroll: dansmith will need to be in the libvirt session
14:04:44 <jroll> so for context, the session is around allowing users to do advanced raid/partioning requests
14:04:52 <jroll> or maybe putting that in flavors or something
14:05:00 <edleafe> jroll: I can probably make 11am Fri
14:05:32 <jroll> if people are cool with 6pm wed I'm good with that
14:05:32 <dansmith> I will be more grumpy on friday
14:05:36 <bauzas> jroll: contributorse meetup maybe ?
14:05:46 <edleafe> dansmith: how would we be able to tell?
14:05:47 <bauzas> ooooh contributors*
14:05:50 <jroll> bauzas: yeah that could work too
14:06:00 <mriedem> people are leaving friday afternoon
14:06:04 <dansmith> edleafe: I have a gauge.. it's kinda hidden.. remind me to show it to you
14:06:21 <edleafe> dansmith: eeek! Put that thing away!
14:06:23 <jroll> O_O
14:06:27 <mriedem> ok, well we have some flexibility with our 11am slot on friday if needed
14:06:27 <bauzas> mriedem: that's a good question, I dunno who will stay
14:06:45 <mriedem> i.e. we could move that to 9am and slide up the cinder/docs sessions
14:06:52 <mriedem> but if 6pm on wed is ok for people then let's do that
14:06:54 <alaski> o/
14:07:02 <jroll> mriedem: okay, I'll talk to ironic people, preferring 6pm wed > 11am fri > fri afternoon
14:07:09 <mriedem> cool
14:07:16 <jroll> thanks!
14:07:29 <mriedem> ok, were there any questions about the design summit track layout?
14:07:37 <mriedem> no one screamed in the ML
14:07:46 <mriedem> mdbooth confirmed he's good with 11am on friday
14:08:02 <mriedem> so i'll assume people are generally in favor
14:08:09 <edleafe> mriedem: lgtm
14:08:19 <mriedem> oh i see cdent replied
14:08:21 <cdent> mriedem: i made a last minute que
14:08:23 <cdent> yeah, jinx
14:08:29 <cdent> nothing bad, just curious
14:08:53 <mriedem> cdent: so there is a xp session on tuesday or wednesday on scaling review teams/decomposition, etc
14:09:03 <mriedem> which is more for the high level meta type discussions
14:09:07 <cdent> mriedem: yeah, saw that too
14:09:23 <mriedem> we'll be doing a retrospective specifically on placement as we have actionable things there i think
14:09:23 <cdent> I think it's both days at this point, yeah?
14:09:39 <mriedem> and we'll be doing sort of a mini retrospective in the libvirt imagebackend session on friday
14:09:39 <bauzas> like I said, 40 mins is short, and I'd like to get actionable items
14:09:42 <cdent> Well, I hope we can transfer them elsewhere too, because everybody else needs action too.
14:10:04 <mriedem> i'm not sure what that means
14:10:15 <mriedem> there is plenty of work to go around
14:10:37 <auggy> I have a question, when would be the best time to talk new contributor stuff? Friday?
14:10:45 <mriedem> probably
14:11:05 <dane-fichter> is there a slot for talking about security stuff w.r.t. nova?
14:11:13 <bauzas> auggy: what do you want to address ? I think we made a good progress last summit on the process
14:11:23 <cdent> mriedem: I mean any actions we learn from retrospecting on placement can hopefully be applied across nova
14:11:25 <mriedem> dane-fichter: no, i don't think anyone proposed anything on that
14:11:49 <mriedem> dane-fichter: so by default that moves to friday meetup style
14:11:59 <dane-fichter> mriedem: when's a good time to talk new features? friday?
14:12:24 <mriedem> auggy: yeah we had a session on new contributors in austin, at this point i'd like to get feedback from new contributors before having another session on process changes
14:12:27 <mriedem> we need the loop
14:12:33 <auggy> bauzas: I proposed a session + brainstorm etherpad with objectives
14:12:35 <mriedem> dane-fichter: unconference or friday meetup
14:12:50 <dane-fichter> mriedem: cool, thanks.
14:13:06 <auggy> Right that's what I'm proposing, how to get feedback
14:13:08 <mriedem> keep in mind that unconference is time boxed to 4 10 min sessions
14:13:37 <bauzas> auggy: are you sure you'd get feedback from new contributors at the Summit ? I certainly doubt
14:13:53 <mriedem> auggy: i think friday meetup is fine for that,
14:13:55 <bauzas> auggy: I was more thinking of some dematerialized way to get feedback
14:14:02 <mriedem> you could even start that discussion in the ML if you have thoughts
14:14:13 <auggy> ok i can go that route
14:14:15 <dane-fichter> mriedem: that's fine. just looking to cover some details of cert validation
14:14:26 <dansmith> yeah, the austin session was not a normal occurrence
14:14:44 <dansmith> and I don't really think we should do that again, especially considering the shortened schedule
14:14:44 <auggy> bauzas: i wasn't expecting to get feedback from contributors, the session i proposed was about talking about what data we wanted to collect, etc
14:15:11 <bauzas> auggy: I think we can handle that asynchronously, esp. given the tight schedule in BCN :)
14:15:17 <dansmith> +1
14:15:20 <auggy> works for me
14:15:34 <mriedem> like i said, you might want to start priming that pump in the ML before barcelona
14:15:59 <mriedem> it may also feed into the xp session
14:16:10 <mriedem> ok moving on
14:16:12 <mriedem> #topic bugs
14:16:27 <mriedem> we have 2 critical bugs this morning it looks like
14:16:28 <mriedem> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.importance=Critical&field.status=New&field.status=Incomplete&field.status=Confirmed&field.status=Triaged&field.status=In+Progress
14:16:57 <mriedem> garyk reported both of those against newton
14:17:49 <dansmith> mriedem: first one is permission denied on the filesystem
14:18:27 <johnthetubaguy> I think we was debugging that with mdbooth this morning
14:19:02 <mriedem> ok i've marked the first as incomplete given mdbooth's triage questions
14:19:08 <mriedem> and i've marked the 2nd as high, not critical
14:19:10 <mriedem> as it's in a periodic task
14:19:36 <mriedem> mdbooth: thanks for triaging those
14:19:47 <mdbooth> mriedem: First looked like a config issue in the end. Not confirmed, but probable.
14:20:01 <mriedem> yeah
14:20:25 <bauzas> yeah, it *looks*
14:20:31 <mriedem> would be good to know if the latter one is a regression in newton, but we can check that later
14:20:57 <mriedem> ok moving on
14:21:01 <mriedem> gate status is not terrible
14:21:05 <mriedem> there are some bugs though
14:21:50 <mriedem> looks like the ceph one that was plaguing us has a fix merged now though and is dropping off https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377118/
14:22:24 <mriedem> 3rd party ci status,
14:22:36 <mriedem> virtuozzo storage ci should be fixed
14:22:49 <mriedem> i don't have anything to report on other 3rd party ci
14:23:22 <jaypipes> sorry I'm late...
14:23:33 <mriedem> #topic reminders
14:23:40 <mriedem> (auggy): DocImpact tag reminder to reviewers! Changes with  DocImpact tags create a bug; make sure there's a description of what  documentation is needed!
14:23:47 * edleafe stops gossiping about jaypipes
14:23:57 <auggy> yes that
14:24:10 <auggy> basically when you use a docimpact tag, don't forget to provide some info
14:24:24 <mriedem> i'd also like to remind nova-specs cores that if you approve a spec, please remember to toggle the bp bits in launchpad, like mark it approved and target it for ocata
14:24:45 <auggy> there were about 14 bugs in expired or new state last i'd checked (i've been working through them)
14:24:51 <mriedem> i'm trying to keep a daily track of how much throughput we have on bps
14:25:01 <mriedem> auggy: docs bugs?
14:25:12 <auggy> yeah sorry, doc impact auto-bugs
14:25:42 <auggy> if there's docinfo, i can mark as confirmed and often tag as low hanging fruit so others can pick up the work
14:25:46 <auggy> anyways that's all i had on that :)
14:25:49 <mriedem> ok before i ask about bug skimming duty,
14:26:06 <mriedem> i wanted to ask if there are any newish contributors here that are even interested in helping out with bugs
14:26:12 <mriedem> because no one attended the bugs meeting this week
14:26:45 <mriedem> imo bug duty is a repo maintainers job, not a new contributors job
14:26:50 <mriedem> which is why it doesn't get a lot of traction
14:27:14 <mriedem> so let's move on
14:27:19 <cdent> mriedem: I've been wanting to for months, but no cycles
14:27:26 <cdent> that may be changing
14:27:38 <cdent> I suspect "no cycles" is a common problem
14:27:42 <auggy> also even if people just want to skim a bug here and there or do other bug queue maintenance in between things, it's a big help
14:27:47 <mriedem> cdent: is there something you want to tell jaypipes in public?
14:28:01 <cdent> oh jaypipes knows, it's not like I'm quiet about it
14:28:34 <mriedem> auggy: yes i'm not trying to say triage isn't appreciated, there are always very simple invalid bugs that can be closed out
14:29:07 <mriedem> #topic Stable branch status: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-tracker
14:29:09 <auggy> of course! didn't get that impression at all, just letting folks know they can help out with bug skimming without committing to it ;)
14:29:17 <bauzas> honestly, it's not really big deal to play with bugs
14:29:33 * mriedem thinks of a joke
14:29:36 <bauzas> you can commit only a few mins of your time or a whole day
14:29:55 <mriedem> yes it's helpful to spend 15 minutes each day looking at new bugs
14:30:01 <bauzas> just take one bug if you can't afford more, it'll still help
14:30:10 <mriedem> so onto stable
14:30:15 <mriedem> we released stable/liberty last week
14:30:17 <mriedem> i think 12.0.5
14:30:22 <mriedem> probably our last stable/liberty release
14:30:24 <mriedem> before EOL
14:30:25 * jaypipes gives cdent a bicycle. there, you now have more cycles.
14:30:34 <cdent> \o/
14:30:35 * mriedem does rimshot
14:30:46 <mriedem> i requested a stable/mitaka release last night
14:30:53 <cdent> I hope it is shiny and red and comes with a big orange flag
14:31:04 <jaypipes> mriedem: but all you got was that lousy master branch?
14:31:05 <mriedem> and we'll be doing a stable/newton release next week for bugs that didn't make the official release
14:31:16 <edleafe> cdent: but what color will the shed be?
14:31:42 <jaypipes> edleafe: brown.
14:31:42 <mriedem> jaypipes: yeah, those bums
14:31:43 <mriedem> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/382695/
14:31:47 <bauzas> mriedem: I know it's a question I always ask, but when do we plan to phase-II Mitaka ?
14:31:48 <bauzas> :)
14:32:03 <mriedem> bauzas: that's a better question for the stable team weekly meeting
14:32:12 <mriedem> i defer to tonyb
14:32:18 <bauzas> okay, I guess I can hold my breath until then :)
14:32:45 <mriedem> btw, thanks to those that did the mitaka review push last week
14:32:54 <mriedem> i saw the queue really drained, so thanks for that
14:33:02 <mriedem> i know who you are
14:33:07 <mriedem> ;)
14:33:21 <mriedem> #topic subteam highlights
14:33:27 <mriedem> let's blow through these
14:33:32 <mriedem> alaski: cells didn't have a meeting this week
14:33:33 <mriedem> right?
14:33:35 <alaski> yep
14:33:40 * edleafe has mine queued up
14:33:42 <mriedem> edleafe: scheduler
14:33:43 <mriedem> go
14:33:45 <edleafe> We discussed work on traits API and final RequestSpec object tasks
14:33:45 <edleafe> We also tried to make the idea of pair development clearer to spread knowledge
14:33:48 <edleafe> Lots of confusion about required/optional placement DB in Ocata
14:33:50 <edleafe> Resolution was it will remain optional until placement engine is separated from Nova
14:33:53 <edleafe> that's it
14:34:48 <mriedem> ok
14:34:55 <mriedem> tdurakov: are you around?
14:35:05 <mriedem> pkoniszewski: ?
14:35:15 <mriedem> i wasn't around for the live migration meeting
14:36:04 <mriedem> one thing of news for live migration,
14:36:15 <mriedem> pkoniszewski got a job in the nova experimental queue that runs live migration + grenade multinode
14:36:29 <mriedem> so we can actually test live migration from newton to ocata and ocata to newton now
14:36:34 <mriedem> which is super sweet
14:36:44 <mriedem> there are changes up for review to toggle the back and forth that raj_singh helped with also
14:36:44 <mriedem> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:lm-grenade
14:36:58 <pkoniszewski> i'm around
14:37:04 <mriedem> pkoniszewski: just singing your praises
14:37:10 <pkoniszewski> oh, thanks :D
14:37:17 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, we discussed ways to make progress and a config in tempest I think
14:37:31 <jaypipes> thx pkoniszewski!
14:37:34 <pkoniszewski> so yeah, i proposed a chain of patches to implement new config option
14:37:51 <pkoniszewski> so that basing on a job type it will live migrate both ways or just one way
14:38:31 <mriedem> yup and the grenade multinode jobs will be the ones that test live migration both ways
14:38:39 <pkoniszewski> exactly
14:38:45 <mriedem> so we don't burn cycles trying to live migration both ways to the same node
14:38:56 <mriedem> ok, let's move on
14:39:05 <mriedem> sdague: alex_xu: johnthetubaguy: api subteam meeting highlights?
14:39:22 <johnthetubaguy> we skipped it this week
14:39:31 <mriedem> ok
14:39:41 <mriedem> i know there are specs up for review
14:39:41 <johnthetubaguy> will discuss the plan for the summit session, and the security groups spec I have up next week
14:39:42 <mriedem> for the api
14:40:21 <mriedem> wznoinsk: lbeliveau: sriov/pci meeting?
14:40:23 <mriedem> i think that happened
14:40:25 <lbeliveau> yes
14:40:32 <lbeliveau> both tempests for cold migration and revert migration has been merged (works also for non-SRIOV)
14:40:36 <wznoinsk> mriedem: yes
14:40:44 <lbeliveau> we had some discussions around CI and blueprints, but nothing major to report
14:40:54 <lbeliveau> there is one outstanding commit left that fixes functionnality for cold migration revert
14:40:57 <mriedem> lbeliveau: i saw that tempest patch landed, that's cool
14:41:03 <lbeliveau> jaypipes: dansmith: if you can have a look at the new patch set that would be great https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349060/
14:41:11 <lbeliveau> that's it :)
14:41:26 <mriedem> lbeliveau: so will ^ be tested/verified with the new tempest test?
14:41:58 <mriedem> via mellanox ci i mean
14:42:12 <lbeliveau> let me verify with moshele
14:42:21 <mriedem> ok
14:42:26 <mriedem> that would be good info in that change
14:42:55 <mriedem> gibi: notifications meeting highlights?
14:43:02 <gibi> yes
14:43:04 <gibi> just two things
14:43:10 <gibi> about 10 notification transformation patches are up for review already
14:43:14 <gibi> subteam reviewing the patches
14:43:15 <tdurakov> mriedem: hi, sorry, was afk
14:43:20 <gibi> and
14:43:25 <gibi> [3;2~the tranformation work got a new automatic burndown chart and todo list
14:43:34 <gibi> #link https://vntburndown-gibi.rhcloud.com/index.html
14:43:54 <gibi> that is all
14:44:07 <mriedem> i saw that, nice
14:44:22 <mriedem> #topic stuck reviews
14:44:30 <mriedem> (peter-hamilton): Would like to discuss ways forward for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357151/ . Related to: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-support-image-signing
14:44:47 <peter-hamilton> should i summarize the spec or just jump right in?
14:44:53 <mriedem> i've asked danpb to join
14:44:59 <peter-hamilton> mriedem: thanks!
14:45:14 <jaypipes> lbeliveau: I've had that up in my todo list for a while now. will get to it today, promise.
14:45:14 <mriedem> danpb: hola
14:45:30 <lbeliveau> jaypipes: thanks !
14:45:33 <mriedem> danpb: discussing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357151/
14:45:39 <mriedem> peter-hamilton: ok go ahead
14:45:59 <peter-hamilton> ok, the spec's for improving signature verification by adding cert validation
14:46:20 <danpb> mriedem: ok, pretty much as i said on the review - i don't think this proposal takes us in a direction we want to go
14:46:46 <peter-hamilton> danpb: understood, alternatives have implications
14:46:54 <danpb> its not even solving the stated problem in the spec
14:47:12 <danpb> and building something that is of no use to us once we have the real solution
14:47:28 <danpb> which gives us a maintenance burden we don't need
14:47:29 <dane-fichter> danpb: how is it not solving the problem
14:47:47 <dane-fichter> the problem is that the signing certs aren't validated.
14:48:02 <danpb> the tenant user wants to boot an image and want guarantee that the image is signed by a cert that *they* trust
14:48:21 <danpb> the solution is providing a way for cloud admin to list what certs the /host/ trusts
14:48:30 <danpb> so that does nothing to help the tenant user
14:49:03 <dane-fichter> I'd argue that the tenant user has to trust the cloud admin already...
14:49:04 <danpb> the cloud admin shoudln't even care about certs at all
14:49:16 <peter-hamilton> i disagree
14:49:27 <dane-fichter> peter-hamilton: you have alternatives, right?
14:49:29 <danpb> all the images are running inside VMs, so whether the image is signed or not is irrelevant to the cloud admin
14:49:35 <peter-hamilton> dane-fichter: yes
14:49:45 <dane-fichter> let's discuss those
14:50:03 <dane-fichter> arguing over this trust model isn't going to progress this discussion imp
14:50:06 <dane-fichter> imo*
14:50:11 <peter-hamilton> a service has to handle the tenant/user -> trusted cert mapping
14:50:23 <mriedem> which is not barbican i read
14:50:29 <peter-hamilton> there are 3 options: nova, keystone, barbican/castellan
14:50:33 <mriedem> so a new service to manage certs?
14:50:39 * peter-hamilton shudders
14:50:44 <dane-fichter> that's a non-starter
14:50:53 <mriedem> have you talked to the keystone team about this?
14:51:03 <danpb> we don't need anything to manage certs for an initial implementation
14:51:15 <danpb> the boot API in nova could simply take the ID of a trusted cert
14:51:26 <danpb> and the tenant can provide that when booting each VM
14:51:32 <peter-hamilton> that would require the user to know the ID, seems very unreasonable
14:51:52 <peter-hamilton> the ID of an individual cert that is
14:51:53 <dane-fichter> especially since the trusted image may not be uploaded by the end user
14:51:55 <danpb> of course it would be useful to have a permanent record of the tenant/cert mapping but solving that's not a pre-requisite for doing useful cert validation in nova
14:52:25 <dane-fichter> danpb: understood
14:52:38 <dane-fichter> so you're proposing an API change in Nova?
14:53:12 <danpb> i think that's desirable as the first step yes, as it avoids blocking the entire effort on creation of some cert managment service
14:53:18 <dane-fichter> the consensus we've received from cores in the past is that modifying the boot command to support image signing is a non-starter
14:53:26 <danpb> while still proividing a very useful capability to nova
14:53:50 <danpb> dane-fichter: i've certainly not said that before - i've suggested this approach in every cycle where this work has been proposed
14:53:56 <dane-fichter> danpb: I admire the simplicity of this from an implementation perspective
14:54:21 <mriedem> time check, we have 6 minutes
14:54:34 <mriedem> can we move this to the mailing list? sounds like something we will need to discuss at the summit
14:54:44 <mriedem> probably part of unconference and then bleed into friday meetup
14:54:45 <danpb> yes, i was just going to suggest moving it to summit
14:55:00 <dane-fichter> danpb: yeah i'll be at the summit to discuss this
14:55:06 <mriedem> i'd like to have the alternatives fleshed out with pros/cons before the summit
14:55:07 <dane-fichter> let's wrap it up for now
14:55:09 <mriedem> so we don't have to play catchup
14:55:10 <dane-fichter> thanks
14:55:19 <dane-fichter> mriedem: will do
14:55:22 <mriedem> thanks
14:55:22 <johnthetubaguy> maybe fill out the alternatives section of the spec?
14:55:38 * bauzas needs to drop earlier \o
14:55:38 <mriedem> well, there might be a new spec
14:55:40 <peter-hamilton> johnthetubaguy: we can expand it, there are several options listed already
14:55:43 <dane-fichter> johnthetubaguy: we'll flesh that out more too
14:55:45 <mriedem> or swap the main change and alternatives
14:55:56 <mriedem> #topic open discussion
14:55:56 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, all of those sound good
14:56:03 <mriedem> (mriedem): Start thinking about PTG attendance, February 20-2.  Mon/Tues are cross-project, Wed-Fri are vertical team meetup-style. Mon  and Fri would be 'optional'.
14:56:14 <mriedem> i got an email from the foundation asking if nova was going to be at the PTG
14:56:20 <mriedem> they have a survey,
14:56:24 <mriedem> i'm assuming some people will be there
14:56:29 <mriedem> i can't say i will be at this time
14:56:40 <mriedem> but i wanted to bring that up as an fyi
14:56:50 <mriedem> if you are sure you're going to the PTG please let me know in -nova
14:56:58 <mriedem> else i'll start a thread in the ML
14:57:06 <bauzas> open a thread
14:57:08 <mriedem> ok with 3 minutes left
14:57:11 <mriedem> (hferenc): Unifying image and flavor metadata (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1582693
14:57:12 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1582693 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Image and flavor metadata for libvirt watchdog is handled erroneously" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Richil Bhalerao (richil-bhalerao)
14:57:21 <bauzas> because some would engage discussions with management based on thart
14:57:30 <mriedem> bauzas: ok wil do
14:57:48 <mriedem> hferenc_: did you want to speak to that? ^
14:57:54 <hferenc_> hi
14:57:55 <hferenc_> yes
14:57:59 <hferenc_> so i came across this issue some time ago when i was trying to implement tests that used flavor extra specs
14:58:06 <hferenc_> shortly, different modules/projects use extra specs formats inconsistently
14:58:11 <hferenc_> flavor is ':' based, image is '_' while '_' is used for both in horizon
14:58:20 <hferenc_> my question would be whether there is any ongoing work that aims to unify the extra specs formats?
14:58:26 <hferenc_> or are there any plans to do this in the future?
14:58:38 <danpb> PTG is the dev meetup at the marketing summit, right ?
14:58:42 <mriedem> fyi, melwitt recently went through something with this
14:58:45 <johnthetubaguy> I was hoping to straighten a lot of that out with the tags things related to placement
14:58:45 <mriedem> danpb: no
14:58:56 <mriedem> danpb: PTG is the midcycle replacement
14:59:09 <johnthetubaguy> I thought it was the design summit replacement
14:59:10 <cdent> so much confusion on this
14:59:11 <mriedem> danpb: but at the beginning of the cycle now
14:59:26 <mriedem> danpb: marketing summit is now midway through the release
14:59:38 <anteaya> danpb: https://www.openstack.org/ptg/
14:59:55 <mriedem> hferenc_: let's move this to #openstack-nova
14:59:56 <mriedem> we're out of time
14:59:57 <danpb> mriedem: oh right, wrong way around
14:59:59 <mriedem> thanks everyone
15:00:01 <mriedem> #endmeeting