13:13:39 #startmeeting ptl_sync 13:13:40 Meeting started Tue May 27 13:13:39 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:13:41 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:13:43 The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync' 13:13:47 #topic Sahara 13:13:56 SergeyLukjanov: o/ 13:14:07 ttx, hey 13:14:18 Looking at https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-1 13:14:48 You have 2 undefined there -- you should set a priority for them, or remove the milestone target 13:15:13 otherwise are all those 17 relevant for J1 ? Or do you still need to review them all ? 13:15:23 ttx, it's not fully completed, today is a bug triage day, so, it should looks better tomorrow 13:15:28 #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-1 13:16:02 ttx, at least several blueprints already going to j2 13:16:21 OK 13:16:24 ttx, oh, and we're decided to have a pilot of -specs 13:16:36 ah? Starting when ? 13:16:58 J1 or J2 ? 13:16:59 ttx, starting from several huge blueprints and then decide to continue using it or not 13:17:15 #info Sahara will use a spec repository 13:17:31 ttx, -specs repo creation is on review, so, we'll try it right after it'll be ready 13:17:38 so, I think it'll be near j1 13:18:04 SergeyLukjanov: Does that mean we should no longer use blueprints as the entry point for feature submission ? 13:18:14 it'll be pilot to decide how it works for us 13:18:25 should we autoclean blueprints that are targeted but not prioritized, like other spec-using projects ? 13:18:55 ttx, not for j1 I think, we'd like to see how it's working, because many of us aren't sure that it'll work good 13:19:16 hmm, ok 13:19:39 Also make sure you include blueprints to cover for what got done since icehouse 13:19:43 ttx, we have no big problems with tracking incoming features, so, profit is about ensuring good description 13:19:56 i.e. early features that landed when juno dev was opened 13:20:09 ttx, yup, I'll check it 13:20:46 OK thx 13:21:04 That's all I had. Anythink you'd like to discuss at meeting today ? 13:21:31 ttx, sorry that we aren't sure about moving to specs... 13:21:56 ttx, I think no more news/questions from me 13:22:10 SergeyLukjanov: : a problem, we'll act as if you didn't yet :) 13:22:15 ok, great 13:22:25 * ttx bbls, back in a few 13:22:52 ttx, thank you 13:34:41 back 14:00:13 dolphm: around? 14:00:22 ttx: o/ 14:00:24 #topic Keystone 14:00:48 #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-1 14:01:08 * dolphm failed to shuffle blueprints around last week 14:01:10 So... 2 undefined there, one unassigned 14:01:30 You can prioritize or bump the two undefined 14:01:42 And find an assignee for the unassigned 14:02:17 Does that reflect everything major that happened since juno dev opened end of March ? 14:04:22 no - but i can't think of anything else that i expect to land in j1 either 14:05:51 what about strong-password-enforcement ? Keep it in (give it a prio ?) 14:06:23 guess that's a "no" 14:06:26 ttx: just untargeted that one :) 14:06:36 OK, looks good 14:07:02 Just keep an eye open on new last-minute submissions :) 14:07:18 Anything you'd like to discuss at meeting ? 14:07:27 large tokens ? 14:08:03 or is that one solved by forever supporting old-style tokens 14:08:05 you mean compressed tokens? 14:08:17 oh yeah, we'll be supporting uncompressed tokens forever 14:08:46 yeah, I mean the thread we had about with keystone increasing payload on data-oriented APIs 14:09:38 ah, i don't know there's much more to discuss that wasn't mentioned in that thread (?) 14:09:38 seems like the most blatant fears were addressed in that thead 14:09:43 thRead* 14:09:49 yep 14:09:52 OK then 14:10:00 talk to you later! 14:10:02 we'll continue working on narrowing the gap though 14:10:17 worth noting in the agenda that we have our specs repo up? 14:10:36 #info Keystone spec repo is now up 14:10:43 will now appear on the summary 14:10:44 /salute 14:10:57 jgriffith: ready when you are 14:33:01 david-lyle: o/ 14:33:09 ttx: o/ 14:33:10 #topic Horizon 14:33:37 #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-1 14:33:43 That's a pretty busy list 14:33:59 A few unassigned in there 14:34:07 A lot of undefined priorities too 14:34:30 planning on working through those this week 14:34:32 david-lyle: did you go through the list yet and refine it to make reasonable targets for Juno-1 ? 14:34:41 Juno-1 in June 12 :) 14:34:59 a fair number of those are carry-over from Icehouse 14:35:16 Right, so you might want to push them back to other milestones, now that they are created 14:35:19 I'll move several to Juno-2 14:35:39 The other trick is to make sure you reflect the significant things that were introduced since juno dev opened 14:36:16 So you can retroactively create blueprints to cover them 14:37:05 We'll review the resulting list next week 14:37:19 david-lyle: remember you are invited to the TC meeting today 14:37:34 yes 14:37:38 david-lyle: anything you'd like to add to the release/cross-project meeting agenda ? 14:37:47 not this week 14:39:07 #info List will be refined by next week 14:39:13 david-lyle: thx! 14:39:18 ttx: thank you 14:39:21 jgriffith: still not around ? 14:40:28 mestery: ready when you are 14:40:33 ttx: o/ 14:40:50 #topic Neutron 14:41:12 #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-1 14:41:36 I went through and cleaned up the Neutron Juno-1 BPs this morning. 14:41:53 What is in there is fairly reasonable, though some of it may slip over the next week or so. 14:42:06 mestery: how is the -specs effort going ? 14:42:23 are most of those targeted BPs backed with an approved spec yet ? 14:42:28 Very well! The hardest part has been encouraging reviewer and submitter turnaround, but otherwise it's working out great. 14:43:05 Most of them, though some are not. I have indicated to submitters those would be removed from Juno-1 this week if the spec isn't approved. 14:43:14 mestery: sounds good 14:43:52 my autokick script still needs to be written, but in your case it would not autokick anything out of the milestone, since everything is properly prioritized 14:44:29 mestery: does the j1 list also reflect anything major that would have landed in Juno since the master branch was unfrozen early April ? 14:44:30 ttx: OK, and thanks! I'm going to work hard to keep this up to date and factual to the best of my knowledge. :) 14:44:40 mestery: thx, that helps :) 14:44:49 ttx: IT should, but I will take an action to verify that. 14:45:15 mestery: ok, great. Anythig you'd like to add to the agenda of the cross-projetc meeting for today ? 14:45:30 ttx: Nothing for today, no. 14:45:33 * ttx is fine with a short meeting for today anyway :) 14:45:47 mestery: ok, great. talk to you later then 14:45:48 * mestery agrees. :) 14:45:53 Thanks ttx! 15:00:06 ttx: let's give it a week; the team only agreed to use the specs repo a day or two before the summit 15:23:30 jgriffith: o/ 15:26:12 I guess I lost him 15:26:19 notmyname: ready when you are 15:34:54 ttx: sorry 15:35:05 #topic Cinder 15:35:08 jgriffith: o/ 15:35:13 ttx: 0/ 15:35:17 sorry about all that 15:35:30 #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-1 15:35:41 The milestone is still a bit of a mess a tthis point 15:35:50 ttx: yes, I'll clean it up this morning 15:35:52 jgriffith: how is your use of specs coming up ? 15:35:59 ttx: it's finally landed 15:36:06 ttx: folks just started using it 15:36:13 ttx: everything new I'm pointing them to it 15:36:38 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+cinder-specs,n,z 15:36:47 harlowj is my only victim thus far 15:36:55 but I have some of my own to submit today as well 15:37:03 OK, so feel free to curate a list of j-1 blueprints to match 15:37:11 ideally next week it should be clean 15:37:18 so that i could enable the autokick script 15:37:27 that would reject random targeting automatically 15:37:35 ttx: so you want me to have a spec for each item that's in arleady? 15:37:42 jgriffith: not really 15:37:52 jgriffith: anything you set a priority for will be golden 15:38:06 then YOU decide if you want a spec or not for each of those prioritized BPs :) 15:38:12 ttx: ahh 15:38:14 ok 15:38:23 jgriffith: oh right, you might have missed last week 15:38:34 I may have been interpreting the use of specs incorrectly 15:38:39 ttx: yes, I missed last week 15:38:55 jgriffith: the idea is to use the milestone page as a communication tool from PTL to release management and beyond 15:39:07 ratherthan as an entry point for new features 15:39:15 since that's what you'll use the specs repo for 15:39:18 ttx: right, that's what I had though 15:39:29 ttx: so step 1: submit a specs patch 15:39:42 ttx: step 2: on approval target bp and prioritize 15:39:44 in LP 15:39:47 correct? 15:39:50 yes 15:40:00 cool, we're on the same page 15:40:09 You can add extra BPs without a spec for corner cases 15:40:15 the only confusing thing that I'd like to suggest a change for is the specs template 15:40:21 it has a BP entry/link 15:40:28 ttx: ok, fair enough 15:40:34 I'm fine as long as you give them a priority, which is the proected field we'll use to distinguish between blessed things and random proposals 15:40:46 ttx: yep, I will make sure that happens 15:40:57 then I'll have a script automatically remove milestone target for unprioritized stuff 15:41:06 so that whatever you put there is not polluted 15:41:07 ttx: NICE! 15:41:12 * jgriffith will like that 15:41:33 we work around LP limitations, but it should result in an.. easier time for all of us 15:41:45 sounds like it will work well 15:41:50 basically you express what you think will get done on the milestone page 15:41:59 and the rest of the world consumes that 15:42:07 excellent 15:42:14 and we don't use BPs anymore as the entry point, but use specs instead 15:42:27 that's the process we'll follow for every -spec using project out there 15:42:29 Yep, I'm with you... all sounds great t me 15:42:41 s/t me/to me/ 15:42:49 so spec is for suggestion/approval, BPs is to track progress 15:43:03 and we'll just ignore untargeted stuff. 15:43:15 always try to anyway :) 15:43:39 jgriffith: ok, the other trick with J1 is to catch the work that was merged since Juno opened 15:43:48 so feel free to retroactively add BPs to show for them 15:43:58 (if any) 15:44:09 ttx: will do 15:44:14 jgriffith: anything you'd like to discuss at cross-project meeting today ? 15:44:24 ttx: no thanks 15:44:52 cool, ttyl 15:44:58 notmyname: still not around? 15:45:00 ttx: thanks 15:45:01 cya 15:45:10 zaneb: ready when you are 15:45:15 o/ 15:45:23 #topic Heat 15:45:51 #link https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-1 15:46:00 btw we decided at the meeting on Wednesday that we will move to a specs repo 15:46:07 OK, was about to ask 15:46:20 will that be for J1, or mostly for J2 ? 15:46:29 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/heat/2014/heat.2014-05-21-20.00.html 15:46:44 #info Heat will use a spec repo as well 15:46:54 I think it will take a while to get migrated 15:47:08 I'm still not 100% clear on how the process is going to work 15:47:16 zaneb: OK, maybe use taditional milestone targeting for J1, then ? 15:47:21 traditoinal* 15:47:23 arh 15:47:24 but we want to follow the other projects while keeping it lightweight 15:47:33 that makes sense to me 15:48:11 AIUI the repo doesn't really replace launchpad so much as replace the wiki as a place to discuss designs? 15:48:18 zaneb: did you follow the discussion about using the milestone page a bit more aggressively (no longer as the feature entry point) ? 15:48:41 no, I missed that I think 15:48:51 ok, let me explain quick 15:49:09 The main difference with before is that the first step is no longer "file a blueprint" 15:49:18 the entry point for new features becomes te -spec repo 15:49:34 we still use blueprints to track implementation and target milestone 15:49:41 but not that much to track spec approval 15:50:09 so tha tlets us use blueprints as a normalized tracking tool to keep track of what is likely to be in the milestone and therefore in the final release 15:50:51 since we don't use BPs as an entry point anymore, we can use it as a clean slate for PTLs and other drivers to list stuff that they think will make it 15:51:32 the issue being, anyone can set the target milestone so that clean slate becomes polluted very fast 15:51:39 so we use a trick 15:51:57 anything that doesn't have a priority set should be removed from hte target milestone automatically 15:52:09 (priority is set by the drivers group in LP) 15:52:23 that lets us use the milestone pages as real communication tools 15:52:35 rather than as a workflow for people to suggest features 15:52:47 (we use -specs for tha tnow anyway) 15:52:54 zaneb: does that make sense ? 15:53:16 yep, makes sense 15:53:17 1- people file specs, they are discussed, some of them get approved 15:53:31 2- PTLs and drivers bbuild a list of stuff that will land soon in milestone pages 15:53:49 note that I plan to write a tool to help create a blueprint corresponding to a spec 15:54:06 to facilitate that transitoin 15:54:16 what's the migration plan in the other direction? 15:54:23 something like "spec2bp my-spec juno-2" 15:54:27 i.e. bps that are already filed in lp 15:54:55 zaneb: there is no plan, so you might need to engage with authors there 15:55:01 ok 15:55:07 you can still reuse those BPs and just prioritize/target them 15:55:19 but in some cases a spec wouldn't hurt 15:55:37 note that I don't expect people to forget "file a BP" antime soon, so there will be some issues 15:55:50 ok, that makes sense 15:56:17 my goal is to make sure we don't do everything twice, once in -specs and once in BPs 15:56:42 reduce friction to make the tools as integrated as they can be at this point 15:56:48 anyway 15:57:03 for J1 you should probably do it old style 15:57:24 zaneb: you should curate that J1 list to match what was done in J1 so far, what is likely to be done for J1, and push back the rest 15:57:36 Whatever you keep in the list, you should have assignees and priorities 15:57:56 the trick being, without the autokick script enabled, people will keep adding stuff there ;) 15:58:27 zaneb: questions? 15:58:29 yeah, that will be unavoidable 15:58:44 zaneb: I expect the new process to be much less pain 15:58:50 zaneb: at leas tfor us both 15:59:01 I hope so :) 15:59:11 I am keen to make the PTL's job smaller ;) 15:59:12 zaneb: in previous cycles we would take a lot of time fixing that list 15:59:35 at least with the autokick enabled it doesn't degrade all by itself 15:59:51 it shall stay how you write it :) 16:00:01 zaneb: anything you'd like to add to today's meeting agenda ? 16:00:04 tbh, except to the extent that other openstack projects are depending on a blueprint, I don't really care what milestone they land in 16:00:34 zaneb: i's still an important information to try to communicate outside of the project 16:00:53 zaneb: some downstream stakeholders do not just follow releases 16:01:05 and appreciate a slightly more educated guess 16:01:17 zaneb: but then it's far from being exact 16:01:28 markwash: around ? 16:01:37 yes, I think the circumstances vary from program to program 16:01:39 zaneb: all set ? 16:01:44 ttx: hello 16:01:45 yep :) 16:01:53 zaneb: ok, ttyl 16:01:56 #topic Glance 16:02:01 markwash: hola! 16:02:32 markwash: how is your spec effort going so far ? 16:02:36 #link https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/juno-1 16:03:10 milestone page looks a bit dirty still. Good thing my autokick script is not ready yet :) 16:03:34 needing to land https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94464/ 16:03:57 markwash: so you will probably handle J1 targeting the old way ? 16:04:29 ttx: hmm, unfortunately it seems like we might need to? 16:04:35 but we'll probably have some specs that show up as well 16:04:51 OK, so try to clean up the list to come up with assigned, prioritized stuff that may actually make it 16:05:13 also if there was anything significant landed since Juno was oened, maybe retroactively create a BP to cover for it 16:05:17 opened* 16:05:34 kk 16:06:14 Then when you're ready to switch, make the -spec proposal the feature entry point 16:06:25 and deprectae use of LP for that purpose 16:06:42 hopefully I shall have my conversion and autokick script done soon 16:06:53 okay 16:07:07 markwash: think you'll have the list refined by next week ? 16:07:08 is there a way to protect something from autokicking? just adding a spec entry for it? 16:07:14 (J1 is June 12 fwiw) 16:07:25 markwash: no, just set a priority for it 16:07:31 gotcha 16:07:36 the script won't look at the spec at all 16:07:53 so you're free to add stuff withut a spec, as long as it's prioritized, it's golden 16:08:03 okay cool, so we could turn on the autokick script as soon as we have specs turned on and the current entries prioritized 16:08:15 we just work around the fact that milestone targeting is a free-for-all field in LP 16:08:28 markwash: exactly 16:08:41 as for prioritized by next week, seems possible 16:08:56 so yes 16:08:56 #info Glance shall have a J1 plan by next week 16:09:01 :-) 16:09:06 ok great 16:09:17 anything you'd like to add to meeting agenda for today ? 16:09:41 nope 16:10:09 * ttx expects that the new process will result in less BP maintenance pain 16:10:19 or at least that's my goal 16:10:25 markwash: ok thx! ttyl 16:10:30 SlickNik: ready when you are 16:10:45 notmyname: if you are around, same 16:15:16 ttx: here now 16:16:27 #topic Trove 16:16:29 SlickNik: o/ 16:16:33 o/ 16:16:47 #link https://launchpad.net/trove/+milestone/juno-1 16:17:07 Looks pretty clean. Only one is unassigned 16:17:16 Does that reflect what you think might make J1 ? 16:17:35 Yes, I've been working on regular triage to keep it up-to-date. :) 16:17:41 does that include the work that was merged since Juno opened ? 16:17:47 Yes, it does. 16:17:52 ok, good 16:18:21 Will follow up on status for that 1 bp that was unassigned. 16:18:22 #info J1 plans are up and current 16:18:48 OK, I guess we can close this one fast then 16:18:48 There's a couple of BPs that I don't think will make J1. 16:18:59 Anything you'd like to discuss at meeting later ? 16:19:01 I'll talk to the owners to confirm, and move them out. 16:19:12 sure, just defer them to J2 16:19:24 Yup, will do that. 16:19:41 and try to keep the implementation status in sync with current state 16:19:50 (assignees can help by updating that themselves) 16:20:07 Yes, will do. (And will remind assignees to do it themselves) 16:20:21 OK then, anything else ? 16:20:26 I didn't really have anything special for the meeting later. 16:20:33 good good 16:20:38 Nope, pretty simple this week. Thanks! 16:20:42 talk to you later then! 16:20:50 Thanks. Later! 16:21:07 notmyname: last call to be included in this weeks notes 16:22:19 #endmeeting