21:04:14 #startmeeting project 21:04:15 Meeting started Tue Jul 1 21:04:14 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:04:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:04:18 The meeting name has been set to 'project' 21:04:19 Hi 21:04:20 * devananda is lurking 21:04:29 Agenda for today is available at: 21:04:35 #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting 21:04:56 ttx: (o/) 21:05:09 #topic Actions from previous meeting 21:05:15 I'm late with my actions to document SPD/SAD, will get that done this week 21:05:57 #topic News from the 1:1 sync points 21:06:05 Something wrong happened with the meeting bot, so we don't have a meeting summary... 21:06:10 See channel logs at: 21:06:13 :( 21:06:14 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-relmgr-office/%23openstack-relmgr-office.2014-07-01.log 21:06:48 A few highlights: 21:06:52 dhellmann (Oslo) wanted to mention there were some issues installing alpha versions of libraries, issues are under investigation 21:07:20 Is that a packaging problem? 21:07:20 Oslo also anticipates another update to oslo.db soon (0.3.0) with opportunistic migration test fixes for both sqlalchemy-migrate and alembic 21:07:22 i.e. pypi? 21:07:37 a wheel magic fail iirc 21:07:40 mikal: something to do with pip not liking alphas in some projects 21:07:53 dhellman_: do you need help on that? 21:08:04 dhellman_: I now employ the author of pypi and would happily ask him to help you 21:08:48 mikal: send him over to the infra guys; I think this was either a mirroring issue (they've been working on moving off of our custom mirror tool at richard's suggestion) or something to do with the tox.ini settings in those projects 21:08:49 dhellman_: thanks for the oslo.db updates! I'll test against Ironic once the patch is updated 21:09:00 I'm catching up after a day offline, so I'll have more details tomorrow 21:09:17 #topic Other program news 21:09:21 dhellman_: ahhh, ok. The infra guys already know about Richard, so it sounds like this is already happening without me 21:09:24 Infra, QA, Docs... anything you'd like to mention ? 21:09:27 mikal: yeah, I think so 21:09:27 dhellman_: I shall just take credit like a good manager 21:09:33 mikal: ++ 21:09:44 jeblair, annegentle, mtreinish ^ 21:09:52 oh yeah, on the mirror front 21:10:08 it appears our new mirror actually just caught a wheel-related error, which is neat 21:10:15 ttx: nothing from me today 21:10:57 but yeah, we have a bit more work to finish the mirror infra, hopefully will be in place today or tomorrow 21:11:03 jeblair: cool 21:11:39 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103991/ is the problem it caught 21:11:46 #topic Horizon Juno features from other projects should be blueprinted now 21:11:51 david-lyle: o/ 21:12:07 david-lyle: care to talk about that ? 21:12:13 sure 21:12:19 I'll parrot SlickNik's response 21:12:48 In the past, we've had a few key features brought as must haves in Horizon late in the process 21:13:31 I just wanted to make sure the project teams have made visible via blueprint in Horizon any such key features so we have a better chance of landing them cleanly 21:13:45 There's a couple of trove changes to horizon that we do need. 21:13:50 This one is needed for the neutron support: 21:13:57 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101055/ 21:14:00 And this one for datastore support in Trove: 21:14:03 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75269/ 21:14:13 david-lyle: not sure he has blueprints up for BOTH 21:14:23 there is one for the latter 21:14:35 the first has a bug attached 21:14:43 so those are on our radar 21:14:50 ok, good 21:15:23 anyone else with last-minute surprise things for Juno Horizon ? 21:16:29 i know this bp is generating some interest https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/federated-horizon 21:18:20 dolphm: ok, that one has stalled a bit, but we can pick it up again if keystone is ready for us to 21:18:38 ok, I think we can switch to... 21:18:40 #topic Open discussion 21:18:46 Anything else, anyone ? 21:18:58 o/ 21:19:05 it would be great to have a TL;DR on what impact the tortuous DefCore discussionwill actually have on PTLs and projects 21:19:13 (...from a practical PoV) 21:19:14 * notmyname puts his hand down 21:19:30 * mikal steps back 21:19:35 notmyname: sorry, missed your hand there ... go ahead 21:19:53 your's sounds much more interesting :-) 21:20:18 cool enough 21:20:23 That discussion isn't complete yet. 21:20:26 eglynn: I expect the board to come up with a strawman proposal for designated sections 21:20:31 ttx: Looking at the dates selected for SPD/SAD, I may push Neutron's out a week, since I haven't announced this yet and SPD is this week already. 21:20:35 and call for general RFC on it 21:20:35 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-07-01-20.02.log.html 21:20:40 * mestery should have sent email after last week's meeting. 21:21:03 it seems to be an incredibly important discussion that at least started somewhat "under the radar" 21:21:17 mikal: Did you note the nova SPD/SAD already publicly? 21:21:19 ... or maybe just wasn't paying attention at the crucial points in time 21:21:34 mestery: yeah, there was an email 21:21:36 * mikal finds it 21:21:54 mikal: Cool, thanks. I'll send something for Neutron ASAP. 21:22:08 ttx: is it still "designated sections" or at the whole project level now? 21:22:29 The subject was "[Nova] Timeline for the rest of the Juno release" 21:22:29 eglynn: I think a process with a clear open RFC will be more inclusive 21:22:48 mikal: Got it, thanks! 21:22:54 ttx: fair enough, I'll respond to the RFC when it appears 21:23:15 notmyname: depends a bit on what process the board elects to choose to go forward 21:23:50 notmyname: if they insist that we answer on designated sections, the TC's answer is "all the integrated release" being designated, since that's what we select and produce 21:24:14 but we suggested that they come up with a strawman proposal and ask for community RFC on it 21:24:25 * eglynn is liking that TC response 21:24:58 eglynn: as the representation of contributors, the TC can't really pick favorites within the integrated release 21:25:13 we represent all the contributors to all the integrated release 21:25:14 ttx: that's a very fair point 21:25:24 ttx, agreed 21:25:28 that's the set we define 21:25:34 we can't make a subset out of it 21:25:41 especially for trademak policy purposes 21:25:54 that's really the board's right, mandate and prerogative 21:26:11 ttx: absolutely ... cool, sounds very reasonable 21:26:21 agreed 100% 21:26:21 eglynn: I heard a blogpost might be coming up 21:26:48 ... I'll watch out for that, it would be useful 21:27:09 hope it clarifies 21:28:26 notmyname: you ahd another question/comment/topic 21:28:44 ah. yes, just a small FYI 21:28:46 we still have time :) 21:29:21 we're doing final QA work on the next swift release (2.0), and that will probably be landing late this week or early next week 21:29:24 /end 21:29:41 it includes storage policies, which are a kinda big deal (tm) 21:32:18 * ttx hopes the next swift contrib tshirt will be "storage policies are kind of a big deal" 21:32:30 :-) 21:32:41 ok, anything else, anyone ? 21:33:11 "Just so you know, Storage Policies are kind of a big deal in Swift" 21:34:23 ttx: world cup time? 21:34:32 indeed 21:34:34 still 0-0 21:34:34 #endmeeting