08:01:24 #startmeeting ptl_sync 08:01:25 Meeting started Tue Aug 19 08:01:24 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:01:26 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:01:28 The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync' 08:01:33 #topic Nova 08:01:38 Hi 08:01:42 hi! 08:01:59 #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/juno-3 08:02:18 So, I emailed openstack-dev and mentioned in our meeting last week that we should be reviewing the high prio ones 08:02:25 There's been some review, but none have landed 08:02:38 The object ones look good to me 08:02:40 As does the ironic one 08:02:42 #info 3 implemented, 36 in review, 23 in progress, 10 not started/unknown 08:02:53 The scheduler one is going slow, as is vmware 08:03:01 Last week you had 2 Implemented, 33 under review, 27 in progress and 11 Not started/Unknown 08:03:03 Scheduler is slow because of review attention (or the lack of it) 08:03:14 VMWare is because minesweeper is broken 08:03:33 * mikal is confused that not-started has grown 08:03:55 it went down by 1 08:04:03 Oh, I see 08:04:06 Other order 08:04:26 yep 08:04:29 So, I am worried that we're not landing enough BPs 08:04:38 But I am unsure what else to do apart from personally reviewing all the code 08:05:37 maybe single out a few blueprints that are 99% there, in addition to High/Essential stuff? 08:06:00 do you feel like the call to focus on High prio worked? 08:06:06 To be honest no 08:06:12 Some got reviews 08:06:19 But it feels like thigns which were being reviewed already 08:06:32 I haven't generated any data on it though, its more an instinct 08:07:25 this week the focus is obviously on FPF which shall hit on Thursday 08:07:34 That's possibly true 08:07:42 People frantically finishing their own things instead of reviewing 08:07:47 theer are 33 blueprints that will disappear from the list at this point 08:08:07 Or will be finished in time... 08:08:13 Not all 33 will go away nessesarily 08:08:13 Maybe review prioritization will work better once we are past that 08:08:19 One can hope 08:08:34 I don't know if this is a new problem or not 08:08:42 But it feels like we're not focussing well 08:08:56 Do you think that blueprint proposers are well aware of the FPF deadline ? 08:09:14 Hmmm 08:09:19 I am sure they could do with another reminder 08:09:23 (if they are not they will pile up exception requests) 08:09:49 I will send out a reminder after this 1:1 08:10:18 you can also clarify when "Thursday" will be 08:10:35 Yep, presumably midnight Thursday UTC 08:11:45 mikal: ttx: morning 08:12:05 mikal: I often choose midnight pacific 08:12:11 Also maybe contact (or have someone contact) the medium-prio blueprint holders that still don't have code proposed (there are 5 of them) to make sure they are aware of the deadline 08:12:31 johnthetubaguy: the trick is you want extra time on Friday to handle the inevitable exception requests 08:12:31 I can email them as well 08:12:43 ttx: yes, good point 08:13:00 mikal: are we deleting the specs too? 08:13:04 I'm also travelling Friday my time through the weekend 08:13:05 mikal: you seem in good shape FPF-wise if you look at the prioritized list -- most of the things that would fall off the map are Low 08:13:10 But I will tyr to keep on top of email as much as possible 08:13:26 johnthetubaguy: we talked about kilo specs in the release meeting last week 08:13:37 johnthetubaguy: the concensus seemed to be we should open kilo now, but I haven't done it 08:13:51 johnthetubaguy: I guess we move the unimplemented specs from juno into an "unimplemented" folder when we do that? 08:14:36 mikal: I think we can propose a move, then drivers asses if we want that or not? 08:15:02 johnthetubaguy: as in implied approval for kilo for juno specs? 08:15:19 mikal: no, as, a help to get approval for juno 08:15:33 johnthetubaguy: clarifying the "unknown" statuses would also be a good idea before FPF -- some may just be proposed already 08:15:54 johnthetubaguy: oh I see, as in have drivers vote on how we archive? 08:15:58 ttx: yeah, I need to sift through those, quite a few often have all their code up, but don't update too 08:16:02 johnthetubaguy: I kind of feel like we don't need to bikeshed everything 08:16:14 johnthetubaguy: archival could be just a ptl mandate or something 08:16:22 * mikal is very tired of the flame wars at the moment 08:16:26 mikal: we agreed not to auto-approve, but I don't want to just delete the spec, thats all 08:16:34 johnthetubaguy: yeah, I get that 08:16:38 johnthetubaguy: so, no auto approval 08:16:43 mikal: my last question would be about the midcycle meetup. What do you think made it so much more productive compared to design summit 08:16:50 mikal: cool, so anything that meets that idea works for me 08:16:51 johnthetubaguy: and juno approved specs which miss get moved to a "unimplemented" subdir in juno 08:17:04 is the the limited audience? the "stuck in one room" setup ? 08:17:07 ttx: ahh, interesting question 08:17:18 I'm not sure I'd say "more" productive 08:17:23 Certainly more "focussed" 08:17:29 We had elastic timeslots for topics 08:17:36 And could change the agenda based on what came up 08:17:45 People were focussed by there being no competing events 08:18:04 I don't think it replaces a summit 08:18:12 I do think they're important efficiency tools though 08:18:28 I'd like to fix the design summit so that it's more useful 08:18:33 mikal: thats a little like what we did with more unconference style slots in hong kong, that worked well 08:18:44 ttx: I think we need to get better at picking sessions 08:18:50 johnthetubaguy: I felt the HK unconference slots were mostly just people who didn't get an accepted session though 08:18:57 Agreed 08:19:03 I think we also need to not run 8 hour days for nova 08:19:08 I think the main reason it was so badly needed this time around is that the design summit didn't work as well, so somethign was needed by mid-cycle (rather than 6 months after 08:19:10 mikal: yeah, but it meant we could reject more slots 08:19:17 I'd rather five half days than three full days for example 08:19:36 ttx: I feel like Atlanta was as productive as other summits I've been to 08:19:42 ttx: we didn't spend enough time following through on the important stuff post summit, at least that was my feeling 08:19:52 I'm considering having some "open time" where we would not schedule specific "sessions" 08:19:56 Its more than six months is a long time without being able to sit down and solve the hard problems we get bogged down on in email 08:19:59 ttx: and maybe needed a bit more time on overarching topics, that no one proposed as a slot 08:20:18 ttx: mikal: and yeah, more face time is good, if we can get it 08:20:36 Yeah, the approach was different 08:20:40 We started with a list of important things 08:20:47 And then found people to speak to them 08:20:49 mikal: Like I said in my post, we can have more face time to work on specific issues, but ideally we would go over the cultural alignment at the summit, so that no extra travel is "required" 08:20:56 Instead of letting things people submitted define the agenda 08:21:01 So maybe we should do that for Paris 08:21:11 mikal: yeah, we tried to do more of that in HKG summit picking, but yeah need to do more of that for paris 08:21:32 ttx: yeah, I get that 08:21:41 I think perhaps its just where nova is at 08:21:53 It feels like we have more contentious things happening now than we did a year or two ago 08:22:03 And face time is awesome for nailing down consensus 08:22:10 I'd be happy to replace the face time with something else 08:22:17 But nothing else has been proposed that I think would work 08:22:25 We don't even get most people to our IRC meetings 08:22:32 mikal: do you feel the audience can be an issue ? Having only key contributors in the room let you expose problems ? 08:22:34 The mid-cycle was definitely better attended than our weekly IRC meetings 08:22:43 ttx: we didn't filter attendees though 08:22:56 ttx: we definitely had single issue people (merge my scheduler) in the room 08:22:57 mikal: right, it's filter by nothing else around 08:23:10 hmm 08:23:22 Well, I guess you could say its filter by travel budget 08:23:33 But we could address that by asking the foundation for travel funding 08:23:40 In the summits we just filter by "so many other interesting things around" 08:23:49 True 08:23:54 mikal: some people just couldn't make that date though 08:23:57 True 08:24:03 It's not just budget 08:24:09 I don't think its great that we make people travel 08:24:10 it's also will to travel 08:24:14 We just haven't found anything better yet 08:24:27 ttx: have you seen the mid-cycle summary posts I'm doing by the way? 08:24:28 ok, well, discussion to be continued 08:24:30 We covered a _lot_ 08:24:49 mikal: they are on my reading list. Just came back from a break yesterday 08:24:57 ttx: heh, its a lot of text 08:24:58 honestly, more use of video chat for drivers would help 08:24:59 I expect to read them tomorrow. 08:25:01 ttx: and I'm not done yet 08:25:17 johnthetubaguy: yeah, I think trying to get drivers into a hangout is a good idea 08:25:23 johnthetubaguy: scheduling is hard though 08:25:24 ttx: yeah, I just got back to work 20 mins ago 08:25:49 ok well. I'll let you go back to work then :) 08:25:49 mikal: yeah, I think we need to alternate bad times or something 08:25:53 Discussion to be continued 08:26:00 johnthetubaguy: yep, like the IRC meetings 08:26:05 mikal, johnthetubaguy: anything to discuss at meeting today? 08:26:09 Nup 08:26:12 Not that I can think of 08:26:21 nothing from me 08:26:26 mikal, johnthetubaguy: OK, thanks! Talk to you later 08:26:31 Thanks! 12:04:30 SergeyLukjanov: around? 12:06:50 ttx, yup 12:06:51 morning 12:06:58 #topic Sahara 12:07:22 #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-3 12:07:47 #info 6 implemented, 3 in review, 3 in progress, 2 not started 12:08:09 (compared to 2 implemented, 4 udner review, 8 in progress, 1 not started last week) 12:08:20 So that's a pretty good landing rate 12:08:40 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/swift-url-proto-cleanup-deprecations in unassigned 12:08:54 (and not started) 12:09:05 yup, a bunch of long going things ended 12:09:26 it's very simple thing, mostlycleanup 12:09:39 it'll be discussed on the meeting this week 12:10:31 Last week you said you might make use of FPF to kick out stuff that's not proposed -- given your progress so far I don't think that's really necessary 12:10:40 (FPF is in two days) 12:10:48 agreed 12:11:25 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/edp-swift-trust-authentication is progressing well? 12:11:36 I think yes, it's going well 12:12:22 OK, you seem to have a good handle on things. Please assign someone to swift-url-proto-cleanup-deprecations soon, so that we know who to blame 12:12:33 Anythign you want to discuss at meeting? 12:13:38 I think nope 12:13:58 I'll assign someone on it this week 12:14:23 SergeyLukjanov: ok great. talk to you later, then 12:14:30 thx 12:20:51 gordc: hi! let me know when you're ready 12:22:21 ttx: hey, just pulling up eglynn's email. i'm available now. 12:22:50 #topic Ceilometer 12:23:02 gordc: Thanks for coming so early 12:23:20 #link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-3 12:23:35 np. metro was running on time. :) 12:23:41 #info 3 implemented, 5 under review, 3 in progress 12:23:53 so we hashed out all our bps for juno3... they've all been started or have code up for review 12:23:54 Last week it was 2 implemented, 4 under review, 6 in progress 12:24:03 one low priority item (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/ipmi-support) yet to have code posted by eoghan followed up over the weekend and the item is apparently complete internally and they will post code soon (i will check with llu again since it's an intel bp) 12:24:16 So that's good progress 12:24:51 yep. we had a few code items (specifically xenapi bp) added recently. 12:25:00 last meeting, we decided pushed gnoochi/ceilometer dispatcher work to post-juno as we didn't have resources and gnocchi work remains decoupled from ceilometer work. 12:25:01 #info Juno-3 progress looks good 12:25:19 one issue that came up was grenade work. Chris Dent is working on that item and is talking with QA folks on how to properly implement upgrade testing. current work is being debated. 12:25:31 let me dig up list item on grenade work 12:25:42 You also have all of the high-prio and most of the mediupm-prio stuff already up for review 12:25:49 which is good 12:26:09 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102354 grenade work that is currently being discussed 12:26:16 Now it's more a question of turning those "under review" into "implemented" things :) 12:26:50 yeah. i'll need to bug some of the cores to get reviewing now that eglynn is offline for a week. but we have sileht back this week so that's good. 12:27:26 if you get most of the "high" prio stuff implemented and out of the way, it will simplify the last weeks 12:28:15 agreed. we have code pretty much finalised for 2 of 3 three remaining high priority items 12:28:23 If I remember correctly you don't plan to use a FeatureProposalFreeze this week to drop all blueprints that won't have code proposed by Thursday 12:28:34 central agent partitioning bp is actively being worked on and i don't have any concerns there. 12:29:34 hmm. i don't recall regarding featureproposalfreeze. i guess we have code for all bps currently and i don't intend on adding any during the time eglynn is away 12:29:48 right 12:30:11 aside from very very small items i don't see any new features being added. 12:30:33 but we'll just say no new items are expected. 12:30:33 OK, well that's all I had -- did you have anything you wanted to discuss at the cross-project meeting later today? 12:31:17 no, i think i should be ok for cross-project meeting. eglynn mentioned a few items we had to track. 12:31:41 i assume people know eglynn is on holiday so hopefully there isn't much new items against ceilometer 12:32:40 gordc: ok then. talk to you later, and thanks again for filling in 12:32:58 np. thanks for pushing time back a bit :) 14:02:25 jgriffith: around? 14:18:46 dolphm: around? 14:19:51 ttx: o/ 14:21:00 #topic Keystone 14:21:13 #link https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-3 14:21:33 #info 5 under review, 1 in progress, 3 blocked and 1 not started 14:21:53 last week it was 4 Under review, 2 in progress, 6 Blocked/Not started 14:22:05 so i guess that counts as progress 14:22:40 Are you still uncertain on the Blocked ones? 14:22:45 FPF is Thursday :) 14:22:55 one that's blocked is actually blocked... 14:23:03 well, two, but i'm working on one 14:23:10 keystone to keystone needs an openstack/requirements review 14:23:22 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113294/ 14:23:29 I may be able to help there 14:24:23 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/endpoint-policy should have been recently unblocked - fixed 14:24:53 and i swear there's an implementation already in review, but i can't find it, so i'm leaving it as Not Started until our meeting today. if it's not in review today, i'm planning for it to be dropped 14:25:33 Deprecated Functionality is "Not Started" but only because i don't know that we actually have anything we want to deprecate this release - going to have a last minute discussion today in our meeting about that 14:25:44 otherwise, i guess i'll repurpose that for kilo 14:26:51 ok +2ed 14:27:28 and then, i just bumped non-persistent tokens from Slow to Good Progress, it cutting it really close though 14:27:30 ttx: thanks! 14:27:48 #info keystone-to-keystone-federation blocked by requirements' https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113294/ 14:28:33 audit-support-for-federation is blocked waiting on keystone-to-keystone-federation itself? 14:29:23 As far as FPF is concerned, Deprecated functionality can get an exception 14:30:16 Do you still plan to enforce FPF on Thursday? That would probably threaten non-persistent-tokens and endpoint-policy 14:31:33 audit support is actually pending support in pycadf, and yeah, the implementation is partly dependent on k2k 14:32:18 dolphm: i would say you're in good shape, you just need to get features landed earlier, to avoid the last-week rush 14:32:19 still planning to enforce FPF, yes 14:32:35 we're far enough behind on bp reviews that FPF will be critical for us 14:33:07 OK, maybe raise the need for requirements review at the meeting today? 14:33:14 Anything else you want to discuss there ? 14:35:18 i don't believe so 14:35:35 and yeah - we need to get that requirements patch in so we can start landing k2k patches 14:36:21 dolphm: ok great. Don't forget to mention it at the meeting, that should unblock it 14:36:26 david-lyle: around? 14:36:31 dolphm: thx! 14:36:34 ttx: o/ 14:36:37 #topic Horizon 14:36:48 #link https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-3 14:37:25 #info 8 implemented, 33 under review, 20 in progress, 2 unknown 14:37:39 (last week was: 7 implemented, 28 under review, 24 in progress, 4 unknown) 14:37:55 So that's progressing 14:38:53 david-lyle: you mentioned having a FPF last week, but I still see blueprints with code not being proposed yet, so we may not agree on what FPF means 14:40:06 that could be 14:40:45 david-lyle: the "no new blueprints" deadline is called SpecProposalDeadline 14:40:56 FPF is: "all code must be up for review" 14:41:15 so basically at FPF you should only have "under review" or "implemented" blueprints 14:41:41 Most projects observe it on August 21, two days from now 14:42:41 ok, hmm 14:43:11 It usually makes sense to remove stuff from the bottom of the pile, reduce noise and increase focus 14:44:12 But then it's difficult to push on unsuspecting contributors two days before it hits :) 14:44:30 ttx: makes sense, my terminology was off, and in the past in Horizon we've taken bps up til the end 14:44:38 right 14:44:38 I'm trying to reign that in 14:45:10 I had been announcing the freeze in meetings 3 weeks prior 14:45:16 horizon meetings 14:45:40 I understand not everyone attends or reads the logs, of course 14:45:44 Of the "high" blueprints, only https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/launch-instance-ux-enhancement is not under review yet 14:46:07 ttx: I'll have a status update on that in an hour or so 14:46:15 last week you said you considered moving it out. 14:46:21 ok, let's see how that goes 14:46:38 it may miss, code was up, but usability feedback required large changes 14:46:43 Anythign for the meeting later today? 14:47:01 the owner is assessing if they can make the changes 14:47:06 no items for later 14:47:42 ok. Please update status on launch-instance-ux-enhancement when you know if you keep it 14:47:46 david-lyle: thx! 14:47:51 thank you 14:47:57 mestery: around? 14:47:59 \o/ 14:48:04 #topic Neutron 14:48:22 #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-3 14:48:48 * mestery was on vacation Friday/Monday over the past week. 14:49:07 Recovering from a 4-day weekend while preparing to fly to Chicago for Linuxcon today 14:49:16 #info 3 Implemented, 43 under review, 12 in progress, 26 Unknown/Blocked 14:49:33 I expect to drop the 26 unknown/blocked by 8-21 this week. 14:49:33 Last week was: 3 implemented, 39 under review, 11 in progress, 32 unknown/blocked 14:49:46 Some people voluntarily removed their BPs, which helped. :) 14:49:59 right, that makes 43 blueprints in jeopardy due to FPF observance 14:50:22 err 14:50:27 that use to make 14:50:27 Those 43 have code proposed 14:50:35 I think 38 are in jeopardy right? 14:50:37 38 in jeopardy now 14:50:39 cool 14:50:40 yes 14:50:40 :) 14:51:12 I am most happy that the L3 HA reviews are now getting some airtime, that's a critical piece for us in Juno. 14:51:25 This is moving a bit too slow though, even if we cut down the BPs on Thursday.. we need more landing 14:51:26 I expect those to start landing this week, carl_baldwin is working with the the L3 HA team to make that happen. 14:51:30 Agreed. 14:51:50 especialy as i wouldn't hold too much hope on the gate status for FF week 14:51:59 Yes, agreed. 14:52:03 land while you can! 14:52:06 ++ 14:52:44 Shall we mark https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ovs-dvr "implemenetd" now? 14:53:01 I think we can, yes, I'll verify with armax and carl_baldwin today, but I think we can do that. 14:53:05 And track last remaining bugs in juno-3 bugs targeting? 14:53:14 Yes 14:53:19 That would make that list look a lot better :) 14:53:23 :) 14:53:52 The other two "high" that are in jeopardy right now would be: 14:53:59 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ml2-hierarchical-port-binding 14:54:05 and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-refactor-haproxy-namespace-driver-to-new-driver-interface 14:54:12 Yes 14:54:17 How is progress looking on those 2? 14:54:34 First one is iffy 14:54:38 may stil make it ? Would get an exception (sshh, don't tell) ? 14:54:38 Second is also iffy 14:54:53 I think the first one may get an exception 14:55:04 I'll work with rkukura on that 14:55:23 ok 14:55:40 Can't wait we get rid of all those unknowns on Thursday 14:55:58 I am very excited to do that yes :) 14:56:49 OK, I don't think I have much more to add 14:56:58 How is the incubator proposal going those days? 14:57:00 Me either, next week will look much cleaner. 14:57:06 I think we're going to do the incubator 14:57:13 GBP folks are pretty much on board now 14:57:39 Would you observe feature freeze in it in the same way you do for the neutron repo ? 14:57:49 We're still working on that 14:57:50 I think it makes sense for them to not have one that early* 14:57:56 Agreed on that 14:58:17 the aggressive deadlines on the integrated release are to make sure no project screws up the others 14:58:22 :) 14:58:27 there are some benefits in being out of it 14:58:35 they should have them 14:58:43 Yes, I agree 14:58:54 Anything you'd like to discuss at the meeting ? 14:59:26 Nope, I will only be there 30 minutes due to travel 14:59:53 Nothing was posted on the agenda yet, so it might be a short one 15:00:10 OK, talk to you later, enjoy LinuxCon 15:00:18 thanks! 15:29:44 ttx: I'm here. I need just a few minutes please. just got to the office 15:29:58 ack, no pb 15:35:31 ttx: ready 15:35:57 notmyname: o/ 15:36:01 #topic Swift 15:36:09 So, did you clarify your plans wrt. the last intermediary swift release? 15:36:39 ttx: 2 more, actually, as we had discussed a while back. or maybe that's what you mean. one before juno and then one at juno 15:37:07 one intermediary and one final, yes 15:37:49 first can I confirm with you that juno is oct 16 15:38:09 yes it is 15:38:17 ok, thanks 15:38:42 2.1.0 rc next week (aug 25). final on sept 1 15:39:17 and 2.next RC on oct 6 with the final at or near oct 16 for juno 15:39:42 how does that work with you? 15:41:19 notmyname: that would work 15:41:25 ttx: ok, great 15:41:34 as normal, I'll send you the SHA 15:41:49 ie I;ll send you one this weekend and you can cut the rc at your leisure on monday 15:42:02 ack, hopefully we'll not have to backport this time around ) 15:42:04 :) 15:42:17 always :-) 15:42:24 Any specific feature there ? Or mostly a bugfix release? 15:42:38 #info 2.1.0 rc next week (aug 25). final on sept 1 15:42:56 #info next RC on oct 6 with the final at or near oct 16 for juno 15:43:23 ttx: some smaller changes, but enough to have 2.1.0 (rather than 2.0.1): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115167/2/CHANGELOG 15:43:35 Want me to create the 2.1.0 milestone? 15:43:37 but mostly polish rather than HUGE NEW FEATURE 15:43:40 yes, please 15:43:48 ok, will do 15:44:03 Any topic for the meeting today? 15:44:14 no, I don't think so 15:44:41 we are working on the gap analysis questions. I hope to review those at the wednesday swift team meeting 15:44:45 ok then, will ping you when I have the milestone up 15:44:57 ie reviewing various oslo libraries 15:45:22 notmyname: thx, and ttyl 15:47:11 zaneb: around? 15:48:27 ttx: yes, but I'm at the Heat mid-cycle meetup today 15:48:40 zaneb: oh, ok. Maybe we should skip then 15:48:47 and talk another day 15:48:54 yeah, that would be good if we could 15:48:59 (I suspect your status is in flux anyway) 15:49:07 zaneb: enjoy your meetup. 15:49:18 sorry, forgot to warn you in advance 15:49:26 thanks, ttyl 15:49:27 no problem 15:51:22 ttx: ruh roh 15:51:30 jgriffith: o/ 15:51:36 I have a free slot now :) 15:51:46 how fortuitous for me 15:51:56 notmyname: https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/2.1.0 up for your targeting pleasure 15:52:03 #topic Cinder 15:52:16 #link https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-3 15:52:44 Only one I'm unclear on is Vincent's 15:52:45 #info 2 implemented, 8 in review, 4 in progress, 1 unknown 15:53:17 it's in progress 15:53:21 jgriffith: IIRC you plan to observe FPF on Thursday? 15:53:22 I'll update it manually 15:53:29 ttx: that's correct 15:53:52 ttx: mostly wanted to use it as a driver submission cut off 15:53:53 So that makes 5 in jeopardy, including https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/secure-nfs 15:54:21 right 15:54:30