16:01:26 #startmeeting OpenStack Ansible Meeting 16:01:27 Meeting started Thu Jul 9 16:01:26 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is cloudnull. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:01:30 The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting' 16:01:47 #topic Agenda & rollcall 16:02:07 hello 16:02:09 o/ 16:02:10 o/ 16:02:24 o/ 16:02:30 good day folks 16:02:31 hi everybody 16:03:40 o/ 16:03:47 hey 16:04:37 first time tacker joinee here - good to see you all 16:04:46 o/ 16:04:49 welcome qwebirc82056 16:05:08 welcome qwebirc82056 and serverascode :) 16:05:26 #topic Review action items from last week 16:05:37 odyssey4me to update the specs for federation. 16:05:54 looks like that was all done 16:06:10 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+spec/keystone-federation 16:06:27 cloudnull we will no longer backport things from master until its been +w / merged into master. 16:06:39 yep, those are done and should be considered final - can we get some final reviews on https://review.openstack.org/194147 ? 16:06:40 also it seems that everyone is following that change 16:07:06 yes ^ that should be priority item https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194147/ 16:07:09 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194147/ 16:07:26 and https://review.openstack.org/194255 16:07:27 #topic Blueprints 16:07:51 so jumping into the specs / bps 16:08:21 odyssey4me: whats your feeling on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194255/ ? 16:08:35 do we think that we'll have working bits by 11.1.x ? 16:09:02 cloudnull yeah, we have some patches up for review which cover SSL-related stuff which we depend on 16:09:12 let me pick them out for review attention: 16:09:17 ++ 16:10:04 #link: https://review.openstack.org/194474 (keystone SSL support) 16:10:34 #link: https://review.openstack.org/196943 (keystone v3 api usage in the Ansible library) 16:11:06 #link: https://review.openstack.org/199307 (allow 'insecure' use of keystone by everything) 16:11:49 #link: https://review.openstack.org/198957 (ssl offloading to haproxy) 16:12:10 if we can get some attention on those reviews and try to get them merged this week that'd really help 16:12:18 +1 16:12:56 palendae hughsaunders sigmavirus24 mattt andymccr 16:13:08 sorry, I'm here 16:13:23 ok :) 16:14:22 I think that the haproxy review still needs some attention. 16:14:33 about that one . 16:14:49 when i looked at it last it was forwarding ssl to the endpoing using tcp 16:14:54 git-harry has raised a good point in https://review.openstack.org/199307 - perhaps the decision of whether to set 'insecure' should be manual? thoughts on that? 16:15:02 have we looked at haproxy 15 with ssl terminiation ? 16:15:55 cloudnull https://review.openstack.org/198957 is to use haproxy for ssl offloading, but https://review.openstack.org/194474 still implements ssl at the keystone endpoint as there are use-cases where people want to do both 16:17:09 * cloudnull was looking at that review 16:17:13 the haproxy patch will conflict with the keystone one at the moment, but we'll fix that - so I think that patch needs more work but the keystone one is good to go 16:17:21 my one nit there would be the use of "http://ppa.launchpad.net/vbernat/haproxy-1.5/ubuntu" 16:17:36 in the past we've had deployment issues when using ppa's 16:17:44 but i can cover that in the PR 16:18:14 cloudnull yeah, perhaps the decision of using the ppa should be made based on whether there are any ssl endpoints... not use it if it's not needed 16:19:01 +1, I'd also not be against simply adding the ability for us to compile / build the package for haproxy. 16:19:21 if we deem 1.5 is the way to go 16:19:51 after reading the osad manifesto through once or twice that strikes me as not crazy 16:20:17 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-manifesto 16:20:36 wiki: 16:20:39 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAnsible 16:21:26 I have to admit, I haven't been able to read through it properly. :/ 16:22:03 i figured id wait a couple weeks before i pr to master. 16:22:12 for that reason, theres been a lot going on 16:22:34 but if anyone has a minute to review it please tear it apart. 16:22:35 cloudnull perhaps it should just be pr'd to master and we can edit/discuss in review? 16:23:15 maybe, ill wait a few more days for people to collaborate on the etherpad. 16:23:44 will have a read 16:23:45 I'm still doing tiny edits to fix typos and what not 16:23:54 thanks stevelle hughsaunders 16:24:03 next on the BP reviews 16:24:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173067 16:24:18 this is for ceilometer cores please do the needfuls 16:24:33 yep, I've just built it and it's build complete 16:24:53 odyssey4me: mind if I piggy back my testing off your build? 16:25:19 sigmavirus24 sure, I'll add your keys 16:25:25 gracias 16:26:44 msg sigmavirus 104.239.228.118 16:26:48 hahaha 16:26:50 whoops 16:26:59 lulz 16:27:22 odyssey4me: its ok we didn't see hunter2 16:27:48 it's built - I'm not all that familiar with ceilometer so perhaps someone can do some things to make pretty graphs and stuff? 16:27:55 #topic Open discussion 16:28:08 should we move the docs out into their own repo and elect a new core team for docs? - cloudnull 16:28:17 what do we think ? 16:28:46 cloudnull if we can get a docs repo created in openstack/ then yeah, I think that's a good plan 16:28:47 IMO no; at least not all docs 16:28:51 dont think they need their own repo. The docs should pertain only to the os-ad stuff the rest of "how to openstack" is/should already be doc'd. 16:29:00 I nominate sigmavirus24 for core of docs 16:29:09 I don't want to see it become more of a "docs is THEIR job" thing 16:29:17 Docs should be on developers implementing a feature 16:29:21 At least part of them 16:29:32 d34dh0r53: of course 16:29:36 == palendae 16:30:23 we're already bad about keeping the docs we have up to date. I think this would just make it worse 16:30:56 yeah, I am inclined to agree - we need to pay more attention to keeping docs up to date with code - and this makes it easier 16:32:55 ok. so for now, do we say no moving the docs ? 16:33:09 that would be my vote! 16:33:29 For now, no 16:33:35 Maybe if it morphs and gets bigger 16:33:44 (if it really gets that big we are probably doing it wrong) 16:33:49 I think we'll still need some stuff documenting the structure and so on for other devs 16:33:53 lets try this 16:33:54 but like andymccr says, that should be small 16:34:05 #startvote to move the docs into its own repo 16:34:06 Unable to parse vote topic and options. 16:34:10 I agree with andymccr 16:34:33 Oo, using bot features 16:34:34 cloudnull: #startvote Should we move the docs into its own repo? Yes, no 16:34:47 #startvote to move the docs into its own repo? yes, no 16:34:48 Begin voting on: to move the docs into its own repo? Valid vote options are yes, no. 16:34:49 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 16:34:54 #vote no 16:34:55 #vote no 16:35:00 #vote no 16:35:05 #vote no 16:35:16 #vote no 16:35:40 #vote abstain 16:35:41 d34dh0r53: abstain is not a valid option. Valid options are yes, no. 16:35:49 #vote pedro 16:35:50 Apsu: pedro is not a valid option. Valid options are yes, no. 16:35:57 lol 16:35:58 damn, no Switzerland for me 16:36:03 good enough for me 16:36:05 HAW HAW 16:36:06 #endvote 16:36:06 #vote no 16:36:07 Voted on "to move the docs into its own repo?" Results are 16:36:09 no (5): sigmavirus24, palendae, stevelle, odyssey4me, andymccr 16:36:24 d34dh0r53: You abstained anyway in the end. 16:36:26 FRAUD, I clearly got my vote in before the bell 16:36:42 Time to recount the hanging chads 16:36:54 next How should we handle the change in OpenStack package version numbers? odyssey4me 16:37:08 idk if this is a problem for us 16:37:13 so the two links outline the changes and what they mean 16:37:24 pbr should kick out the right version numbers, 16:37:44 this will affect upgrades 16:37:59 and we've been seeing this change in the recent master builds. IE http://rpc-repo.rackspace.com/os-releases/master/neutron-7.0.0.0b2.dev158-py2.py3-none-any.whl 16:38:05 if that's the case, then great 16:38:20 but perhaps an upgrade test can be done to confirm? 16:38:26 +1 16:38:40 #action test upgrading from kilo to liberty (master) 16:39:01 +1 16:39:14 Would it be a good idea to add greande jobs like upstream uses? 16:39:23 (or to have jobs that test those upgrade paths) 16:39:38 sigmavirus24 that'd be great 16:39:45 i looked at that. those jobs seem to be reserved for os namespaced projects. 16:39:50 * sigmavirus24 wasn't volunteering 16:39:54 soon cloudnull 16:39:56 cloudnull: so soon that won't be a problem? 16:40:02 as well as the periotic jobs. 16:40:03 == stevelle 16:40:09 what about patriotic jobs? 16:40:10 ++ sigmavirus24 stevelle 16:40:11 =P 16:40:34 patriotic jobs are once a year and the 4th has passed. 16:40:40 sigmavirus24: that's on your own time, son. 16:41:13 so is there anything pressing on the bug side. 16:41:22 any wish list items we want to raise ? 16:41:43 we've been smashing the open bugs so great works guys ! 16:42:38 littering and ? 16:43:41 swift multi region reviews are starting to go in as a headsup! 16:43:43 any mid-cycle events we expect to have folks showing up at? 16:43:53 might be worth a mention 16:44:26 suppose that was early, not in open discussion yet 16:44:45 we are stevelle 16:45:10 the ops midcycle is in planning (kinda) 16:45:39 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-July/007592.html 16:45:55 it'd be great to get some more OSAD people in on that thread 16:46:12 for anyone interested. 16:46:44 +1 andymccr 16:49:01 also the kolla guys are looking into some of our modules to use within their, IE SamYaple, we might want to see if we can help out. it'd be a good collaborative effort . http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069014.html 16:49:11 *their project 16:49:44 and or participating in the thread, if anyone is interested. 16:50:35 thats all we have on the agenda today . im inclinded to end early if theres nothing else. 16:51:02 I don't have anything 16:51:04 * sigmavirus24 objects to ending early for no particular reason 16:51:24 #vote yes 16:51:36 * d34dh0r53 is disenfranchised 16:51:59 #noted sigmavirus24 objects 16:52:06 #endmeeting