21:02:22 <ttx> #startmeeting project
21:02:23 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Sep  4 21:02:22 2012 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:02:24 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:02:25 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'project'
21:02:34 <ttx> Agenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting
21:02:46 <ttx> #info In particular we'll look into progress towards folsom-rc1 and Swift 1.7.0
21:03:04 <ttx> #info Remember RC1 is a release candidate, so it will be your Folsom release unless we decide new bugs were found that warrant a respin
21:03:11 <ttx> #link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseCycle
21:03:24 <ttx> #info I'd like us to produce our RC1s ASAP next week, and in all cases before September 18
21:03:36 <ttx> so that they can see solid regression testing before final release
21:03:45 <ttx> and we can all focus on documentation and migration doc
21:03:58 <ttx> #topic Keystone status
21:04:03 <ttx> heckj: hello!
21:04:08 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:04:18 <ttx> All feature blueprints completed, a few bugs left targeted
21:04:33 <heckj> we're looking pretty good
21:04:33 <ttx> heckj: The two v3api bugs... are they still necessary ? aren't they Grizzly/Apiv3 ?
21:04:52 <heckj> nope - need to move them out from that targeting
21:05:05 <ttx> I can do that for you.
21:05:15 <ttx> Anything else (not on the list) that should definitely be fixed before we can build a release candidate ?
21:05:49 <ttx> I'd suggest bug 1022614
21:05:50 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1022614 in keystone "Memcache token backend does not expire tokens" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1022614
21:06:16 <ttx> heckj: what do you think ?
21:06:20 * heckj looks
21:06:52 <ttx> but the review was abandoned...
21:08:34 <heckj> documentation related bug - issue was related to timezone offsets
21:08:50 <heckj> (or at least that's the easiest fix)
21:09:02 <heckj> woul dbe a good RC1 bug
21:09:19 <ttx> ok, so maybe its status should be updated (and importance reset)
21:09:25 <ttx> heckj: Looking at that list you seem reasonably close to publishing a RC1 ?
21:09:38 <ttx> i.e. early next week should be ok ?
21:09:47 <heckj> yeah, I think we're pretty close. We had a new bug come in today, but so far it's been nicely stable
21:09:55 <ttx> heckj: anything else ?
21:09:57 <heckj> right now, next week is looking good
21:09:59 <heckj> nothing els
21:10:05 <ttx> Questions about Keystone ?
21:11:43 <ttx> notmyname: around ?
21:12:25 <ttx> let's skip and go back
21:12:28 <ttx> #topic Glance status
21:12:32 <ttx> bcwaldon: o/
21:12:37 <notmyname> ttx: sorry here
21:12:51 <ttx> notmyname: argh
21:12:55 <bcwaldon> ttx: I'll wait
21:12:58 <ttx> bcwaldon: ok :)
21:13:03 <ttx> #topic Swift status
21:13:09 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.7.0
21:13:19 <ttx> #info So the milestone-proposed branch was cut earlier today... please test
21:13:21 <notmyname> 1.7.0 is ready for QA testing
21:13:25 <ttx> #link https://github.com/openstack/swift/commits/milestone-proposed
21:13:28 <ttx> #link http://tarballs.openstack.org/swift/swift-milestone-proposed.tar.gz
21:13:38 <ttx> notmyname: Any vague ETA on the QA sign-off on this ?
21:14:08 <notmyname> the goal is still sept 13, as it was. we simply cut it early so we don't run into QA scheduling difficulty like we did last time
21:14:17 <ttx> OK. Do you have any blueprint implemented in that version that should be linked on this page ?
21:14:20 <notmyname> so that's the end date, but if it's done earlier, great!
21:14:25 <ttx> Maybe https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/zone-concept-change ?
21:14:57 <notmyname> ya, I need to go through them and bring it up to date
21:15:17 <ttx> #action notmyname to go through 1.7.0 features and target blueprints accordingly
21:15:25 <ttx> notmyname: you confirm that this should be the final Folsom release for Swift, unless shit happens ?
21:15:34 <ttx> (shit being a critical bug or regression found between now and final release that would warrant a 1.7.1)
21:16:13 <notmyname> correct. 1.7.0 should be the final release for folsom. bugs will be backported to 1.7.0 until QA has certified it. anything after that will only happen in folsom if it's a major security issue
21:16:20 <notmyname> or other critical issue
21:16:23 <ttx> OK, that makes it like the equivalent of a folsom-rc1 for you. "Good for release until proven otherwise"
21:16:32 <ttx> notmyname: anything else ?
21:16:41 <notmyname> correct (but I think we'll have at least one patch)
21:16:59 <notmyname> nothing else from me
21:16:59 <ttx> Questions on Swift ?
21:17:44 <ttx> #topic Glance status
21:17:48 <ttx> bcwaldon: we are back online
21:17:52 <bcwaldon> ttx: hey there
21:17:52 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:18:03 <ttx> All feature blueprints completed, 12 bugs still targeted, almost all under review
21:18:14 <ttx> Confident you can nail all those down this week ?
21:18:26 <bcwaldon> ttx: yep
21:18:36 <bcwaldon> ttx: just need help to get the reviews done
21:18:38 <ttx> This one looked abandoned last time I looked: bug 1039815
21:18:39 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1039815 in glance "v2 API should provide official openstack image property schemas" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1039815
21:18:51 <bcwaldon> ttx: ah, it is abandoned
21:19:02 <ttx> should move off-radar ?
21:19:04 <bcwaldon> that needs to be targeted at grizzler
21:19:17 <ttx> ok, untargeting then
21:19:35 <ttx> This one is unassigned: bug 1042823... you're on it ?
21:19:36 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1042823 in glance "glance-control <service> reload doesn't work with multiprocessing" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1042823
21:19:41 <bcwaldon> ttx: yes
21:19:56 <ttx> bcwaldon: Looks all good. Anything else ?
21:20:09 <bcwaldon> ttx: nope, going well
21:20:17 <ttx> Questions on Glance ?
21:20:55 <ttx> #topic Quantum status
21:20:58 <danwent> hello
21:20:59 <ttx> danwent: hey
21:21:04 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/quantum/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:21:12 <ttx> Looks like you finally got all the features in ?
21:21:18 <danwent> yes.
21:21:24 <danwent> we have two non-trivial reviews still in progress
21:21:30 <danwent> one is the nova security groups stuff.
21:21:36 <ttx> Cool, more focus on bugfixing, doc and extinguishing fires
21:21:40 <danwent> vish +2'd, but we still need a second nova core reviewer
21:21:51 <danwent> #help nova review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/12173/
21:22:06 <danwent> the other is an L3 that we have core devs on, and am not worried about.
21:22:24 <danwent> my goal was to be completely in bugfix/doc stage by this meeting.  we didn't quite make it, but we're pretty close
21:22:35 <ttx> Is the RC1 bug list current with known RC1 blockers ?
21:23:01 <danwent> what I've been doing is that anything High or above is a blocker for RC1
21:23:15 <ttx> danwent: Confident you can fix them all this week ?
21:23:18 <danwent> (we don't allow any commits that don't have an RC1 targeted bug)
21:23:29 <ttx> Given your team bugfix rate it definitely sounds doable.
21:23:43 <danwent> i'm very confident we can fix all of the known issues now.  Question mark is just around what else will pop up as we do more testing and documenting
21:23:55 <ttx> indeed
21:24:03 <ttx> danwent: Would you like to talk about bug 1023169 ?
21:24:04 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1023169 in quantum "update nova to report quantum floating IPs" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1023169
21:24:11 <danwent> I also started email threads with you about floating-ip/nova stuff, and devstack stuff.  we can handle that offline if you like.
21:24:18 <danwent> this is related to the email I recently sent you
21:24:35 <ttx> right. Maybe we can handle this offline and at the nova meeting
21:24:46 <danwent> will likely drop this, unless you/vish feel we shoudl do it.  Not clear it makes sense to do a half-way nova/quantum proxy for floating IPs.
21:24:50 <ttx> that's the only orange flag I've on quantum
21:24:53 <danwent> ttx: agreed
21:25:00 <danwent> devstack gating is the other one
21:25:12 <danwent> but we have an existing thread about that too.
21:25:26 <ttx> #info orange flag with https://launchpad.net/bugs/1023169
21:25:28 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1023169 in quantum "update nova to report quantum floating IPs" [High,In progress]
21:25:40 <ttx> well, devstack gating is not really a release issue, more like a general QA issue
21:25:47 <danwent> agreed.
21:26:03 <ttx> Looking at bug triaging, you have 8 untriaged, but from known quantum dudes, so it should be a ballpark walk.
21:26:16 <ttx> danwent: Anything else ?
21:26:26 <danwent> ok, will take a look.  was trying to get people to bug triage during review day… didn't work well :P
21:26:28 <danwent> nope
21:26:33 <ttx> Questions on Quantum ?
21:27:09 <ttx> #topic Cinder status
21:27:13 <ttx> jgriffith: o/
21:27:17 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:27:17 <jgriffith> howdy
21:27:25 <ttx> All feature blueprints completed, 1 bug left targeted
21:27:32 <ttx> Is this one the only known blocker for RC1 ?
21:27:41 <jgriffith> Pretty much
21:27:46 <jgriffith> The pylint bugs we'll see
21:27:54 <ttx> so you should be ontrack for RC1 early next week
21:28:00 <jgriffith> Yup
21:28:08 <ttx> You should keep on triaging incoming bugs, make sure there isn't anything reported that should definitely be fixed before release
21:28:10 <jgriffith> With the exception of the giant sync up
21:28:18 <ttx> giant sync up ?
21:28:24 <jgriffith> nova-volume/cinder
21:28:43 <ttx> that's cinder -> nova-volume ?
21:28:49 <jgriffith> Yes
21:28:55 <creiht> jgriffith: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1028092
21:28:57 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1028092 in nova "Resizing a Xen instance with attached volumes fails" [Undecided,In progress]
21:29:01 <ttx> ok, so mostly affecting nova
21:29:04 <creiht> I would really like for that to get in
21:29:06 <creiht> if possible
21:29:11 <creiht> review for it is up
21:29:20 <jgriffith> creiht: That's listed under NOva
21:29:23 <jgriffith> :)
21:29:33 <ttx> jgriffith: that can easily be fixed :)
21:29:37 * creiht waves a bunch of hands
21:29:45 <ttx> jgriffith: want me to move it under cinder ?
21:29:45 <jgriffith> Yes, but it fails Jenkins and has a -1
21:29:47 <jgriffith> Needs fixed
21:29:54 <jgriffith> ttx: I can do it no problem
21:29:56 <jgriffith> BUT
21:29:59 <creiht> jgriffith: yes renuka is working on it
21:30:16 <creiht> well I want it to be in nova-volume, whatever that means for cinder is up to you :)
21:30:17 <jgriffith> Renuka and I discussed whether it's feasible to get xen SM in cinder at this point or not
21:30:26 <jgriffith> It's changed dramatically over the last week or so
21:30:40 <jgriffith> creiht: Yeah, I know your position
21:30:48 <creiht> :)
21:31:04 <creiht> Of course, once we start moving to cinder, then I will worry about it ;)
21:31:07 <jgriffith> Talking to Renuka it likely will be Grizzly for Cinder
21:31:42 <creiht> jgriffith: if that is the case, then will cinder not be a bit for bit copy of nova-volume?
21:31:46 <ttx> jgriffith: i'll move it to cinder and put the RC1 flag on it, just so that it's on release radar
21:32:03 <ttx> then you can wontfix or defer it
21:32:14 <jgriffith> creiht: can't put one by you
21:32:18 <jgriffith> :)
21:32:25 <creiht> heh
21:32:46 <jgriffith> ttx: I'll talk to Renuka again
21:32:50 <ttx> jgriffith: Anything else ?
21:32:54 <jgriffith> ttx: If it's doable we'll update
21:33:03 <creiht> not trying to stir things up... just that anyone running Xen SM will be stuck with nova-volume until it is available in cinder
21:33:07 <jgriffith> ttx: The only other concern I have is snapshot deletes and migration
21:33:20 <jgriffith> ttx: But not for this meeting
21:33:26 <ttx> Questions on Cinder ?
21:33:57 <jgriffith> creiht: This is way maintaining both SUCKS
21:34:03 <jgriffith> s/way/why/
21:34:13 <ttx> #topic Nova status
21:34:18 <ttx> vishy: hi!
21:34:26 <creiht> ttx is in a hurry today
21:34:26 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:34:33 <creiht> but I step off my soapbox
21:35:01 <ttx> creiht: I always fear that Nova might take a bit long :)
21:36:08 <vishy> hi
21:36:19 <ttx> vishy: So we are all set on the feature front ?
21:36:27 <vishy> yes
21:36:28 <ttx> There was a request posted last week by Nachi about metabridge driver...
21:36:29 <vishy> features done
21:36:33 <ttx> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-August/000844.html
21:36:38 <vishy> i think that one is too late
21:36:47 <ttx> danwent, opinion on this one ?
21:37:04 <ttx> vishy: that's what I think too... unless it's actually an integration bug and not really a feature
21:37:06 <danwent> i'm ok passing on it
21:37:20 <danwent> vif-drivers can be installed separately if needed anyway
21:37:31 <danwent> its a completely standalone module
21:37:35 <ttx> ok. i'll admit not having understood what it was about, so I happily defer to your judgement
21:37:53 <danwent> (note: i haven't looked at the patch, but if this is a standard vif driver, that's the case)
21:37:53 <ttx> #info metabridge driver FFE denied, no more FFE anyway at this point
21:38:17 <ttx> vishy: Looking at RC bugs, you have 19 targeted
21:38:26 <ttx> Is that a full view of the RC1 blockers, or do you still have to go through the list ?
21:39:05 <vishy> i haven't gone through it yet, but i would assume they are all blockers for nwo
21:39:08 <ttx> (there are actually 21 now, I just added bug 1046020 and bug 1046040)
21:39:09 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1046020 in nova "attach_volume fails for LXC due to wrong root_device_name and path" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1046020
21:39:11 <vishy> i will pare it down
21:39:11 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1046040 in nova "Project-specific flavors broke Horizon flavor admin" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1046040
21:39:20 <ttx> which sounded like regressions to me
21:39:25 <vishy> they are
21:39:46 <ttx> vishy: There are a number of unassigned ones... I fear those might not get completed this week
21:40:28 <ttx> vishy: +1 to paring down as we progress in the week. We'll review again at the Nova meeting Thursday
21:41:05 <vishy> sounds good
21:41:10 <ttx> Looking at triaging now... we are still at ~49, so not much progress in the last week
21:41:28 <ttx> I'll try to go over some of them (again), but this is not good news if we couldn't summon enough goodwill in Nova to get that done in 3 weeks :(
21:42:16 <ttx> #info orange flag: bug triaging still lagging behind, some issues might fly below radar
21:42:42 <ttx> vishy: Anything else that keeps you awake those nights ?
21:42:51 <vishy> nope just bugs
21:42:57 <vishy> xml progress is going well
21:43:06 <vishy> we should at least have base api and important extensions covered
21:43:32 <vishy> I doubt we will have all extensions but we will at least know where we stand for the important stuff
21:43:48 <ttx> sounds good. It will always be incrementally better than essex
21:44:12 <ttx> wonder if we should have yet another "XML?" session at the design summit
21:44:45 <ttx> or maybe an XML-themed party where "enterprise users" can try to convince us with cocktails
21:44:59 <ttx> Questions on Nova ?
21:45:08 <vishy> haha
21:45:17 <danwent> i'm there
21:45:35 <ttx> "XML night: enterprise users pay drinks"
21:45:39 <gabrielhurley> +1
21:45:58 <ttx> #topic Horizon status
21:46:04 <gabrielhurley> 'ello
21:46:06 <ttx> gabrielhurley: hey
21:46:09 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/folsom-rc1
21:46:13 <ttx> So quantum-public-network was merged ?
21:46:28 <gabrielhurley> it was. turned out to be a pretty minimal change to Horizon and totally backwards-compatible
21:46:35 <ttx> Awesome. So you're done with features now, looking pretty good
21:46:39 <gabrielhurley> once it made it through nova and quantum it was easy
21:46:40 <gabrielhurley> yep
21:46:45 <gabrielhurley> found an important nova breakage today
21:46:50 <gabrielhurley> vish is working on that
21:46:54 <gabrielhurley> otherwise bugs are doing fine
21:46:55 <ttx> yes, I targeted it earlier
21:47:00 <gabrielhurley> I saw, thanks
21:47:02 <ttx> 7 Horizon targeted bugs left, all relatively low-prio
21:47:12 <gabrielhurley> yeah, the rest are all nice-to-haves
21:47:28 <ttx> gabrielhurley: You still look on top of triaging and targeting... Anything else you wanted to mention ?
21:47:47 <gabrielhurley> testing of the quantum integration is appreciated
21:47:49 <gabrielhurley> that's about it
21:48:16 <danwent> seems like the following issues if floating a bit between nova + horizon: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1040956
21:48:17 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1040956 in nova ""Unable to get quota information" in horizon when using quantum" [Critical,Confirmed]
21:48:34 <danwent> not sure if there is agreement on the right place to fix
21:48:50 <gabrielhurley> ^^that
21:48:50 <uvirtbot> gabrielhurley: Error: "^that" is not a valid command.
21:49:02 <ttx> danwent: nice find
21:49:22 * ttx reads -- vishy: comment ?
21:49:25 <gabrielhurley> my last understanding was that it was more of a nova-side fix
21:50:00 <danwent> i think the "right fix" is either to actually proxy floating ips in nova to quantum, or to fix it in horizon by having horizon recognize that quantum does not support nova floating IP commands.
21:50:06 <gabrielhurley> I just triaged it into RC1 to follow up on it
21:50:10 <danwent> there's a third one-line trivial fix in nova, but its really just a band-aid
21:50:15 <danwent> thanks
21:50:41 <gabrielhurley> if nova decides not to fix it we can band-aid it in horizon
21:50:46 <ttx> danwent: so it's linked to taht other floating IP/Quantum support issue, right ?
21:50:59 <danwent> ttx: yes
21:51:30 <ttx> ok, that's an identified orange flag, no need to raise another one
21:51:42 <ttx> Other questions for Horizon ?
21:51:43 <danwent> ttx: ah, its a slightly different bug
21:51:49 <danwent> but close enough.
21:52:06 <ttx> danwent: right, not same bug, but same release decision to make, I guess
21:52:12 <danwent> agreed
21:52:45 <ttx> #topic Other Team reports
21:52:51 <ttx> annegentle: around ?
21:53:03 <annegentle> yep
21:53:14 <ttx> annegentle: how is doc shaping up ?
21:53:34 <annegentle> My report hasn't changed much from what I sent to the mailing list last week. Lots of Qs over "our" three day weekend but not a lot of patches
21:53:42 <annegentle> #help More docs please.
21:53:52 <ttx> I hope that people will gradually shift focus toward docs as RC1s go out
21:53:54 <annegentle> I'll send another weekly update tomorrow.
21:54:04 <danwent> annegentle: quantum team is planning on drafting admin docs in google docs first, is there a major concern about that?
21:54:11 <ttx> annegentle: one concern that was raised last week is about migration doc
21:54:25 <annegentle> danwent: I don't have much visibility to it if it's not in openstack-manuals, but I can take a look
21:54:27 <danwent> idea is that its pretty easy for people to collaborate and merge their content
21:54:46 <annegentle> danwent: ditto for openstack-manuals :) I don't mind simple first though.
21:54:49 <ttx> annegentle: how is that handled currently (migration) ?
21:54:52 <danwent> annegentle: ok, will follow-up later
21:55:29 <ttx> annegentle: at which doc level should we address that ?
21:55:31 <annegentle> migration sections exist for Keystone, say. Not really an overall "how to migrate" section done yet, though I did open a doc bug.
21:55:57 <annegentle> ttx: if "that" is migration it's probably for ops/admins first
21:56:16 <ttx> annegentle: some suggested that we should maintain a lower-level MIGRATION text file in source code, not sure how good that would be though
21:56:49 <annegentle> ttx: oh I saw that on the -dev list and responded there. Honestly dev-level MIGRATION text isn't really what people are looking for. They want operator level stuff, unless I'm missing some concept.
21:57:04 <annegentle> no one really said an opinion on my response so far
21:57:13 <ttx> annegentle: no, I'd agree with you. Also per-project doesn't really make sense there
21:57:59 <ttx> since you might want to expain you should update keystone before glance or the other way around
21:58:10 <ttx> annegentle: anything else ?
21:58:21 <ttx> Any other team lead with a status report ?
21:59:40 <annegentle> nope, thanks for asking
21:59:47 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
21:59:53 <ttx> #info If you want to be elected PTL for openstack-common, Glance, Nova, Keystone, Swift, Quantum, Cinder or Horizon, remember to submit your candidacy before EOD tomorrow !
22:00:27 <ttx> In related news, I'll try to finalize the summit session suggestion site tomorrow
22:00:50 <ttx> so we all start planning the design summit next month
22:00:54 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
22:01:34 <ttx> ok then...
22:01:37 <ttx> #endmeeting