21:02:43 <ttx> #startmeeting 21:02:44 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 21 21:02:43 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:02:45 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:02:53 <ttx> Agenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting 21:03:07 <ttx> #info We are under FeatureFreeze for everything but Swift, so please take extra care in reviews 21:03:25 <ttx> #info Core reviewers should flag changes that add a new feature, modify the behavior without fixing a bug, modify translatable strings or add/modify a configuration option 21:03:50 <ttx> #topic Keystone status 21:03:56 <ttx> ayoung: o/ 21:04:02 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:04:18 <ttx> So one blueprint was granted an exception, yours :) 21:04:22 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/pki 21:04:33 <ttx> ayoung: How far are you ? I couldn't really find reviews linked to this... 21:05:01 <ayoung> PKI was done for a while, with the exception of Revocation. Revocation was merged last week 21:05:19 <ttx> IIUC that means it's now all in ? 21:05:22 <ayoung> there is a bug that is up for review 21:05:34 <ayoung> ttx, yes, in master 21:05:51 <ttx> ayoung: ok, will mark that blueprint implemented. The bug was targeted to folsom-rc1 ? 21:06:24 <ayoung> Heh, it will be shortly. 21:06:30 <ttx> hmm, apparently not 21:06:33 <ttx> ok :) 21:06:47 <ttx> More generally, your RC bug list is very empty 21:06:59 <ttx> Somehow I doubt those two listed issues are the only one standing between you and a release-quality RC1 :) 21:07:15 <vishy> o/ 21:07:16 <ttx> Would be good to go through bugs and start targeting all bugs you think should be fixed before we can release Folsom 21:07:18 <vishy> (btwo) 21:07:34 <ayoung> https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1038309 21:07:35 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1038309 in keystone "auth_token fails to fetch revocation list" [Undecided,In progress] 21:07:49 <ayoung> ttx, heckj was doing just that 21:07:51 <ttx> ayoung: targeted 21:08:21 <ttx> #action heckj to go through keystone buglist and target release blockers to RC1 where appropriate 21:08:33 <ayoung> from today's keystone meeting: 21:08:43 <ayoung> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-08-21-18.02.html 21:08:46 <ttx> Looking at triage now... looks like you triaged them all ? 21:09:21 <ayoung> Joe was very busy 21:09:28 <ttx> ayoung: I think once the RC buglist is built you should be in good shape 21:09:35 <ayoung> Agreed 21:09:48 <ayoung> we've been trying to keep an eye to stability 21:10:01 <ttx> ayoung: then it's all downhill with bugfixing and bug assignment to RC1 21:10:15 <ttx> ayoung: anything else you wanted to mention ? 21:10:57 <ayoung> No, I think those are the important things 21:10:58 <ttx> Questions about Keystone ? 21:11:25 <ttx> #topic Swift status 21:11:30 <notmyname> hi 21:11:31 <ttx> notmyname: o/ 21:11:40 <ttx> notmyname: Did you send that email with your 2.0 thoughts ? 21:12:19 <notmyname> I did not. I'm still collecting them 21:12:34 <ttx> #action notmyname to send an email to openstack-dev with 2.0 thoughts 21:12:37 <notmyname> turns out it's an issue with lots of factors :-) 21:13:02 <ttx> notmyname: for the release date, would be good if it was before Sep 13 21:13:10 <ttx> i.e. at least two weeks away from release 21:13:15 <notmyname> how about sept 13 then? 21:13:16 <ttx> (common release) 21:13:23 <ttx> notmyname: works for me 21:13:49 <notmyname> ttx: is that for the QA'd release or the RC? 21:13:57 <ttx> QA'd release 21:14:01 <notmyname> ah 21:14:33 <notmyname> ok. we'll see what we can do 21:14:50 <ttx> ok, keep me posted 21:14:54 <ttx> notmyname: anything else ? 21:14:55 <notmyname> we have a lot of changed I'd like to see get in 21:14:59 <notmyname> nope 21:15:40 <ttx> if there are so many changes it might make sense to include 1.6.1 in Folsom 21:15:56 <ttx> and keep 2.0 as an early Grizzly thing 21:16:42 <notmyname> or 1.7 in folsom and 2.0 "later" 21:16:46 <notmyname> ;-) 21:16:51 <ttx> heh 21:17:09 * ttx holds on before creating a 2.0 in Folsom series :) 21:17:11 <ttx> Questions on Swift ? 21:17:40 <ttx> #topic Glance status 21:17:46 <ttx> bcwaldon: around ? 21:18:28 <ttx> let's skip to Quantum, Brian told me he might have to leave IRC for a few 21:18:35 <ttx> #topic Quantum status 21:18:40 <ttx> danwent: yo 21:18:45 <danwent> hello 21:18:49 <ttx> danwent: congrats by the way 21:18:54 <danwent> thanks :) 21:19:03 <danwent> she's right by me… hope you can't hear her scream via IRC :) 21:19:11 <ttx> I can just imagine 21:19:18 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:19:23 <ttx> Got only two standing Quantum-code-related exceptions on that list: 21:19:35 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-multihost-dhcp (nati) 21:19:37 <danwent> yes, still need to send you mail, sorry 21:19:44 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/test-agent (nati) 21:19:53 <ttx> The rest is either completed, doc, devstack or quantumclient related, IIUC 21:20:05 <danwent> that is true in terms of blueprints. 21:20:20 <danwent> there are two other items that are tracked as bugs, but are signfiicant enough that i'm treating them like FFE items. 21:20:23 <danwent> xml support 21:20:31 <danwent> and the last phase of bob's provider networks branch 21:20:44 <ttx> danwent: hmm, we'll come back to those later 21:20:53 <danwent> anything that smells like an FFE, I've told people needs to be proposed for non-WIP review by next monday 21:20:58 <ttx> danwent: how are those two above doing ? 21:21:07 <danwent> the bps or the bugs? 21:21:11 <ttx> (nati's ones) 21:21:29 <danwent> both are under review already (they have been since F-3) 21:21:36 <danwent> the test-agent is for testing only 21:21:38 <danwent> and is pretty close 21:21:49 <danwent> the multi-host DHCP, i need to re-review since providing feedback. 21:22:21 <danwent> multi-host patch got much smaller in review, which is good. 21:22:22 <ttx> both should land before the end of week ? 21:22:42 <danwent> I would say by start of next week, giving them the weekend, as nati is on vacation at least part of this week. 21:22:57 <danwent> though he's responding to reviews (or at least has been so far). 21:23:04 <mtaylor> danwent, ttx: status on quantum in devstack-gate? 21:23:38 <danwent> mtaylor: glad that you mentioned it. we were going to wait for one of the above items, but after discussing it at the meeting yesterday, we're just going to go ahead with a simple gate to start. 21:23:46 <mtaylor> danwent: great! 21:23:57 <danwent> mtaylor: will send you email after the meeting, but have told team this is top priority 21:24:05 <danwent> (assuming we can get some devstack review help) 21:24:08 <mtaylor> danwent: you always make me super-happy 21:24:13 <mtaylor> danwent: we'll prioritize that 21:24:19 <danwent> great, thanks. 21:24:20 <jeblair> +1 21:24:20 <ttx> danwent: link to devstack review ? 21:24:41 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10828/ 21:24:53 <ttx> #help devstack review help needed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10828/ 21:25:09 <ttx> ok, so about those two bugs-that-look-like-features 21:25:18 <danwent> yes 21:25:25 <ttx> XMl support sounds like something I'd prefer to have a blueprint about 21:25:40 <ttx> if only to track the major features that landed in Folsom 21:26:13 <ttx> No so sure about the other one, which looks like a gap bug 21:26:25 <danwent> agreed. I will up to to a BP. we had a branch proposed for review for XML support during F-3, but I wasn't happy with it. I told the two people who really wanted XML support in Folsom that they could have a week to clean it up and get it approved. 21:26:50 <danwent> ttx: yes, other one is last bit of something that landed in F-3. we could have deferred the BP, but instead we created a 'follow-on' bug. 21:26:52 <ttx> danwent: not really happy to see that landing now, tbh. It affects the work of QA people quite a bit 21:27:03 <danwent> ttx: the xml? 21:27:11 <ttx> and as famous examped showed, untested XML is like no XML 21:27:18 <ttx> examples* 21:27:20 <ttx> danwent: yes 21:27:30 <danwent> i'm ok with you denying it… 21:27:35 <danwent> if it makes you unhappy 21:27:43 <danwent> it doesn't make me very happy either 21:27:56 <danwent> but the folks seem close, so I told them to take a shot. 21:27:58 <ttx> hmm, we'll discuss that offline 21:28:08 <ttx> #action danwent/ttx to discuss XML support FFE status 21:28:15 <danwent> and if it didn't make the core devs happy by monday, we'd drop it from folsom 21:28:22 <ttx> Looking at bugs now... good list 21:28:23 <annegentle> danwent: the API spec under review has XML samples 21:28:31 <annegentle> but yes discuss offline 21:28:34 <ttx> Did you go through the complete open bugs list to build it ? 21:28:38 <danwent> annegentle: yes, we will have to remove those if it doesn't make it. 21:28:44 <annegentle> danwent: noted 21:28:57 <danwent> ttx: not yet. can do it today… i'll pull the baby card :) 21:29:05 <ttx> Would be great to get people assigned to each of those too 21:29:26 <ttx> danwent: also someone should carete that XML support blueprint 21:29:29 <ttx> create* 21:29:32 <danwent> yes. I filed a few more last night, as there are some squishy points on integration of nova + quantum that we need to firm up ASAP. 21:29:38 <danwent> ttx: I will 21:29:40 <ttx> (Generally when noone is assigned to them they don't progress fast enough for RC1.) 21:29:45 <ttx> (the bugs) 21:29:51 <ttx> Looking at bug triaging, you also have 22 untriaged 21:30:03 <danwent> ttx: my bad. will do full bug pass today 21:30:11 <ttx> danwent: delagate, dude :) 21:30:23 <danwent> ttx: good point :) 21:30:36 <annegentle> or danwent: man up, daddy-o :) 21:30:40 <ttx> #action danwent and team to triage all bugs and build the RC bug list 21:30:45 <ttx> danwent: Anything else ? 21:30:48 <annegentle> sleep, schmeep 21:30:59 <annegentle> :) 21:31:09 <danwent> nope, clearly have a bit of catch-up to do. will ping you offline about xml. and will ping CI people about gate. 21:31:16 <ttx> Questions on Quantum ? 21:31:21 <ttx> bcwaldon: back? 21:31:28 <bcwaldon> ttx: yes 21:31:51 <ttx> #topic Glance status 21:31:55 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:31:59 <ttx> No exception, yay 21:32:11 <ttx> Looking at bugs, I see you got a decent list of RC bugs 21:32:13 <bcwaldon> yepper, just a buncha bugs 21:32:25 <bcwaldon> I pushed off bugfixin until now 21:32:26 <ttx> Is that list reasonably complete ? i.e. did you go through the whole open bugs list ? 21:32:33 <bcwaldon> yes 21:32:36 <ttx> Awesome. 21:32:51 <bcwaldon> I might expect to see a few more added 21:32:57 <bcwaldon> but maybe not 21:32:58 <ttx> Well, you did your homework, I see.. anything specific you wanted to mention ? 21:32:59 <bcwaldon> we'll see :) 21:33:19 <bcwaldon> I did want to highlight my message to the ML covering Glance's Folsom release http://markmail.org/message/rpewwtqcb2qxa5t5 21:33:42 <bcwaldon> that has some good info in it for people not following glance development too closely 21:33:45 <ttx> bcwaldon: yes, I just read it. Will definitely help in release notes and messaging around folsom release 21:33:55 <mtaylor> ++ 21:33:56 <bcwaldon> yes, I'll condense it down for official release notes 21:34:21 <bcwaldon> thats it from me 21:34:24 <ttx> Questions on Glance ? 21:34:52 <ttx> #topic Cinder status 21:34:57 <jgriffith> Yo 21:34:57 <ttx> jgriffith: o/ 21:35:02 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:35:08 <ttx> No exception either, yay 21:35:12 <jgriffith> :) 21:35:22 <jgriffith> Quotas should be closing as soon as I get reviews 21:35:25 <ttx> On the bug side though, you should start to aggressively triage your bug list and mark more of those RC (by targeting them to folsom-rc1)... 21:35:32 <ttx> ... as I suspect Cinder is more than 3 bugs away from perfection ? 21:35:35 <jgriffith> The Netapp ones I have to find Ben.. he's been MIA since last week 21:35:38 <jgriffith> LOL 21:35:44 <jgriffith> Sure.. that sounds good 21:35:50 <ttx> You also have 11 untriaged bugs that you should probably go through 21:35:59 <jgriffith> I have plans for most of them 21:36:06 <jgriffith> I want to get input from the core team in tomorrows meeting though 21:36:21 <ttx> #action jgriffith and Cinder team to triage new bugs and come up with a list of release blockers 21:36:24 <jgriffith> There will be at least 4 added to RC1 after tomorrow 21:36:53 * ttx prefers known targeted bugs to unknown quality 21:37:01 <jgriffith> fair enough 21:37:23 <ttx> jgriffith: that's all I had for you... anything you wanted to mention ? 21:37:38 <jgriffith> Nope... just pushing these, then trying to get everybody to pitch in on docs 21:38:10 <ttx> Less exceptions give more time for bugfixing and documentation, yay 21:38:10 <annegentle> jgriffith: just to clarify, both nova-volume and cinder will exist as options in folsom, correct? 21:38:11 <jgriffith> Anybody wants to help with reviews that would be great 21:38:18 <jgriffith> annegentle: yes 21:38:30 <jgriffith> annegentle: There will be a synch between the two after RC1 21:38:35 <annegentle> #info the docs need to cover both nova-volume and cinder 21:38:37 <jgriffith> Or for RC1 21:38:46 <ttx> jgriffith: are you lacking reviewers ? 21:38:56 <jgriffith> This week I seem to be 21:39:04 <ttx> #help Cinder reviewers wanted 21:39:10 <ttx> Questions on Cinder ? 21:39:34 <ttx> #topic Nova status 21:39:39 <ttx> vishy: hey 21:39:49 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:40:21 <ttx> vishy: ? 21:40:22 <vishy> hi 21:40:28 <ttx> Hi! Looking at standing exceptions: 21:40:35 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/scheduler-resource-race 21:40:57 <ttx> vishy: Under review ? How close is it ? 21:41:03 <vishy> i think very 21:41:15 <ttx> cool. 21:41:19 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/os-api-network-create 21:41:22 <ttx> what about this one ? 21:41:33 <vishy> actually the first is implemented 21:41:54 <vishy> the second we were giving a chance to the author to fix it, or else markmc will update it 21:42:03 <markmc> I sorted out the blocking API issues today 21:42:05 <ttx> vishy: ok will mark it done 21:42:10 <vishy> I think we will have him do it since the author is not doing much 21:42:10 <ttx> * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/project-specific-flavors 21:42:26 <markmc> ttx, network-create isn't done yet 21:42:32 <ttx> markmc: right 21:42:32 <markmc> ttx, network-associate is 21:42:54 <vishy> k so it looks good 21:42:59 <ttx> markmc: I think vishy's point was that scheduler-resource-race was done... right ? 21:43:01 <vishy> just needs an approval it is good by me 21:43:05 <vishy> ttx: correct 21:43:09 <markmc> ah 21:43:20 <vishy> so the project-specific flavor just needs some reviews 21:43:23 <vishy> i think it is good 21:43:27 <ttx> vishy: ok, so everything should be in by mid-week, cool 21:43:47 <ttx> except the network-create stuff which shoiuld get done by the end of the week ? 21:44:04 <vishy> no i didn't realize it is done 21:44:05 <vishy> e 21:44:11 <vishy> everything should be in by thursday i think 21:44:11 <med_> ? 21:44:26 <ttx> OK. We also have late FFEs requested by mtaylor: 21:44:31 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-August/000750.html 21:44:35 <vishy> so the remaining question is whether to let the entry point stuff in 21:44:37 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-August/000751.html 21:44:49 <vishy> i like that it simplifies external drivers. 21:45:08 <ttx> vishy: I think it's relatively harmless 21:45:26 <vishy> if so it will probably make external drivers much happier 21:45:29 <mtaylor> it _should_ failover to current behavior in case someone is making use of the current import-basd behavior 21:45:31 <vishy> markmc: thoughts? 21:45:35 <ttx> vishy: it either loads or doesn't, so easy to see problems ? 21:45:48 <markmc> vishy, haven't look properly yet and don't really understand what it's all about 21:45:48 <mtaylor> it breaks the unittest suite REALLY quickly when it's broken :) 21:45:54 * markmc plans to look in the morning 21:46:08 <mtaylor> markmc: tl;dr - ability to use entry points to load virt and scheduler drivers 21:46:09 <ttx> vishy: maybe decide by next Nova's meeting ? 21:46:11 <vishy> markmc: it allows drivers to be loaded from entrypoints in addition to class names 21:46:32 <ttx> and in the mean time, keep it in review ? 21:46:41 <vishy> ttx: sounds good 21:46:47 <vishy> we will discuss it in the meeting 21:47:11 <markmc> if it's harmless, we can assume FFE probably? 21:47:19 <mtaylor> vishy: fwiw, I'm AFK starting tomorrow - but if something minor needs to get tweaked, I'm more than happy for someone to edit and re-push those 21:47:30 <ttx> #action nova-core and ttx to review FFE for entry point stuff by Thursday 21:47:52 <ttx> markmc: I have to have a deeper look, but on the tin it says it's harmless 21:48:31 <ttx> vishy: Switching to RC bugs now, you got 11 targeted 21:49:00 <ttx> But I think you can't really target until some serious triaging is done. A huge effort is needed in that area. We have 101 untriaged bugs 21:49:11 <ttx> I feel like we won't have a good RC list until we get those confirmed and prioritized. 21:49:19 <ttx> vishy: Do you have a plan to handle that ? 21:49:22 <vishy> ttx: yes, I've just been targetting the ones that i find myself 21:49:24 <markmc> wow, 101 21:49:42 <vishy> ttx: yeah it is hard to keep up but nova-core is focusing on bugs so i hope we can. 21:49:54 <ttx> it's a shitty job but needs to be done.. and the sooner the better 21:50:15 <ttx> I can help, within my limited abilities. 21:50:28 <markmc> I'm up for a bug triage day if we got a handful of nova-core folks together 21:50:51 <ttx> markmc: I'm in vacation next week, so can't really coordinate that 21:51:08 <ttx> but I can give you the keys to the party hall 21:51:29 <ttx> vishy: do you think a bugday would help ? 21:51:41 <ttx> or just asking everyone in nova-core to do 15 ? 21:52:34 <vishy> we need a bug 2 weeks 21:52:38 <vishy> every day should be a bug day 21:53:00 <ttx> vishy: yes at this point we ned to get the list back to 0.. then handle incoming reports 21:53:03 <ttx> nee* 21:53:05 <ttx> d 21:53:55 <ttx> vishy: so asking everyone to take at least 101/nova-core bugs ? 21:55:01 <ttx> running out of time 21:55:24 <ttx> #action vishy to find a way to get untriaged bugcount to 0 21:55:29 <ttx> Questions on Nova ? 21:55:31 <annegentle> o/ 21:55:38 <ttx> annegentle: go ahead 21:55:41 <annegentle> It looks like https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/disable-server-extensions is marked as "Implemented" but I didn't see doc additions to document the changes, what's a good plan for that? 21:55:49 <annegentle> weird underlines, sorry 21:56:16 <annegentle> (asking vishy ) 21:56:41 <ttx> looks like we lost him, we'll let him answer asynchronously 21:56:46 <ttx> #topic Horizon status 21:56:50 <ttx> gabrielhurley: hey 21:56:53 <gabrielhurley> ttx: hi 21:56:58 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-rc1 21:57:05 <ttx> No feature freeze exception, let's look at the RC bug list... 21:57:18 <ttx> gabrielhurley: only 8 open bugs on the RC bug list ? 21:57:26 <gabrielhurley> there's a recent request for an FFE for quantum public network support. I haven't seen code yet, so I'm holding off on seeing how invasive it is before deciding to ask for an FFE 21:57:42 <ttx> gabrielhurley: good to know, thanks 21:57:45 <gabrielhurley> and yeah, the bug list is accurate 21:57:55 <gabrielhurley> probably handle all of it this week 21:58:23 <ttx> gabrielhurley: fwiw given that horizon is at the downstream of everything else it's fair that you ask a bit late 21:58:28 <ttx> (foir FFE) 21:58:33 <gabrielhurley> heh. thanks. 21:58:48 <ttx> Did you go through the whole bug list to target blockers ? 21:58:56 <ttx> I see one critical bug not targeted yet: bug 967882 21:58:58 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 967882 in horizon "Volumes, volume snapshots, instance snaphots and keypairs all show cross-tenant info when logged in as admin" [Critical,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/967882 21:59:15 <ttx> looks like it needs to be de-prioritized or RC1-targeted :) 21:59:30 <gabrielhurley> that one is a known issue in nova, though I hear they may have recently patched it 21:59:36 <gabrielhurley> it's not actually a horizon fix, just a reminder 21:59:51 <gabrielhurley> and yeah, I go through the whole backlog periodically 22:00:12 <ttx> hmm, any way we could not keep that bug open if it's just a reminder ? 22:00:19 <gabrielhurley> sure. I'll do something with it 22:00:25 <ttx> On the triaging side, you look on top of it... 22:00:31 <ttx> gabrielhurley: Anything else you wanted to mention ? 22:00:32 <gabrielhurley> yessir 22:00:41 <gabrielhurley> don't believe so. just test away! 22:00:43 <ttx> Questions for Horizon ? 22:01:01 <ttx> annegentle: looks like you'll have to ask vishy offline. Or at the Nova meeting Thursday 22:01:15 <ttx> #topic Other Team reports 22:01:19 <annegentle> shall I do a creiht sigh just for the effect? 22:01:27 <ttx> annegentle: that would do it 22:01:29 <ttx> Any other team lead with a status report ? 22:01:29 <annegentle> o/ 22:01:31 * annegentle sighs 22:01:36 <annegentle> As you saw from my mailing list note, now's the time to kick docs up a notch. 22:01:43 <vishy> annegentle: it is going to be part of the api testing i'm putting together 22:01:47 <annegentle> We're going to be moving reviews through 22:01:57 <annegentle> I've got a new CLI guide in review at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/11744/ 22:02:12 <annegentle> #help Please review new CLI guide at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/11744/ 22:02:32 <annegentle> vishy: ok, I'll also log doc bugs such as "document os-multiple-create" 22:02:36 <markmc> ttx, just a note that openstack-common has branched for folsom 22:02:48 <markmc> ttx, projects should be syncing from stable/folsom until grizzly opens 22:02:59 <ttx> #info openstack-common has branched for folsom, projects should be syncing from stable/folsom until grizzly opens 22:03:21 <ttx> #topic Open discussion 22:03:25 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ? 22:04:01 * ttx moves the discussion about nova bug triaging to #openstack-dev 22:04:04 <ttx> #endmeeting