16:01:49 <b3rnard0> #startmeeting OpenStack Ansible Meeting
16:01:51 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Feb 19 16:01:49 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is b3rnard0. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:52 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:55 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting'
16:02:05 <b3rnard0> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/openstack-ansible#Agenda_for_next_meeting
16:02:17 <b3rnard0> #topic RollCall
16:02:27 <cloudnull> present
16:02:34 <b3rnard0> presente
16:02:44 <stevelle> present
16:02:48 <VW_> hmm - we have meeting room conflict
16:02:50 <sigmavirus24> gift
16:03:09 <sigmavirus24> VW_: os-ansible-deployment has had this room for >1 month I think
16:03:16 <palendae> present
16:03:20 <VW_> yeah, we had it back in December
16:03:28 <VW_> but we are alternating timeslots
16:03:55 <sigmavirus24> VW_: interesting we haven't run into each other yet
16:04:03 <b3rnard0> VW_: what time is your meeting?
16:04:17 <alextricity> Morning
16:04:28 <sigmavirus24> o/ alextricity
16:04:47 <VW_> 16:00 UTC, sigmavirus24 / b3rnard0
16:04:54 <VW_> it's new as of December, though
16:04:58 <VW_> you guys carry on
16:05:05 <VW_> I'll see what I can do to work around
16:05:18 <b3rnard0> VW_: sorry about the confusion
16:05:38 <mdorman> VW_:  reasonable to move to #openstack-operators?
16:05:59 <d34dh0r53> presente
16:06:19 <b3rnard0> cloudnull: we didn't have any action items from last week, do we want to just jump onto contributor guidelines discussion?
16:06:24 <Sam-I-Am> hi
16:07:07 <belmoreira> VW_: fine for me
16:07:24 <VW_> cool
16:07:46 <b3rnard0> thanks VW_
16:08:27 <cloudnull> VW_ belmoreira mdorman i dont see anything on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings for your meeting at this time, but we can move our meeting to another time slot / room moving forward if needed.
16:08:49 <b3rnard0> #action b3rnard0 Make sure there are no meeting conflicts and update meeting time if necessary.
16:09:28 <cloudnull> any who, lets get started?
16:09:40 <VW_> nah - we'll sort it out, cloudnull
16:09:59 <cloudnull> alright, sorry for the confusion :)
16:10:19 <cloudnull> so lets get right into Contributor guidelines discussion
16:10:22 <b3rnard0> #topic Contributor guidelines discussion
16:10:30 <b3rnard0> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ansible-contrib
16:10:38 <cloudnull> mancdaz started ^
16:11:03 <cloudnull> i think we need to lay out specific guidelines for contributions and begin adhering to them.
16:11:19 <cloudnull> and i know that i've been part of the problem
16:12:00 <cloudnull> so moving forward, i like where this is going. but i'd like to get everyone to start looking at that and add bits that may be missing.
16:12:54 <cloudnull> anyone have any thoughts on taht ?
16:13:45 <cloudnull> anyone here ?
16:13:50 <palendae> I agree with what mancdaz has outlined there
16:13:57 <Apsu> Personally, I think that there will probably be need for exceptions with respect to 1 blueprint = 1 feature = 1 patch set, mostly because "feature" is such a vague target.
16:14:01 <mattt> here, and no real arguments w/ what is there
16:14:03 <Apsu> But I generally agree with it.
16:14:29 <Apsu> The whole blueprint/voting aspect is a given
16:14:31 <mattt> we need clarification on whether features get backported too tho
16:14:36 <Sam-I-Am> bluesprints/specs ?
16:14:51 <cloudnull> so lets start with the etherpad and then once we have something that is mutually agreeable we should add it to the contributing guidelines.
16:15:00 <Apsu> +1
16:15:22 <mattt> +1
16:15:38 <Sam-I-Am> Apsu: a lot of bps generally have > 1 patch
16:15:50 <cloudnull> so lets get eyes on that, and later today we'll pr to master in the contributing guidelines.
16:16:00 <Sam-I-Am> smaller patches are easier to vote on than huge ones
16:16:01 <odyssey4me> o/ (sorry I'm late)
16:16:09 <cloudnull> np odyssey4me
16:16:11 <b3rnard0> we forgive you odyssey4me
16:16:27 <Apsu> Sam-I-Am: I know, not really what I meant. I'm moreso talking about what constitutes a "feature" and whether a single bp should subsume multiple ones or not. But we can discuss that separately
16:16:36 <Sam-I-Am> mmkay
16:17:26 <Apsu> If the feature is "restructure playbook style", you end up with a huge patchset. Some "features" are huge and invasive. That's what brought this issue up in the first place, so just pointing out that "feature" is vague and sometimes it hurts :)
16:18:48 <cloudnull> ok moving on to "Blueprints"
16:19:01 <b3rnard0> #topic Blueprints
16:19:13 <b3rnard0> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+spec/additional-tempest-checks
16:20:17 <cloudnull> so i think that bp is in line with our whole, "if your not working on gating your not working" mantra. but the BP needs some more data.
16:20:43 <palendae> Are we conflating rackspace sprints with os-ansible-deployment goals then?
16:20:47 <b3rnard0> also, did we want to start using a blueprint or spec template?
16:21:05 <hughsaunders> this patch should be more inline with that bp https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156831/
16:21:16 <cloudnull> palendae no, the integration with tempest should be a project goal .
16:22:23 <cloudnull> i think if we're going to have a successful project we need better testing and per OpenStack tempest == testing.
16:22:34 <palendae> Sure, not saying that
16:22:52 <palendae> I'm more confused where the mantra came from - don't remember it as part of the last os-ansible-deployment meeting
16:23:03 <palendae> Anyway
16:23:12 <palendae> More testing more good
16:23:58 <Apsu> America
16:23:59 <Sam-I-Am> who is testing the tests?
16:24:01 <d34dh0r53> going to update that BP today to the spec format that cloudnull uses
16:24:05 <d34dh0r53> btw
16:24:17 <cloudnull> d34dh0r53 great
16:24:20 <Apsu> Sam-I-Am: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
16:24:25 <d34dh0r53> cloudnull: I can haz link to gist?
16:24:39 <sigmavirus24> == Sam-I-Am
16:24:42 <b3rnard0> d34dh0r53: what is the link to the spec format so that we can add that to the guidelines?
16:24:55 <sigmavirus24> Apsu: the cores are the watchpersons and the community watches them
16:25:00 <d34dh0r53> b3rnard0 meet cloudnull
16:25:03 <cloudnull> d34dh0r53: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/cloudnull/91f23c49c2a86ffd1309/raw/bea7862563c53553df1eaaf490ba5d249d75b985/blueprint-template.rst
16:25:16 <Apsu> sigmavirus24: Slightly creepy. But I can dig it
16:25:22 <odyssey4me> I think that perhaps we need to figure out, for this project, what sort of change to the project requires a blueprint and what can simply be logged as a bug.
16:25:22 <b3rnard0> #link https://gist.githubusercontent.com/cloudnull/91f23c49c2a86ffd1309/raw/bea7862563c53553df1eaaf490ba5d249d75b985/blueprint-template.rst
16:25:24 <d34dh0r53> 👍
16:25:49 <Sam-I-Am> features usually = bp, bugs usually = bugs ?
16:25:52 <cloudnull> so this brings up another issue around Blueprints / Specs. I feel like we should be using specs and abandon blueprints.
16:25:56 <Apsu> odyssey4me: Simple. If it's a bug, fix it. If it's a feature, blueprint it. Pefectly clear, right?
16:26:01 <b3rnard0> d34dh0r53: meet action item
16:26:13 <b3rnard0> #action d34dh0r53 update blueprint with template from cloudnull
16:26:17 <stevelle> It seem the scope of the fix should influence that decision odyssey4me
16:26:25 <d34dh0r53> thank you sir, may I have another?
16:26:31 <Sam-I-Am> cloudnull: for upstream, we have a BP for general management, but it links to a spec for the actual discussion/voting
16:26:44 <cloudnull> yes that ^
16:27:13 <palendae> Sounds like a good appraoch. BPs don't really allow for discussion
16:27:17 <cloudnull> in this way we'd have a repo of specs that people can comment and vote on.
16:27:27 <cloudnull> at present the launchpad whiteboard is terribad.
16:27:29 <Sam-I-Am> launchpad doesnt understand specs, but it does know how to manage targets and stuff.
16:27:41 <b3rnard0> +1 to specs
16:27:44 <Sam-I-Am> launchpad is the b3rnard0 of feature management
16:27:55 <hughsaunders> cloudnull: could we have in-repo specs to save having another repo?
16:28:05 <b3rnard0> Sam-I-Am: and you are the diagram editor for os-ansible?
16:28:16 <cloudnull> hughsaunders sure.
16:28:17 <palendae> hughsaunders: So we get specs on every checkout?
16:28:22 <Sam-I-Am> b3rnard0: say my name!
16:28:35 <cloudnull> ^ palendae  beat me to my comment on that.
16:28:43 <palendae> Er, clone
16:29:14 <hughsaunders> yeah, I guess they would be quite small, and it would save having another repo to keep track of
16:29:44 <hughsaunders> but git-harry tells me that all the openstack projects use external specs repos, so maybe we should follow suit?
16:29:52 <Sam-I-Am> most of the upstream projects have separate repos
16:29:54 <Sam-I-Am> like -specs
16:30:00 <odyssey4me> in-repo may mean that the automated spec building may not work - assuming that this can be done for stackforge projects
16:30:20 <odyssey4me> also, perhaps the approvers for specs should be different to the approvers for the code?
16:30:20 <sigmavirus24> odyssey4me: I think it can
16:30:27 <sigmavirus24> odyssey4me: specs live on specs.openstack.org
16:30:27 <Sam-I-Am> odyssey4me: +1
16:30:41 <sigmavirus24> odyssey4me: typically there's overlap but they're not the same team
16:30:44 <palendae> Well, if the goal is to be more like upstream OpenStack, then separate repos sounds like the way to go
16:30:55 <cloudnull> so lets ping "jhesketh" to see about getting another repo.
16:32:33 <b3rnard0> #info palendae: Well, if the goal is to be more like upstream OpenStack, then separate repos sounds like the way to go; cloudnull: so lets ping "jhesketh" to see about getting another repo.
16:33:00 <b3rnard0> who would like to ping jhesketh for the repo?
16:33:14 <cloudnull> ill hit him up today .
16:33:21 <cloudnull> but he's likely sleeping right now.
16:33:51 <cloudnull> anything else we want to talk about regarding blueprints ?
16:34:24 <cloudnull> ok moving on
16:34:24 <b3rnard0> #action cloudnull ping jhesketh about creating a separate repo
16:34:34 <b3rnard0> #topic Milestones
16:34:49 <b3rnard0> #link https://launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+milestone/next
16:34:53 <cloudnull> presently we have 2 milestone. 10.1.2 and 9.0.7
16:35:34 <cloudnull> imo 10.1.2 is close to being done.
16:35:53 <cloudnull> while 9.0.7 has a few items that need to go in, IE tempest commit_aio testing.
16:36:17 <cloudnull> for the most part things are passing, that said we need reviewers.
16:36:32 <cloudnull> please do the needfuls on items in https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/os-ansible-deployment,n,z
16:36:51 <cloudnull> there are 7 commits for icehouse
16:36:52 <b3rnard0> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/os-ansible-deployment,n,z
16:37:05 <cloudnull> 5 for juno.
16:37:48 <cloudnull> odyssey4me do we know when infra will can get our gate change commit in ?
16:38:29 <odyssey4me> cloudnull it's been waiting in the queue since monday... I'm trying to be patient and wait for a week before starting to escalate. :p
16:38:42 <cloudnull> thats fair.
16:38:53 <cloudnull> i think we've bothered them a enough for a while :)
16:39:07 <odyssey4me> the supposed expected time for a review to sit in the queue is 5-7 days
16:39:08 <cloudnull> odyssey4me you have the link for that review .
16:39:23 <odyssey4me> #link https://review.openstack.org/156229
16:39:47 <cloudnull> if we can get some other reviewers on that ^ it would also be great.
16:39:56 <Apsu> Already doing
16:41:19 <cloudnull> so anything else regarding present milestones?
16:42:01 <cloudnull> ok moving on
16:42:10 <b3rnard0> #topic Open discussion
16:42:49 <BjoernT> So pinning will be backported to icehouse branch and we will use the same versions as 10.1.2?
16:43:08 <cloudnull> BjoernT it looks like it.
16:43:12 <odyssey4me> BjoernT yes, the patches are already in-flight
16:43:17 <cloudnull> odyssey4me has put through that work .
16:43:27 <cloudnull> ^ what odyssey4me  said :)
16:43:45 <BjoernT> Nice
16:44:12 <cloudnull> BjoernT if you have time please review the open PRs @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/os-ansible-deployment,n,z we'd love some external feedback .
16:44:22 <odyssey4me> BjoernT obviously the openstack service versions will not be the same - the pinning backport and version pin will only apply to the infrastructure
16:44:34 <BjoernT> ok, I'llk do
16:44:42 <BjoernT> sure
16:45:18 <BjoernT> is there a reason why we didn't backport 1410437 to icehouse ? or are we reducing development on 9.x ?
16:45:37 <cloudnull> BjoernT 9.x is in maintenance.
16:45:54 <b3rnard0> #action BjoernT to help out with reviewing open PRs https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/os-ansible-deployment,n,z
16:45:54 <BjoernT> What issues are fixed in that state ?
16:46:14 <cloudnull> critical / some high
16:46:47 <cloudnull> that said odyssey4me : do we think getting that in for 9.0.7 is a worthwhile effort?
16:47:07 <BjoernT> OK, we talked internally yesterday and we think 1410437 is critical (PATH missing in keystone token_flush cronjob)
16:47:10 <odyssey4me> what are we talking about here?
16:47:38 <odyssey4me> oh - the keystone path thing?
16:47:55 <BjoernT> I meant the support team talked internally about what can happen to customer environments if the token table grows to big
16:47:58 <cloudnull> BjoernT: from the prospective of the deployer , we dont know what pains you unless you and others join in here, in the community forum
16:48:07 <odyssey4me> well, I don't think it was backported in the previous run because nobody lobbied to have that done - it was never marked as backport potential for icehouse (until today)
16:48:28 <BjoernT> yes I know that's why we talked about it yesterday. is 9.0.7 already frozen?
16:48:43 <odyssey4me> it's probably an easy backport
16:48:48 <BjoernT> Can I mark bugs myself as backport potential ?
16:48:51 <Sam-I-Am> imho, the token-flush thing is a pretty big issue
16:48:58 <stevelle> action item?
16:49:09 <odyssey4me> I did try to cherry-pick through gerrit already, and it doesn't... so there's clearly a conflict.
16:49:29 <cloudnull> so lets prioritize it and get it in for 9.0.7
16:49:59 <odyssey4me> BjoernT it would often be best to include the versions that you think it applies to in the description or a follow-on message.
16:49:59 <BjoernT> +1
16:50:03 <cloudnull> that said , BjoernT can you talk to your team about joining the tuesday triage meeting?
16:50:10 <odyssey4me> That way the bug triage can target it in the process.
16:50:32 <BjoernT> yes it is usually me but this week was bad, we will have a secondary joining
16:50:36 <odyssey4me> and yeah, join the meetings and advocate
16:50:46 <cloudnull> ok.
16:50:51 <cloudnull> anything else?
16:51:03 <BjoernT> Not from me
16:51:15 <b3rnard0> thanks BjoernT
16:51:23 <cloudnull> ok , lets call it
16:51:28 <b3rnard0> thanks everyone
16:51:30 <cloudnull> thanks everyone
16:51:49 <BjoernT> Thanks
16:51:53 <b3rnard0> #endmeeting