16:02:28 <sc`> #startmeeting openstack_chef
16:02:28 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Apr  4 16:02:28 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sc`. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:02:32 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_chef'
16:02:44 <jklare> hi sc`
16:02:46 <jklare> :)
16:02:54 <sc`> howdy!
16:03:28 <jklare> i have a topic i wanna talk about
16:03:41 <sc`> #chair jklare
16:03:42 <openstack> Current chairs: jklare sc`
16:03:43 <jklare> the 2 working sessions and the fishbowl one we have at the austin summit
16:03:51 <jklare> #topic sessions in austin
16:04:01 <jklare> sooo
16:04:20 <jklare> as stated in the mails from ttx, we got all the sessions we wanted and now have to fill them
16:04:42 <sc`> woot
16:05:11 <jklare> i think we need at least one of the working sessions to do the actual release work for all the projects
16:05:14 <markvan> hi
16:05:18 <jklare> hi markvan
16:05:22 <sc`> speaking of, my plans are confirmed for austin. i'll be there
16:05:35 <jklare> sc thats great
16:06:00 <calbers> o/
16:06:07 <jklare> imo we should use the fishbowl one to try to get some feedback on all the refactored stuff
16:06:19 <jklare> if we announce it early enough with a great title
16:06:25 <jklare> we might even get some people in :D
16:06:54 <sc`> for sure. i've heard a couple of "i've seen something about that" but nobody has really seemed to bang around on it in depth. if they are, they aren't talking
16:07:11 <jklare> i could put some slides together as a introduction to all the refactoring we have done
16:07:36 <jklare> so we can use them to explain what we did and ask people for their opinion
16:07:59 <sc`> sounds good to me
16:08:08 <jklare> but we need an amazing title
16:08:40 <jklare> how about "The best OpenStack deployment tool got even better!"
16:08:44 <jklare> :)
16:09:06 <jklare> might at least provoke "some" feedback
16:09:16 <sc`> that is catchy :D
16:10:45 <sc`> i sort of see the cookbooks as filling one of the needs to provide a nearly production-ready deployment system without *too* much fussing with it. approaching it from that angle may be good, so as to not directly take puppet head on
16:11:05 <jklare> ;)
16:12:07 <sc`> for example, in my own deployment, i haven't had to diverge a significant amount from how the branch exists upstream. my team has wrapped a lot of stuff around those cookbooks, but the core is mostly the same as github
16:12:48 <jklare> how about "The Biggest Loser - Running to production with OpenStack Chef"
16:12:54 <markvan> yeah, the "wrapping" ability is a strong point to make.  It was just a bit harder to wrap/extend this in the past
16:13:35 <jklare> we are nearly finished with our first beta mitaka deployment on xenial and just have to wrap the original upstream cookbooks
16:13:38 <sc`> markvan: yeah. we've had to contort the wrappers a bit in some cases (like when i added a hacked up server-apache.rb)
16:14:00 <sc`> jklare: nice!
16:14:39 <jklare> i think i had enough coffee for today...
16:14:46 <sc`> i'm just getting started
16:15:00 * sc` vibrates ever so slightly
16:15:20 <jklare> so markvan any ideas on that title for the fishbowl session=
16:15:21 <jklare> ?
16:15:43 <jklare> should we do something provokative to get more people in?
16:16:19 <jklare> or rather go with something like "Your opinion on the all new and shiny OpenStack Mitaka chef cookbook"
16:16:25 <sc`> j^2: you lurking? any ideas?
16:17:14 <markvan> this has really be a revolution of the older cookbooks, so something like "Revolution in OpenStack deployment, Do you agree?"
16:18:00 <jklare> less provokative but also catchy :)
16:18:11 <sc`> indeed. that is one way to approach it
16:18:13 <sc`> because it really is
16:18:23 <sc`> and people are going to get blindsided after liberty
16:18:28 <jklare> and its more obvious that it is a feedback session
16:19:17 <calbers> i would put "Next Level Deployment" also in it :D
16:20:16 <sc`> it hurts me to say this, but "the next generation of deploying openstack"
16:20:17 <calbers> but i agree with marks
16:20:35 <calbers> hehe
16:21:21 <sc`> unrelated: the jenkins jobs still "succeed", despite converge failing
16:21:32 <markvan> bring on the Trek'ers....next generation  ;)
16:21:46 <sc`> because the logs successfully save, the job "succeeds"
16:21:46 <jklare> ^^
16:22:03 <jklare> if we get all the Trek'ers in, we might need a bigger room
16:22:07 <jklare> but well
16:22:40 <sc`> gotta nerd it up somehow ;)
16:23:18 <jklare> how about "Living the refactoring dream and still going to production with OpenStack Chef"
16:23:47 <jklare> since we had this super big discussion about refactoring cycles and stuff
16:24:06 <jklare> and instead of talking about it, we actually went for it :)
16:24:18 <jklare> i mean some other projects did too
16:24:20 <jklare> but still
16:25:01 <sc`> the refactoring was indeed a major undertaking, and it seems to be working so far, even if i can't build openstack in ci
16:25:53 <jklare> sc` did not have the time in the last weeks to look at it, but we are using the upstream cookbooks from master and can build a real multi node openstack setup
16:26:02 <jklare> so might be related to packaging
16:26:04 <sc`> however, with my repo and common changes, the logs are properly saved pass or fail. it just always "passes", even if converge fails. i'm thinking that's a jenkins artifact
16:26:08 <sc`> i'm convinced it's packaging
16:26:22 <sc`> mysql for trusty seems to be a bug that isn't fixed until xenial
16:26:53 <sc`> centos is a python dependency. i'm going to bump rdo again to latest and see what happens
16:27:36 <jklare> so, wanna sleep over all the topic suggestions and decide tomorrow evening(EU)/morning(USA)
16:27:41 <jklare> ?
16:27:52 <sc`> again, many, many, many, many apologies for spamming the hell out of the channel with all my patches, but we can get everything we need out of ci with them
16:28:45 <sc`> i do like the refactoring one, jklare
16:29:40 <jklare> i would give j^2 the chance to also think about it and push some suggestions
16:29:48 <sc`> maybe: "Living the dream: refactoring and still going to production with OpenStack & Chef"
16:29:58 <jklare> he is usually quite good with that stuff :)
16:30:15 <sc`> yeah. that's why i wanted to solicit his input :)
16:30:19 <jklare> so imho we can decide tomorrow
16:30:29 <sc`> +1
16:32:20 <jklare> cool
16:32:36 <jklare> nothing else from my side
16:32:38 <jklare> :)
16:32:50 <markvan> sc`: as for the ci passing when pass fails, I think we need to save the chef client rc and then return that at the end of the job to keep jenkins happy
16:33:14 <sc`> markvan: maybe i can put it in the rescue part then
16:34:12 <sc`> i'll poke at it and see what happens
16:34:31 <markvan> sc`: yeah, something like that should work
16:36:26 <sc`> that's pretty much all i have
16:37:01 <sc`> i probably have one or two more patches in this case. gives me a little more to chew on
16:40:12 <sc`> alright, with that said. i'll give back 20 minutes unless anyone has anything more
16:40:34 <jklare> nope, thanks for the 20
16:40:44 <sc`> see you on the channel!
16:40:48 <sc`> #endmeeting