19:02:40 <dtroyer> #startmeeting OpenStackClient
19:02:40 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jul  2 19:02:40 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is dtroyer. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:02:41 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:02:44 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstackclient'
19:02:55 <dtroyer> stevemar: np, I didn't write an agenda so it may be short anyway
19:03:12 <dtroyer> We can do the usual stuff real quick though…
19:03:17 <dtroyer> #topic bugs
19:03:26 <dtroyer> any bugs that need attention from the group?
19:04:38 <stevemar> gorram reavers, i gotta go, sorry
19:04:57 <stevemar> theres a new bug filed today taht needs triaging
19:05:00 <dtroyer> stevemar: np, talk to you soon
19:05:28 <dtroyer> looks like https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-openstackclient/+bug/1470875
19:05:28 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1470875 in python-openstackclient "Add support for showing aggregates in an hypervisor's properties" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to David Moreau Simard (dmsimard)
19:06:18 <dtroyer> that looks to be a straightforward enhancement, if the python API for it is exposed
19:07:36 <dtroyer> in general the bug list needs some grooming.  maybe good stuff for during a late night staff meeting… ;)
19:08:01 <terrylhowe> it was working for me, but I have no aggregates on my devstack atm
19:08:11 <terrylhowe> it wasn’t blowing up is what I mean
19:08:46 <dtroyer> good to know.  maybe we should keep some local.conf files around for testing various configurations?
19:09:06 <dtroyer> I don't know I've ever done an aggregate in devstack other than what the exercises do (did)
19:10:14 <terrylhowe> it might be nice to have gates with different local.confs or a couple local.confs checcked into the docs
19:11:36 <dtroyer> I'm not sure how far we want to take that in our own jobs, it might explode.  a growing part of osc gets exercised on every devstack run now so we'll at least have that coverage
19:12:13 <terrylhowe> fair enough
19:12:24 <dtroyer> but not things like aggregates and cells
19:13:25 <dtroyer> can we do any of that in our functional testing without adding jobs?  ie, reconfigure a running devstack and still ahve a valid test setup?  since we care about the client I'm thinking we might be able to do that
19:13:55 <janonymous_> o/
19:13:59 <dtroyer> we don't have to answer that now
19:14:18 <dtroyer> any more bugs to raise?
19:15:19 <dtroyer> ok, moving on
19:15:34 <dtroyer> #topic reviews
19:15:34 <dtroyer> how about any reviews for attention?
19:16:33 <dtroyer> I had a question on https://review.openstack.org/183324
19:17:07 <dtroyer> it adds an update command, which we don't currently use.  a) is save or set useable theere and b) do we even want this?
19:17:24 <terrylhowe> I’d really like to see cloud show and cloud list with that
19:17:31 <terrylhowe> or another patch with list and show
19:17:39 <dtroyer> I have a slight aversion to mucking about with config files, especially ones we don't 'own' as it is potentially shared with other clients
19:17:59 <dtroyer> terrylhowe: agreed those would be useful
19:18:05 <terrylhowe> well, show and list would be read only at least
19:18:43 <terrylhowe> OSC is in a good position to do updates since it supports the env and command line args
19:18:56 <terrylhowe> it would be handy to have a create that would just stuff whatever is in the current env
19:19:49 <dtroyer> I suppose if OSC is the first thing to do that we'll 'de facto be the owners of it
19:20:17 <dtroyer> is 'cluod' the right object name?  should it be 'cloud config'?
19:20:23 <dtroyer> err, 'cloud'
19:21:16 <dtroyer> I'll add that to the review and we can go from there.  the additional commands can be a follow-up
19:21:48 <terrylhowe> config might be better
19:22:07 <dtroyer> that's how we've been describing it informally
19:22:40 <terrylhowe> ‘cloud config’ is fine though, not sure if there is going to be another type of config
19:23:22 <dtroyer> there may not be, but I think cloud config is consistent with how the entire concept has been described
19:23:53 <dtroyer> terrylhowe: is the only thing holding up that functional test chain a second +2?
19:24:29 <terrylhowe> no, I’ve been meaning to go through them and make sure they are all g2g
19:25:04 <dtroyer> ok, np
19:25:09 <terrylhowe> on the functional tests for the SDK I had some problems when I merged a bunch at once and they interfered with one another
19:25:27 <terrylhowe> causing intermittent failures
19:26:33 <terrylhowe> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185193/
19:26:59 <terrylhowe> this interests me because it seems like there is limited access to some identity stuff on public urls that normally get admin urls
19:27:45 <dtroyer> right.  I think there are some changes wrt v3 that I'd like to make sure this isn't going to cause us back-compat pain down the road, otherwise it's in good shape
19:28:08 <dtroyer> I'd like to get stevemar's blessing on it yet
19:28:22 <terrylhowe> I just added him as a reviewer
19:28:52 <dtroyer> the changes to the make_client() functions caught my eye, but that'll all go away with the sdk so I can live with it
19:29:15 <terrylhowe> lots of variations
19:30:01 <dtroyer> any other reviews?
19:30:27 <terrylhowe> nothing comes to mind
19:30:57 <dtroyer> #topic open discussion
19:31:55 <dtroyer> anything else?  we may be getting close to another release, there s a nice list of new stuff to brag about
19:32:14 <dtroyer> is David's QoS bits complete?
19:32:40 <terrylhowe> I think so
19:32:42 <dtroyer> also, what's his nick?
19:32:57 <terrylhowe> be nice to have some basic functional tests for those
19:33:08 <terrylhowe> no idea on his nick
19:35:01 <dtroyer> ok, the other thing I wanted to mention is that I'm sketching up a conference proposal for OSC, would like to talk about (and have at least a demo of) the sdk integration, among other things…
19:35:20 <dtroyer> terrylhowe, briancurtin: are you guys planning a talk in Tokyo?
19:35:51 <briancurtin> dtroyer: i'm not, at least not right now
19:36:24 <dtroyer> ok.  just wanted to make sure we didn't overlap too much if you were
19:36:28 <terrylhowe> SDK integration I will have space for soon.  I’d like for us to cut a new SDK release first
19:37:20 <dtroyer> terrylhowe: cool.  I don't know yet if we should think about a feature branch for that or just pick it up when it's ready
19:37:27 <terrylhowe> I wanted to take a look at OSC plugins next week.  I have been messing with SDK plugins this week.
19:37:57 <dtroyer> so a project could handle both in their client package?
19:38:21 <terrylhowe> I think so
19:39:11 <terrylhowe> I did a very simple DNSaaS plugin
19:40:03 <dtroyer> I think that would make like better for projects if we can make that work
19:42:10 <dtroyer> ok, anything else?
19:42:26 <terrylhowe> nothing here
19:43:27 <dtroyer> ok then, let's call it.
19:43:29 <dtroyer> thanks everyone
19:43:35 <dtroyer> #endmeeting