15:00:51 <mattmceuen> #startmeeting openstack-helm
15:00:52 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Mar 27 15:00:51 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mattmceuen. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:53 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:56 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_helm'
15:01:04 <mattmceuen> #topic rollcall
15:01:23 <srwilkers> o/
15:01:25 <gmmaha> o/
15:01:58 <mattmceuen> Agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-helm-meeting-2018-03-27
15:02:12 <mattmceuen> I'll give it a minute, because several of us in saint louis just got kicked out of our meeting room :)
15:02:35 <mattmceuen> Please add anything you'd like to discuss today to the agenda!
15:04:31 <mattmceuen> do we have jayahn in the house?
15:05:35 <portdirect> o/
15:06:08 <mattmceuen> GM / GE everyone
15:06:43 <mattmceuen> #topic Multiline LMA functionality
15:07:20 <mattmceuen> This was a topic Jay wanted to discuss but I don't think he was able to join today.  Unless anyone wants to cover for him?
15:08:07 <mattmceuen> We can table it till next time unless he is able to join in a bit.
15:08:19 <mattmceuen> That's a segueway into our next topic :)
15:08:28 <mattmceuen> #topic Team meeting time
15:09:13 <mattmceuen> At the PTG, it was brought up that our current meeting time is "morning in US" and "midnight in east asia", and opened the door to considering other timing.
15:10:31 <mattmceuen> I know not everyone is here (and timing is probably part of the reason), but how do we gathered feel about timing?  Would a "afternoon US" time be good or bad?
15:11:49 <srwilkers> i'd be fine with afternoon
15:11:56 <portdirect> `afternoon US` = evening europe
15:11:58 <mattmceuen> gmmaha - would that timing work for you?
15:12:04 <gmmaha> afternoon/morning shouldn't be too much of an issue in the US
15:12:44 <mattmceuen> to portdirect's point - there's no time that will be good for everyone, but I think "evening for some folks" is probably better than "midnight for /anyone/" if possible
15:12:53 <portdirect> ++
15:12:58 <gmmaha> mattmceuen: yes afternoon would be fantastic. i don't have to run away in the middle of the meeting to drop the kid off at school..
15:13:09 <mattmceuen> awesome :D
15:13:11 <gmmaha> ++
15:13:27 <portdirect> I'm down with that - long as we dont end up midnight in turkey etc
15:13:36 <srwilkers> ^
15:13:46 <mattmceuen> Good deal.  Let me take an action item to set up a poll thingie with some potential times so the team can vote
15:15:08 <mattmceuen> #topic PS needing review
15:15:29 <mattmceuen> We have a few PS needing review, and they are probably some topic-lets in themselves
15:16:08 <mattmceuen> I took a stab at organizing the thoughts we'd had at the PTG around OSH 1.0 release requirements: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556325/
15:16:29 <mattmceuen> So that we can have broader discussion, nail them down, and then divvy them up as work items
15:16:52 <mattmceuen> If we can get some feedback / fill in gaps in that over the next week, it would be awesome
15:17:11 * mattmceuen pauses briefly to sip coffee before moving on to the next PS
15:17:45 <mattmceuen> Next is powerds0111's values ordering PS --  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552485/
15:18:07 <mattmceuen> There is some good discussion there so far, but I'd like for that to get broad input before we call it done
15:18:27 <mattmceuen> (spec I should say, not yet implementation)
15:19:08 <SamYaple> o/
15:19:13 <SamYaple> bit late sorry
15:19:35 <mattmceuen> hey SamYaple no problemo!
15:20:33 <mattmceuen> Final PS that I think would be really good to get broad understanding/review of is the nginx sidecar PS: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555386/
15:20:56 <mattmceuen> do we have lamt present?
15:21:27 <mattmceuen> I think he may actually be tied up in a conflict today.
15:21:55 <mattmceuen> portdirect do you think this one is deserving of a quick spec to give context / promote discussion?
15:22:15 <SamYaple> i can give it a review, we deploy nginx+uwsgi loci in production outside OSH
15:22:17 <portdirect> there should already be a spec i think
15:22:30 <portdirect> SamYaple: thats the next step on from this ps
15:22:44 <portdirect> as we need to remain compatible with Kolla
15:23:12 <portdirect> I'd like us to be able to have ` nginx+uwsgi` as an option (turned on by default)
15:23:24 <portdirect> but also support images without uwsgi
15:23:25 <SamYaple> sure, i was more speaking to the configs needed to make it work
15:23:30 <portdirect> +++
15:23:43 <mattmceuen> Spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/524013/
15:23:55 <portdirect> :)
15:24:04 <mattmceuen> That still accurate for the new PS?
15:24:10 <portdirect> yup
15:24:20 <mattmceuen> awesome
15:24:42 <mattmceuen> Thanks in advance SamYaple - let's all give the PS some review
15:24:42 <portdirect> though we need a follow up for uwsgi
15:24:53 <portdirect> as this simply deals with stage one
15:25:07 <SamYaple> getting nginx without uwsgi and nginx with uwsgi as deploy options might be... difficult
15:25:23 <SamYaple> can nginx only do uwsgi? other options for non-uwsgi?
15:25:23 <portdirect> I've been giving it some thought
15:25:29 <portdirect> I think it shouldnt be too hard
15:25:36 <SamYaple> ok cool
15:26:04 <portdirect> (mostly by going through home-salt... :D )
15:26:28 <SamYaple> sounds familiar
15:27:21 <mattmceuen> Any other PS that you all would like to get some wide feedback on?  (or are otherwise languishing for review :-) )
15:28:21 <mattmceuen> #topic Roundtable
15:28:34 <mattmceuen> Light agenda today - what else would we like to chat about
15:28:47 <portdirect> heat bootstrap?
15:28:49 <SamYaple> versioning strategy?
15:28:57 <srwilkers> templates in templates
15:29:09 <gmmaha> ceph chart plans?
15:29:09 <mattmceuen> versioning strategy - someone is deep in speccing that out
15:29:25 <portdirect> SamYaple: I'm starting to pull together a versioning spec
15:29:43 <portdirect> Soon as I have a ps, you'll be the 2nd to know :)
15:29:47 <SamYaple> got it
15:30:04 <portdirect> would be great for OSH and LOCI to follow the same one
15:30:15 <portdirect> (or variants thereof)
15:30:22 <SamYaple> right, thats why im curious
15:30:28 <SamYaple> i want to 1.0.0
15:30:28 <portdirect> I promise to have that up by next meeting
15:30:32 <lamt> o/
15:30:34 <SamYaple> ++
15:30:36 <portdirect> and plan to before EOW
15:31:01 <mattmceuen> thanks portdirect
15:31:15 <portdirect> gmmaha: we really need to split out the ceph chart into three (at least)
15:31:33 <portdirect> one for mons, another for osds, and one(or more) for fun extras
15:31:34 <mattmceuen> (do we have renmak_ -- he was interested in learning more about ^)
15:31:44 <gmmaha> portdirect: right. sorry i have been out of action for a few weeks.. hence thought we shall sync
15:31:49 <renmak_> yes
15:31:53 <renmak_> I am here
15:32:04 <portdirect> which will allow is to follow the same upgrade workflow as ceph-deploy et al.
15:32:05 <gmmaha> ohh hey renmak_
15:32:13 <renmak_> I believe we should have user stories for those splitting up Ceph
15:32:35 <portdirect> we do *internally* ;)
15:32:49 <renmak_> :)
15:32:55 <portdirect> and we should have a bp really
15:33:20 <mattmceuen> is the ceph chart split 100% for ordering/upgrade reasons, or are there additional reasons too?
15:33:25 <gmmaha> portdirect: i saw you had a wip for getting the mon chart out. guess that's a good place to start for now
15:33:34 <d|k> seems like it might also be good to get ceph-helm people (like @rootfs?) to provide input on the design
15:33:58 <portdirect> mattmceuen: 50% upgrade 50% resiliency
15:34:18 <portdirect> d|k: we are doing this in line with sage's thoughts
15:34:42 <mattmceuen> the Arnold Palmer of production-grade software
15:34:45 <d|k> fair enough, i just figured they might the heads up.
15:35:31 <mattmceuen> what kinds of fun extras would go in the third ceph chart?
15:35:42 <d|k> rgw seems like one
15:35:45 <gmmaha> mattmceuen: i am guessing rgw, rbd, etc
15:35:48 <mattmceuen> +1
15:35:56 <portdirect> ^^^
15:36:07 <d|k> in fact, rgw could be a component all by itself, i think.
15:36:22 <portdirect> hence - one (or more :) )
15:36:25 <d|k> yah
15:36:38 <portdirect> but lets go for: mons, osds, client things
15:36:42 <portdirect> as a 1st step
15:36:46 <gmmaha> ++
15:36:51 <portdirect> theres a LOT of work in that alone..
15:36:56 <d|k> there's probably also key management and mgr.
15:37:15 <portdirect> we also have to do this rapidly
15:37:27 <portdirect> as its def on the critical path for a 1.0
15:37:45 <portdirect> so anyone taking this on should be aware of that
15:37:58 <gmmaha> portdirect: have you had a chance to write down your thoughts on how this will all playout?.
15:38:06 <gmmaha> just to understand the design
15:38:50 <gmmaha> guessing there will be a common ceph chart that will host keys, conf etc which we might inherit on all of the individual ones.
15:39:27 <portdirect> no!
15:39:33 <SamYaple> lol
15:39:35 <portdirect> you cant upgrade that
15:39:38 <gmmaha> :+
15:39:45 <portdirect> we need them to be seperate
15:40:09 <portdirect> if we bundled them together, we'd have the same problem we have today
15:40:31 <portdirect> where we cannot upgrade each component individually
15:41:36 <renmak_> Pete, can you suggest/discuss design for this effort? It would be great to understand clear picture of what is needed
15:41:55 <gmmaha> yeah, that will put us back to the where we are now.
15:42:55 <portdirect> I'll get a BP up
15:43:17 <renmak_> Awesome!
15:43:23 <gmmaha> portdirect: thanks. sorry for loading more on your plate
15:43:32 <portdirect> np
15:46:52 <mattmceuen> Any other roundtable topics, or things you'd like to get on the agenda for next time?
15:48:47 <mattmceuen> cool beans -thanks everyone!  have a good day
15:48:50 <mattmceuen> #endmeeting