17:00:06 <gibi> #startmeeting nova notification
17:00:06 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 29 17:00:06 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gibi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova_notification'
17:00:46 <gibi> after the summer period sleep let's revive this meeting
17:01:03 <gibi> I promise it will be short and painless
17:01:14 <mriedem> o.
17:01:16 <mriedem> o/
17:01:27 <gibi> mriedem: hi
17:01:47 <mriedem> hello
17:02:04 <gibi> it seems just you and me again
17:02:47 <gibi> I have only three things for today
17:03:26 <gibi> 1) I'm still waiting for feedback on followup searchlight spece https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/additional-notification-fields-for-searchlight-queens
17:03:48 <gibi> I pinged the searchlight guys yesterday
17:04:07 <mriedem> ok, Kevin_Zheng can probably help pull that thread as well
17:04:18 <gibi> I have a related question. Do we try to integrate searchlight with nova in Queens?
17:04:49 <mriedem> well, we know we still have the limitation of inefficient queries when listing instances across multiple cells,
17:04:58 <mriedem> but there hasn't been any movement on fixing that since the boston summit
17:05:02 <mriedem> with or without searchlight
17:05:07 <mriedem> so i expect it'll be a topic at the ptg
17:05:15 <mriedem> it's listed as a known limitation with multi-cell in our docs
17:05:44 <mriedem> dansmith: is mdbooth going to be at the ptg?
17:05:45 <gibi> cool, let's discuss it on the ptg
17:06:12 <dansmith> mriedem: I dunno
17:06:19 <mriedem> gibi: this is the docs mention: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/user/cellsv2_layout.html#performance-of-listing-instances
17:06:24 <mriedem> dansmith: ok, his name isn't in the etherpad
17:06:28 <mriedem> so i'll assume no
17:07:12 <mriedem> gibi: so we can probably move on
17:07:17 <gibi> OK, moving forward
17:08:00 <gibi> 2) we have some notification transformations already reproposed to queens. I will going to start reviewing those and pinging you for second oppinion
17:08:16 <mriedem> ok
17:08:19 <gibi> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/versioned-notification-transformation-queens,n,z
17:08:45 <mriedem> looks like a failed unit test in that stack
17:09:32 <gibi> I can check that tomorrow
17:10:19 <gibi> I also have to check the burndown chart as it might needs some code update to handle queens
17:10:42 <gibi> moving on to my last topic
17:11:28 <gibi> 3) I'm thinking about doing a survey on ML to see this meeting can be reformed in a way that might pulls in more people to the notification subteam
17:12:03 <gibi> so and we can spend like 5 minutes on this topic on the ptg as well
17:12:38 <gibi> we have quite a lot of low prio but also low hanging work that can be good for newcommers as well
17:12:57 <mriedem> yes, it's good for newcomers, and i had someone new asking me about stuff to work on last week
17:13:13 <mriedem> i'd like to know more about consumers of versioned notifications too,
17:13:24 <mriedem> to see if there are consumers that need stuff and should be attending this meeting
17:13:43 <gibi> mriedem: good point, I can extend the survey with this angle as well
17:13:45 <mriedem> that could even be legacy notification consumers that realize there are gaps and want something out of versioned notifications
17:14:00 <mriedem> only projects i know of are searchlight and ceilometer and we don't hear much from them
17:14:41 <gibi> I agree
17:14:51 <gibi> I will start an ML thread
17:15:26 <gibi> OK that was all from my side. Do you have things to discuss?
17:16:04 <mriedem> nope
17:16:08 <mriedem> just more allocations related bugs
17:16:13 <mriedem> but not related to notifications
17:16:14 <mriedem> :)
17:17:17 <gibi> mriedem: we have also one more in the pipe :)
17:17:24 <gibi> but then lets close this meeting
17:17:30 <gibi> thanks for the discussion
17:17:58 <gibi> #endmeeting