16:00:27 #startmeeting OpenStack-Ansible 16:00:28 Meeting started Thu May 26 16:00:27 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is odyssey4me. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible' 16:00:43 #topic Rollcall & agenda 16:01:00 o/ 16:01:23 o/ 16:01:34 hi 16:02:16 \o/ 16:03:56 o/ 16:04:01 alrighty, let's get going on it 16:04:03 #topic Review action items 16:04:54 I did request the releases for Liberty & Mitaka - they finally got processed today. 16:05:09 Bit late o/ 16:05:18 Our stable branch release requests now need to be reviewed by both the stable branch team and the release team. 16:05:35 asettle: that's rude 16:05:45 oh you meant for being there, not for the release 16:05:49 ok 16:05:58 evrardjp: wow dude. ha. 16:05:59 ETA odyssey4me? 16:07:07 #info All stable branch releases now require a minimum of a two day lead time as they require reviews by both the stable team and the releases team. 16:07:27 evrardjp the last release requests got processed today - they were requested last week 16:07:37 now I understand 16:07:53 it's just FYI - the process is now quite onerous and I'm trying to work with both teams to make it go quicker. 16:08:11 Another action item on me was to retire the py_from_git repo - that's in progress: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:retire-repo 16:08:48 unfortunately a lot of -infra's reviewers have been in sprints for the last two weeks, so I'm not getting much traction on reviews 16:09:53 I have several waiting for reviews, and they're not getting attention even if I ask nicely: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:jesse-pretorius+status:open+project:openstack-infra/project-config 16:10:00 Anyway, I'll keep at that. 16:10:18 #topic Tests Repo 16:10:27 andymccr Do you have an update? 16:11:03 ok, we'll come back to it if he joins up 16:11:06 #topic Mid Cycle Planning 16:11:46 We discussed three options last week, and only two were of any sort of appeal. 16:11:49 odyssey4me: he's just logging on 16:11:54 laptop crashed. 16:12:09 1 - Have a fully co-located mid cycle, most likely in the US. 16:12:42 2 - Have a rolling mid-cycle over multiple time zones, with handovers between co-located groups. 16:13:13 Have we got any further thoughts or information regarding dates, venues, etc? 16:13:52 o/ sorry for the delay - ready to loop back on test repos 16:14:19 I have not had a chance to determine which dates we could offer up to host in Philadelphia. Let me make a note to try to get that done this week 16:14:30 no worries andymccr - we'll get back to that shortly 16:15:43 ping jmccrory d34dh0r53 stevelle mattt hughsaunders andymccr mhayden re: mid cycle 16:16:36 no additional thoughts to last week - i think dates and ability to travel are the most important factor right now 16:17:29 ok, it seems like we don't have a decent quorum of cores here to make much of a decision either way, so I guess we'll have to defer that discussion to next week 16:17:42 k 16:17:42 I'm here, no preset opinions on mid cycle 16:18:00 I really just want to get dates first 16:18:18 either option still works for me, but yeah, the sooner we can get dates to better to work around vacations or anything else 16:18:24 #action automagically to determine potential dates for hosting 16:18:50 thanks automagically_ 16:19:00 #topic Tests Repo 16:19:03 andymccr over to you 16:19:07 There was some discussion about hosting in San Antonio as well IIRC. Who owns the action item there for potential dates? 16:19:16 D’oh, sorry andymccr 16:19:26 ok So. I have a PoC finished: https://github.com/andymcc/openstack-ansible-testing-core 16:19:34 i ran into some blockers today with non-test related packaging issues 16:19:49 but i confirmed that glance/swift/keystone all worked before today and nova was basically finished (i think i fixed it). 16:19:56 #action odyssey4me to check on RAX hosting option in SAT, and dates 16:20:07 regardless, the point is to show how i split it out, and to show some additional questions/discussion points that may arise and things we can consider 16:20:42 tl;dr if people want to take a look at that repo and the links in the readme to see the changes and decide whether its a good idea or not, and and how we should do it and discuss! 16:21:03 queued! 16:21:23 thanks andymccr - and thanks for describing the intents in the README :) 16:21:42 Looks cool, digging into the repo now 16:21:44 let's put this as an action point for next week? 16:21:48 #action all to take a look through, and ideally test https://github.com/andymcc/openstack-ansible-testing-core 16:22:59 yeah, I think it's best we discuss it generally over the week in the channel and next week we can raise any more things 16:23:14 #topic Astara 16:23:20 Is Phil Hopkins around? 16:23:26 THis is Phil 16:23:33 I am here!! 16:23:34 hi phil_h - over to you :) 16:23:45 Major has told me 16:24:04 that you have been looking at Octavia as a loadbalancing solution 16:24:26 I wanted to introduce you to Astara which can do the same thing 16:24:50 Similar to Octavia it uses Vms as the loadbalancer 16:25:22 mhayden and phil_h - Are we talking about what the use as the OSA “opinionated” out of the box implementation? 16:25:27 But with the additional feature that it can implement routers in a VM also 16:25:30 s/the/we 16:25:53 Or what OSA will support and document? 16:26:07 I think for the future 16:27:13 phil_h it sounds good, and we're happy to assist someone working with us to instrument the deployment of whichever components Astara provides - but we would want someone who knows and understands Asatara and is prepared to build and maintain any instrumentation in OSA for it on an ongoing basis 16:27:13 Astara can replace the standard neutron L# stuff and set up both routers and loadbalancers 16:27:45 I would be willing to help and I can recruit some of the Astara folks also 16:27:48 phil_h there is also similar instrumentation for PlumGRID and Nuage already, so there's a fair amount of prior art to work with 16:27:49 So, starting point would be an openstack-ansible-os_astara role 16:27:55 Perhaps? 16:28:02 Yes 16:28:24 automagically_ it depends... 16:28:32 I have a simle ansible role that can convert to astara 16:28:43 which could be used as a basis 16:28:48 Well, right…I’m just browsing the docs and it looks like there is talk of using diskimagebuilder to produce an LB appliance... 16:28:50 simle -> simple 16:28:51 both PlumGRID and Nuage maintain their own roles/playbooks to setup all their bits - we only have code to connect OSA with their bits 16:29:15 phil_h - Basing that off of http://docs.akanda.io/en/latest/loadbalancer.html 16:29:27 I think that is correct 16:29:59 Astara does use diskimagebuilder 16:30:12 to create VM images such as the loadbalancer 16:30:57 So what is the best way to proceed? 16:31:23 it appears that someone has registered a blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+spec/add-support-for-astara 16:32:09 I will talk to Eric about it 16:32:21 phil_h the best starting point is probably to put together an etherpad with notes on what the components are and where the touch points are with the OSA implementation 16:32:53 phil_h you can use the PlumGRID and Nuage implementations as a reference to see how they work to give you ideas 16:33:03 I will get started on that and I will stay in touch with everyone 16:33:16 phil_h FYI http://docs.openstack.org/developer/openstack-ansible/install-guide/app-plumgrid.html 16:33:17 I will look at how they have things set up 16:33:26 phil_h also http://docs.openstack.org/developer/openstack-ansible/install-guide/app-nuage.html 16:33:45 Thanks 16:34:14 you'll see how that all works in the neutron role itself https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_neutron and for nuage there's also a bit in the nova role https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_nova 16:34:50 phil_h if you can make the next meeting with a prepared etherpad, then we can discuss it together and help work out the next steps with you 16:35:04 OK, Thanks 16:35:07 of course you're also welcome to ask questions in #openstack-ansible at any time 16:35:17 I will!!!! 16:35:25 or bug Major!! 16:35:42 heh, of course - you'll find plenty of peopl in the channel are always happy to help 16:36:04 understand, I just like to tweek him from time to time 16:36:23 alright, moving on 16:36:35 #topic Ubuntu 16.04 LTS support 16:36:37 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-newton-ubuntu16-04 16:37:29 odyssey4me: Don’t forget #topic Deprecation of pip_lock_down please ;) 16:37:54 heh, you snuck that one in after my last refresh automagically_ :) 16:38:35 ok, so the only roles we haven't done the var moves for to cover the Newton-1 milestone are nova, rally, ironic and magnum 16:38:56 for rally there's a review that didn't pass the gate check 16:39:10 cloudnull did an incredible amount of work in the last work 16:39:11 *week 16:39:13 odyssey4me: Yeah, I need to circle back to that Rally one and debug the apt issue 16:39:28 I've been MIA working on internal sprints, I'm hoping to pick up nova possibly 16:39:30 And rally isn’t really core now, i.e. not integrated into gate 16:39:43 do we have any volunteers to take on the nova, ironic and magnum roles? remember that the Newton-1 goal is simply to apply the var pattern and have it pass the Trusty gate check, nothing more 16:39:44 unless someone else wants it 16:39:59 i'll take magnum 16:40:14 please add your name to the etherpad, thanks jmccrory 16:40:20 <<< nova 16:40:27 thanks michaelgugino 16:41:13 and yeah, cloudnull did manage to cover a lot of ground in the last week - but thanks to everyone for pitching in 16:41:49 what is nice is that we now have some patterns to work with for systemd support, and I think all of the infrastructure roles are already working on at least Xenial 16:42:16 can we get a volunteer to do the ironic role? 16:42:45 i'll take a look 16:43:10 thanks andymccr 16:44:04 cool, Newton-1 is next week Thu/Fri 16:44:18 right, let's circle back 16:44:18 Really sneaks up 16:44:31 #topic Deprecation of pip_lockdown 16:44:36 automagically_ over to you 16:44:55 Just wanted to get eyes on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/313890/ as the desirable pattern moving forward 16:45:08 So we can unblock a whole raft of jmccrory patchs 16:45:32 Looks like odyssey4me and mattt had objections, just want to see if we can clear those up 16:46:35 * odyssey4me is reading the discussion again 16:47:37 I'll read that too 16:47:53 I've just been wondering why we should specifically apply the var there? 16:48:25 why not just include the role as normal, then apply the lock-down in the playbooks 16:48:47 the trouble here is that we're adding yet another place to look for vars being set 16:48:55 odyssey4me: I’d be okay with that, but we are always going to set it to true in the playbooks... 16:49:08 we already have role defaults, group_vars, playbooks and overrides 16:49:31 Sure, but this one is not something deployers are going to need to view/override 16:49:36 we're doing this already a few other roles: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible-galera_client/blob/master/meta/main.yml#L37-L39 https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_build/blob/master/meta/main.yml#L33 16:49:36 automagically_ not always, I don't think - certainly not for the repo server 16:50:27 jmccrory is there a reason why those can't live in the defaults instead? 16:50:30 If we want to do it at the playbook level, than my earlier opinion on that review stands, which is that we should remove the hard role dependency altogether 16:50:33 the role defaults? 16:50:44 And pip install and config is a decision purely made at the playbook level 16:52:01 There really _is not_ a hard dependency as such, more of an order of operations. I think order of operations ownership between roles is largely a playbook-level concern, rather than a role concern 16:52:14 automagically_ I agree with you, but I know that cloudnull disagrees strongly and he's not present. 16:52:28 Ah, alright, then this won’t be the meeting we solve this in then ;) 16:52:30 odyssey4me: they could, for the lock down case the same ternary could be a default as well. 16:52:46 if the main concern is where the variable is defined 16:53:09 Agreed jmccrory. My remove the dependency altogether argument is a far more wide ranging and invasive one 16:53:29 Could we analyse this and give feedback next week? 16:53:34 Anyway, sounds like we #action all table pip_lock_down deprecation discussion til cloudnull returns 16:53:35 automagically_ yeah, that's my concern with that - so I'm more inclined to let this through even if I don't like it 16:53:52 odyssey4me: ++ 16:54:12 Agreed too 16:54:16 I would prefer the vars not being set in meta if possible - it just makes it that extra level more frustrating to figure things out 16:54:37 So odyssey4me - you’ll +2 if it moves to role defaults 16:54:43 but as jmccrory has noted, we already have precedent 16:54:58 the extra level is fine but for having a build dependencies system only IMO, not for using that directly 16:55:11 but yeah, I'll analyse this further 16:55:24 automagically_ for this particular case, I really don't see why the role needs to activate the lock down at all 16:55:36 I know…and I agree 16:55:51 for the other cases jmccrory pointed out, yes I think those could happily live in role defaults instead 16:55:54 then it's clearly a misuse of meta 16:55:56 But…may be worthwhile to take small steps here sufficient to drop the lockdown role 16:56:00 And then re-evaluate 16:56:10 automagically_ sure 16:56:26 jmccrory thoughts? 16:57:10 i could see the lockdown var moved entirely to OSA's playbooks 16:57:42 jmccrory: And the role as well, or would you keep the role deps the way they are? 16:57:54 so if the var was set in the playbooks that need it, and the role still set as a dep then I'd be completely happy 16:57:56 We are nearly out of time, I didn’t expect this conversation to go so long 16:58:05 only pip_install in os_ role deps, OSA playbook would lock it down 16:58:06 automagically_ further suggestion to remove the role dep can be explored later 16:58:40 agree 16:58:55 ok, we're pretty much out of time 16:59:01 thanks all! 16:59:04 jmccrory: Will you propose that review to show that pattern? I think we like it 16:59:04 #endmeeting