18:59:08 <jsavak> #startmeeting Keystone Team Meeting
18:59:09 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Nov  8 18:59:08 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsavak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:11 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:59:19 <jsavak> Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/KeystoneMeeting
18:59:54 <zns> Hi! I'm here. FYI
19:00:15 <jsavak> Hi Ziad!
19:00:18 <jsavak> Who else is here?
19:00:44 <heckj> o/
19:00:55 <jsavak> Hey Joseph - good talking with you yesterday
19:02:18 <jsavak> #topic Roadmap for Essex - status on blueprints
19:02:38 <heckj> jsavak: yeah, definitely!
19:02:53 <heckj> jsavak: doc should be pretty reasonable now - for the BP
19:03:43 <jsavak> Yeah - doc looks good. I was looking at keystone.openstack.org. The only thing that may need beefing up is the curl examples, but we can come back to those.
19:03:48 <jsavak> I'm going through the blueprints for e-1 right now (listed on http://wiki.openstack.org/releasestatus/) and updating the blueprints as necessary. If it's merged, I've been saying that the blueprint is implemented. Is that the right status?
19:04:49 * heckj isn't entirely sure of best practice re: blueprints
19:05:05 <zns> Isn't the status of the BP supposed to get updated by Gerrit if the BP is referenced in the comments?
19:05:28 <heckj> in horizon, we have some general blueprints that stay open and aren't assigned to milestones, others that are assigned and closed as they get completed.
19:05:33 <jsavak> maybe these weren't then - they've been showing good progress even though the code was merged
19:05:36 <heckj> zns: yes
19:05:44 <zns> I think putting a BP# comment in there is what we need to do...
19:05:56 <jeblair> zns: hi
19:06:04 <zns> heckj: You know how to trigger that? Is it BP#?
19:06:22 <jeblair> zns: auto status changes in blueprints isn't implemented yet, but is a todo
19:06:23 <heckj> "blueprint [name of blueprint here]" is all I've needed in the past
19:06:39 <heckj> damn - that must have just been bug then - I thought it was updating
19:06:46 <jeblair> right now it links back to the change if you do that
19:06:50 <jeblair> but doesn't change the status
19:07:20 <heckj> jeblair: wait - where did the updates for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/keystone-documentation come in?
19:08:04 <zns> jeblair: hi
19:08:06 <jeblair> yeah, those are automatic based on saying something like "blueprint keystone-documentation"
19:08:39 <jeblair> i think zns was talking about updating the actual "status" field in the bp
19:08:41 <annegentle> one consideration though for that keystone-documentation blueprint is that the files in openstack-manuals (which publish to docs.openstack.org) are not yet updated
19:08:55 <zns> jeblair: OK, so status still needs to be managed manually for now. np
19:08:58 <heckj> annegentle: yeah, not yet complete - just dev docs
19:09:04 <jeblair> which we've talked about doing but don't do yet.
19:09:06 <jeblair> zns: yes
19:09:18 <annegentle> I met with Joe and Theresa and we still need an assignee for those updates
19:10:07 <heckj> zns: speaking of which, I'm still waiting on answers to questions from you, dolph, or yogi. Posted to mailing list after last keystone meeting I was in - never got a response from you guys.
19:11:11 <jsavak> heckj - was it the "why does it" email?
19:12:18 <jsavak> I saw that vish and jesse responded so I wasn't sure if there were any outstanding questions...
19:12:19 <heckj> jsavak: yeah - the questions you said that I should send to the mailing list last meeting
19:12:33 <heckj> Several, I'm afraid
19:13:00 <jsavak> ping dolphm_ are you here?
19:13:26 <jeblair> so there is a ci team meeting scheduled here for this time slot....
19:13:28 <heckj> they answered the credentials question, but that led to "how do you get keystone to work with EC2" - it really needs whomever is forward thinking on this project to answer.
19:13:41 <zns> heckj: sorry, I missed that one. I just flagged it and will spend time on it this evening.
19:13:49 <jsavak> jeblair - whoops
19:14:06 <jsavak> heckj - can you send me your outstanding questions? I'll get them to dolph & yogi
19:14:33 <heckj> one the way
19:14:54 <jsavak> heckj - we're also going to spend more time in irc & responding to mailing lists. We've been bad about this in the past
19:15:20 <jsavak> Topic: Open Discussion re: keystone
19:15:29 <jsavak> #topic open discussion re: keystone
19:15:41 <zns> heckj: We've done some work on the EC2 stuff. Yogi has been working on it. I'll try to put more meet on the answers this evening.
19:15:44 <dolphm_> jsavak: yeah, i'm here, i've been following along
19:16:12 <heckj> zns: cool, thank you
19:16:19 <jsavak> dolphm: can you work with heckj on the questions he has?
19:16:27 <heckj> ins, jsavak: need that to wrap from narrative around the docs update
19:16:38 <zns> jsavak: not sure how we closed the previous topic. Are we on track for Diablo patch and E1?
19:16:49 <dolphm_> jsavak: i don't know the answers to the ones remaining, but i can help him research :) they're good questions
19:17:12 <dolphm_> zns: diablo patch, yes
19:17:25 <jsavak> zns: we are on track. All of the blueprints mentioned on http://wiki.openstack.org/releasestatus/ have been merged.
19:17:42 <jsavak> er - metioned  for e1 have been merged
19:17:49 <zns> jsavak, dolphm_: thanks. Cool!
19:18:24 <annegentle> zns: I'd like your review for the Keystone conceptual diagram at https://review.openstack.org/#change,1033 before pushing it through
19:18:33 <jsavak> zns: we need to publicize your RBAC prototype. Can you send out a mailing-list email on it?
19:18:37 <_0x44> sandywalsh: You around? Look at #openstack-dev
19:19:17 <zns> jsavak: sure. I wanted to test it with devstack, but maybe we shouldn't wait. I'll send it out today.
19:19:32 <jsavak> zns: thanks!
19:19:52 <zns> annegentle: OK. Will do.
19:20:13 <jsavak> any other keystone business or questions?
19:20:24 <dolphm_> jsavak: yeah... review 1068
19:20:25 <annegentle> Also are all Keystone's API updates targeted to 2.0? Does Keystone need a RFC period on its API docs? I'm asking since Compute and Netconn (Quantum) and Image (Glance) need RFC periods it looks like.
19:20:50 <annegentle> So I'm collecting API draft spec needs from teams.
19:20:51 <dolphm_> we need to notify the community before that merges -- it's got a couple of backwards-incompatible changes that WILL break *every* consumer of keystone
19:20:55 <zns> annegentle: there are no API updates as far as I know….
19:21:28 <annegentle> zns: ok so we'll be on API 2.0 from now until April (Essex) for certain?
19:21:41 <zns> annegentle: yes.
19:21:48 <annegentle> zns: ok thanks
19:22:05 <zns> clarification - the only thing we will add will be non-breaking extensions...
19:22:59 <annegentle> zns: and all - the key I think is, do you need community feedback through a request for comments period while you update the api? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question...
19:23:01 <jsavak> dolphm: is 1068 close to submission?
19:23:15 <zns> 1068 - we need to make sure that the instructions are clear and the experience is smooth. I don't think we're there yet.
19:23:17 <dolphm_> jsavak: sort of
19:23:23 <dolphm_> jsavak: i think it should go in after E1
19:23:54 <jsavak> dolphm: ok
19:24:06 <zns> annegentle: Yes, but we don't have an API change scheduled for Essex. We may have some proposals for a new version at the F summit.
19:24:12 <annegentle> zns: ok
19:24:17 <dolphm_> jsavak: talking with yogi about it now
19:24:29 <zns> dolphm_: agreed.
19:24:30 <jsavak> dolphm: ok, thanks.
19:25:22 <zns> jsavak: what I'd like to see is the RCB guys test it out and tell us it meets their needs/expectations.
19:25:43 <jsavak> zns: test out 1068, or e1 overall?
19:26:06 <jsavak> or both
19:26:13 <dolphm_> jsavak: i think he means the rbc prototype
19:26:20 <zns> 1068. They would be a good bar to test any release against, but especially a hairy one like 1068.
19:26:40 <jsavak> zns: ok.
19:26:54 <jsavak> Dolph: let me know when 1068 is looking better and I'll get jesse to pull & review
19:27:03 <zns> dolphm_: no - not the prototype…. 1068.
19:27:19 <dolphm_> zns: all of our commits go through RCB CI already, afaik, but the coverage is poor
19:28:26 <zns> dolphm_: I'm thinking about the production deployments, not just the CI server.
19:29:20 <jsavak> ok - any other keystone questions or issues?
19:30:21 <jsavak> Ok - thanks for your time. I'll post the minutes on the wiki.
19:30:30 <jsavak> #endmeeting