16:00:33 #startmeeting OpenStack-Ansible 16:00:33 Meeting started Thu Mar 3 16:00:33 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is odyssey4me. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:37 The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible' 16:00:49 \o/ 16:00:52 #topic Agenda & rollcall 16:01:03 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/openstack-ansible#Agenda_for_next_meeting 16:01:09 o/ 16:01:10 o/ 16:02:01 \o for a few mins 16:03:25 o/ 16:03:27 o/ 16:04:10 #topic Topics for Discussion - Newton Summit Planning 16:04:19 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-newton-summit 16:04:38 Hi everyone, and welcome. 16:04:43 Thank you for making the time to be here! 16:05:09 We've been asked for a count of which types of which rooms we want for what sessions at the Newton/Austin summit. 16:05:46 I've taken the liberty to propose some work sessions. These are simply proposals, some of which I'd like volunteers for moderation and to fill out the details. 16:06:03 Also, any other sessions can be proposed. 16:06:35 We learned from the mid-cycle that discussions need to be centred around a body of work and should have ideal outcomes set up-front. 16:07:01 As I recall each work session is typically 40 mins or so, so please bear that in mind when planning for moderation. 16:08:19 good proposal automagically 16:08:34 please vote on sessions you'd like to see happen 16:08:38 and add additional proposals 16:09:32 In my personal view, I think we should focus more on having work sessions this summit. 16:09:53 +1 16:10:00 jmccrory I left out an Ansible 2 work planning session. Please add it as a proposed topic. 16:10:27 sure 16:13:09 Not seeing any votes on MultiOS…FWIW, my opinion is we have much bigger fish to fry before worrying about supporting additional platforms 16:13:56 automagically yep, that's fair 16:15:01 +1 16:15:26 Nice addition Nolan 16:15:37 i'd love to see the multi-os go however there's a ton of work that could be more important. 16:15:43 automagically: Eh? 16:15:48 I think that's Jesse 16:16:02 Whoops, sorry. Too many purples in the Etherpad 16:16:13 Fixed 16:17:18 lol 16:19:28 So, one day for work sessions? Just trying to figure out how many we ultimately will need to winnow the list down to 16:19:48 Austin will be my first summit, so excuse the newb question 16:20:08 automagically: They can potentially be split across multiple days 16:20:17 automagically the design summit typically runs for 3 days 16:20:20 Comes down to room allocation 16:20:23 Oh cool 16:20:30 we will ask for x sessions which will be spread across the days 16:20:34 So potentially we could get all of these that have votes 16:20:35 we also can use the contributor day on Friday/Monday 16:20:48 depending on how they organize that this go 16:20:51 we may not get the number we want, so we may have to prioritise accordingly 16:21:15 automagically: Potentially, but they're also balancing slots/rooms across all projects 16:22:24 Re Windmill - define “external CI implementation” 16:22:31 ok, let me cover that 16:22:44 you may have seen pabelanger in channel quite often 16:23:24 Indeed 16:23:24 he's been working on various ansible roles to implement zuul, disk-image-builder, and other bits which facilitate the implementation of continuous integration tooling based on technologies used by OpenStack-CI 16:23:37 Aha 16:23:44 his work is looking for a home, and he's familiar with OpenStack-CI 16:24:08 he's asked if we'd be keen on having his work as a sub-project or something 16:24:26 so I think it'd be great if we could have him tell us about the work he's done 16:24:53 odyssey4me: +1, can you drop a link to git repo(s) under that one 16:24:58 also, I've spoken to several deployers in the past few months and CI/CD is quite a hot topic 16:25:35 Looks like voting and new topics have died off 16:25:38 Next topic? 16:26:09 +1 seems like people will chew on that a bit 16:26:11 we can move on 16:26:13 IMO 16:26:19 it'd be nice if we could take the lead on providing tooling to make CI/CD go 16:26:58 yes, the last word on this is that we need to have this planning sorted asap 16:27:01 odyssey4me: Agreed, but priorities wise for deployers/operators using OSA, its bound to be lower priority than adding support for more functionality and getting docs/tests/quality of OSA up 16:27:23 so I'd like to ask that everyone put time in to figure out which sessions you want to moderate and add your name to it 16:27:28 CI/CD is more important to me than more roles 16:28:01 michaelgugino: Interesting, would love to hear why after the meeting 16:28:08 right, next topic 16:28:16 #topic Discussion - Define core team expectations/Add non-Rackspace cores 16:28:24 automagically - your floor :) 16:28:36 #link https://review.openstack.org/286858 16:28:37 Did you all have a chance to read through and think about https://review.openstack.org/286858 16:29:02 I didn’t see many votes and nearly 0 comments from existing cores 16:29:23 Ive not read that . however i will now. 16:29:29 Of course lots of other stuff has been going on 16:29:52 should we let it simmer for a week and re-address it in next week's meeting with the view to merge it by the end of next week? 16:29:54 I think the key is to call out any misleading and controversial content in the review 16:30:01 odyssey4me: That works 16:30:41 ok cool - I think wwe're a bit short on time to actually have a full discussion 16:30:46 agreed 16:30:50 I think it's best to discuss and address in review 16:31:01 we have the channel to smoothe out any misunderstandings 16:31:04 next topic then 16:31:07 next topic 16:31:14 #topic Discussion - Pinning pip and related dependencies 16:31:32 thanks for all the support in the last few days, I think we're finally out the door on https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:repeatable-build 16:31:57 we may have to apply one more patch to kilo for setuptools, or to align the approach at least 16:32:09 any questions or comments before we move on? 16:32:27 none here 16:32:33 nope 16:32:37 #topic Discussion - Support for multiple availability zones 16:32:44 is admin0 around? 16:33:00 I think we've kinda discussed this and agreed to address it in the next iteration of the inventory 16:33:11 ++ 16:33:16 Are we happy to remove this from the agenda? 16:33:42 sure 16:34:01 #topic Release Planning and Decisions 16:34:15 Alright, we're a week overdue on tagging Liberty & Kilo 16:34:36 we have the pip/wheel/setuptools world breaking pain last week this time 16:35:13 Once https://review.openstack.org/287161 has merged I think we're good to tag Liberty. Kilo may need a similar patch, then we should be good to go. 16:35:18 Any thoughts/comments? 16:35:35 i think it'd be wise to submit that to kilo 16:35:45 cloudnull: +1 16:35:47 #action odyssey4me to patch the Kilo branch with a backport of https://review.openstack.org/287161 16:35:55 yep, I think so too 16:36:03 it uses a different wheel building process however downstream deployers will find that valuable 16:36:34 I think that Liberty may be missing the repo_build/repo_server changes from master. cloudnull can you patch those in too? 16:36:42 sure thing 16:37:06 Im working on fixing my merge conflicts today. ill bang that out too 16:37:20 #action cloudnull to patch in the repetable-build changes from repo_build/repo_server in order to finalise the repeatability. 16:38:10 I know there are a few packages which aren't covered by upper-constraints, and therefore aren't fully covered by the repeatable deployment... they're fringe though, so not terribly impactful, I think 16:38:38 i think we're rather safe in that regard. 16:39:07 mitaka-3 is effectively now, and we're a bit behind 16:39:28 mitaka-3 to rc1 is supposed to be a time of bedding down the code and ensuring that bugs are ironed out 16:39:51 so I suggest that we all get behind finishing up getting functional testing into the independent roles 16:40:23 concern with tagging liberty is that the upgrade script is half implemented, it looks like if someone were to attempt it now it will install independent roles and then remove rabbit queues/exchanges that would still be in use 16:40:37 breaking a deployment 16:40:40 i think its ok to be a bit behind on this relaese. I mean we should rev forward however if we dont ship a stable tag on the day of releaes I wont shed any tears. 16:41:30 jmccrory sure - perhaps we should make the upgrade script hard exit at the start with a warning that the work is incomplete? 16:41:32 we have a lot of things in mothion right now . 16:41:35 palendae thoughts? 16:41:56 cloudnull ++ agreed 16:42:00 That's the exact reason I didn't want to submit this work in pieces like this 16:42:19 I would appreciate it if someone could take on that exiting patch though 16:42:46 jmccrory can you put a note into all the upgrade docs and the script to make sure that it's clear that this is still a WIP 16:43:01 sure 16:43:04 we can smash that through and I'll tag once that's done 16:43:06 Thanks 16:44:03 #action jmccrory To make the upgrade script for Kilo->Liberty hard exit with a warning that the work is incomplete, and to add notes into the docs to make it clear there too. 16:44:11 Thanks jmccrory 16:44:18 #topic Blueprint work 16:44:41 Any news on any of the blueprint work? michaelgugino automagically logan- vdo ? 16:45:03 I haven’t had a chance to touch DVR/OVS, IRR really took over 16:45:13 I've been wrapped up in other things, haven't had a change to touch that stuff. Hoping to finally get to some today 16:45:14 That and some test deployments 16:45:57 ok, no worries - none of those items were really promised in this cycle anyway... they were late starters and can happily be done next cycle 16:46:22 I do think that implementing more functional testing in the roles is top priority. 16:46:33 It's a good chance for us to get more familiar. 16:47:06 +1 16:47:12 cloudnull any thoughts on how we could split up the work? 16:47:41 There appear to be some reusable patterns around inventory manipulation and container build out within the IRR tests 16:48:06 As well as the testing pattern that was discussed yesterday in channel around standalone tests vs full-on, all deps tests 16:48:27 I bring this up, because what would help me is a high level vision of how we want IRR testing to be 16:48:27 odyssey4me: hard to say . keystone needs to be done first and that pattern copied to all other roles. 16:49:02 keystone does look very well fleshed out. However, reading the test impl left me scratching my head at a few points 16:49:08 automagically it's kinda hard to say as we're kinda learning as we go here 16:49:13 Fair enough 16:49:27 automagically: i think we can aim for a full multi node test wich is the OSA use case and the deviate from there. 16:49:28 I’m okay with that, I guess I’m suggesting that we converge on a couple core patterns soon 16:49:38 yeah, I've been trying to get a standalone build working for ironic and have had similar head scratches :) 16:50:07 perhaps we should etherpad some thoughts and coalesce it into a plan? 16:50:09 test directory calls other roles necessary for completion? 16:50:10 Well, perhaps we can commit to more in-channel conversation around testing patterns 16:50:14 And/or etherpad 16:50:18 the keystone multi-node tests did work (they we're a WIP though) so I'd suggest we start there. 16:50:48 cloudnull agreed, perhaps we should assess how it's done there and figure out a pattern we like 16:50:50 michaelgugino: Not sure I understand your question 16:51:01 once that's done and merged, we can divvy up the rest of the roles and give it a go 16:51:05 limit of in-channel is cross-tz 16:51:06 odyssey4me looking at bifrost might be helpful for ironic's test https://github.com/openstack/bifrost 16:51:12 for the role testing. If you need keystone to be up, we should be able to call that role. 16:51:27 michaelgugino yes, tox.ini contains the basic test execution - it calls the tests/test.yml playbook 16:51:42 the one thing that we need to figure out is how to run tempest or (something else) to verify the roles functionality. or is a convergence test good enough for now ? 16:51:43 the tests directory has its own inventory, custom for the test for that role 16:52:10 Testing some of these things in complete isolation probably isn't feasible - as pointed out, many of them will rely on at least keystone 16:52:24 ++ ^ 16:52:25 cloudnull I'd say we start with just a convergence test, then add a functional test as a next work item. 16:52:35 odyssey4me: +1 16:52:39 odyssey4me: +1 16:52:51 +1 on etherpad vs in-channel 16:52:58 right now we have nothing, so we're vulnerable to pretty basic errors 16:52:59 +1 on etherpad 16:53:09 ok, cloudnull can you setup an etherpad 16:53:24 #action cloudnull to setup an IRR functional test planning etherpad 16:53:37 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/testing-os-roles 16:53:46 please add link to etherpad to the channel topic 16:53:59 automagically & jmccrory can you please quizz cloudnull to your heart's content over the evening to figure out a structure and some sort of game plan 16:54:04 stevelle ^ 16:54:15 good idea stevelle 16:54:27 odyssey4me: +1 16:54:34 I’ll try to be gentle cloudnull 16:54:38 #action odyssey4me to set channel topic to include link to IRR functional testing etherpad 16:55:09 automagically: no need to be gentle 16:55:14 ;) 16:55:15 :) 16:55:15 I'll be out after this meeting, so I'll take a look in the morning and mattt and I can do some further quizzing and examinning. 16:55:32 o/ really late 16:55:44 michaelgugino of course you're welcome to dive in too if you have the time 16:55:49 as is anyone else 16:56:00 ok, we're close to being out of time, so let's switch topics 16:56:07 #topic Open Dicussion 16:56:22 o/ spotz 16:57:17 any topics for discussion 16:57:21 Thoughts on how we get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242225 as part of gate 16:57:21 ? 16:57:30 And this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287571/ 16:58:06 I think we should have an inventory-test tox target, then add a job in the integrated gate to execute the test 16:58:11 I did some reading on jenkins job builder and project profiles, but I can’t say its entirely clear to me how we would run these tests and whether or not they should be in an existing step or not 16:58:19 I like the idea, but the particular check implemented is not very useful IMO 16:58:32 we could also add it to the end of the linters tox target 16:58:51 michaelgugino probably true, but it's a start :) 16:58:57 michaelgugino: Agreed that the testing is limited, but I think we need to get started 16:59:13 Next logical step seems to be getting it into tox and running 16:59:25 So we can at least be ready to evaluate ongoing inventory changes 16:59:33 we could trial it as the last item in the linters target 16:59:42 I’ll see what I can do to get it added to the linters target 16:59:57 we're out of time 17:00:00 thanks all! 17:00:02 #endmeeting