21:02:12 #startmeeting 21:02:13 Meeting started Mon Jul 9 21:02:12 2012 UTC. The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:02:14 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:02:25 gongys: hi 21:02:31 hi 21:02:53 #link agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings 21:03:15 #topic Folsom-2 recap 21:03:19 hi 21:03:33 overall, a very strong effort from the community. we had a lot of people really step up, which was great. 21:03:42 have a few things to wrap up 21:04:05 o/ 21:04:06 dhcp is about ready to go in, though there are some issues that we're deferring to separate bugs 21:04:08 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9064/9 21:04:33 gongys: I was mainly looking to get your thoughts on whether there was anything we couldn't defer to seperate bugs. 21:04:46 gongys: where you able to test with null firewall driver in your setup? 21:05:14 not. I am testing with firewall driver. 21:05:16 gongys: i filed this to track the issue: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/expose-dhcp-server-ip 21:05:34 That's fine. 21:05:48 I think it can be dealt with by multi-host dhcp. 21:06:05 or other multi-host features. 21:06:18 did anyone open a bug regarding the dhcp tap device name? 21:06:44 in which cases, we must expose dhcp server and gateway ips to other system, such as nova. 21:06:45 garyk: not yet, I don't think. please do. there are a couple outstanding issues that we should file before actually approving 21:06:59 Sorry, I have approved. 21:07:20 gongys: yes. gateway ip is already exposed for basic model, though multi-host may be tricky (would ahve to think more) 21:07:37 gongys: no problem. i'll just go back and look at the comments and make sure there's a bug foreach of them 21:07:38 gongys: no problem 21:07:51 yeah I've got four bugs to file 21:08:30 markmcclain: ok, great. please not that a few may already be filed (did it this morning). just search for "dhcp" on that main folsom-3 page 21:08:44 danwent: will do 21:08:44 we also have the two devstack patches 21:09:00 garyk's dhcp patch is just waiting on a devstack reviewer: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9064/9 21:09:17 danwent: ok, thanks 21:09:34 (sorry, wrong patch) 21:09:35 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9362/ 21:10:00 plus we have arosen's patch for v2 support: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9161/ 21:10:14 looks like he just revved it, so hopefully that's good to go today as well. 21:10:37 So i think we can have all the basic stuff in today, assuming we can get dean to help us with a devstack core review. 21:11:08 any other blockers for a basic setup? 21:11:26 I want to make sure everyone is able to get a basic dev setup that they can use for developing F-3 items. 21:11:44 that's cool! 21:11:52 #topic Folsom-3 21:11:55 https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-3 21:12:28 Due date is Aug. 16th. 4 days before i'm expecting my baby to be born. Great timing :) 21:12:37 sweet 21:12:40 hehe, yeah 21:12:43 nice. 21:12:45 :D 21:12:51 :) 21:13:02 We can defter the f3 4 days. 21:13:11 we're obviously over subscribed on the release, but I wanted to put a lot there so people had a chance to see everything that's on our plate. 21:13:53 as always, any major item needs to be proposed for a review a week before the branch date. 21:14:03 which itself is two days before the release date. 21:14:20 so all features should be in for review by Aug 7th. 21:14:47 This week, take a look at the list, identify anything you think is missing, and put some thought into what you can work on during F-3 21:15:02 Some areas where I have a lot of concern are around Horizon 21:15:33 we made slow progress on the basic horizon integration during F-1 and F-2, and now arvind is out-of-office. 21:15:50 we have a set of additional things to do in horizon beyond the base work as well (e.g., floating ips, etc.) 21:15:57 so we could really use someone to step up there. 21:16:27 Multi-host is another area that will need attention 21:16:54 let me deal with mult-host. 21:16:58 we split the multi-host dhcp work into another BP. and we'll likely do the same for the mulit-host L3 stuff. I'd really like to find someone planning on using multi-host who will put the time into it. 21:17:01 gongys: ok, great. 21:18:03 Another area were we need some though is a "notifications API", so that elements can register to learn about events in quantum, like when a port is created/updated/deleted or when a floating ip is allocated. 21:18:16 this is related to some of the RPC work people have been thinking about. 21:18:35 as much as possible, i'd like this to be a real notifications API, not just a bunch of adhoc RPC calls. 21:18:44 danwent: i am working on the rpc with the scalable agents. hopefully will have linux brdige in soon 21:18:53 this will let external systems (e.g., ceiliometer) integrate. 21:19:29 garyk: cool, yes, I haven't looked at that code yet, so I'm not quite sure how it might relate to a notifications API, but it seems like at a high level you need to get notifications that new ports on being created on a particular host, is that correct? 21:19:40 (i.e., the main goal is to avoid polling?) 21:19:50 danwent: yes, that is correct. 21:20:16 danwent: code was working with v1 now upgrading to v2 - ran into rpc issues 21:20:29 ok… i'll try and take a look at this soon to figure out how it relates to our goals around notifications. 21:20:47 garyk: ok, an this is using openstack common rpc, correct? 21:21:00 danwent: yes, that is correct. 21:21:22 ok, great 21:21:36 based on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9487/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9166/ 21:22:00 And the final big area that doesn't have anyone assigned is API quotas and rate-limiting 21:22:39 i'm sure there will be addtional areas where help is needed as well, but I'm just trying to call out major areas where no one has currently been working. 21:23:05 so expect emails from me in the next week as I try to find people for certain blueprints + bugs. 21:23:40 unlike Essex, folsom-3 is the last iteration in Folsom 21:24:01 so anything that must be in Folsom needs to be completed in this iteration before we go into feature-freeze 21:24:26 danwent: can we also dedicate some time to stable essex at the end of the meeting 21:24:31 (and unlike essex, there's not a really long period for "feature freeze exceptions") 21:24:35 garyk: good idea. 21:24:42 will do it right after this section. 21:24:47 tx 21:24:49 any other questions/comments on Folsom-3 21:25:02 Dan, Do you have any design in your mind about horizon integraton? 21:25:03 need some reviews on provider-networks 21:25:31 gongys: the base work is fairly well flushed out and arvind has a branch (will send out link) 21:25:54 but we still need to create BPs around additional functionality (e.g., floating IPs) 21:26:10 #todo #danwent make sure additional horizon+quantum BPs are created. 21:26:30 I thin we need get a spec out about what we will expect about horizon integration. 21:26:34 rkukura: salv-orlando is not here, but I've asked him to focus on that review 21:26:42 thin -> think. 21:27:24 danwent: thanks. Others welcome too 21:27:33 gongys: yes. I spoke with arvind about the base integraiton on the phone, and I believe that part is spec-ed out. But the next steps beyond that are not well-speced. 21:27:43 rkukura: I will look it today 21:28:10 #topic Essex-stable 21:28:18 garyk: all yours 21:28:47 pedning review - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8650/ 21:29:32 once this is done we need to add - a cherry pick for https://github.com/openstack/quantum/commit/438eda895c7e24113f116e503f36930c176ebe4d 21:30:13 yeah, sorry, i've been ignoring those reviews to focus on F-2 21:30:17 can anyone think of any other fixes that need to go in. the sooner we can get tarballs ready the better. 21:30:50 i can send a mail to the list of all of the cherry picking done over the last month or so. 21:31:00 garyk: yeah, that would be helpful 21:31:14 danwent: ok, i'll do that tomorrow morning 21:31:26 garyk: great. thanks for driving the essex/stable stuff 21:31:56 #topic community topics 21:32:10 when do we star to work on gongys-1? 21:32:28 ? 21:32:31 ? 21:32:34 :) 21:32:38 the G version for OpenStack 21:32:42 haha 21:32:45 :D 21:32:56 Summit is mid-october 21:33:26 but the real answer is, once we finish up the critical items for Folsom, and that depends on how quickly we work :) 21:33:44 usually after the final interation we sliip into a mode focused on testing, bug fixing and documenting. 21:34:02 then once we're happy with the state of a release, we start thinking about the next summit. 21:34:14 we need a poll to choose between garyk-1 and gongys-1 :-) 21:34:15 the actual folsom release date is late september 21:34:20 What a bad guy. 21:34:20 ok, sounds good 21:34:27 I like it. 21:34:28 i still choose grizzly 21:34:53 it would be unfair to pick either garyk or gongy, so grizzly is the clear choice :P 21:35:09 also, a reminder to sign up for review days: http://wiki.openstack.org/ReviewDays 21:35:23 some folks have been better at following their review days than others. 21:35:32 is thursday a bug triage day? 21:35:45 so far, i haven't written my review monitoring scripts though, so some of you get a pass, for now 21:36:07 :-0 21:36:27 garyk: i heard ttx mention something about a bug triage day 21:36:33 any know for sure 21:37:27 #todo #danwent look into possible bug triage day 21:37:54 to be honest, i'd probably rather wait until we finish F-3 and to then get a hold on our bugs right before the main bug-fixing period starts 21:37:58 but we'll see. 21:38:17 one last note: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev 21:38:23 this is the new openstack dev mailing list 21:38:47 our plan has been to deprecate the netstack list and move to the main openstack-dev list, now that we're a core project. 21:38:59 ok 21:39:11 all emails related to quantum should have [Quantum] in the subject line 21:39:23 hopefully that will make for easier scanning/filtering 21:39:52 I personaly will probably have two different folders, one for main openstack-dev list and one for openstack-dev tagged with quantum 21:40:06 as its pretty hard to keep up with the overall rate of email on the main openstack list 21:40:13 danwent: awesome, it will make easy to follow quantum related messages 21:40:31 the current openstack list will keep being used, but will be focused more on questions about the use of openstack (not dev discussions) 21:41:03 #topics open discussion 21:41:17 anything? from anyone? 21:41:42 any idea about my spec about floating ips? 21:41:52 I'm going to dedicated to this project. 21:42:07 zhanghua: dedicated to floating IPs? 21:42:30 I mean, Quantum, network service 21:42:40 zhanghua: ah, great. 21:42:53 zhanghua: there's definitely plenty of work to do, so it will be really helpful 21:43:03 gongys: sent you mail about this. 21:43:04 I have seen a lot of progress here. amazing. 21:43:28 I have a mail sent back. 21:43:33 gongys: had planned to cover it under: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-l3-fwd-nat, but would be great to have help with this BP. So would be great if you could drive the floating IPs side of things. 21:43:47 gongys: ah, ok, am (as always) a bit behind on mail :) 21:44:13 ok, anything else? 21:44:41 Also I think we should have a spec for each BP before we start work. 21:44:44 btw, i really want to put together some states on contributions to quantum in the past month or so. I think the number of commits and number of participatns has really jumped, which is awesome 21:44:49 This will help reviewing. 21:45:00 gongys: ah, thanks for mentioning that… was on the agenda but i blew past it. 21:45:09 I strongly agree. 21:45:26 for any significant feature, we should require a spec before reviewing 21:45:42 sometimes its really hard to get the big picture just by wandering through the code in a review 21:45:59 Sometimes, I have to read codes for reviewing, to guess what is for, and how to use it, which is hard. 21:46:30 very good idea 21:46:34 gongys: definitely. I'm going to start pinging people for specs earlier in the development cycle as well 21:46:34 +1 21:47:01 if you have something priority high or above, expect to get emails if you don't have a spec up two weeks into the iteration. 21:47:36 (this doesn't need to be a completely baked spec, but at least the key use cases, basic design, and touch points with other components) 21:47:54 Yes, that is enough. 21:48:19 ok, anything else folks? 21:48:22 if there is a template ? 21:49:01 zhanghua: a spec template? not at this point. it might be helpful to develop a suggested one though. 21:49:42 include sections like "use cases", "new apis", "ipmlementation components", "interactions with external components" 21:49:56 i see 21:50:09 i dont' think we need to enforce one yet, but we can put together a suggested one on the wiki for anytone who wants guidence 21:50:19 what do others think? 21:50:33 A spec template seems like a really good idea. 21:50:43 dan, zhanghua and me (zhhuabj) are two people 21:50:50 :D 21:51:09 yes 21:51:13 it's good and will help a lot new contributors 21:51:57 #todo #danwent send out link to suggested spec template 21:52:05 I agree with zhhuabj to have some spec guidance. 21:52:53 ok, anything else folks? 21:53:02 This will help developer to have a good thinking model. 21:53:42 zhhuabj: hehe, sorry, auto-complete in my irc client :) 21:54:02 got to pay more attention 21:54:12 :) 21:54:17 :D 21:54:24 ok, have a good week folks! 21:54:29 #endmeeting