08:00:37 #startmeeting ptl_sync 08:00:38 Meeting started Tue Jun 17 08:00:37 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:00:39 Heh 08:00:40 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:00:42 The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync' 08:00:49 #topic Nova 08:00:54 Hello 08:01:02 mikal: yay, I didn't forget this time. 08:01:16 Neither did I 08:01:21 Its like a personal best for the both of us 08:01:32 #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/juno-2 08:04:35 As it stands it looks quite good, but i suspect the autokick script has been busy keeping crap entries out 08:04:35 mikal: how.. representative is it of what you expect to land during the next 5 weeks ? 08:04:35 I certainly like that most of those show up as "under review" already 08:05:04 So, there's a pleasing amount of "needs code review" there 08:05:05 We do need to start reviewing specs more actively again though, there's a lot blocked up in that process 08:05:05 Although, review bandwidth is our obvious problem once again 08:05:53 Its a little hard to tell 08:06:05 * johnthetubaguy waves 08:06:07 I agree that needs code review is good, although it remains to be seen if that's all the code for each of those bps 08:22:10 Yeah, in some cases its pretty obvious why they're taking a break 08:22:11 Is that an unsplit? 08:22:12 ttx: we decided you're doing all of nova 08:22:12 mikal: maybe, I think we just joined back with the rest of the world 08:22:12 ttx: you there? 08:23:07 * ttx emerges from the other side of the netsplit 08:23:16 Heh, we had a nice meeting without you 08:23:24 mikal: yt? 08:23:37 Basically we're code talking review backlog and spec review backlog 08:23:44 talking code even 08:23:49 ttx: can you hear me? 08:24:06 o/ 08:24:10 Hi! 08:24:14 So I was saying... 08:24:27 I agree that needs code review is good, although it remains to be seen if that's all the code for each of those bps 08:24:27 it should be. If it's just that intermediary code is in review, it should be set to Good progress 08:24:27 Basically "needs code review" means "all code is now up for review" 08:24:36 otherwise you keep going back to good progress and it's a bit useless as a progress marker 08:24:38 mikal: so, we might want to try little blueprints without specs at somepoint soon, but lets just see how its going 08:24:49 mikal: how do you want to address that? 08:24:49 I was pretty sure that adding a formal spec approval would just make the pipe longer, not faster 08:24:49 since the same resources are used in both reviews 08:24:49 At the start it will trigger a slowdown as people adjust to the new shape of the tube 08:24:49 In the end it should be slightly faster since you should spend less time reviewing the whole idea at code review time 08:24:56 mikal: Do you think a specific "spec review day" at the start of a milestone would help fast-approving a pack of them ? 08:25:21 Oh, a spec review day is an interesting idea 08:25:36 I think it would give a fast feedback loop 08:25:36 Although to be honest I think our biggest problem is we rely on a small number of very busy people 08:25:44 ah, cool, we spoke about a spec proposal freeze for Juno-2 and Juno-3 on 3rd July 08:25:45 you could ask BP proposers to handg out 08:26:14 I think the idea of a spec review day should be included in the spec proposal freeze announcement 08:26:24 And having a faster feedback loop sounds good to me 08:26:28 A combination sounds good 08:26:35 mikal: it's not a magic bullet, but I think having multiple people fast-iterating on them could help fast-approving a few 08:26:47 people often catch me on IRC, and it does help resolve things quicker 08:26:51 I think we also need to remind -drivers to be reviewing specs 08:26:55 I know I haven't been doing enough of it 08:27:17 mikal: it's a bit tricky to prioritize. Been struggling with it myself 08:27:20 mikal: we did stop doing it that last few weeks on purpose 08:27:26 I guess we'll get used to it 08:27:49 I think its the "very busy person" problem to be honest 08:27:52 mikal: OK, that's all I had. j2 status looks in sync with what you know of today , which is good 08:27:52 mikal: that was the Juno-1 push, but yeah, we need to get back on the wagon with that stuff 08:28:02 But anyways, yes. We should refocus on specs for a while and then freeze new proposals 08:28:25 yeah, my only worry is the stuff we want that is not yet through spec reviews, so not on the lp radar yet really 08:28:40 but the freeze date, and a review day should help that 08:28:42 mikal: e might need to be a bit less strict in spec review approval. There might be a middle ground between "no spec review at all" and "spend 72 patchsets for every spec" 08:28:58 johnthetubaguy: do you think it would help if we pulled out a list of stuff we really want from -specs and ask drivers to focus on it? 08:29:03 ttx: +1 I think the little guys need to get through faster 08:29:05 just having the doc around at code review time is useful 08:29:22 mikal: I plan to create that as part of the priority setting 08:29:31 I agree that we don't need absolute perfection in specs 08:29:32 so in theory even if we accepted them all directly it would be better than what we were doing with BPs 08:29:41 ttx: agreed 08:29:51 so I wouldn't nitpick them to death 08:29:58 OK, I need to run 08:30:14 Anything you wanted to discuss at meeting later/tomorrow ? 08:30:33 No, I think I am good 08:30:48 johnthetubaguy: thanks for being awesome once again 08:31:01 :) 08:31:04 no problem 08:31:12 OK then, ttyl 08:31:17 Laters 08:31:27 johnthetubaguy: I'm going to wander off to cook dinner, talk more later 08:31:43 mikal: sounds good, enjoy dinner 08:31:58 mikal: thinking June 26th for spec review day 08:32:15 What day of the week is that? 08:32:21 I'd avoid Mondays and Fridays 08:32:26 release day, so thursday I think 08:32:34 Sounds good to me 08:32:59 cool, gives a week for loose ends 08:33:16 Works for me 08:33:39 Ok, dinner time for me 08:33:39 Bye! 08:34:00 bye 08:34:13 seems internet broke again anyways 11:44:27 ttx: o/ 11:44:47 eglynn: o. 11:44:52 #topic Ceilometer 11:45:07 hey 11:45:20 #link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-2 11:45:26 so almost everything we bumped from juno-1 has now landed 11:45:31 Looks good, if not a bit empty 11:45:44 yeah the cupboard is still relatively bare for j2 11:45:51 as planning is still in progress 11:45:57 filing of BP specs discussed at last week's upstream meeting 11:46:00 There might have been a few things that got autokicked that you might want to push back in 11:46:17 cool enough I'll check that 11:46:33 The trick with the new system is that some features may just land without appearing on the release radar at all 11:46:53 yeah I'll keep an eye on that 11:46:54 so it's good to check that most major ones are accounted for 11:47:07 BTW we've a long laundry list of possible work items for j2, so no shortage of possibilities 11:47:14 we have a few in-flight specs reviews ... 11:47:21 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ceilometer-specs,n,z 11:47:32 but I'm expecting a lot more by EoW 11:47:33 indeed 11:47:57 BTW we've had persistent gate problems the past few days with a timing issue in the py26 build 11:48:06 I'd like us to look into the gap coverage plan and progress there 11:48:16 I've curated the wiki page a bit 11:48:21 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Ceilometer_Gap_Coverage 11:48:21 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Ceilometer_Gap_Coverage 11:48:23 yeap 11:48:35 should be good for review I think 11:48:49 I think you're in good shape there 11:48:50 should I plan to be on-hand during the TC meeting this evening for this topic? 11:48:55 No, I can report back 11:49:00 cool enough 11:49:07 I mean, you can come, of course 11:49:13 but I'll report back on progress 11:49:34 the progress reported on the wiki is up-to-date, I've sanity-checked my updates with each of the "drivers" 11:50:06 OK, no significant delay compared to the initial plan, right ? 11:50:26 nope, good front-loaded progress for juno-1 as agreed with the TC 11:50:34 #info Gap coverage is on track, expected to be finished by j2 11:50:40 and all remaining action is good shape to for juno-2 11:50:48 shape to *land 11:51:10 Do you expect a lot of the -specs might be j2 material ? or more of j3 material ? 11:51:43 some will definitely be j2, which is why I'm eager to get that stuff proposed ASAP 11:51:56 agreed. 11:52:35 We built a backlog when we switched to specs (with people retroactively filing specs for stuff they already worked on)but I suspect this will be less of an issue 11:52:46 as we go on 11:52:58 the -specs process is working ok I think, with just some minor compalining about the Kafkaesque bureaucracy ;) 11:53:22 You're free to place the cursor where it makes the most sense 11:53:41 i.e. only require specs for high-profile changes if that makes more sense 11:54:07 but having multiple entry points makes the process more complex 11:54:26 so I would rather have a light template for basic stuff and fasttrack them through 11:54:26 yeap, I'm erring on the side of requiring a spec in general to get folks used to the idea 11:54:48 but defo open to fasttracking the non-contraversial/simpler stuff 11:54:48 Not everything should require endless nitpicking and two +2 11:55:13 OK, anthing you want to discuss at cross-project meeting tonight ? 11:55:14 yeap, I've also tried to minimzie spelling/grammar nitpicks for -specs reviews 11:55:25 nothing specific I guess 11:55:30 OK, questions? 11:55:40 quick heads-up on the ceilo mid-cycle July 2-4, many of us will be kinda off-grid for those 3 days 11:55:47 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints/ParisJuno2014#Ceilometer 11:55:55 mid-cycle attendence shaping up OK so far ... 11:56:05 ... at least another two attendees in the pipeline, which would make 7 for ceilo in total 11:56:23 cool 11:56:31 not huge, but definitely reaches quorum 11:57:02 that's all I got for today ... 11:57:29 ok, great ttyl 11:57:35 SergeyLukjanov: around? 12:04:26 ttx, yup 12:04:29 ttx, sorry, I've been sending documents for visa 12:04:29 #topic Sahara 12:04:34 fun 12:05:00 https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-2 12:05:06 #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-2 12:05:23 Looks good, a bit ambitious maybe 12:05:38 ttx, it's not final/clean yet 12:05:55 just evolve it as reality changes 12:06:45 SergeyLukjanov: I wanted to attrct your attention to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97872/2 12:06:59 ttx, I think it's already looks liek our plans for j2 12:06:59 proposal to require some sort of translations support in integrated projects 12:07:13 If I'm not mistaken, that would create an instant gap for Sahara 12:07:20 do you have plans in that area ? 12:07:46 ttx, yup, I've seen it, we already have everything needed configred in sahara (babel, scripts, traslation jobs, transifex project and etc.) 12:07:59 ttx, the only gap is lack of the _(..) wrapped strings 12:08:12 SergeyLukjanov: ok 12:08:19 ttx, last two assignments doesn't complete this work :( 12:08:56 ttx, so, it could be prioritized and done in j2 12:09:11 OK, just trying to see if that would place you in some impossible spot 12:09:20 but apparently, not really 12:09:44 How is the removal of extra repositories going ? 12:09:50 ttx, yup, just wrap lines with _ 12:10:27 ttx, we have tasks to move sample jobs out of it 12:10:53 dashboard move is ready and pending on horizon devs, as we saw last week 12:11:04 what about the other two? 12:11:12 ttx, and then we'll have only hadoop swift fs in extra, but we're still not sure about the future of it 12:11:29 image-elemnets was merged already ? 12:11:44 ttx, nope, we decided to keep it as is 12:12:02 ttx, I was thinking that we already discuss it with you several weeks ago... 12:12:11 yes, certainly :) 12:12:34 i just need to remember 12:12:59 So in the end, only -dashboard will get merged 12:13:24 so, summary status: keep -image-elements as is, merge -dashboard to horizon, keep only hadoop swift fs in -extra (no releases) 12:13:59 ok, so the only risk is with -image-elements ... IIRC you said that it had to be in sync with the release 12:14:13 ttx, we're thinking about moving hadoop swift fs to separated repo but we're now in the progress of endless discussions 12:14:31 so having it outside the release management but still kept in sync with official releases sounds a bit brittle to me 12:14:37 ttx, we'll push the same tags to it and we'll have docs about buidling corresponding images 12:14:51 ttx, and we're planning to publish a base set of images for each release 12:15:05 can the main software work without the corresponding image-elements ? 12:15:30 ttx, yup, if you have correctly prepared image (with installed hadoop) 12:15:33 i.e. can we put ourselves in a strange corner if for some reason we publish one without the other ? 12:15:43 ttx, and for some plugins you just need the centos image w/o any preparations 12:16:15 because today you're around and I trust you to be around when we'll need to push -image-elements 12:16:44 but we need to plan for the worst and make sure that the integrated release can continue to work even if you lose interest in release management 12:17:42 ttx, it's fair 12:17:43 but then, if the image-elements can be rebuilt from instructions that are provided with the main software... 12:18:21 ttx, in fact we need tag in -image-elements just to mark the version of scripts 12:18:21 ttx: I'm ready when you are 12:18:26 I guess that's less of an issue 12:18:59 SergeyLukjanov: could you remind me why they can't be put in sahara itself ? It's a size issue, right ? 12:19:34 SergeyLukjanov: I think it's fine to ship separately as long as they can be regenerated from a script that we ship in sahara itself 12:19:44 we clos ethe loophole then 12:19:50 dhellmann: o/ 12:19:58 o/ 12:20:02 ttx, it was very long discussions with tons of pros and cons and eventually the pros number for keeping it as is were much bigger than others 12:20:31 SergeyLukjanov: ok, we'll talk again about it -- I just want to make sure the integrated release is self-sufficient 12:20:55 and not depending on something that nobody knows how to release 12:20:58 except you :) 12:21:05 ttx, yup, I got your point, I'll take a look on how could we couple sahara integrated release to -image-elements 12:21:11 SergeyLukjanov: did you have a topic for today's meeting? 12:21:23 ttx, I'm just pushing the tag to the repo :) 12:21:34 ttx, I think no topics from my side for today 12:21:41 ack 12:21:49 ttx, thank you 12:22:23 #topic Oslo 12:22:31 dhellmann: sorry for the lateness 12:22:44 https://launchpad.net/oslo/+milestone/juno-2 12:23:01 ttx: no problem 12:23:19 dhellmann: Looks good, expecting a lot more to emerge from -specs, or mostly complete ? 12:23:31 we're a little slow approving our specs, but I think we have the process down now 12:23:46 I have a list of a few of them to propose we accept at the meeting friday 12:23:57 dhellmann: which makes me thing we need to decide on that rootwrap spec 12:24:03 think* 12:24:26 there are 2 rootwrap specs, do you mean the daemon mode one? 12:24:35 tthe daemon one is not ready 12:25:01 the ionice one I think is good to go as long as the doc clearly expresses the security tradeoff 12:25:13 but that's slightly off-topic 12:25:24 it looks like there has been an update on that one since you left your request 12:25:44 dhellmann: yes, probably just waiting on me 12:25:45 although there's a promise of more detail to come, as well, so that makes me think it's not done 12:25:52 https://launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+milestone/juno-2 12:26:01 oh, no, that's "in the" implementation not "on the" 12:26:21 same, looks good, if not a bit empty 12:26:49 like i said earlier, with autokick removing stuff, we need to make sure no major feature flies under the release radar 12:27:09 since we can't really rely on people adding them back to the milestone page anymore 12:27:20 that's the downside of this approach 12:27:38 yeah, I'll make sure as specs are approved their bps are updated with priority and target 12:28:50 so.. would you say that the current state of the j2 pages shows 50% of what will finally get done ? 75% ? 12:29:24 it is about 50% of what we said we would do, but we combined a few libraries so it may be closer to 75% 12:29:58 some of the specs we have up for review weren't discussed at the summit, and some may not be approved 12:30:35 No, I mean... not compared to summit plans. Do you think you'll add a lot of extra BPs to match late-approved specs, or not that much ? 12:30:39 I expect to approve 3 more this week 12:30:45 ok 12:30:53 oh, yeah, we have a lot of specs that I expect to approve 12:31:04 and those may still fall in j2, right 12:31:05 like I said, we got a late start on that 12:31:10 a few, yes 12:31:14 the 3 certainly 12:31:19 ok 12:31:38 anything we approve for j3 will be a library we don't expect anyone to use this cycle 12:31:46 ok 12:31:54 I want to keep pushing ahead, so they are ready to be adopted early in k 12:32:03 Anything you'd like to discuss at meeting today ? 12:32:13 I have 4 alpha releases planned for early next week 12:32:28 all are for libraries already in requirements, but I thought it would be good to give everyone a heads-up that they are coming 12:32:40 does that mean that existing libs should have their juno features nailed by j-2 ? 12:32:41 I'll tag them early monday, unless someone objects in the oslo meeting friday 12:33:06 that's a good question 12:33:22 It would kind of make sense overall 12:33:34 if you expect consumers to use those new features... 12:33:49 I'd like that. I'm not sure if I would cut anyone off, given the fact that we're always running a little ahead of the rest of the project. 12:34:16 major features I could see holding 12:34:25 #info Ideally, existing libraries should have their Juno featureset completed by j2 12:35:00 OK, thats all I had 12:35:07 anything on your side ? 12:35:12 #info alpha releases of stevedore, oslo.config, oslotest, and oslosphinx planned for 23 June 12:35:24 no, that's it 12:35:28 cool! thx 12:35:30 ttyl 12:35:32 thanks! 12:36:19 notmyname: as noted earlier, you can go at 13:45 UTC if you're interested. that's in 70min? 13:02:47 ttx: my alarm just went off. 13:45 (ie 6:45am pacific) is good with me 13:45:30 notmyname: o/ 13:46:05 ttx: hello 13:46:12 #topic Swift 13:46:18 notmyname: how are you doing ? 13:46:20 ttx: thanks for being flexible with the time 13:46:41 ttx: I'm mostly ok. surgery recovery is going pretty well so far :-) 13:47:40 ttx: I have the goal of merging storage policy patches today. reviews seem to be looking pretty good, and I'm hopeful that with today's time we can get it done 13:48:12 notmyname: ok, you might want to push those security fixes in as well 13:48:37 the VMT will just do a public OSSA once the patch is public 13:48:39 ttx: right. I expect those to be included as well. I've been working with tristanC on the right time 13:48:46 ttx: ah ok 13:49:00 ttx: so then it looks like I should be able to do that this afternoon 13:49:14 there might be a few hours gap but I don't think that's critical in this specific case 13:49:26 OK, I'll let tristanC know 13:49:57 so you might have a RC1 SHA ready for tagging by eod ? 13:50:30 fwiw I adjusted tools so that we support 2-step tagging in master for such Swift intermediary releases 13:50:32 that's the goal. at least working its way through jenkins 13:50:39 ok 13:50:50 ttx: meaning that we can do an RC tag and then a final 13:50:50 ? 13:50:52 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99892/ 13:51:06 swiftrc.sh pushes a RC1 tag and marks all bugs fixreleased on the final milestone 13:51:31 ok 13:51:35 then milestone.sh specialcases swift and just tags/uploads tarball without going over bugs again 13:51:53 (at final approval time) 13:51:58 ok 13:52:28 the only difference with a classic milestone being, we push the RC1 tag and mark bugs fixreleased earlier 13:52:47 a sort of lightweight milestone-proposed 13:53:12 ok. I think I follow that 13:53:53 so if all goes well, we have a 2.0 milestone page, we tag 2.0-rc1 on master, push all FixCommitted bugs to FixReleased/2.0 13:54:11 then when you bless it, we tag 2.0 on master, and upload the resulting tarball on that milestone page 13:54:16 ok 13:54:56 If you need to fix something, we get fancy with a release branch, cut out of the RC1 tag 13:55:23 ok 13:55:32 that makes sense 13:55:35 probably calling it milestone-proposed so that we get back on our feet with infra scripts 13:55:51 but I shall soon push the patch so that we can call it proposed/* 13:56:02 I think that works. 13:56:24 so I'll wait for your SHA and run swiftrc.sh when I have it 13:56:35 notmyname: we should probably create the milestone page now 13:56:42 I will get it to you as soon as I have it 13:56:44 so you can start retroactively target BP to it 13:56:53 yes. can you create it in LP? 13:56:57 2.0.0 ? 13:57:00 yes 13:57:17 i'll do it now 13:57:46 thanks 13:57:57 https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/2.0.0 13:58:06 so the tag would be 2.0.0.rc1 13:58:18 ok 13:58:22 notmyname: anything else you wanted to discuss ? 13:58:38 nope. that's what I've got 13:58:41 i'll complain about missing blueprints, but we can do that between RC1 and final :) 13:58:48 :_) 13:59:03 anything you want to add to meeting agenda for today ? 13:59:29 #info Swift 2.0.0.rc1 hopefully today or tomorrow 13:59:31 nothing specific 13:59:59 notmyname: ok, cool. Do you get up early because you can't sleep ? 14:00:13 Or some new routine? 14:00:29 dolphm: around? 14:00:35 unfortunately today the answer is yes. normally its because of kids, though. I'm normally up between 6:30 and 7:00 on most days 14:00:49 notmyname: ok, get better soon! 14:00:53 thanks :-) 14:01:23 ttx: o/ 14:01:33 #topic Keystone 14:02:14 https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-2 14:02:19 That's pretty raw 14:02:40 Do you have more still baking in the -specs repo ? 14:02:40 juno-2 will be our first milestone which requires proposals to keystone-specs first 14:02:54 do you think they will get out of there fast enough ? 14:02:59 (to make j2) ? 14:03:32 i believe so 14:03:47 we have a 5 or 6 that are well rounded at this point 14:03:48 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/keystone-specs,n,z 14:04:18 last week we discussed how we want to work the approval process on that repo, which i think we'll finalize today and see a few land 14:04:19 OK well, add them as they are approved, if they still make sense for j2. 14:04:50 I /think/ in the end we'll have a one-milestone delay, like specs that are approved during j1 can be targetted to j2 14:05:05 (except low-flying objects obviously) 14:05:23 i think we were thinking in that direction as well, but we're off to a later start than nova, for example 14:05:45 yes, starting the process will always craete a delay/backlog/mess 14:05:56 OK, so just add them as they are approved 14:06:15 My script doesn't do miracles yet, since LP doesn't have a blueprint-cration API yet 14:06:27 s/yet// ? 14:06:39 lifless convinced someone to work on that 14:06:47 oh alrighty then 14:07:07 I think he is embarassed that it sucks so much :) 14:07:40 or surprised. 14:07:43 anyway 14:08:04 i didn't have much in store for you. That autokick script basically makes sure the blueprint page looks good :) 14:08:19 The trick being, to make sure it contains everything it should 14:08:30 so keep an eye for feature sflying below the radar 14:09:01 and make sure major ones are mentioned in the milestone page... even if they bypassed the spec process somehow 14:09:30 dolphm: anything you wanted to add to today's meeting agenda ? 14:10:38 #info Support for compressed PKI tokens landed in keystone; we'd like to make them the default in keystone & devstack during Juno 14:10:52 just that ^ 14:11:29 ok, great! 14:11:55 that's just for #info right, not for a discussion item ? 14:12:37 i don't believe so; if we suspect we might cause any pain (which i don't think is the case), i'll raise a discussion item 14:13:28 dolphm: ack. ttyl then! 14:13:32 /salute 14:14:08 jgriffith: ready when you are 14:33:12 jpich: representing david today ? 14:33:30 ttx: Yes, if needed! 14:33:31 * ttx doesn't see mrunge around 14:33:37 jpich: you're in! 14:33:40 #topic Horizon 14:33:56 https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-2 14:34:31 looks a bit too big and heavily needs prioritization and other improvements, but i'll annoy david with it rather than you 14:34:52 I'm lucky :-) On the plus side a lot of it is up for review 14:35:51 jpich: i wanted to go over the Gap coverage plan progress quickly 14:36:05 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Horizon_Gap_Coverage 14:36:21 Ok 14:36:32 Looking at it, only the misison statement is late 14:36:55 is the horizon split still doable within juno-2 ? 14:37:32 I think the mission statement has a proposal in it, not sure if it needs to be vetted before the item can be marked as complete? 14:38:09 rdopieralski is currently doing a lot of work on the split, I think we're still hopeful it'll be doable within juno-2 14:38:10 it should be proposed to the governance repo at some point 14:38:18 ok 14:38:24 Probably there'll be fresher news during the Horizon meeting later today 14:38:48 what about your piece, "Integration Framework Tied to Gate" ? 14:39:14 Is it still on track for j3 ? 14:39:53 There's several folks currently submitting tests for review so I think it's chugging along nicely 14:40:09 ok cool 14:40:13 (we'd agreed with the Tempest folks back in HK to start this in our own repo since the tests will be very different from the API tests) 14:40:16 That's all I had 14:40:22 now I don't know when a testing effort can be considered "complete" 14:40:37 yes, agreed 14:40:46 So there'll be more by Juno-3 for sure :) 14:40:56 I didn't have anything to bring up myself 14:41:02 Anthing you or someone else on the Horizon team wanted to discuss at the cross-project meeting today ? 14:41:09 Not that I'm aware of 14:41:24 jpich: ok, let me know if that changes 14:41:30 Ok 14:41:33 jpich: thx for standing in ! 14:41:38 No problems! Cheers 14:41:40 mestery: ready when you are 14:42:03 ttx: o/ 14:42:07 #topic Neutron 14:42:26 https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-2 14:42:28 Looks good 14:43:05 Did most of those go throug the -specs process ? 14:43:06 thanks 14:43:23 Yes, some are not approved and we're working on it 14:43:35 I will bump those not approved over the next week 14:43:44 mestery: wanted to quickly go though the Gap coverage plan, wince I will report progress at the TC meeting today 14:43:54 ttx: Cool, I'm ready! 14:44:04 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Neutron_Gap_Coverage 14:44:23 Want me to walk through each item? 14:44:43 I was going to prepare an etherpad with progress, but traveling for LBaaS this week 14:45:19 yes, quick walkthrough of progress maybe 14:45:51 So, Gap 0 has a spec ready for approval: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95738 14:46:00 We have converged there, and coding has also started. 14:46:04 ok 14:46:22 Gap1: We have 1 API test left to merge, and new scenario tests are being written now (spec is in tempest -specs repo). 14:46:44 Gap2 is being worked at the moment, I need to sync with the developer who's assigned to that this week. 14:46:56 Gap3 has a patch waiting to be merged (Juno-3) 14:47:07 Gap4: There was only one API call which was needed, a WIP patch is out for it. 14:47:23 Gap5: We merged a few DVR patches, and more are being reviewed now. We should be landing the majority of them over the new few weeks. 14:47:28 ok, so gap4 is late but it's shallow 14:47:33 Gap4: Correct 14:47:54 Gap6: We have a WIP patch in nova for an API there, and a spec for that should be proposed this week yet on the neutron side. 14:48:00 gap5 should probably be retargeted to j2 then 14:48:01 Gap7: I'll start that later in Juno-2. 14:48:07 Correct 14:48:11 feel free to edit that page 14:48:11 So, that's a whirlwind update. 14:48:14 OK, will do 14:48:59 OK, looks like it's taking slightly more time, but still on track 14:49:09 That's a fair assessment, yes. 14:49:22 next on our busy 15-min, i wanted to talk about https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron 14:49:28 OK 14:49:43 There is something there (and in nova and Oslo instructions) that doesn't work with autokick 14:49:56 "Once your design specification has been committed to neutron-specs: " 14:50:04 "Propose your blueprint, as above, by selecting the milestone in which you plan to complete the blueprint " 14:50:16 OK, shall I remove that part? 14:50:17 That will result in them getting punished by autokick 14:50:20 :) 14:50:24 My proposal is... 14:50:34 we get rid of the whole "Once your design specification has been committed to neutron-specs: " section 14:50:53 You as driver put the BP on the radar by adding milestone and priority 14:51:03 Makes sense to me. 14:51:07 then the assignee can update milestone and implementation status to reflect progress 14:51:10 I've been doing that already anyways. :) 14:51:15 i'll provide a script to do that in one step 14:51:26 (including updating the link) 14:51:29 OK 14:51:38 so that shoud not be that much of a hassle 14:52:04 Also would you mind if we collapsed the instructions for Nova/Oslo/Neutron ? they don't seem that much different now 14:52:16 I am all for that actually, makes perfect sense. 14:52:36 I'm rewriting the page following numerous complains that it advocates a behavior that I seem to punishg 14:52:44 :) 14:53:09 We'll still ask them to register the blueprint themselves though 14:53:16 even if that's a bit bureaucratic 14:53:27 it makes them the owner of the spec, which seems right 14:53:38 (err... owner of the Bp) 14:54:05 OK, tat went faster than I thought. That's all I had 14:54:09 :) 14:54:13 Same here, thanks ttx! 14:54:14 anything you want to add to meeting agenda for today ? 14:54:19 Nothing at this time, no. 14:54:49 since we have a couple more minutes, could you quickly explain what the two essential blueprints are about ? 14:54:58 Neturon Distributed Virtual Router for OVS 14:55:03 Neutron DB Migration Refactor 14:55:11 DVR is the functionality equivalent for nova multi-host 14:55:15 the first one is the DVR thing that we ask in gap coverage right 14:55:17 ok 14:55:18 Right 14:55:26 And the second one covers Gap0 14:55:39 It's the spec for how we will move forward with DB migrations in neutron, the healing migration, etc. 14:55:44 OK, that's clear 14:55:47 cool 14:56:13 I could have figured it out by reading them, but since we had one minute left... 14:56:21 ;) 14:56:21 * ttx gets lazy with age 14:56:29 * mestery is the same way. 14:56:32 mestery: thanks! ttyl 14:56:36 thanks! Later. 14:56:53 jgriffith: around now ? 14:58:46 ttx: hola 14:58:54 ttx: we should probably change my time :( 14:58:57 #topic Cinder 14:58:59 we should :) 14:59:02 ttx: I'm driving in to the office more lately 14:59:07 I have 2 minutes, let's be quick 14:59:08 ttx: and it's screwing up our system 14:59:10 k 14:59:13 I'm good :) 14:59:16 all set :) 14:59:21 https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-2 14:59:31 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/task-logging has no assignee ? 14:59:42 harlow is working on it 14:59:48 I'll update it to reflect correctly 14:59:51 ok, you should assign it to him then 14:59:52 ok 15:00:18 Otherwise that's all cinder-specs-approved stuff ? Or there are a few direct adds ? 15:00:36 Some are still direct carry overs from the pre-spec days 15:00:50 Are you expecting much more to make it out of cinder-specs in time for j2 ? 15:00:51 but I've been actively swatting those that have come in after 15:01:01 ttx: I'm hoping for at least two more 15:01:04 ok 15:01:14 ttx: but honestly my prio right now is catch up on what's in the queue 15:01:26 anything you want to add to meeting agenda ? 15:01:27 if that doesn't happen I'll just stop accepting new things altogether 15:01:32 nope, I"m good thanks 15:01:49 ok, talk to you more next week 15:02:00 we can discuss a better time for you too 15:02:22 ttx: cool, sorry about that 15:46:37 o/ 15:47:29 zaneb: o/ 15:47:32 #topic Heat 15:48:30 https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-2 15:48:31 looks like we got through j-1 relatively unscathed :) 15:49:04 The page looks good, but the autokick script might have been hard at work 15:49:16 I suspect so 15:49:34 ooh, I'm gonna move my first one to implemented 15:49:55 zaneb: do you have a lot of work still stranded in -specs approval that you expect will be added here ? 15:49:55 patches finally merged 15:50:15 I don't think there's much, if anything, for j-2 15:51:05 ok 15:51:06 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/heat-specs,n,z 15:51:14 actually, that's a longer list than I thought 15:51:22 * zaneb needs to do more reviews 15:51:45 but most of it is more long-term 15:51:58 i was wondering... do you ask people to file a blueprint in parallel to filing a spec ? 15:52:05 (like nova/neutron do ?) 15:52:34 no, I haven't been 15:52:51 and we haven't had any approved yet, so it's a bit academic at this point ;) 15:53:08 hah 15:53:12 but I did have a question about that the other day, w.r.t. a Keystone spec 15:53:50 is it likely that a script will handle this in the future? or should I be encouraging people to create bps as well? 15:54:01 Well the benefit of asking them to file the BP is... they are rightly marked as owning it, and then we can use a script to update all relevant fields at approval time 15:54:34 I planned to ahve a BP-creation script but it's stalled due to lack of BP creation API in Launchpad 15:54:47 so at this point, asking them to create the original BP is not a bad idea 15:54:58 since THEN you can update all fields via the script i'll be providing :) 15:55:24 ok, cool. I'll go with that answer next time ;) 15:55:28 It just.. feels wrong to ask them to file in two places. 15:55:40 yeah, it does a bit 15:55:51 But then, their time is more expandable than yours, generally 15:55:57 specs repo should be _less_ work, ideally 15:56:08 if someone needs to do it manually, better be them 15:56:21 I support that :D 15:56:23 I just rewrote https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints 15:56:33 to account for the new process, autokick script included 15:56:50 oh, nice 15:57:25 so when can we kill launchpad? ;) 15:57:58 Working on it 15:58:10 zaneb: anything you want to add to meeting agenda for today ? 15:58:24 nope, I'm good 15:58:44 OK then, ttyl 15:58:53 thanks ttx o/ 15:58:56 no markwash yet 15:59:10 no Nikhil either. Beer time! 16:02:27 markwash: o/ 16:02:40 hi there 16:02:42 #topic Glance 16:02:54 https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/juno-2 16:03:21 Small but consistent 16:03:40 markwash: do you have a lot queued in -specs ? 16:03:53 yeah, about 7 at this point 16:04:02 Any of them likely to make juno-2 ? 16:04:16 yes, at least one 16:04:21 Do you have a stop date after which you'll stop considering them ? 16:04:36 we didn't plan on anything like that 16:04:39 ok 16:04:42 that's fine 16:04:46 we've just been trying to build our glance-specs review momentum so far 16:05:30 markwash: i put the "gap coverage plan" on the TC agenda for today -- that's just about how you think you can address the small integartion testing gap that was called out last week 16:05:44 we can delay it to next week, agenda is busy 16:05:53 yes please, I was going to ask actually 16:05:55 but it should be 3 lines on a wiki page 16:05:59 oh 16:06:02 markwash: OK, that works 16:06:26 you might want to have a plan first (with an assignee) before you write those 3 lines :) 16:06:27 I think those 3 lines are basically: add more glance tests to tempest in juno-2 16:06:38 and then two lines of squiggles :-) 16:06:49 yeah, something like that. With a "task owner" :) 16:06:50 and hearts 16:06:55 okay 16:07:03 markwash: your call, we can defer to next week 16:07:13 I asked around for volunteers at last team meeting, but made it sound like people needed to do it immediately and no one had time 16:07:23 yeah, let's do next week 16:07:29 immediately, no. Within juno would be good 16:07:38 ok, moving to next meetign agenda 16:08:48 what else... 16:09:10 anything you'd like to put on cross-project meeting agenda ? 16:09:12 I need to update the mission statement proposal again 16:09:24 nothing for cross-project from me 16:09:35 yes, we'll talk about it at the TC meeting 16:09:47 so if you have a new version, better post it before 16:09:57 i'l try to ask to cut the nitpikcing 16:10:15 I'll see if I can take a pass, I didn't realize it was on the agenda for this week but I suppose that was very silly 16:10:33 I have to prep for the ptl webinar as well 16:10:36 it's up on the governance change list, so we try to cover it asap 16:10:43 but as I said, it will be a busy meeting 16:10:45 yeah, that's exactly what I should have expected 16:10:55 so we might just skip it anyway 16:11:15 we'll see how it goes 16:11:20 that might also be best, I'll put in an update to the language sometime tomorrow or thursday in any case 16:11:54 That's all I had. The -specs driven workflow certainly makes it simpler to sync between us. 16:11:57 * ttx hugs autokick.py 16:12:00 haha 16:12:19 markwash: ttyl! 16:12:24 thanks 16:17:14 SlickNik: o/ 16:17:21 o/ 16:17:21 #topic Trove 16:17:27 https://launchpad.net/trove/+milestone/juno-2 16:17:57 SlickNik: so you should set a priority for those 4 "undefined" things, if you want to bless them 16:18:17 if not, you should clear their milestone target field so that they don't mess up our view 16:18:40 Otherwise looks good 16:18:53 ttx: Okay will probably do that today. 16:19:19 Along with bug triage, which I haven't had a chance to do this week, as yet. 16:19:41 Lot more BPs, and we're making some good progress in juno-2. 16:20:55 would you say your j-2 plans is accurately representing what you plan to accomplish for j2 ? 16:20:55 A couple of them marked not-started have actually begun, so I'll take an action to update the list to better mirror actual progress. 16:21:20 OK, wanted to talk about progress on your gap coverage plan 16:21:29 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Trove_Gap_Coverage 16:21:47 Could you quickly go through it and tell me about progress, if any ? 16:22:18 We've made really good progress to Concern #1. 16:22:54 We're looking at integration tests right now, and neutron support might actually merge early (in Juno 2). 16:23:10 cool! 16:23:35 We made a bit of progress on the doc front (i.e. updates to the deploy doc), but we still have more work to do here. 16:24:01 I'm going to take on some of it, and get a couple of other cores to help. 16:24:45 Will try to get a good chunk done in Juno-2, but I suspect we'll probably need to keep working on docs even past that (through Juno 3) 16:25:20 For concern #3: We've got a patch for an experimental job in CI infra out already. 16:25:58 Once that merges, we're going to iron out kinks in it, and look to make it gating. 16:26:18 And once that happens, we can turn off the old reddwarf-ci 16:26:56 Review for the experimental job I mentioned 16:26:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98517/ 16:28:06 For Concern #4, I've been working with amcrn and cp16net and we've been doing a good job on staying on top of triage, and process. 16:29:32 So a couple of main pushes for Juno 2 for us will be around focusing on Concerns #1, and #2. 16:30:53 ok 16:31:38 I think we can consider #4 done 16:31:49 it's more of a policy thiung 16:32:01 what about #5 ? 16:33:25 I alluded to #5 earlier, out of order (sorry!). 16:33:35 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88349/ 16:33:53 It's close to being done. 16:34:39 annashen is debugging a couple of failing tests 16:35:47 But once that's fixed (i.e. the tests are passing) the patch looks in good shape, and we're on track to get that merged for Juno 2 16:36:38 oops sorry 16:36:42 parallelizing discussions. 16:37:13 OK so overall, takes more time than expected but still on track for Juno 16:37:21 Not a problem. :) 16:37:25 SlickNik: feel free to adjust milestone targets on that wiki page 16:37:28 Yes, that's a good summary. 16:37:40 SlickNik: i'll report on your behalf to the TC 16:37:50 SlickNik: anything you want to add to meetign agenda for today ? 16:38:19 ttx: Awesome, thanks. When will the report be? I'll try and be there too, in case anything something comes up. 16:38:59 20:00 utc meeting 16:39:03 (TC meeting) 16:39:14 Ah, today. sounds good! 16:39:35 ttx: Nope. I'm trying to push out a client release sometime this week with all the bugfixes we've done for juno-1. 16:39:54 #info trying to push out a client release sometime this week with all the bugfixes we've done for juno-1 16:40:06 ok then... releasing you. ttyl :) 16:40:17 #endmeeting