17:59:08 <joesavak> #startmeeting Keystone Team Meeting
17:59:09 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 25 17:59:08 2011 UTC.  The chair is joesavak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:10 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:25 <joesavak> #topic Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints
17:59:41 <joesavak> Agenda is located at http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting
17:59:48 <joesavak> welcome y'all. Who is here?
18:00:01 <heckj> me :-)
18:00:20 <joesavak> hi joseph!
18:00:29 <heckj> ola!
18:00:36 <joesavak> i'll give it a couple more mins
18:00:43 <heckj> np
18:00:43 <anotherjesse> here
18:01:01 <joesavak> hi jesse
18:01:35 <joesavak> ok - blueprints. Joseph - i saw you contributed a lot of doc for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-documentation
18:01:46 <heckj> And another pull request to finish that out: https://review.openstack.org/#change,1089
18:02:19 <heckj> I was hoping for feedback from the keystone team, never got anything other than "merge it", so I'm assuming I'm not lying anywhere. Wasn't 100% sure though :-)
18:02:28 <joesavak> ok - i'll review that but will need a 2nd. Jesse, can you review too?
18:02:49 <joesavak> Joseph - i'll take a look. The keystone team (dolph & yogi) have been pretty busy recently.
18:03:07 <heckj> the original was what needed reviewing - and I have some questions I wanted to ask when appropriate - things that didn't make much sense while I was trying to document the work
18:03:48 <joesavak> ok. Feel free to send those questions to the mailing list
18:04:05 <heckj> Ok - will do
18:04:08 <anotherjesse> joesavak: not to beat a dead horse but I am really confused about how to review doc changes
18:04:30 <anotherjesse> if this is going to run against diablo components (eg, e0 is for diablo+) or is this for essex?
18:04:44 <anotherjesse> what is it documenting, what is the protocol, ...
18:05:08 <joesavak> joseph, you were doing this for diablo, right?
18:05:09 <heckj> I was writing those to catch it up - I'm presuming we're documenting whatever is in trunk, since the (developer) docs get branched with the code.
18:05:23 <anotherjesse> ya - the merges are against master
18:05:30 <anotherjesse> master is currently 45 commits different than stable/diablo
18:05:43 <heckj> I honestly don't know if it's entirely accurate for trunk - hence the desire for someone who intimately knows Keystone to give a looksee.
18:05:50 <anotherjesse> is master supposed to become e0 and e0 becomes what we recommend instead of stable/diablo?
18:06:18 <anotherjesse> zns: maybe you know: is master supposed to become e0 and e0 becomes what we recommend instead of stable/diablo?
18:06:28 <joesavak> e0 will probably not exist due to timeframes. In talking with Yogi, I think we're shooting for e1
18:07:03 <anotherjesse> for people wanting to run diablo do will we recommend stable/diablo even once e1 exists then?
18:07:38 <zns> If master has only bug fixes and is stable by e0 then we should propose it as a backport for Diablo. My understanding is that it does not contain new functionality. Same API. Same schema. Thoughts?
18:07:41 <anotherjesse> https://github.com/openstack/keystone/compare/stable%2Fdiablo...master <- we are at +2743 -1372 lines already -- many docs :) but ...
18:07:49 <joesavak> probably. It depends if the customer was affected by a bug that'll be fixed in e-1
18:07:55 <anotherjesse> we have already changed schema
18:08:01 <anotherjesse> in master
18:09:47 <joesavak> is the removing of the default tenant id the only schema change? (https://review.openstack.org/#change,1068)
18:10:33 <sleepsonthefloor> there is a table rename as well
18:10:41 <joesavak> if so, then maybe this is more suited for essex and not a diablo back-port
18:10:53 <anotherjesse> zns: so your goal is that all of
18:11:05 <anotherjesse> https://github.com/openstack/keystone/compare/stable%2Fdiablo...master + whatever else happens up to e0 or e1 becomes the new stable/diablo?
18:12:16 <joesavak> #topic Essex e-0 release possibility
18:12:26 <anotherjesse> I just need to know what the plans / goals are for diablo - as our team hasn't been able to switch to helping with essex due to working on keystone integration still
18:13:13 <joesavak> there are 2 paths that I see: 1 - leave stable diablo as it is and focus on e1 release that will not backport to diablo
18:13:39 <anotherjesse> perhaps it is more:
18:13:42 <joesavak> 2 - rush to get e-0 done quickly which is the bugs & doc for diablo then back-port it to stable-diablo, then focus on e1
18:14:02 <anotherjesse> 1) have a stable/diablo that has cherrypicked backports to fix specific issues - rather than just taking master
18:14:52 <joesavak> Jesse - what is your preference and why?
18:15:34 <anotherjesse> unfortunately we are kinda damned either way - since cherrypicking backports from master to stable/diablo is hard due to commits not being atomic - we
18:15:58 <anotherjesse> 've spent time trying to identify them but end up having to rewrite since the commits aren't logically separated
18:16:11 <anotherjesse> and we don't have tags on bugs / commits to say it should be backported
18:16:17 <joesavak> yup
18:16:29 <anotherjesse> ignoring implementation - thinking only of the api (contracts) in stable/diablo
18:16:48 <anotherjesse> do we know what the issues that would need to be addressed for your team to feel happy doing a release?
18:16:58 <anotherjesse> stable/diablo release that is
18:17:29 <joesavak> ignoring impl, i think it's good. The doc updates just need to be verified and merged
18:17:52 <joesavak> but then people will try to get it to work and see that the impl is missing for calls or broken on others
18:18:08 <anotherjesse> zns: or why do you feel that we should switch to e0 / e1?
18:19:03 <anotherjesse> I know jaypipes et al are still working on integration with keystone as it exists now - but he can speak more to that
18:19:26 <anotherjesse> I just think we need to have a target that lets us finish diablo - and I can't find a document / bug list / blueprint / … that says what that is
18:19:43 <joesavak> ok. I'll get jay's opinion too. I'm leaning to just e-1 with no backporting though
18:20:13 <anotherjesse> something like https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=diablo-backport
18:20:53 <joesavak> ok - i'll create a bug so there's more visibility
18:20:59 <joesavak> good catch
18:21:39 <heckj> somewhat related, I'd really like to see the keystone team at least doing peer reviews - I'm still seeing checkins from someone being self-approved
18:21:49 <joesavak> anything else on e-0? Right now: no e-0 and i'll talk to Jay Pipes
18:21:57 <joesavak> joseph - i agree. I'll bring that up
18:22:30 <anotherjesse> pushing through commits in a day by the author minimizes the chance of peer review
18:22:58 <joesavak> yup. I think these are symptomatic of the keystone growing pains.
18:23:16 <joesavak> back to blueprints -
18:23:19 <joesavak> #topic Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints
18:23:37 <joesavak> there is an RBAC blueprint we are drafting and are planning to do an RBAC prototype for e-1
18:23:59 <joesavak> that blueprint is here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/rbac-keystone
18:24:24 <joesavak> and the full specification has proposed API changes. RBAC will be developed as a Keystone Extension
18:25:06 <joesavak> Any feedback on this will be helpful. I'll schedule a time for a review as well probably for the next meeting.
18:25:54 <heckj> I'll make sure to pass it around the folks working on dash here in Seattle
18:26:03 <joesavak> HP is working on 2-way SSL (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/2-way-ssl) and keystone domains right now (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-domains)
18:26:06 <joesavak> joseph - thanks!
18:26:12 <anotherjesse> joesavak: can we get an estimated on when the decision on what is the plan for keystone in diablo?  after talking with jay/...
18:26:37 <anotherjesse> I need to set expectations for our team and people who are deploying diablo
18:27:10 <anotherjesse> seems like it is really a ptl question but zns doesn't appear to be here
18:27:18 <joesavak> anotherjesse: let me talk it over with zns. My thoughts is that e-1 with no backporting will be decided
18:27:29 <joesavak> so by COB tomorrow?
18:28:07 <joesavak> #topic Open bugs
18:28:17 <anotherjesse> k - i have questions about the rbac but don't really have time to think about it until diablo is done
18:28:29 <joesavak> Yogi has been working on bug fixes against trunk. He's focusing on the high and critical ones
18:28:44 <joesavak> Jesse - we will start work on the prototype next week - FYI
18:29:08 <heckj> I'm working on the doc bug - and I think I've identified more, but wasn't sure  - will be asking questions about the functionality on the mailing list
18:29:17 <anotherjesse> joesavak: does high and critical mean by the importance in launchpad?
18:29:19 <joesavak> joseph: thanks
18:29:23 <joesavak> jesse: yes
18:30:04 <joesavak> if there are any bugs you feel should be addressed soon, let me know.
18:30:25 <anotherjesse> joesavak: there are lots of bugs with "undecided" importance with "fix commited" - seems like a weird state for so many bugs to be in
18:30:45 <joesavak> yeah. Triage has been an issue and we're working on that too.
18:31:13 <joesavak> Many of them are old or may have been fixed already. Yogi is going through as he's fixing to update the bugs where appropriate
18:31:55 <joesavak> If you own any of these bugs and see that the importance is missing or not what you'd expect - let me know that too.
18:32:24 <joesavak> #topic Open Discussion
18:32:41 <joesavak> Ok - what questions do y'all have?
18:32:45 <anotherjesse> I really feel like we have lots of technical debt we need to fix - things like processes and bugs and docs
18:32:51 <anotherjesse> before spending too much time on new stuff
18:32:59 <anotherjesse> feels like adding on top of a shaky foundation
18:33:29 <joesavak> jesse: i agree. It's difficult for keystone since it is really part of essex core (not diablo), was forced to grow up quick, and has really only 2 contributing devs on it.
18:34:13 <anotherjesse> joesavak: any chance you can have your developers slow down, take a deep breath and approach things with a slow and steady wins the race attitude?
18:34:22 <anotherjesse> not trying to push e0 / e1 out with lots of additions
18:35:05 <joesavak> jesse: yes - and we're potentially looking at resources as well. The issue is that keystone needs to freeze early on in essex with RBAC for services to start coding against that functionality
18:36:16 <heckj> if we coordinated the tasks and made them a bit more available for other developers to add in, we might be able to get some external resources contributing here too
18:36:34 <heckj> We don't need to have the "only 2 devs, so push everything through as fast as possible"
18:36:51 <joesavak> joseph - i agree. Thanks for that. :)
18:36:58 <heckj> But structure is needed to enable other developers to help
18:37:25 <joesavak> joseph: ok - i think we're already on the right path - more blueprints & bug management for essex than diablo
18:37:37 <heckj> The conversations appear to be happening between some of the devs and HP, but I haven't seen anything on the lists, open conversations, or even announcements of meetings yet. We really need to get that straightened out.
18:38:03 <heckj> I'm helping with docs now, and I've found it very difficult because of lack of access - and honestly I've been hesitant to just slap this into the mailing list. Maybe my bad
18:38:41 <heckj> joesavak: I don't want to say "essex only" - just more structure is needed in coordinating community involvement. Right now it appears to be all inward facing
18:38:46 <joesavak> j - yea, we have been talking with Liem and Jason especially around domains
18:39:22 <heckj> can we shift that conversation to the mailing list? Or set up a time to talk about design ideas and considerations on IRC? SOmething to make it more available/accessible
18:39:59 <joesavak> j - yes. I'll setup some time and we can do a sprint planning together. That may help
18:40:26 <joesavak> ok - any other questions or issues?
18:40:51 <joesavak> #topic action-items
18:41:23 <joesavak> Joe Savak to schedule a meeting with HP contributors and RS contributors for keystone to flush out design more, task, and estimate work
18:41:46 <joesavak> Joe Savak to check with Ziad on the E-0 possibility and communicate it out
18:41:52 <heckj> How about changing that to scheduling a "public" meeting
18:42:08 <anotherjesse> heckj: ++
18:42:11 <joesavak> j- ok, public. We might do it on our next ks status meeting
18:42:19 <heckj> awesome
18:42:38 <joesavak> Joe Savak to request peer reviews of RS developers
18:42:48 <joesavak> did i miss anything?
18:43:10 <joesavak> Joe Savak to have a beer?
18:43:40 <joesavak> ok - thanks y'all.
18:43:46 <heckj> thx
18:43:56 <joesavak> #endmeeting