19:03:59 <jeblair> #startmeeting
19:04:00 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 19 19:03:59 2012 UTC.  The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:04:01 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:04:21 <jeblair> #topic recent work
19:04:57 <jeblair> i have a proposal for a backup system
19:04:59 <jeblair> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8623/
19:05:24 <jeblair> so we'll start having off-site backups for our important servers
19:05:36 <jeblair> (at least, as soon as i can spin up an hpcloud machine for that purpose)
19:05:50 <clarkb> I read it. Looks good.
19:06:00 <clarkb> is the plan to backup all servers to both RS and HP?
19:06:14 <jeblair> yep
19:06:32 <jeblair> or at least, all the 'important' servers.
19:06:54 <jeblair> (which is most of them)
19:07:21 <jeblair> also, a number of us have changes submitted upstream to gerrit
19:07:37 <jeblair> mine are 'add username to json query output' (merged)
19:07:59 <jeblair> and 'openid sso', not merged yet at last check
19:08:16 <jeblair> and i've been making a few changes to the jenkins job filler
19:08:16 <clarkb> mine upstreams the 'status:reviewable' query and the "important changes" page
19:08:29 <Shrews> jeblair: sounds doubtful mine (WIP) will get accepted
19:09:06 <jeblair> Shrews: it's an important first step though, and having WIP even if it's not merged upstream as-is, is way better than not having anything.
19:09:18 <Shrews> jeblair: true
19:09:39 <jeblair> my current thinking is that assign to owner is a pretty good match for WIP, but....
19:09:39 <Shrews> jeblair: we should mention for anyone listening that we have 2.4.1 ready to go which has the email fix
19:09:55 <jeblair> what do do with the other half of the assignment functionality is still a question...
19:10:27 <jeblair> it's useless or possibly actively harmful to us as currently designed.  if it could be assigned to a group though, that could be useful to us.
19:10:50 <jeblair> Shrews: great, is there a change proposed to productionize that?
19:11:17 <Shrews> jeblair: yes  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8699/
19:11:25 <jeblair> Oh, i just remembered, there's one thing i want to test out on 2.4.1 before we put it in...
19:11:34 <jeblair> (it's not something that would affect gerrit itself)
19:11:46 <Shrews> k
19:12:00 <clarkb> spearce did respond to the comments about drafts, WIP, and private changes. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/repo-discuss/drafts/repo-discuss/YuLup-ELrP8/GOHurEUcA8IJ
19:12:11 <jeblair> but rather, I changed zuul to set verified=0 when it starts testing a change, and i also had it leave a message
19:12:34 <jeblair> i bet the message will get emailed; i need to check if setting verified=0 without leaving a message creates an email
19:13:02 <jeblair> basically, i'd like zuul to be as quiet as possible.  but if it sends an email regardless, may as well leave the message there.
19:13:32 <jeblair> #link https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/repo-discuss/drafts/repo-discuss/YuLup-ELrP8/GOHurEUcA8IJ
19:13:38 <clarkb> doesn't sound like upstream has much interest in "fixing" drafts
19:14:00 <clarkb> the solution of having a second repository for private changes seems like a lot of extra work
19:15:25 <jeblair> U(
19:15:26 <jeblair> :(
19:15:53 <jeblair> anybody else been working on something interesting?
19:16:18 <clarkb> in tree docs are now uploaded to docs.openstack.org/developer/$project
19:16:37 <clarkb> #link http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova
19:17:13 <jeblair> cool!  has there been discussion about moving ci docs there as well?
19:18:00 <clarkb> I think annegentle didn't want the CI docs there, but if we setup ci.openstack.org to be an ftp server we could use the same jenkins jobs for ci.openstack.org
19:18:48 <Shrews> jeblair: i have pygerrit working in dev mode, but it's not useful to us unless we upload it to Google Apps. I sent mtaylor a list of changes that I think it needs if we want to explore using it instead of java gerrit.
19:19:27 <clarkb> Shrews: is pygerrit v1.0 of gerrit? or some fork?
19:19:31 <Shrews> short of it: it needs a lot of work
19:19:31 <jeblair> Shrews: neat.  i'm guessing that's a substantial list of changes?
19:19:46 <Shrews> clarkb: yes, v1.0 of gerrit
19:20:09 <jeblair> Shrews: ok, well it's still good to know what our options are(n't).  :)
19:20:21 <Shrews> jeblair: yes. we first need to divorce it from GAE as a first step
19:20:58 <Shrews> i mean, it's doable though
19:21:25 <jeblair> #topic etherpad / docs changes
19:21:29 <Shrews> if anyone wants to play with the code, my modified version is: https://github.com/Shrews/PyGerrit
19:22:02 <jeblair> clarkb: want to summarize etherpad-lite, and where that's going?
19:22:48 <clarkb> sure. Etherpad Lite is light weight implementation of etherpad basically. Lite on resource use, not on features.
19:23:23 <clarkb> The idea is to migrate the existing etherpad install to etherpad lite. I have a puppet module written to do that and the change to apply it to the future etherpad.openstack.org host is in gerrit
19:23:40 <clarkb> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8706/
19:23:54 <clarkb> before that gets approved I need to copy a few files over to the new host (ssl certs)
19:24:27 <clarkb> the ssl certs are currently self signed by me, but I imagine at some point we may want trusted certs?
19:25:01 <jeblair> yeah, we'll get real certs
19:25:24 <clarkb> the migration of data from etherpad to etherpad-lite is blocking on access to the old server, but the process looks straightforward and is documented at https://github.com/Pita/etherpad-lite/wiki/How-to-migrate-the-database-from-Etherpad-to-Etherpad-Lite
19:25:43 <clarkb> so once we have access to the data I don't expect any major issues migrating and testing
19:27:09 <clarkb> I know annegentle is hoping to use etherpad-lite as a place where folks can edit code then push to gerrit for review. etherpad-lite is pluggable through node.js and has an API (with python bindings) so in theory this is doable
19:27:44 <jeblair> cool.  my hope is that if that project gets off the ground, we'll have an etherpad server ready for it.
19:28:47 <jeblair> #topic testing
19:29:27 <jeblair> I'm going to continue working on the jenkins job filler with the goal of being able to succinctly describe the devstack jobs
19:29:49 <jeblair> I'd like to check in with the tempest folks and see if they think it'll be ready for gating soon
19:30:13 <jeblair> and we should start looking into how we can test client library backwards compatibility
19:31:27 <jeblair> #topic open discussion
19:31:39 <jeblair> anything else anyone wants to talk about?
19:32:06 <clarkb> I did eventually manage to update the github pull request closing script
19:33:15 <jeblair> yes, thank you.  that source of cronspam is dealt with.  now onto the next!  :)
19:33:23 <notmyname> I do
19:33:42 <notmyname> last week there was some discussion about gating swift on devstack (or something along those lines)
19:34:10 <notmyname> adding swift to the devstack gate (may be a better way to say that)
19:34:46 <notmyname> I'm trying to catch up from being out all last week, and just want to know the status on that conversation
19:34:56 <jeblair> it seems a number of people would like to see that added
19:35:09 <jeblair> i have not done any work on that, nor proposed a change
19:35:38 <notmyname> to gate swift on this or to add swift to devstack defaults?
19:35:48 <notmyname> (I'm actually not sure of the differences)
19:35:57 <jeblair> so the process would be:
19:36:21 <jeblair> 1) make sure devstack can configure swift correctly (whether enabled by default or not is orthogonal)
19:36:48 <jeblair> 2) propose a change to the devstack-gate scripts to enable swift for the gating tests
19:37:14 <notmyname> what is currently gated by devstack?
19:37:39 <jeblair> (that change is actually self-limiting; in that if it doesn't work, it wont pass it's own gate test.)
19:38:17 <jeblair> (1 sec)
19:39:11 <clarkb> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8443/ is a move to add quantum
19:39:33 <jeblair> openstack-dev/devstack openstack/nova openstack/glance openstack/keystone openstack/python-novaclient openstack/python-keystoneclient openstack/python-quantumclient openstack/python-glanceclient openstack/horizon openstack/tempest"
19:39:48 <jeblair> notmyname: those are the projects currently gated on devstack ^
19:40:15 <notmyname> ok
19:40:21 <jeblair> clarkb: yep, and it still needs some devstack configuration work, so it won't go in yet
19:42:09 <jeblair> er, except tempest; it's running silently right now, not part of the gate.
19:43:07 <jeblair> notmyname: do you happen to know if swift-in-devstack works currently?
19:43:20 <notmyname> jeblair: no idea. I've never used devstack
19:43:54 <notmyname> I certainly support getting it to work, but devstack isn't something I've looked at yet
19:45:05 <jeblair> ok.  it worked at some point, i believe, so if it doesn't currently, i doubt it will be too hard to get it up to date.
19:45:24 <notmyname> great :-)
19:46:00 <jeblair> cool; other items?
19:47:19 <jeblair> oh, er, mtaylor has started a significant mailing list thread about python client library versioning.  all the details have not yet been resolved.
19:47:33 <jeblair> not sure we're equipped to talk about it in depth here, but i thought i'd mention it for the record.
19:48:14 <jeblair> thanks everyone!
19:48:16 <jeblair> #endmeeting