17:04:32 <Ravikumar_hp> #startmeeting
17:04:33 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 17 17:04:32 2012 UTC.  The chair is Ravikumar_hp. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:04:34 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:05:05 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic
17:05:06 <Ravikumar_hp> Jmeter perf test scripts  - check-ins  - Rohit
17:05:21 <Ravikumar_hp> Jmeter perf test scripts  -
17:05:38 <rohitk> Ravikumar_hp: trying to squeeze some time out for that
17:06:13 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: ok . any ETA
17:06:17 <rohitk> i know it's gotten delayed, will hopefully put it up by end of this week
17:06:59 <Ravikumar_hp> ok. anyone has any question of performance test scripts before we move to next topic?
17:07:42 <Ravikumar_hp> ok
17:08:02 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic  update on Swift test development for Tempest
17:08:10 <JoseSwiftQA> ah yes
17:08:16 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic  update on Swift test development for Tempest
17:08:33 <JoseSwiftQA> Finally got everything submitted semi properly.
17:08:34 <Ravikumar_hp> JoseSwiftQA: Any update on tempest test check-in?
17:09:01 <JoseSwiftQA> one sec
17:09:15 <JoseSwiftQA> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7465/
17:09:42 <JoseSwiftQA> There where two botched submissions I abandoned.  Jay did do a review on one of them and I incorperated his changes
17:10:51 <Ravikumar_hp> JoseSwiftQA:
17:10:51 <Ravikumar_hp> Great. does that check-in includes all Swift tests ?
17:11:03 <JoseSwiftQA> I didn't have time to add all the client methods I wanted, but I felt it was probably more important to get tests working for the ones I did ad.
17:11:06 <JoseSwiftQA> yes
17:11:11 <Ravikumar_hp> JoseSwiftQA:
17:11:11 <Ravikumar_hp> or some more in pipeline?
17:12:06 <JoseSwiftQA> Basic tests for all the methods in the clients are included in this submission.  Now that I have a better idea of coding style and process, i'll try and push through smaller but more frequent commits.
17:12:40 <Ravikumar_hp> any one has any questions on Swift tests ?
17:12:46 <fattarsi> JoseSwiftQA: I just saw this today, looking good
17:12:52 <JoseSwiftQA> coolbeans :D
17:13:22 <Ravikumar_hp> JoseSwiftQA: Thanks
17:13:41 <Ravikumar_hp> #Topic Blockers preventing work from moving forward
17:14:15 <Ravikumar_hp> I think - As of now None
17:14:15 <Ravikumar_hp> . Any one feels there are blockers in tempest?
17:14:25 <rohitk> I'd definately like to see this moving in as soon as possible https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7069/2
17:14:39 <patelna> how about tempest concurrent runs enhancement
17:14:53 <rohitk> I have quite some work dependent on the new manager classes
17:14:55 <patelna> it that commited
17:15:09 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: Refactoring of base test case classes
17:15:09 <Ravikumar_hp> 
17:15:33 <rohitk> Ravikumar_hp: yes
17:15:38 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: that is enhancement right ? not a blocker?
17:16:05 <rohitk> well it's blocking some of my code to be checked in for reviews
17:16:40 <Ravikumar_hp> patelna: Daryl lost connection . will ping him on that concurrent tests
17:16:57 <patelna> great...thanks
17:17:10 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: ok . I will record that as blocker
17:17:27 <Ravikumar_hp> Anyone has any blocker ?
17:18:09 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Outstanding code reviews
17:18:21 <rohitk> I'd also consider the limited number of core reviewers as a blocker
17:18:39 <rohitk> probably will have a thread up on the ML for that
17:18:48 <donaldngo_hp> rohitk++
17:19:00 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk:++
17:19:07 <donaldngo_hp> or add more core reviewers
17:19:13 <rohitk> yes
17:19:17 <Ravikumar_hp> we need to have some approvers
17:20:11 <Ravikumar_hp> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest,n,z
17:20:18 <fattarsi> there is currently a schedule for reviewers, correct?
17:21:08 <fattarsi> maybe when reviews are blocked a polite ping would be useful
17:21:27 <Ravikumar_hp> mostly it reviewed fast . turn around is fast . but it puts burden on Jay - since there are very few reviewers cum approvers
17:21:34 <rohitk> fattarsi: would have to get Jay to answer that, not sure how we're managing reviews for Tempest
17:21:42 <fattarsi> in addition to more core reviewers :)
17:21:55 <Ravikumar_hp> now we have 17 pending out of which 4 backport
17:22:11 <Ravikumar_hp> All those submitted to code review are fairly new and in -progress. No concern.
17:22:27 <Ravikumar_hp> Only one pending for sometime
17:22:27 <Ravikumar_hp> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/5544/ First pass at generic resource management
17:22:34 <donaldngo_hp> is there a list of core reviewers?
17:22:38 <fattarsi> rohitk: I am a little unclear too how it is managed, maybe we can refine the process a bit more
17:22:57 <Ravikumar_hp> fattarsi: ++
17:23:34 <rohitk> fattarsi: I'd probably identify dependent branches and prioritize them
17:23:57 <rohitk> any branch that adds a client should get a higher priority
17:24:09 <Ravikumar_hp> but out of 17 pending reviews, 16 are recent and being in-progress and acted on
17:24:36 <Ravikumar_hp> too much delay puts rebase issue etc
17:25:14 <fattarsi> Ravikumar_hp: agreed
17:25:25 <Ravikumar_hp> Any code review in pipe line is critical other than the one Rohit mentioned?
17:26:24 <fattarsi> are people comfortable using the -dev channel when a review is critical?
17:26:31 <fattarsi> I don't see it used much for tempest
17:26:51 <rohitk> I'd want to see a -qa channel by now
17:27:13 <fattarsi> rohitk: I was thinking the same thing
17:27:17 <donaldngo_hp> me too
17:27:23 <fattarsi> might spurn more traffic
17:27:40 <rohitk> Tempest should have independent discussions, that's not much work to start the channel
17:28:00 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: ++ .
17:28:14 <Ravikumar_hp> i prefer our own channel
17:28:21 <rohitk> there is a channel actuall, #openstack-qa exists
17:28:42 <Ravikumar_hp> may be we need to evangelize the channel
17:29:04 <rohitk> Ravikumar_hp: ++, well chris and I just did
17:29:17 <rohitk> :)
17:29:28 <fattarsi> so, let's say for now if something is blocked to voice it there and see how it goes
17:29:49 <Ravikumar_hp> I should use that channel . Need to check how many use that channel reqularly. should we move to next topic
17:30:52 <Ravikumar_hp> ok fattarsi. I agree with you
17:31:04 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Outstanding Test development (in-progress & New)
17:31:18 <Ravikumar_hp> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=In+Progress&field.status=New
17:31:29 <Ravikumar_hp> Total - 23 in-progress , 21 New bugs , fairly good progress. All these test developments are additional enhancement tests with medium priority
17:31:53 <Ravikumar_hp> Our resource is back to temptest test development and we will write Nova negative tests that is already assigned to us.
17:33:01 <Ravikumar_hp> still these test development (23 task bugs ) are for regression issues only. Not for Folsom features
17:34:40 <Ravikumar_hp> any questions ? Is any test development in https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=In+Progress&field.status=New is of high priority?
17:35:23 <Ravikumar_hp> ok . will move to next topic
17:36:13 <Ravikumar_hp> Daryl and Jay not there . so not sure if we can cover some of the items
17:36:21 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Review of last week's action items
17:36:35 <Ravikumar_hp> Update on Getting the smoke test branch in gerrit
17:36:57 <Ravikumar_hp> as per the status in last week meeting - we wanted to give enough time for folks to see things and get comfortable before finalizing the review and branch . Is that time passed? Any update on when the review and branch will be complete?
17:37:26 <Ravikumar_hp> Any one has any information as Daryl and Jay not there ?
17:37:50 <JoseSwiftQA> one sec, i'll see if I can find Daryl :)
17:38:00 <rohitk> Ravikumar_hp: we could probably move that discussion to the ML
17:38:15 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: ok
17:39:26 <Ravikumar_hp> just wait for 30sec to hear from JoseSwiftQA
17:39:48 <notmyname> Ravikumar_hp: he's not back at his deskyet
17:40:03 <Ravikumar_hp> ok . we will move to next topic.
17:40:29 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Folsom blueprints
17:40:56 <Ravikumar_hp> Just picked Nova for example for this week.
17:40:56 <Ravikumar_hp> Nova blueprints https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/folsom - Total 55
17:40:56 <Ravikumar_hp> Folsom-1 specific https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-1 total 15
17:40:56 <Ravikumar_hp> Implemented - 6
17:41:30 <Ravikumar_hp> 6 blueprints already implemented .
17:42:26 <Ravikumar_hp> just wanted to discuss how we are going to catch up on those blueprints
17:43:23 <Ravikumar_hp> in terms of spliting test development for those blueprints among us ?
17:44:10 <Ravikumar_hp> folsom-1 phase is almost complete next week or so
17:44:51 <rohitk> Ravikumar_hp: we have a priority for stable/essex in the near time frame, so not much towards folsom :(
17:45:18 <Ravikumar_hp> rohitk: ok
17:45:41 <Ravikumar_hp> from our side , we want to give priority to Folsom branch
17:46:18 <Ravikumar_hp> may be we need to discuss this further whan Jay and Daryl around next week
17:46:46 <Ravikumar_hp> next topic?
17:47:13 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Testing Folsom branches
17:47:33 <Ravikumar_hp> i was about to ask question to Jay
17:47:35 <Ravikumar_hp> jaypipes: Trying to understand the environment that is setup for Folsom testing  (some name like jclouds or so multi node) . Is the plan is to run only tempest gated smoke tests in that environment ? how frequenctly the env is cleaned ?
17:48:30 <Ravikumar_hp> as Folsom is primarily focussed on stability , we need environment to test long running /stress tests
17:49:28 <Ravikumar_hp> anyone has any suggestions/questions?
17:49:42 <Ravikumar_hp> otherwise , we will have the discussion next week
17:50:06 <Ravikumar_hp> ok . next topic
17:50:21 <Ravikumar_hp> #topic Open discussion
17:50:31 <JoseSwiftQA> heh, no luck :D
17:50:38 <Ravikumar_hp> ok .
17:50:52 <Ravikumar_hp> anyone has any items to discuss in open discussion
17:51:19 <fattarsi> not I
17:51:51 <Ravikumar_hp> Going once ?
17:51:55 <Ravikumar_hp> twice?
17:52:03 <JoseSwiftQA> oh wait!
17:52:07 <Ravikumar_hp> ok
17:52:08 <JoseSwiftQA> no just kidding :)_
17:52:14 <Ravikumar_hp> Thanks
17:52:22 <Ravikumar_hp> #endmeeting